|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jun 6, 2019 7:46:31 GMT -5
Okay, I know this has seen discussions and there are numerous stances on this topic. However, if at all possible this thread is not to try to cause a stir, so please keep it civil.
**ALSO THE POLL IS NOT FOR WHETHER YOU WANT IT MORE STRINGENT OR MORE DETAILED...OR IF YOU WANT IT LESS STRINGENT OR CHANGED ALTOGETHER. IT IS IF YOU FEEL IT COULD BE CHANGED OR AMENDED TO BE "BETTER"
The IAC Code under 312 IAC 9-3-2 "General requirements and licenses for hunting deer" which governs the mineral use, timing and proper/legal removal is as follows:
(1) bait, which includes:
(A) a food that istransported and placed for consumption, including, but not limited to, piles of corn and apples
placed in the field;
(B) a prepared solid or liquid that is manufactured and intended for consumption by livestock or wild deer,including,
but not limited to, commercial baits and food supplements;
(C) salt; or
(D) mineral supplements;
ALSO
(v) An area is considered baited for ten (10) days after the removal of the bait and the baited soil. Hunting an area,
such as an orchard, which may be attractive to deer as the result of normal agricultural activity, is not prohibited.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The issue is the mass confusion, differing opinions by ICOs and the belief that merely ceasing to add mineral to a site is sufficient...which the code clearly states one must remove the "baited soil".
In my opinion if we have COs telling folks that full excavation of site isn't necessary to be legal or that just stop putting out mineral is sufficient that strongly disagrees with the letter of the law.
I used to use mineral, but when I actually began to become more aware and read the law myself became uncomfortable and ceased all use years ago of the stuff.
Personally speaking I have two issues with the law as it is written...remove the "affected soil" type and insert no visible mineral/bait can be present. This would make operating off season mineral sites legal and lawful without one truly having to excavate the site or rely upon an ICO that doesn't enforce the IAC as written. The second issue I have is remove the 10 days thing and make it a specific time frame; say September 1st through January 31st no bait or mineral can be placed.
IF we do not amend I personally believe IDNR needs to teach COs to uniformly enforce the law...it SHOULD NOT matter what officer you have as to what is allowed or disallowed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 8:07:08 GMT -5
I live in Ohio and baiting is allowed. I don't bait, but I do put out spring salt-mineral blocks a couple times over the years. I don't think is makes much difference and I think food plots work better for older aged deer. The biggest deal I see is the attraction of other animals that some may not want. I don't know about spreading diseases, but I don't think there's not much difference from piles to food plot fields. Both have deer close to each other. Also, when I did have salt blocks out the deer came in their groups, not in a herd. If you watch bachelor groups they travel close to a line and eat the same areas from the one in front just ate.
|
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Jun 6, 2019 8:18:49 GMT -5
I agree that it needs to be amended at the very least for better clarification.
I was told that it's illegal to shoot a deer where there movements are influenced by that bait or mineral site. If that's true, then a neighbor that hunts but still puts out a pile of corn to "watch" the deer could affect you if you were hunting on your property if the CO said "the deer are moving here on your property because of the neighbors bait pile so I am interpreting the rule as you are hunting over bait and here's your fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 6, 2019 8:38:35 GMT -5
It does need clarification.. for us hunters and the COs..
|
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jun 6, 2019 8:44:33 GMT -5
I agree that it needs to be amended at the very least for better clarification. I was told that it's illegal to shoot a deer where there movements are influenced by that bait or mineral site. If that's true, then a neighbor that hunts but still puts out a pile of corn to "watch" the deer could affect you if you were hunting on your property if the CO said "the deer are moving here on your property because of the neighbors bait pile so I am interpreting the rule as you are hunting over bait and here's your fine. Yup, which is why IF they ever visit it I think it needs to be a blanket rule for all, hunters and non-consumptive users or landowners. |
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jun 6, 2019 8:46:44 GMT -5
I live in Ohio and baiting is allowed. I don't bait, but I do put out spring salt-mineral blocks a couple times over the years. I don't think is makes much difference and I think food plots work better for older aged deer. The biggest deal I see is the attraction of other animals that some may not want. I don't know about spreading diseases, but I don't think there's not much difference from piles to food plot fields. Both have deer close to each other. Also, when I did have salt blocks out the deer came in their groups, not in a herd. If you watch bachelor groups they travel close to a line and eat the same areas from the one in front just ate. Lot of what you outline is more bait discussion than mineral. Even a pure salt block is more bait than mineral supplement. I personally don't wish to have mineral be legal in off season (without excavation before season) as to attract deer, I love the impact it can have in assisting mineral uptake especially to pregnant or nursing momma does. |
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jun 6, 2019 8:53:01 GMT -5
I think if they are going to keep allowing mineral use, the removal of said minerals should be done to the letter of the law, or the law amended. Period.
Having said that, I've read articles that state mineral sites can lead to the spread of CWD. I've also read articles that state that CWD can't be spread by the use of mineral sites.
Personally, I think until that is proven one way or another, minerals sites should be banned.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldhoyt on Jun 6, 2019 9:21:20 GMT -5
The OP could have skipped everything but the concluding statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Jun 6, 2019 9:42:40 GMT -5
I think that there is a lot of gray area in there, which can make it difficult for an honest guy to know how to do things right. That's why I also quit putting out any minerals several years back.
I also think a lot of the "problems" that come up now though are from people that are too concerned with what their neighbor, co-worker, random guy on Facebook, etc. are doing. Hunters would be well served to "keep their eyes on their own paper," and focus on maximizing their own experiences and time in the field.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jun 6, 2019 9:47:54 GMT -5
Law is horrible as written and is difficult if not impossible to follow. Make it illegal or legal. Pick one.
Making it illegal would be difficult because not all of "we the people" hunt. Controlling what they may or may not do in the name of game laws would likely not fly.
|
|
|
|
Post by MuzzleLoader on Jun 6, 2019 9:52:50 GMT -5
Mineral discussion right on time again this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jun 6, 2019 10:26:47 GMT -5
I think if they are going to keep allowing mineral use, the removal of said minerals should be done to the letter of the law, or the law amended. Period. Having said that, I've read articles that state mineral sites can lead to the spread of CWD. I've also read articles that state that CWD can't be spread by the use of mineral sites. Personally, I think until that is proven one way or another, minerals sites should be banned. Oh I think any hunter that is honest and desires to adhere to the law and expect others to do so feels entirely the same way as your first statement. As the law reads right now, unless someone literally excavates an undefined amount of dirt they are breaking the law. I feel no one can actually dispute that at all. Having said that, I've read articles that state mineral sites can lead to the spread of CWD. I've also read articles that state that CWD can't be spread by the use of mineral sites. CWD has so much more seemingly unknown about it than known, but that is a true concern and one which anyone that cares about deer should factor in 100% Personally, I think until that is proven one way or another, minerals sites should be banned. Presently, I'd bet over 99% of all use of minerals in the state are in fact illegal according to the law, in essence banned, the issue there lays with the lack of uniform treatment and handling of cases by ICOs. |
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jun 6, 2019 10:29:26 GMT -5
The OP could have skipped everything but the concluding statement. How so? Remove the 10 days with actual dates AND remove the "affected soil" part and the different interpretations by all the COs become much tougher to happen. No? |
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jun 6, 2019 10:32:46 GMT -5
I think that there is a lot of gray area in there, which can make it difficult for an honest guy to know how to do things right. That's why I also quit putting out any minerals several years back. I also think a lot of the "problems" that come up now though are from people that are too concerned with what their neighbor, co-worker, random guy on Facebook, etc. are doing. Hunters would be well served to "keep their eyes on their own paper," and focus on maximizing their own experiences and time in the field. Couldn't agree more! I wish I was comfortable with doing sites...but until the law is amended I know 100% without a doubt I'd be breaking the law as it is written. I used to dig some, fence off and cover feeling that was sufficient...but it wasn't until I read the law myself I became uncomfortable with it. |
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jun 6, 2019 10:48:28 GMT -5
tynimiller
Unless (and until) the enforcement is done uniformly, people who put out minerals are obviously taking a chance. Especially if your neighbor thinks that you are putting it out illegally and notifies law enforcement.
To me...it's more trouble than it's worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldhoyt on Jun 6, 2019 10:54:40 GMT -5
The OP could have skipped everything but the concluding statement. How so? Remove the 10 days with actual dates AND remove the "affected soil" part and the different interpretations by all the COs become much tougher to happen. No? No, I meant delete the post, except your concluding statement re. training and equal enforcement. I was not really providing a useful response. |
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jun 6, 2019 11:36:01 GMT -5
tynimiller Unless (and until) the enforcement is done uniformly, people who put out minerals are obviously taking a chance. Especially if your neighbor thinks that you are putting it out illegally and notifies law enforcement. To me...it's more trouble than it's worth. Amen! |
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jun 6, 2019 11:36:28 GMT -5
How so? Remove the 10 days with actual dates AND remove the "affected soil" part and the different interpretations by all the COs become much tougher to happen. No? No, I meant delete the post, except your concluding statement re. training and equal enforcement. I was not really providing a useful response. Oh I gotcha. Misunderstood you originally. |
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jun 6, 2019 12:01:31 GMT -5
It does need clarification.. for us hunters and the COs.. Never seen a CO make a statement saying it needs clarification .... they most always say they can tell if someone is braking the law! I think a lot hunter's want it worded differently so to dance around it edges IMO |
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jun 6, 2019 12:19:51 GMT -5
It does need clarification.. for us hunters and the COs.. Never seen a CO make a statement saying it needs clarification .... they most always say they can tell if someone is braking the law! I think a lot hunter's want it worded differently so to dance around it edges IMO I personally want it reworded so there is less a chance to even think of dancing around the edges. Right now that "affected soil" is unrealistic for either side to prove or disprove...remove that from the CO's personal interpretation responsibilities IMO would help all. Either make it entirely illegal or legalize it with amended wording and/or removal of the "affected soil" part that truly makes nearly every site out there illegal. |
|
