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 place...be 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.
“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 place...be 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.
