Franz Fiasco

[tree_ghost]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/ ... /74706764/

Don't know if you guys have seen this around or not but I can't believe what's becoming of this...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

 

[AT Hiker]

Crazyness. This sounds fishy and it appears the law is grasping at straws to pin something on him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tree_ghost]

Crazyness. This sounds fishy and it appears the law is grasping at straws to pin something on him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I couldn't agree more I don't know what on earth they would stand to gain from pinning this on him...???

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

 

[TN_Greenhead]

When someone says "Iowa dnr does not say how close you can't have bait" you can take it to the bank he killed it over bait.

 

[AT Hiker]

When someone says "Iowa dnr does not say how close you can't have bait" you can take it to the bank he killed it over bait.

I agree, however from this article its hard to demise that he did anything wrong. What I read between the lines is that the DNR took a soil sample to prove a mineral was used to attract this deer. Considering he only owned the property for a year or less leaves all kinds of possibilities open.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[catman529]

Jealousy for sure. "Someone" complained after he had shot the deer. Also that law about salt in the ground is stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[scn]

When someone says "Iowa dnr does not say how close you can't have bait" you can take it to the bank he killed it over bait.

Ding, ding, ding, I think we have a winner.

 

[tree_ghost]

I heard last night that Franz was so confident of his kill being legal when he heard they were contemplating the thought of charging him, he called the DA and said "come pick up my mount but it better be in perfect condition when I get it back"...I still ain't buying that mineral had anything to do with attracting this deer...if you have seen the kill video they killed it in October (12th) I believe in the middle of a beautiful food plot that they planted specifically for this buck...I doubt in the middle of a food source like that he was going to a mineral lick in the middle of october...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

 

[iowavf]

When someone says "Iowa dnr does not say how close you can't have bait" you can take it to the bank he killed it over bait.

It was an old mineral lick and the grey area in Iowa law is, if the CO considers the lick or bait to alter the natural path of the deer, you'll get a ticket. Lick could be 1/2 mile or even a mile from your hunting spot but doesn't matter according to law and seems the CO in this county is known to be a prick. My guess is one of the former landowners or neighbor who wasn't able to get this buck turned him in. I could've been an old lick from the several years ago, but according to law if you have knowledge of it you can be ticketed for hunting over bait. Needs covered with new dirt, wood or something before hunting.

 

[Southern Sportsman]

To be clear, I absolutely do not think that deer was going to or cared about a salt lick that time of year, and from what I can tell, the kill was legit. But, if his attorneys have filed motions to supress evidence, there is some evidence to be suppressed. Based on that article, there was probably a mineral lick somewhere on his farm and they are trying to use that to charge him with a vague baiting offense.

It absolutely seems like a witch hunt to me, and it's probably based in jealousy. That was a free range deer, so you can bet this guy wasnt the only one with trail cam pictures of him. His neighbors have probably owned or leased the land for years and this guy has money, comes in and buys the land in June, then kills "their" biggest deer in October. It would piss me off too, but that doesnt mean the guy did anything wrong.

 

[TN_Greenhead]

When someone says "Iowa dnr does not say how close you can't have bait" you can take it to the bank he killed it over bait.

It was an old mineral lick and the grey area in Iowa law is, if the CO considers the lick or bait to alter the natural path of the deer, you'll get a ticket. Lick could be 1/2 mile or even a mile from your hunting spot but doesn't matter according to law and seems the CO in this county is known to be a prick. My guess is one of the former landowners or neighbor who wasn't able to get this buck turned him in. I could've been an old lick from the several years ago, but according to law if you have knowledge of it you can be ticketed for hunting over bait. Needs covered with new dirt, wood or something before hunting.

What if its a natural salt lick?? how does that play out if you have never put the first salt block of mineral in the ground but know where one is? To me that would be hard to prove if its a natural on manmade lick. So you buy a farm in Iowa find a natural salt lick on it now you cant ever kill a deer on the place...Sounds like some laws need to be changed. Also at what point is a disgruntled adjacent landowner's word only "hearsay".

 

[AT Hiker]

When someone says "Iowa dnr does not say how close you can't have bait" you can take it to the bank he killed it over bait.

Ding, ding, ding, I think we have a winner.

Is it the nature of the beast for law enforcement to presume everyone is guilty? I do not know a thing about this case except for what the article says and I do not deduct that the hunter is a criminal in this case, only thing I notice is the DNR is following a lead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk