Iowa Water Fowlers Forum banner

This angers me in so many ways

7783 Views 41 Replies 18 Participants Last post by  PrairieBelle

I know all about this story, the dnr took samples of dirt yes dirt and there was a mineral supplement found in 3 spots but no sign of a actual mineral block. It is legal to put a mineral block out or any food to get trail cam pics and that is exactly what he did. The dnr trespassed on his property with no rhyme or reason, just walked out there and took samples, there was no issues with him shooting the deer until a douchebag of a neighboring property trespassed as well and said he saw mineral blocks which were taken off the property before hunting season started. Mineral blocks do dissolve in rain and the liquid obviously goes Into the ground otherwise known as dirt, Iowa dnr are nothing but a bunch of idiots who do nothing to help hunting and just want to steel hunters prize possessions to hang on their own wall.
1 - 2 of 42 Posts
It's always easiest when we look at the actual law, from the IDNR handbook...

“Bait” 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 transported to or placed in an area for the purpose of attracting wildlife. Bait does not include food placed during normal agricultural activities."

I think the following Rules on waterfowl baiting is what most COs would use to determine if a violation may have taken it waterfowl, deer or turkeys.

"Baiting is the direct or indirect placing, exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering of salt, grain, or other feed that could lure or attract waterfowl to, on, or over any areas where hunters are attempting to take them.

A baited area is any area on which salt, grain, or other feed has been placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered, if that salt, grain, or feed could serve as a lure or attraction for waterfowl."

The 10-Day Rule - A baited area remains off limits to hunting for 10 days after all salt, grain, or other feed has been completely removed. This rule recognizes that waterfowl will still be attracted to the same area even after the bait is gone.

If minerals detected in the soil where the buck was killed are traceable to mineral blocks, and there are witnesses willing to testify blocks were there, then "all traces" of bait, whether used for game pics before the season or otherwise, were not COMPLETELY removed.

I grew up in Texas. I understand the reasons some people want to use bait as well as the reasons why some people are against baiting. Iowa law is pretty clear on this matter and any hunter whose activities "appear" to skirt the intent of the law will likely run a 50:50 chance of having to defend himself in court if those activities are reported. That seems to be what is happening here.
See less See more
I've never heard of a 10 day rule, if there is a legit law please copy paste and post it.
As I stated, the 10-day rule applies to the baiting of waterfowl, and it is only my suspicion LEOs apply the same policy to the baiting of deer and turkey as well.

The key phrase in baiting regulations is the "COMPLETE removal of bait" before hunting. Trace elements is not a complete removal. I am not assuming or implying the hunter in question violated any regulation intentionally or otherwise.

Here ya go, straight from the USFWS, just scroll down:

And what I posted earlier on the definition of bait was copied directly from Page 22 of the IDNR's 2015-2016 Hunting Regulations.

Just trying to help shed light on how baiting can be interpreted by LEOs.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
1 - 2 of 42 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.