This angers me in so many ways

7754 Views 41 Replies 18 Participants Last post by PrairieBelle, Nov 9, 2015

mallardman

Discussion Starter · Nov 6, 2015

http://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...M_BiBb_rEv1nxG-HojUO-sXiRubNB3ye4N60hQa9o&s=1

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.

21 - 40 of 42 Posts

duckaholic

· #21 · Nov 6, 2015

Personally I don't have a dog in this fight and the outcome effects me not. I do hope this guy is treated fairly in the process no matter the findings. If he's found not guilty- I hope that he sticks his neighbors #1 hit list buck this year.

mallardman said:
I've never heard of a 10 day rule, if there is a legit law please copy paste and post it. What people aren't understanding is the deer was killed during muzzle loader season, not bow season where he tried to pursue him first, there is no law that states you must dig up all the dirt where a mineral block was placed, Google and look up more of the story and his lawyer makes some valid points and has some great questions for the iowa dnr. Their first concern should be trespassing and further investigating as to how someone saw the blocks (before any season started) on a property they weren't supposed to be on, it shouldn't be that easy to break a law and blame someone else for breaking the law.

It doesn't exists. Straight from page 22 of the 2015-16 regs:

"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.

As it's already stated, it's a very grey area.

Notice that it also doesn't state the distance you have to keep from it to be considered hunting over it. As it's written- if anyone puts trail cameras out during the summer over mineral licks anywhere on the property they plan on hunting in the fall, you are hunting over bait. Or should I say...the law doesn't explicitly state that what is/isn't considered "OVER" the bait.

I would like to know how the DNR can prove that the mineral was placed on/in the ground after the deer was shot? Without accurate measurements of the initial amounts, taking in total rain saturation(including run off), the average number of digestion and the exact date of placement.....any lawyer with his salt should be able to hand that deer back in his living room. If they can accurately determine that with so many variables...........then they sure as hell should be able to figure out how to start holding ducks in this state!

See less See more

Reactions: 3

mallardman

Discussion Starter · #22 · Nov 6, 2015

duckaholic said:
Personally I don't have a dog in this fight and the outcome effects me not. I do hope this guy is treated fairly in the process no matter the findings. If he's found not guilty- I hope that he sticks his neighbors #1 hit list buck this year.

It doesn't exists. Straight from page 22 of the 2015-16 regs:

"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.

As it's already stated, it's a very grey area.

Notice that it also doesn't state the distance you have to keep from it to be considered hunting over it. As it's written- if anyone puts trail cameras out during the summer over mineral licks anywhere on the property they plan on hunting in the fall, you are hunting over bait. Or should I say...the law doesn't explicitly state that what is/isn't considered "OVER" the bait.

I would like to know how the DNR can prove that the mineral was placed on/in the ground after the deer was shot? Without accurate measurements of the initial amounts, taking in total rain saturation(including run off), the average number of digestion and the exact date of placement.....any lawyer with his salt should be able to hand that deer back in his living room. If they can accurately determine that with so many variables...........then they sure as hell should be able to figure out how to start holding ducks in this state!

Your a smart man duckaholic

IAtaxidermist

· #23 · Nov 6, 2015

I've been saying this since the Albia buck. Every 200" Iowa whitetail is treated with a crime scene investigation by the IDNR. I don't know if they go off fake jealously tips or if they feel they need to own/cofinscate every big rack in the state.

mallardman

Discussion Starter · #24 · Nov 6, 2015

Exactly, like i said earlier a 150 inch deer would not even been pursued by the dnr.

altrocker1

· #25 · Nov 6, 2015

I'm not sure how its a gray area at all, but maybe thats just me. Salt doesn't grow naturally in the wild and salt and by-products of salt are illegal bait. They tested the soil and there was salt present. If you want to be legal 1.) don't hunt anywhere near where there was salt, or if you do make sure its all gone. It won't be hard to persuade a judge that salty soil is a by product of the salt block being there. It would be the same as going out and sprinkling rock salt on the ground...just because you can't see it, doesn't mean its not there.

Do people do it all over the state...Yep...just as illegal. The high profile this deer was given put a lot of eyes on it, so of course there will always be extra scrutiny.

I honestly could give a crap less though...I don't deer hunt but I have no problem with trophy hunting. It never ceases to amaze me how jealous/greedy people get when it comes to trophies. In this case, if the guy loses to the DNR (Which he probably will if the salt was found close to where he was) then he may have a case for illegal search and seizure, but even that would be a stretch.

How soon after he bought the property did he shoot the buck? Is it possible anyone else toured the property with interest in buying it and saw the salt licks? Maybe they got outbid on the land and told the DNR about the salt? I guess the court rulings will tell, but unfortunately, it doesn't look good for this guy.

See less See more

mharrington

· #26 · Nov 6, 2015

Actually if you look on the cover that is not a legal document.

duckaholic

· #27 · Nov 6, 2015

mharrington said:
Actually if you look on the cover that is not a legal document.

Then they won't have a problem with my 30 bird limit this weekend

Reactions: 1

altrocker1

· #28 · Nov 6, 2015

duckaholic said:
I would like to know how the DNR can prove that the mineral was placed on/in the ground after the deer was shot? Without accurate measurements of the initial amounts, taking in total rain saturation(including run off), the average number of digestion and the exact date of placement.....any lawyer with his salt should be able to hand that deer back in his living room. If they can accurately determine that with so many variables...........then they sure as hell should be able to figure out how to start holding ducks in this state!

if there are trail cam pics in that location with deer licking salt blocks...well...i'm not sure how you would prove they weren't put there beforehand. i'd be willing to bet they are checking his computer and every memory card they can get their hands on

mark l

· #29 · Nov 6, 2015

Mallardman, do you have some information that proves this guy is innocent and the DNR is wrong? Or are you just assuming?

mallardman

Discussion Starter · #30 · Nov 6, 2015

mark l said:
Mallardman, do you have some information that proves this guy is innocent and the DNR is wrong? Or are you just assuming?

You can't assume anything even related to this when the evidents speaks for its self. It's pretty obvious that the neighbor was jealous (after they had become friends) that he wasn't the one who killed the deer.

Capt. Dave

· #31 · Nov 6, 2015

mallardman said:
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:

http://www.fws.gov/le/waterfowl-hunting-and-baiting.html

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.

Reactions: 1

mark l

· #32 · Nov 6, 2015

mallardman said:
You can't assume anything even related to this when the evidents speaks for its self. It's pretty obvious that the neighbor was jealous (after they had become friends) that he wasn't the one who killed the deer.

You are assuming the neighbor tresspassed and you do not know the facts in this case. Is it possible the neighbor was on the guys land legally? Perhaps he was legally tracking a deer when he found the mineral lick? Unless you know the facts, you probably shouldn't make statements like this "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." or "Get rid of every single one of the idiots and start over".
When Patrick Kane of the Blackhawks (a hockey team for you Iowans :lol

was accused of raping a girl, some in the media wanted to hang him without having the facts. They just assumed he was guilty. I bet some of those "journalists" feel pretty foolish now with some of the comments and assumptions that they made.

Cuvvy

· #33 · Nov 7, 2015

He's guilty until proven innocent so in this case looks like he poached the deer. No sense in getting bent out of shape about the whole deal on a waterfowl forum.

Reactions: 1

Matt

· #34 · Nov 7, 2015

altrocker1 said:
I'm not sure how its a gray area at all, but maybe thats just me. Salt doesn't grow naturally in the wild and salt and by-products of salt are illegal bait. They tested the soil and there was salt present. If you want to be legal 1.) don't hunt anywhere near where there was salt, or if you do make sure its all gone. It won't be hard to persuade a judge that salty soil is a by product of the salt block being there. It would be the same as going out and sprinkling rock salt on the ground...just because you can't see it, doesn't mean its not there.

Do people do it all over the state...Yep...just as illegal. The high profile this deer was given put a lot of eyes on it, so of course there will always be extra scrutiny.

I honestly could give a crap less though...I don't deer hunt but I have no problem with trophy hunting. It never ceases to amaze me how jealous/greedy people get when it comes to trophies. In this case, if the guy loses to the DNR (Which he probably will if the salt was found close to where he was) then he may have a case for illegal search and seizure, but even that would be a stretch.

How soon after he bought the property did he shoot the buck? Is it possible anyone else toured the property with interest in buying it and saw the salt licks? Maybe they got outbid on the land and told the DNR about the salt? I guess the court rulings will tell, but unfortunately, it doesn't look good for this guy.

My thoughts exactly.

mallardman

Discussion Starter · #35 · Nov 7, 2015

Matt said:
My thoughts exactly.

Does corn grow naturally without humans planting it? Or how about beats, do foods plots just grow naturally?

altrocker1

· #36 · Nov 8, 2015

mallardman said:
Does corn grow naturally without humans planting it? Or how about beats, do foods plots just grow naturally?

well thats moot point...the law clearly states: planted=legal...placed=illegal...it says that in the regs. if that is his angle in this case, he will lose. he'd be better off if he can prove that he was a reasonable distance from where the bait was. thats the only grey area to me

Reactions: 1

14ducks

· #37 · Nov 8, 2015

Food plots are needed to increase survival of many species, hunted or not. Most corn planted on state and county land requires certain amounts left for feeding animals. Arresting this guy for baiting is stupid because the DNR knows illegal baiting is rampant. There must be more here than meets the eye. I can't even remember seeing newsprint where anyone has been arrested for baiting deer in my areas. Of course, we are all squeaky clean. Being ethical and honest isn't a requirement anymore. Anyone know when the trial begins?

mallardman

Discussion Starter · #38 · Nov 8, 2015

14ducks said:
Food plots are needed to increase survival of many species, hunted or not. Most corn planted on state and county land requires certain amounts left for feeding animals. Arresting this guy for baiting is stupid because the DNR knows illegal baiting is rampant. There must be more here than meets the eye. I can't even remember seeing newsprint where anyone has been arrested for baiting deer in my areas. Of course, we are all squeaky clean. Being ethical and honest isn't a requirement anymore. Anyone know when the trial begins?

I believe this coming week, but rumor has it he will plead guilty to one fine and get his deer back, just a rumor don't know if that's true

PrairieBelle

· #39 · Nov 8, 2015

The dude didn't get arrested for baiting deer but I guess that does make for a flashy story.

bullcan

· #40 · Nov 8, 2015

PrairieBelle said:
The dude didn't get arrested for baiting deer but I guess that does make for a flashy story.

So, the Des Moines Register is wrong?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...arged-illegally-bagging-trophy-buck/74706764/

Not that I care one way or another about timber rats, but according to Iowacourts.gov this isn't the first time Joe has lost his mind when it came to that bone on a whitetail's head.

21 - 40 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.