Hunter Not Guilty of Baiting Trophy Buck

[TBoneTX 45,498]

Slow news day, or a gripping case?

Hunter Not Guilty of Baiting Trophy Buck

Grant Rodgers, grodgers@dmreg.com

11:17 a.m. CST February 22, 2016

http://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/02/22/clive-hunter-not-guilty-baiting-trophy-buck/80749644/

A Clive hunter accused of illegally killing a trophy whitetail deer using bait on his rural Marion County acreage has been exonerated of the charges.

DNR spokesman Kevin Baskins said Monday that the trophy antlers and hunting equipment seized as part of the investigation will be returned to hunter Joe Franz.

Conservation officers with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources in October charged Franz with four counts of "hunting over bait," a violation of an Iowa law that prohibits hunters from using harvested grain or salt blocks to lure game.

The officers contended that Franz killed the trophy buck on Oct. 12, 2014, from a hunting blind within sight of a mineral lick set out by the last owner of the property Franz had bought just months earlier. The trophy buck, nicknamed "Palmer," was believed to be the biggest whitetail ever harvested on video.

The video of Franz bagging the deer proved to be crucial evidence in District Court Judge Thomas Mott's ruling finding the hunter "not guilty" of the charges. In his Friday ruling, Mott wrote that prosecutor Ben Hayek failed to prove the buck was influenced by the mineral lick on the day it was killed.

"Acknowledging the presence of the mineral lick not far from the deer blind from which defendant shot the deer, the deer nevertheless came no closer than dozens of yards from the mineral lick, and neither headed toward it or away from it," Mott wrote. "In other words, the evidence does not show the deer took any interest in the mineral lick in October 2014."

Defense lawyer Bill Kutmus argued from the outset that Iowa's law against "hunting over bait" is too vague to be enforced, partly because the law has no wording about how far a hunter must be from anything that could be considered bait.

Kutmus said the judge's ruling validates his argument — making it clear that just having bait in an area isn't enough proof to win a criminal conviction of a hunter.

"They've got to show, in essence, that you used that bait specifically and with the intent to violate the law," he said.

Hayek said in a statement that he was "extremely disappointed" in the ruling.

"At trial, the state's evidence showed Mr. Franz knowingly hunted over the course of several days within 57 yards of exposed bait," he said.

A lifelong hunter, Franz purchased the land in July 2014 and was shown photos by the listing agent of a big deer shed found on the property earlier in the spring. Franz knew about the mineral spots when he purchased the land, and he called Conservation Officer Eric Hoffman in September of that year to ask how he should deal with the baited areas, according to court documents.

In a phone call, the conservation agent reportedly told Franz that he would have to dig up dirt from the baited area and replace it with fresh soil. The hunter suggested that instead of digging it up, he could cover the baited site.

Hayek argued that evidence showed Franz lied about covering up the mineral lick site with tarps and plywood ahead of his hunting in October. However, Mott wrote that even with this evidence there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Franz intended to use bait while hunting.

[Darnell 8,478]

shoulda gone hunting in Texas

[ExPatty 502]

Sounds like he, unlike the deer, dodged a bullet. This is one of those cases of we all know he broke the law (no other reason to have a mineral lick within distance of your blind), but the deer wasn't licking it at the time. Did the deer go by it the night before? Was it part of his routine; he would have gone to it afterward? Who knows.

Fuzzy logic used on this stuff, anyway. Bait is illegal in my state, but setting up food plots is not. So, we can't drop a bag of corn and set up a stand above it, but we can set up a stand next to a corn field and shoot them while they're eating.

[smilesammich 10,727]

can't do that in virginia either..to my knowledge. if you're doing it on your own land though its one of those things where you do as you please and pay the fine if you get caught.

[Ban Hammer 13,399]

Sounds like he, unlike the deer, dodged a bullet. This is one of those cases of we all know he broke the law (no other reason to have a mineral lick within distance of your blind), but the deer wasn't licking it at the time. Did the deer go by it the night before? Was it part of his routine; he would have gone to it afterward? Who knows.

they are also used for cattle.

[eieio 1,594]

Baiting laws vary so much from state to state and animal to animal or birds. IMO a salt lick should never be considered baiting anywhere. Some states you can put out as much bait for deer as you want,other you are limited to a certain amount and some states like Mn the wardens can give you a ticket if you drop an apple core….if its for deer. You can pile up as many donuts and such for bears as you want. Pretty much the only way bears get hunted in mn.

I am glad the guy walked.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Baiting laws vary so much from state to state and animal to animal or birds. IMO a salt lick should never be considered baiting anywhere. Some states you can put out as much bait for deer as you want,other you are limited to a certain amount and some states like Mn the wardens can give you a ticket if you drop an apple core.if its for deer. You can pile up as many donuts and such for bears as you want. Pretty much the only way bears get hunted in mn.

I am glad the guy walked.

I think the previous owner putting it there was pivotal