|
Post by greghopper on Jun 12, 2019 9:29:09 GMT -5
Around the turn of the century, I decided to help out the deer on a cousins property by starting a mineral lick. Ask our local ICO [now retired] about the idea, told him where it was going to be and what was the purpose of this project. Purely for the health of does during the last part of pregnancy with a bag of "salt and pepper" and then with a bag of NaCl for the heat and humidity of late July and the first of August. Stated that absolutely no hunting in the area until the gun season opens. He said that sounded OK as they won't be using it that late anyway. When our new CO moved to within a little over a half mile from the spot, I told him about the lick and why it's there. His opinion was sounds like a good idea to him. Had to put this years salt and pepper at the end of the lick this year as I was a bit late getting it out, and the local deer had already been tearing the spot up and it was a muddy mess. I say none of this in a negative light towards you, but this is just another example of why the IC code needs to be more specific. Zero affected soil is removed...zero distance from site is mentioned in the code...also use of the animal by the opinion of anyone is not stated as well. Just another prime example of where the actual code is meaningless, and the local CO is deciding on their own. New ICO comes through covering for that guy in gun season might find the lick and knock you hunting 200 yards away.... Pretty sure you can't change the code without going through the rules process.... change the rule then the code changes!
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jun 12, 2019 10:29:35 GMT -5
I say none of this in a negative light towards you, but this is just another example of why the IC code needs to be more specific. Zero affected soil is removed...zero distance from site is mentioned in the code...also use of the animal by the opinion of anyone is not stated as well. Just another prime example of where the actual code is meaningless, and the local CO is deciding on their own. New ICO comes through covering for that guy in gun season might find the lick and knock you hunting 200 yards away.... Pretty sure you can't change the code without going through the rules process.... change the rule then the code changes! This is 100% correct.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Jun 13, 2019 12:20:39 GMT -5
Simplification is definitely needed.
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Jun 15, 2019 11:48:09 GMT -5
We need code clarification like we need the chance to kill two buck deers
#obrrules #bucklivesmatter #crossbowstoo #takeadoe
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Jun 21, 2019 9:18:36 GMT -5
Was waiting curiously for poll to lock. Not terribly surprised by results.
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Jun 21, 2019 17:48:47 GMT -5
We use Rock Salt to kill glass in the driveway and around the maple tree roots where it's hard to cut the glass without hitting the roots with the lawn mower blades.
While browsing the internet today I saw a deer grazing around the maple tree in the back yard. I've not seen a deer that close to the house. She was eating the glass near the tree roots. Then I remembered that we had spread some rock salt around the tree. She was licking up the salt I guess. She stayed there for a long time. Then she ran off and I saw the meter reading guy from the local power company in the back yard. His arrival scared her away. I bet that she comes back tomorrow to lick more salt up.
There is a reason why hunters can't use minerals to attract deer to a hunting stand or area that you hunt. it's too darn easy to get the deer where you can shoot them. If everyone hunted over a salt block there would not be many deer left. We call it conservation for a reason. We need to properly manage the deer heards.
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Jun 21, 2019 17:57:27 GMT -5
Ever seen anyone challenge a baiting ticket and WIN? That should tell yeah how enforceable the law is. IMO Seen with my own eyes or read about a case? Not that I can recall. However, I know multiple COs that have said they cannot push charge without visible traces of the stuff...or at least will not pursue charges. That alone makes it seem ridiculous to include the "affected soil" section IMO. It's very easy to take soil samples and prove that there is salt in the soil. The salinity test is quick and inexpensive. I was a fire investigator years ago and we could take samples throughout a fire scene and find the areas with gasoline and determine if gas was used to start the fire. The same can be done with soil samples. Multiple samples are taken around the area and those with high salt content stick out in a forest situation. It's easy to prove that salt was put in the soil in a certain area where the rest of the samples have little or no salt content. Just because you can't see the salt crystals anymore does not mean that the salt is not there anymore.
|
|