DFG arrests 3 in Tulare County

[Speckmisser]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

I think it is Speck's fault.[/b]

It's ALWAYS my fault. But I'm OK with that.

 

[cincoflatspirate]

In the last 2 years theres been about 14 hound guys busted in the tulare county mountains. The bear poaching ring from bakersfield took down 11 alone in that bust. The one last month took down 3 who pleaded no contest and one who is still fighting it. There was a nice article in field&stream about the bakersfield poachers, it took a lot of work from dfg and those guys got a slap on the wrist. SOME of these guys were the biggest jackasses I have ever seen, and truly was not represenative of a hound hunter. This was in my back yard(so to speak), where I've Hunted(with and without dogs), fished, camped, rode horses and motorcycles for the last 38 years and I fully believe public land is for all to enjoy(even houndsmen).

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Phillip,

Sorry for the very late reply; much of my attention has been committed elsewhere...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

... if they did what they're accused of, I stand by my assertion that they need to be hammered as hard as the law can hammer them. If not, then they deserve at the very least to get the book for using illegal methods of take.[/b]

I am confused; what else are they accused of other than taking a hog with a knife? They need to be hammered as hard as the law concerning the illegal method of take of big game can hammer them. Felony cruelty-to-animal counts have no place here.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

No mitigating factors should be considered, especially since they were videotaping and marketing their activities in clear violation of the law.[/b]

What-with respect to the use of video recording equipment-is in clear violation of the law? The videotaping of their activities? The marketing of their activities? What are the special circumstances?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

We do NOT protect ourselves or our traditions by trying to push these people and their activities under the carpet.[/b]

I am not advocating that we try to hide what these guys are alleged to have done. They should be accountable to the law. However, I do not think that we should drum up additional charges just to put the screws to individuals we find particularly distasteful. Do you realize how dangerous of a precedent that is? The law is always a slippery slope and I would hate to be facing downhill on this one. As hunters, we would all be in a very precarious situation. If these guys are allowed to be feloniously hung out to dry for taking a hog with a knife, what is next?

Imagine this scenario for a moment...You and a member of JHO are out hunting blacktail. He uses a radio to let you know that there is a buck below you. Your arrow strikes too far back to make a clean kill and the buck runs down into a subdevelopment at the foot of the hills and comes to a thrashing halt on someone's lawn. They call CADFG and because you used a radio (a clear violation of fair chase laws in the F&G Code as they see it), you are brought up on felony animal cruelty charges because your violation of the F&G Code now exempts you from being dealt with solely within the realm of Fish and Game law and now propels you to accountability to the Penal code. The buck, which was taken in league with an illegal act, did not die immediately and therefore, suffered needlessly. The DA, one who was scarred for life as a young child watching Bambi, will find the most severe charges with the stiffest penalties in order to subject the "Bambi-killer" to the worst punishment.

What if you forgot to fill out your Deer Report Card in its entirety before going hunting and you cripple that same buck? Does the fact that you violated F&G regulations and an animal suffered make you accountable to felony animal cruelty charges?

What if a bird hunter cripples a duck using lead shot and that duck does not immediately die? Felony animal cruelty?

It may sound silly, but it wouldn't take much to see these situations eventually come to fruition if this precedent is set.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

And Josh...That's about the weakest and most ridiculous leap of logic I've ever heard from you...It has nothing to do with infringing on anyone's constitutional rights (or any implicit approval of such infringements). It's about utilizing the law to its fullest extent to put a stop to criminal behavior.[/b]

I do not think that this was a ridiculous leap of logic at all. It does, in fact, have something to do with our constitutional rights, namely the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment which protects each citizen from arbitrary recognition of rights and an arbitrary application or accounting to the law.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

In a situtation like this (alleged) one, the ends DO justify the means. If the perpetrators violated laws in multiple jurisdictions, then I would expect the authorities from all jurisdictions to prosecute. If they broke, not only fish and game codes but penal codes as well, then I would expect that they be charged with ALL violations, especially if the penal code violation carries the stiffest penalties.[/b]

Ah ha! This clearly proves my point. By the looks of it, you are a big advocate of situational ethics, Phillip. Therefore, it is an understandable conclusion that you do indeed support such policies as the Patriot Act because the just and righteous end certainly outweighs the minor evils of the means.

This is not nearly as clear or objectively determined as jurisdictional lines drawn on a map, Phillip...certainly you've got to recognize that.

The fact that you advocate the application of the penal code because "it carries the stiffest penalties" only proves my assertion that you support an arbitrary application of the law based on your own personal biases.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

It is not "misapplication" of the law to charge the perpetrators with every violation they are alleged to have committed. It is up to the courts to determine if they are guilty of those violations, based on the evidence and testimony of all parties.[/b]

It is certainly a misapplication of the law to use the severity of the punishment as a means of determining, or a criteria by which to apply, the charges that are to be brought rather than using the scope and nature of the alleged violation. You propose a witchhunt in my view.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

I'm especially vehement about this particular criminal behavior, because it directly impacts the future of the sport I love... and if you'd stop long enough to consider your responses and those of others a little more, you might realize that it even more directly threatens your beloved sport of hound hunting. It not only fuels the anti's fire, but further widens the gap between houndsmen and other hunters.[/b]

Trust me, I fully realize that allegations such as this are likely to sway public opinion and threaten my sport most of all. Yet, my allegiance to abiding by the spirit in which our laws were written is unwavering. I am not selfish or shortsighted enough to advocate the use of whatever legal tools that are at our disposal. At no time would I support the application of situational ethics or believe that the ends justify the means in order to protect that which I love most. I am not willing to trade my principles for the sake of what is most practical or beneficial to me.

From your comments, it seems apparent to me that you are among those who would gladly use their own biases (in this case, yours against poachers) when applying the law. That is a very dangerous notion, especially when it is incorporated by law enforcement personnel or our judiciary.

 

[Heathen]

I am with Rifleman on this. I am seeing this too often. We got the laws....but thier intent is not being followed.

 

[Speckmisser]

Josh, if you wanna blow hot rhetoric all over this thing, then knock yourself out. Wanna throw up straw man scenarios and tilt at them, you're welcome to that too. But you're wasting breath and bandwidth.

I don't know exactly what happened in this Tulare County case. I've said that over and over. That's why I keep saying I don't want to argue it anymore. I don't know who's guilty and who's not. I don't even know if the charges are sound or not.

As I understand it, the accusation was that they were wounding hogs with a knife, and letting the dogs kill them. If that is what they were doing, then it is a case of animal cruelty and a violation of California law. That, at least, is apparently what they were charged with. Evidence supposedly includes videotaped footage of the "hunts".

If that's not what they were doing, then they're only guilty of using illegal methods of take (using knives). I'm certainly not so naive to believe that there couldn't be a misinterpretation of their activities. I even agree that it's logical to suggest that the hogs were dead or as good as dead when the dogs were allowed to "maul" them, which of course does NOT constitute animal cruelty.

But the courts have to decide, based on evidence and testimony. Not me. Not you. Not JHO. To the best of my knowledge, none of us has the benefit of evidence or testimony in the case.

So, at this point the discussion/debate becomes academic.

But Josh, you know this because I'm sure you've already read the thread and I know you're wouldn't just jump in with both feet without getting the whole picture first.

It's not about trumping up additional charges just to increase the penalties (a practice I disagree with, as do most intelligent beings). It's not about arbitrary application of the law according to biases.

The defendants should be tried for what they were charged with, and if guilty should pay the full price. That is something I DO agree with.

The "DC Snipers" are accused of several crimes, but the most serious was capital murder. Should they be tried for discharging a weapon into an occupied dwelling instead?

Joe Blow is accused of selling crank to school kids on school grounds. On arrest, turns out he's a third strike criminal, and he had in his backpack a loaded 9mm, an ounce of crank, and a scale. So what, do we only try him for possession of paraphernalia?

A group of houndsmen is caught allegedly wounding hogs with knives, then allowing the dogs to fight them and kill them. Do we simply try them for using illegal means of take?

I'm done with this discussion. There is nothing of substance left to say. If my position is still misinterpreted, then I've failed.. oh well. If you wanna throw together some more rhetorical constructs, you'll have to tear them down yourself.

 

[Shot]

Here is the problems ...(that is if all the facts stated before are true)

The hunters in question allowed there dogs to finish the kill, now if thats not animal cruelty then I don't know what is. Why is it that cock fighting and dog fighting are illegal? Isn't this almost the same thing? What about fighting a bear with pits (like back in the day), illegal. All these examples have one thing in common, it allows for an animal to suffer before dying. Once again, if the facts are straight then I would think allowing a dog to kill a pig falls under the rest of the examples I mentioned.

As a hunter you always want a quick and easy kill, its just part of hunter "ethics". Now, in the field things happen, like a bad shot, where the animal runs away and dies. True the animal will suffer, but the act was not intentional. I don't think any right minded hunter would make a bad shot on purpose. Unfortunaly, misplaced shots occur, and we all try to avoid those as much as possible. Now, back to this case, why should these hunters in question be charged with animal cruelty? because they allowed the dogs to finish the pig off. Please, if anyone thinks this is right then tell me why, if this is not called animal cruelty then what is? If I went around shoting every big game animal with my .22 and just kept shooting until it died, wouldn't this be animal cruelty?

 

[bayedsolid]

I think both of you (Rifleman and Speckmisser) have valid, logical points. I do think there is a little bit of an apples to oranges thing going on here too, but the main problem is that nobody has been able to come up with what really happened. All we can do is guess at what the scenario was and give input from there. I do think we, as hunters, need to stick together as much as we can. Much of the time there are two opposite sides of the story that make sense. If these guys did something really unethical, and illegal, then maybe hunters in general should distance themselves, but we don't know. If you were to talk to a PETA member, they would say that hunting in general is animal cruelty. I don't think anyone going to Tejon in May is going to love their hog to death. (That doesn't sound quite the way I meant it, but you get the point). I do see Rifleman's point about not wanting to hang these guys with some trumped up charges, but if we knew the facts of the case this thread would probably been over with 2 pages ago.

 

[hicntry]

Hey Bayedsolid, Why don't you come down to the dog club meeting. It's mostly houndsmen but it is worth the trip. It is the Central California Sporting Dog Association. It is the first Thursday of each month and starts at 7:00pm(we usually get there about 6:30 to get dinner ordered and BS. It is held at the Denny's on Herndon and Blackstone in the back room. There is folks from Visalia, Chouchilla, Merced, Hanford and all over usually come. Anyone in the area is invited. Our primary goal and most of the money raised is donated to fight antidog legislation. Come on by. Anyone in the area. Lot's of guys take their wifes also so they can't accuse us of never taking them anywhere.

 

[bayedsolid]

Hicntry--I think I will. Thanks for the invite.

BTW....I'm missing a dark, brindle colored Catahoula for 7 days now. All my dogs are staked out with a 20' cable and he somehow got off. He was a little close to another dog so maybe he got to playing and somehow the clip came undone??? I'd really hate to think someone had the balls to take him, or keep him if they found him, but he has 2 collars with 8 phone #'s on them, he's got a freeze brand on each side of his rib cage, and I haven't heard a thing in a week now. I've had dogs that take 4-5 days to come out of the hills if they are way back in, but I should of had a call the first day here at home. I've found some snares in the area before so that has me pretty nervous too, but if you hear of anything let me know. Thanks

 

[tony270]

This kind of action shouldn’t be bragged about, but it is exciting to see a hound finish off a coon, and I'm sure it would be the same for a hog. One day the anti’s will probably make it illegal to even shoot an animal. How do you know, that after the game has been shot it’s not suffering, even after death? The Antis are pitting us against each other. If this type of action is legal in your area the message should be, Keep It Discrete. If the law says that it is illegal to finish with hounds, then so be it.

I can’t count the times that I’ve had to dispatch a screaming hair/rabbit with a tap stick or the heel of my boot. I don’t think that feels very good, and the death is not as swift as one would like.

Just my 3 cents.

 

[hicntry]

Bayedsolid, If you get to the meeting I won't be hard to recognize. Same hat as in the board. Tell me who you are when you get there.

 

[Tractorshaft]

If you have never hunted hogs with dogs you have no business replying to this post. I have and certainly advocate the use of a knive to dispatch the hogs once the dogs have bayed them.

1. Have you ever seen a wild eyed hunter with the hammer back on a .44 mag trying to get a clean shot at a bayed hog?

2. Have you ever seen a WEH with the hammer back on a rifle trying to get a clean shot on a bayed hog? Pan to me in the background SCREAMING:: DONT SHOOT A DOG!! DONT SHOOT A DOG:: OFF GET OFF THAT EAR!!

3. One push of a 10" bowie knife or a Georgia Pike behind the shoulder of a hog opens up a fatal wound that humanely kills the animal. No dogs or people are in danger of being shot.

4. I have seen these hogs all worked up take a cylinder of 240 gr. HOT .44 handloads and still run 200 yards, towing a dog or two off each ear.

5. I doubt they "slit" the throats of the hog, its a dangerous place for your hands and arms.

6. Dogs normally will lose interest in a dead hog. Its not like they will play with a dead hog like they will a dead squirrell or duck.

7. I am as sportsmanlike as they come, I detest animal cruelty but accept the greater design of things and where I am on the food chain.

8. If its against the law they should not have been doing it. Just the other side of things. A knife is the MOST HUMANE method of dispatching the hog. I have never counted how many I have legally killed but its over a hundred. It never fails if executed properly.

9. Sounds like Birkenstock wearing fern feelers getting some bad press on hunters and sportsmen. I use the word sportsmen carefully if the numbers are anywhere near true these guys deserved what they got regardless of the methods they used.

10. I would like to serve animal cruelty charges to every idiot who took a bad shot on any game animal and allowed it to either get away wounded or die a painful agonizing death. Period..

Just my 2 cents..

 

[Shot]

Originally posted by Tractorshaft@Mar 22 2004, 06:51 PM
A knife is the MOST HUMANE method of dispatching the hog. I have never counted how many I have legally killed but its over a hundred. It never fails if executed properly.

Really? What about a head shot? I dought a hog (any animal) with a head shot from by 30.06 would feel anything.

Its the state law that says using a knife to kill a animal is illegal, so that topic is basicly not being argued here. The hunters broke the law so they get charged for the crime.

The big fuss about this is whether they get charged for animal cruelty for letting the dogs kill the hog (if the facts are straight).

 

[satchmo]

hello men, for you fellow hoghunters in cali that want to see it done texas style heres a good sight, texas boars.com. enjoy.