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

Tracking wounded deer with leashed dogs HF82

Not sure if I'd pay for the service, depends a lot on the cost. I'd like to say I'd treat it the same for a buck or doe. Most of the deer I've tracked have been does as I've shot way more of them than bucks, especially bigger bucks. This seems like it could be a good tool for when those blood trails dry up. As for crossing the property line, I agree with needing permission from the landowner first. When it comes time to cross the property line and you don't have permission for the dog, just leave the dog on your side. Some may use this as an excuse to cross onto neighboring ground to bump deer or check things out while "tracking". But at least they would need permission first to take the dog. I kinda think it may be harder for some to ask for permission to "track" with a dog than it would be for them to go ahead without a dog and say they were "tracking" later if confronted. Not saying nobody would ask to do it, as I suppose that may give the impression of it being more of a valid "track". You also may have some people that take the dog without gaining permission first with the excuse that they thought it was allowed, but then, they would be wrong and could be fined.
 
The big question I have is why is the scheduled fine for breaking that law only $25 (as written in the bill)
That seems like a giant excuse to trespass and let the dog off the leash, with only a very tiny fine if you get caught.
I can't be in favor of it unless that fine gets raised quite a bit for breaking the law.
 
gunrunr said:
The big question I have is why is the scheduled fine for breaking that law only $25 (as written in the bill)
That seems like a giant excuse to trespass and let the dog off the leash, with only a very tiny fine if you get caught.
I can't be in favor of it unless that fine gets raised quite a bit for breaking the law.
Click to expand...
I missed that part. I agree. $25 is hardly a deterrent
 
Not that it matters much, but after the court costs and the surcharge the actual ticket they would pay is $113.13.
 
I wouldn’t pay a tracking fee for a doe or buck if this passes. This bill keeps showing up so there must be a need for a service like this.
Great response on the question but it looks like a buck only law if passed. If passed will it make hunters take unethical shots cause now they can use dogs..... IDK
I think this could open a new can of worms for landowners but I don’t own land so I won’t lose any sleep if it passes.
 
I'm all for this passing. It is long overdue.

As far as who would use a dog for a buck or a doe who cares? I think every hunter should at least have that option. Not all taking dogs will be commercial hire dogs, I think seversl hunters will train their own or have a friend or neighbor that has trained one.

I have always found many of the arguments against tracking dogs absurd. Trespassers are going to trespass regardless, unethical hunters will take poor shots regardless. Opponents like to paint a picture of total lawlessness if you are allowed to follow a blood trail with a leashed dog.
 
Just heard this bill died in subcommittee today.

The IBA was registered "Undecided".

The legislation was first proposed in 2012 then again in 2013, 2016, 2018 and 2019. The IBA has registered twice on the bill, in 2013 and we registered "Against" and 2019 we registered "Undecided". The rest of the years the IBA did not register to be able to lobby on the bill.

So what changed? Why did the IBA register against, then not even register then register "Undecided"? Our members are not against finding wounded game. They are against the potential trespassing this law may encourage. Last year the trespassing laws changed to a scheduled fine, a "speeding ticket" approach so to speak of $250.00. Our members felt this year that if the tracking fine could be tied to the trespass fine the bill would be acceptable, the fine acting as a deterrent to trespassing.

We had some discussions with people that support this bill telling them we would be in favor of passage if they could get language introduced that would tie the current trespass fines to this legislation or just increase the fine in the current bill. It was my understanding that they were going to try and get the fines changed.

We do not know why the bill was not passed by the subcommittee. If we hear why we will pass it on, or if anybody else is in the know please share.

I wouldn't be surprised if another bill was introduced with higher fines. Time will tell.
 
I'm disappointed in the IBA. Maybe I'm in the minority but I find myself disagreeing with the stances they take. I've been a member and supporter for several years but have skipped the banquet the last two years and am questioning whether I want to continue to be a member.
 
Monsterbuck said:
I'm disappointed in the IBA. Maybe I'm in the minority but I find myself disagreeing with the stances they take. I've been a member and supporter for several years but have skipped the banquet the last two years and am questioning whether I want to continue to be a member.
Click to expand...

Are there other examples? It is unlikely one would agree with every stance of an organization, but it is important to support organizations that are in general alignment with what you love to do. Registering "undecided" in a bill not tied directly to bow hunting doesn't seem like a solid reason to stop supporting the IBA.
 
Rjack said:
Are there other examples? It is unlikely one would agree with every stance of an organization, but it is important to support organizations that are in general alignment with what you love to do. Registering "undecided" in a bill not tied directly to bow hunting doesn't seem like a solid reason to stop supporting the IBA.
Click to expand...
Yes, definitely other issues as well but this really is the straw that breaks the camels back. I think the IBA has done a poor job of being in tune with what the members want. I think a small minority of old guard leaders have pushed their own agendas often.

When was the last time an IBA leader contacted a member to get their opinion on a topic? Good lord in today's world how hard would it be to poll the membership on issues?

Allowing hunters to use any reasonable means to recover wounded game seems like a no brainer to me. Arguments that allowing a hunter to use a leashed dog is going to somehow cause a huge increase in trespassing is ridiculous. They already have the legal right to track game onto private property. If they want to trespass they are going to. They don't need to have a dog on a leash with them.

Refusing to support reasonable legislation that benefits hunters unless it is tied to unrelated laws about trespass is the kind of crap that has made our federal government a mess. This law deserves support and regardless of how the IBA registered it is well known that they have been opposed to it and in fact been the chief opposition for years.
 
Monsterbuck said:
Yes, definitely other issues as well but this really is the straw that breaks the camels back. I think the IBA has done a poor job of being in tune with what the members want. I think a small minority of old guard leaders have pushed their own agendas often.

When was the last time an IBA leader contacted a member to get their opinion on a topic? Good lord in today's world how hard would it be to poll the membership on issues?

Allowing hunters to use any reasonable means to recover wounded game seems like a no brainer to me. Arguments that allowing a hunter to use a leashed dog is going to somehow cause a huge increase in trespassing is ridiculous. They already have the legal right to track game onto private property. If they want to trespass they are going to. They don't need to have a dog on a leash with them.

Refusing to support reasonable legislation that benefits hunters unless it is tied to unrelated laws about trespass is the kind of crap that has made our federal government a mess. This law deserves support and regardless of how the IBA registered it is well known that they have been opposed to it and in fact been the chief opposition for years.
Click to expand...
Not trying to start an argument but have you reached out to anyone with the IBA to voice your concerns or support of certain bills? How about contacted any reps? Like you said contacting people in today's age is simple.
 
Last edited:
bigbuckhunter88 said:
Not trying to start an argument but have you reached out to anyone with the IBA to voice your concerns or support of certain bills? How about contacted any reps? Like you said contacted people in today's age is simple.
Click to expand...
I've responded to Randy Taylor former president several times when he has sent out legislative emails. I get that communication is a two way street. Give members a way to be heard and we'll take advantage of it.
 
Monsterbuck said:
I've responded to Randy Taylor former president several times when he has sent out legislative emails. I get that communication is a two way street. Give members a way to be heard and we'll take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

I guess I have considered this forum a way to gather input. Bonker takes quite a bit of his time to post the relevant proposed changes. Adding comments here gives the IBA some input to consider. Thanks again Bonker.
 
Here's another example that comes to mind. They changed the law a while back to allow a youth hunter who did not fill their tag during the youth season to use that tag during the gun seasons. My good friend had a son that did not like guns, for whatever reason he was averse to them and only wanted to hunt with a bow. When my friend found out that youth tags were NOT being allowed to be used during the archery season and only during the gun seasons (when archery hunting is not allowed) we were very surprised. At that time I reached out to IBA leadership and got the same typical BS, somehow allowing youth hunters to use their tags during archery season was going to lead to widespread misuse of tags with adults shooting deer and tagging it with youth tags.

It's a recurring theme, we can't support this law that makes sense because somehow it will be a huge boon for trespassers and poachers. I'm just tired of the same excuses.
 
Rjack said:
I guess I have considered this forum a way to gather input. Bonker takes quite a bit of his time to post the relevant proposed changes. Adding comments here gives the IBA some input to consider. Thanks again Bonker.
Click to expand...

Seems like there is quite a bit of support for it on here but it has apparently gone unnoticed by the IBA leaders.
 
Monsterbuck said:
Here's another example that comes to mind. They changed the law a while back to allow a youth hunter who did not fill their tag during the youth season to use that tag during the gun seasons. My good friend had a son that did not like guns, for whatever reason he was averse to them and only wanted to hunt with a bow. When my friend found out that youth tags were NOT being allowed to be used during the archery season and only during the gun seasons (when archery hunting is not allowed) we were very surprised. At that time I reached out to IBA leadership and got the same typical BS, somehow allowing youth hunters to use their tags during archery season was going to lead to widespread misuse of tags with adults shooting deer and tagging it with youth tags.

It's a recurring theme, we can't support this law that makes sense because somehow it will be a huge boon for trespassers and poachers. I'm just tired of the same excuses.
Click to expand...


Actually the IBA was instumental in getting that law changed last year and now Youth Tags do carry over to Archery and not just later gun seasons.
 
Same as BBH said its kind of like contacting our legislators. If they don't hear from anyone how would they vote. Our IBA reps spoke to our local archery club at our annual meeting on all IBA issues legislative and non legislative. This bill in particular had a lot of discussion and everyone had input. Also last year there were surveys posted on almost every legislative bill.


Not really sure why the IBA is to blame here. Its my understanding thare were numerous conversations with this bills supporters and the IBA and both groups worked to clarify the writings of this bill. The IBA is NOT against this bill and voted unanimously in support of the concept of using dogs for tracking purposes. Hence the undeclared stance, which can easily change when the bill is rewritten. Regardless of what stance the IBA would have taken would not have changed were it is now.
 
Monsterbuck said:
Seems like there is quite a bit of support for it on here but it has apparently gone unnoticed by the IBA leaders.
Click to expand...

There is also a lot of adversity to it - notice not a single group has registered as "FOR" this bill - This means all groups across the state that lobby are getting lots of pushback against it.
 
gunrunr said:
Actually the IBA was instumental in getting that law changed last year and now Youth Tags do carry over to Archery and not just later gun seasons.
Click to expand...
That is great. Too late in the case of my friends son as he is now to old for youth but definitely a step in the right direction. Previously the IBA did not support this. Hopefully new leadership is beginning to take a new perspective on things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom