DFG arrests 3 in Tulare County

[wmidbrook]

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

These guys were breaking the law. Plain and simple. Knives are NOT legal methods of take. It's in the book. If these guys or you didn't like it, it still doesn't make it OK to go out and do it anyway.[/b]

I'm absolutely in agreement with you that they broke the law.


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

Debate about the rightness or wrongness to your heart's content... but it's illegal until they change the law[/b]

...true



Here's where I diverge from your opinion on this one Phillip:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

And that's exactly why I believe we have to burn the perpetrators a new bunghole for what they were doing, and using whatever means necessary[/b]

There may be mitigating circumstances in which case they should not get max penelaties levied against them. I opine this because:
a) anti's and their influence are the reason it's illegal using knives to harvest a game animal in CA is illegal (mitigating circumstance) and it's legal in other states

b) they may come from a background with a strong tradition (still legally in practice in some countries) in such practices as you stated: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

it sounds a lot like the old-style bear-bating, where you tie a bear and let the pitbulls fight it to the death. They used to do it with hogs in a pen, too. It was considered great entertainment.[/b]

...another possible mitigating circumstance
(philosophically, it is good to ponder why this is no longer socially acceptable entertainment--could it be that the anti's are responsibile for the mainstream social consciousness believing that this is a 'sick' practice?)

and lastly..
c) It's standard practice in some hound training circles (or so I've heard) to make your dog more aggressive by letting it loose on a downed animal to bring fully bring out it's animal instincts--why do you think those hounds had to be tied up on your hunt? wonder why a verbal command wasn't strong enough?

Anway, didn't intend to imply that you're against houndsmens' rights Phillip.

And, I uphold my end of the social contract as a citizen of CA by obeying all hunting laws to the best of my ability because it's the right thing to do.

But, I can't help but dislike seeing people have the max. penelaties thrown at them when there may be some intentional 'civil disobedience' going on--particularly when I don't like the law beneath the charges. That doesn't mean I won't obey the law, but I sure don't have to like it nor think it's right.

For all I know those guys could have been sicko's who deserve the book thrown at them....but, I could see where, depending on circustances, there could well be mitigating circumstances.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

I will begin this response with a firm resolve to keep it as brief as my verbose instincts will allow...

Phillip,

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

I'm betting these jerks were hit with the most serious charges the wardens could hit them with...Hopefully, by sticking the animal cruelty charges in there, these guys will face stiffer penalties.  And that's the way it should be. Crap like these guys were doing wreaks irreparable harm to the future of the sport we love. Burn them good and set the example.[/b]

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

And that's exactly why I believe we have to burn the perpetrators a new bunghole for what they were doing, and using whatever means necessary.[/b]

The impression I get when reading these comments is that you simply believe that the ends justify the means. Regardless of the possibility that the law has been intentionally misapplied and that a very dangerous precedent-a precedent that could threaten not only my beloved houndhunting, but all hunting in general-may be established as a result of this misapplication, you seem to wholeheartedly support the actions of the CADFG because of your desire to see these guys "burned" with enhanced penalties.

From this, I am naturally led to conclude that you would also support the infringement of the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution if it would prevent a crime or apprehend a suspect (i.e Patriot Act). Is this indeed your position? If not, how are they different?

I myself do not think that the end ever justifies the means for it allows for far too much of a subjective application of the law as well as an arbitrary respect for the rights of the citizenry.

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

And if they really were crippling up the hogs and then letting the hounds finish them off... well that's cruel to both the hogs AND the hounds.[/b]

I don't imagine they were crippling the hogs, but rather, dispatching them with a knife. As you mentioned, no dog hunter or houndsman wants his pride and joy wounded by a damned ol' hog. However, I do not believe that letting the dogs mouth the hog as it engages in its death throes constitutes cruelty to either hog or dog.

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

I would expect real hunters to stand behind the law on this, and certainly not rally to defend the actions of this bunch.[/b]

I won't stand behind either CADFG or these guys until I have some more facts. So far, the details provided within this thread are sketchy at best.

Furthermore, for reasons mentioned in my previous response, I do not believe that the determinaton of whether or not I am a "real" hunter should be made by my position concerning the charges against these men. I think that you should recognize and acknowledge two very distinct situations here; the breaking of the law (take of hog with knife) and the application of the law (charges of felony animal cruelty).

wmidbrook,

You raised several excellent points and I largely agree with you. However, there are some things I take exception to or would like to comment on...

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

How can sicking a brace of dogs on a dead animal be construed as cruelty to animals? Wonton waste of game, yes. Unethical, yes....[/b]

How is allowing one's dogs to mouth a dead hog either a waste of game or unethical? I am at a loss.

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

It's standard practice in some hound training circles (or so I've heard) to make your dog more aggressive by letting it loose on a downed animal to bring fully bring out it's animal instincts...I'd imagine there are a few out there that let dogs do this to make them 'birdier' or 'piggier' or whatever..[/b]

There are three basic reasons for this:
1. Allowing a young dog to mouth dead and dying game is believed to help embolden a young dog; they sense that they played a part in the demise of the game and are encouraged by it. You hope that they are so encouraged by it that they attempt to do so again when the next opportunity presents itself. Put simply, it helps to prevent the young dog from fearing the very animal you wish them to pursue.

2. Allowing a dog of any age or experiece level to mouth dead game establishes or reaffirms the very purpose of the dog's pursuit; positive reinforcement of desireable traits or behavior furthers the display or demonstration of inborn instinct. Imagine preventing a pointing or flushing dog from ever being able to mouth or retrieve a downed bird. Would inborn instinct be sufficient enough to encourage the dog to continue to fulfill its role in the hunt? Most likely. Would that same dog be more effective, intense or "stylish" if given the opportunity to "taste" that which it toiled to provide? Most certainly!

3. It is simply a practical matter. Many dogs get the opportunity to mouth the animal because of the fact that when taking an animal-regardless of whether it is a hog with a knife or firearm on the ground or an animal in a tree-your hands are generally too busy to be able to leash up your dogs or the nature of hunting with coursing dogs precludes a premature segregation of animal and dog.

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

why do you think those hounds had to be tied up on your hunt? wonder why a verbal command wasn't strong enough?[/b]

I would simply state, inborn instinct cultivated through positive reinforcement.

Now, a brief synopsis of my opinion...

1. The California Department of Fish and Game classifies the feral hog as a big game animal. As such, hunters are obligated to observe all regulations regarding the take of big game animals. This would naturally include the observation of legal methods of take and period of the day when big game animals can be taken. Neither the legal recognition nor the allowable methods of take in other states has any bearing on the adherence to these regulations. While it certainly has merit, the question as to whether or not the CADFG should manage or classify the feral hog as they currently do has no bearing on the legitimacy of the charges or the severity of the penalties.

2. These guys should be charged with violating CADFG regulations relating to the take of big game animals. Felony animal cruelty charges relate to the intentional gross mistreatment of domesticated animals including pets and livestock. If the feral hog was classified as livestock (i.e. Texas), the possibility of charging these men with felony animal cruelty might have a logical relevance and legal justification. The feral hog must either be classified by CADFG as a game animal or a domesticated animal, not both or either one as it suits the state.

3. The use of a knife to take a hog is no more cruel or unethical than the use of a broadhead affixed to an arrow and propelled from a bow; the physiological mechanism is nearly identical in most cases. If one wanted to truly examine the effects, it would be logical to conclude that a knife is more humane than a broadhead.

4. I will not engage in my lengthy discussion of ethics and their relationship to hunting other than to say that the state should not incorporate ethics in the establishment of game laws; ethics should be applied on an individual rather than collective basis. All interested parties can refer to my detailed comments in the Use of Radios thread in the Blacktail forum here.

5. It is important that my opinion concerning this incident and my vested interest in this case as a houndsman and hog hunter be underscored by my philosophy concerning wildlife in general and feral hogs specifically. My personal ethics dictate that I make every effort to ensure that the integrity or dignity of the hog remain intact to the very end. Not only do I insist that the hog be physically treated in as humane a manner as possible for the sake of preventing needless suffering, but I am also committed to ensuring that even in death, the feral hog retains a sense of well-deserved respect.

I am not sure that I can truly explain how I feel without sounding like some sort of whacko, but you might say that I respect the feral hog as one might respect his adversary in war. Despite his deleterious effects on our ecosystem, I do not hate the feral hog nor wish his eradication. Rather, I hold his talents and abilities in high regard and admire the sport and challenge he provides me and my dogs. It was said by the aboriginal Americans that the worth of their tribe was judged by the tenacity of their foes. In this same manner, I take a far greater amount of pride in raising, training and hunting hog dogs than I would if was to own dogs used to pursue squirrels.

 

[Backcountry]

I haven’t been around here long (just since last August), and I don’t want to hijack the original premise of this thread (but I guess I'm going to); however, I feel compelled to share that I feel pretty fortunate to have the JHO forums as a multifaceted resource, a sounding board, and a place to meet new friends. I am continually impressed with the excellence of so many of the threads on the JHO forums… the fact that a bunch of “rednecks” (and I use that epithet with fondness) can engage in some fairly cerebral debates, while maintaining a high degree of civility, really speaks to the character of the forum members here.

Moreover, I think threads like this one, the debates on radio use, the debates on running deer with dogs, and many others dealing with contentious issues are invaluable to the future of the sport of hunting. I personally don't think it would be better if these topics were being debated solely by people that don’t hunt. Some suggest that engaging in these sorts of debates publicly will provide additional ammunition for the anti- movement’s ad nauseam goal to vilify hunting. Perhaps, but I believe a greater goal is served. When we approach these issues with an open mind and give the other guy his space/time to speak his mind, these discussions seem to more typically resolve (for me at least) with a strengthened determination to stick together in support of the legal pursuits of our sport, our own personal moral philosophy notwithstanding. We should look at many of our differences in opinion as they pertain to hunting as simply that, rather than let them be wedge issues to drive our small community apart.

I was lurking in a completely unrelated forum this evening (a surfing forum that covers big-wave surfing events), and I noticed that instead of having a button labeled “new topic”, their equivalent was

!

I really got a chuckle out of that, and how it contrasts with how I see JHO.

Anyway, not sure where I was going with this (and I’ve had a couple… Ok, four beers and a margarita), but damn if I don't find these debates edutaining ("not-a-word" alert: but it should be). I now return you to your previously scheduled “argument”.

Cheers, Backcountry

 

[wmidbrook]

Rifleman,

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

How is allowing one's dogs to mouth a dead hog either a waste of game or unethical? I am at a loss.[/b]

I don't think that letting dogs mouth game is unethical. I hunted waterfowl on a ranch where the owner's labs basically basically had 'free roam' privileges. Here's the picture I had in mind when I wrote what I wrote---These two labs got to a snow I had downed before me and the snow was torn to pieces and half consumed before I could get to it--the two pooches were uninvited but had trailed me in a ditch I was sneaking up to shoot some geese. And it appeared to be a game for these dogs rather than a meal.....didn't exactly like that.

So, if these guys were letting their dogs tear into the carcas (sp?) for sport and not consumption, that wouldn't be too ethical in my mind. But, using harvested game for dog food is legal as far as I know--would need to look it up though to validate whether that's the case or not.

 

[hicntry]

The statement was made that the dogs were"sicked" on the hogs after the hogs throats were cut and the dogs were then allowed to tear the hogs to pieces. ^00 man hrs of investigation leads me to believe that there is a little more to it and no one seems to be sure why or what the reasoning behind the arrests and charges really are. I am going to give a scenario here of what was likely going on as I see it. First off, one has to know a hound from a cur. Hounds are open mouth trailing dogs. Many curs are closed mouth and semi open trailing dogs. Airedales are closed mouth dogs. My guess is that they never sicked a dog on anything once the throats were cut. The dogs were already loose is a more likely scenario. It is also more likely they were using curs, which to most, look like hounds. Is anyone putting this together yet? Using silent mouth dogs, dispatching with a knife???Poaching possibilities look pretty good from here and it took them 600 hrs to catch them with the goods. To the DFG, it may have looked like the dogs were sicked on them but is unlikely unless bulldogs were used to hold them while they cut them. If anyone gets the whole story it would be interesting.

PS Hounds are longer range dogs where most curs work at a shorter range which also would go along with poaching.

 

[wmidbrook]

I'd have to agree with hicntry. Probably a lot more to it than the snippets we've heard so far.

I've heard that there is a black market for feral pig which fetches about the same as the price as what a weekend pig hunt costs--but, that could be a 'camp fire' myth too for all I know. Could well be that those guys were trying to load up on feral hog and sell it for all we know.

 

[cincoflatspirate]

I think those guys were sentenced to 6 months in jail for what they were doing after the dogs bayed the pigs. they were training dogs and using the videos to promote selling dogs and hunts. I think there is one more guy still to be charged. I think dfg said they killed about 1500 hogs in the last year. I seen some of the video and it was your typical houndsman dog training crap. the really bad part is the landowners, clients, the people buying the dogs , and the taxpayers paying for 600 hours of dfg work when that time could have been better spent doing something else(like all the deer being poached in that very same area). I have no idea why they singled these guys out? They probably used this to squash the rest of their outlaw activities. As for those marines shooting the horses, they were using a .270, but they also found .30 caliber rounds in the carcasses. I think the max sentence in that case was 39 days, 2k fine and 2 years probation . I think what got these guys in trouble was the pics they took like they had shot a trophy and they used a fire extinguisher to spray it's eyes and bunghole. I am simply amazed at how much was written on this post when nobody really knew anything.

 

[hicntry]

" I am simply amazed at how much was written on this post when nobody really knew anything."

Well so am I cincopirate. Looking at your post it is "I think" from beginning to end so it is really had to separate the fact from the fiction....especially when you got to the typical houndsman crap. 5 I thinks, 1 I have no idea, and 1 probably all in one paragragh. You may have the whole thread beat.

 

[cincoflatspirate]

Sometimes I even amaze myself! Easy with the flame job! Are you an english teacher or a psychologist? I used "I think" because I was going from memory. I actually despise houndsmen, but I respect their right to hunt.

 

[hicntry]

It wasn't a flame job cinco.lol English teacher or a psychologist. Naw, I raise hunting airedales specifically for hogs but they are used for just about everything including birds. Of course I have to do various other work but none are white collar....you know, metal fabrication, truck beds, plumbing, welding heavy equipt etc. Got to support the dogs you know. I just wasn't really sure I knew any more after your post. It seems to me I heard something about some guys in the Kaweah area that were making dog hunters look bad but that was a few months ago.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

wmidbrook,

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

These two labs got to a snow I had downed before me and the snow was torn to pieces and half consumed before I could get to it...So, if these guys were letting their dogs tear into the carcas (sp?) for sport and not consumption, that wouldn't be too ethical in my mind.[/b]

I understand your frustration at having your snow goose utterly destroyed by the two labs, but please understand that the carcass of a feral hog is not nearly as fragile. Based on my experience hunting hogs with hounds, the skin of the hog is rarely even broken let alone having the muscle tissue damaged beyond use.

hicntry,

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

My guess is that they never sicked a dog on anything once the throats were cut. The dogs were already loose is a more likely scenario.[/b]

You make a very excellent point that I should have been more clear in my first post. I mentioned that the nature of hunting with coursing dogs precluded a premature segregation of hog and dog (or something like that). That is a long-winded way of saying that the dogs were already loose. Thanks for your concise explanation.

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

Hounds are open mouth trailing dogs.  Many curs are closed mouth and semi open trailing dogs...It is also more likely they were using curs, which to most, look like hounds. Is anyone putting this together yet? Using silent mouth dogs, dispatching with a knife???Poaching possibilities look pretty good from here and it took them 600 hrs to catch them with the goods. To the DFG, it may have looked like the dogs were sicked on them but is unlikely unless bulldogs were used to hold them while they cut them.  Hounds are longer range dogs where most curs work at a shorter range which also would go along with poaching.[/b]

Again, another excellent point. I would be willing to bet that these guys were not using hounds per se, but rather silent mouthed curs or a type of catchdog such as a pit or bulldog; Pit x Airedale crosses are also pretty popular down in central California from what I understand. Not only is hunting hogs with hounds not very popular, but it is certainly not the most effective means of performing a clandestine operation. Their tendency to bark while running a hog, their long range capabilities and their instinct to bay rather than catch do not lend themselves well to covertly dispatching hogs with knives.

cincoflatspirate,

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

I seen some of the video and it was your typical houndsman dog training crap.[/b]

What exactly is typical houndsman dog training crap? If you are not a houndsman yourself, how exactly do you know that it is typical?

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

I am simply amazed at how much was written on this post when nobody really knew anything.[/b]

You raise a very good point. As I said in my original post, I am not going to condemn the tactics of the CADFG or the actions of the men until I have more to go on than the sketchy details within this post. However, it doesn't hurt to comment on the underlying issues in lieu of an understanding of the details of the incident.

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

I actually despise houndsmen...[/b]

Why do you despise me? You have never even met me before.

Are you racist as well? You may think that it is a ridiculous association, but the fact of the matter is that you are using your limited experience (which has obviously been negative) to judge an entire group. It is no different than being mugged by a member of a certain race, hearing of crimes perpetuated by members of that same race and then despising that whole race; you are judging every member of that race though you have not met or interacted with everyone within that race.

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

...but I respect their right to hunt.[/b]

Well, at least you have redeemed yourself a bit! I do not solicit popularity from other hunting communities, but rather, I ask only that we all stand in support of one another's pursuits even if we personally would never engage in them. In the end, "if we do not hang together, surely we shall hang separately."

 

[cincoflatspirate]

I have seen the outlaw houndsman at work, I've also seen video. The typical houndsman crap is once the animal is bayed to continue to maul a downed animal rather than controlling your dogs, that's what I don't like. This is what those men were doing in the video I seen. Once an animal is bayed control your dogs. Ethnically if you are a houndsman, I guess I'm a racist because I truly despise houndsmen. But since there is no such thing I would guess I'm probably not a racist. If youve ever spent any time scouting for deer and return to the area to hunt only to find a houndrig parked waiting for his dogs, then you find that every animal in the woods is scattered from here to timbuktu because his dogs chase every animal in the woods. I had a good friend I used to hound hunt with but he moved away 3 years ago so now I dont get to hunt like that. He knew I despised him hunting during deer season, but we had a lot of fun after deer season closed. He never ran hogs, he was into bear. So yes I do despise you, but don't take it personal.

 

[hicntry]

Cinco, if I felt as strongly as you regarding houndsmen then the last thing I would be doing is hunting with one. Seems a bit hipocritical. In answer to another question you posed...Yes, I had scouted and located a well used game trail before the season. Was in place at 4 am. It was just getting first light and I could make out 5 deer moving along the game trail up hill from me. All of a sudden they broke and ran. Then I heard them. About 10 hunters making their way up the mopuntain laughing and telling jokes. It works both way and I guess if we don't own our own private spreads then ....that's life. And yes, there are a few bad houndsmen but they are few compared to regular hunters that shoot anything that moves, street signs and the such. People with your outlook is why many feel that the only solution to gun violence is to take all guns....but I suppose since criminals are people you despise all of us. I have never been witness to any dogman letting his dogs tear apart a wounded animal. Every one I have hunted with caught up the dogs and tied them back. Once the animal is dispatched, they mey let them wool it around a bit but never alive.

Rifleman
I caught you statement about the coursing dogs the second time trough but had already posted....Honestly, I didn't read the "whole" post the first time through

LOL

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Cincoflatspirate,

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

The typical houndsman crap is once the animal is bayed to continue to maul a downed animal rather than controlling your dogs, that's what I don't like. This is what those men were doing in the video I seen.[/b]

I pose my question to you again; if you are not a houndsman, how do you know that this behavior is typical? Just because you have hunted with a single houndsman in the past who may have engaged in this behavior or have seen video to that effect does not make it typical. Are you actually comfortable using your very limited experience to condemn the thousands of houndsmen around the country? If yes, do you realize how foolish an assertion that is?

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

Ethnically if you are a houndsman, I guess I'm a racist because I truly despise houndsmen. But since there is no such thing I would guess I'm probably not a racist.[/b]

Please reread my original statement; you have clearly misunderstood it. I did not state or imply that houndsmen are an ethnicity. What I said was that it is logical to conclude by your statements that you may be racist because of the ease with which you judge or condemn a group of people based on your very limited experience with them and your very narrow scope of understanding of the subject matter involved.

I will try to make it more clear to you...

You have seen video(s) showing men with dogs allowing their dogs to "maul" a downed feral hog. You hunted with your good friend who was a houndsman and did not like him hunting his dogs during deer season because of your belief that he, like all other houndsmen, use dogs that will chase off every deer and other four-legged creature out of the woods. From this, you are willing to judge-or more specifically-despise every houndsman though you clearly have a very limited extent of involvement with them. You admittedly despise me though you have never met me before.

From this, it is perfectly logical and reasonable to conclude that because you are undoubtedly familiar with the commission of crime by black people and you have likely seen the commission of crimes on video during your local news broadcast you must despise all black people as criminals. You use their race-just as you use my passion for houndhunting-as the sole criteria by which to evaluate their worth.

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

you find that every animal in the woods is scattered from here to timbuktu because his dogs chase every animal in the woods.[/b]

Again, this is nothing more than ignorance. Though there are occasions when hounds-mostly young and not yet fully trained-will chase undesireable species-which we label as trash because we don't want our dogs chasing them-most hounds do not engage in this behavior. If they did, you would find that houndhunting would not be as prominent a sport in our nation's history and culture.

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

So yes I do despise you, but don't take it personal.[/b]

Since you despise me solely because I am a houndsman, you must also despise George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Boone, Theodore Roosevelt and Gene Autry as well...I pity you.

I don't take it personal at all; ignorance, unfortunately, cannot always be mitigated right away. To be honest, I actually understand some of your sentiments; you are frustrated by certain distasteful acts committed by houndsmen or dog hunters that you have witnessed in the past. However, what you fail to accurately rationalize is that this behavior is not inherent within all houndsmen or dog hunters. Intelligent people are able to distinguish between the two.

I despise ignorance and the display of ignorance, but I do not despise you. Do you see the difference yet?

 

[RIFLEMAN]

hicntry,

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

I caught you statement about the coursing dogs the second time trough but had already posted....Honestly, I didn't read the "whole" post the first time through[/b]

I can't say that I blame you too much; I can be a bit long-winded at times.

 

[cincoflatspirate]

Rifleman are you a nutcase or what? How can you profile me from a forum? And yes if you and Teddy Roosevelt showed up to hunt his world record lion and I was deer hunting I would be pissed. I know every houndsman isn't unethical, I just don't like it when i'm there to do my thing. Think about all the anti-hunters houndsmen have pissed off over the years, running dogs all night, driving up an down roads, yelling at dogs, whistling. Do you think that a family of tree huggers enjoys hearing dogs bark all night? This stuff is all ethical under hound hunting standards. Do you have a favorite place to run your preferred animal? What doyou do when there are people camping, hiking, riding horses, fishing, hunting, or just enjoying the outdoors? Do you run em or keep em kenneled up?

 

[bayedsolid]

Cincoflatspirate.....Man, you need to get a grip. Every statement you make is either ignorant, or hypocritical. You said to Rifleman...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Rifleman are you a nutcase or what? How can you profile me from a forum?[/b]

Sounds to me like you are the one doing all the profiling. Even your arguement about hound hunters running the dogs where people are camping, hiking, riding horses, hunting and fishing is rediculous. When was the last time you, or anybody you know, saw a houndsman running his dogs through the local campground? Give me a break. The typicall hounds will cover 20 times the real estate that the typical hunter would on foot, but apparently you know houndsman that kick their dogs out of the truck right next to a "tree huggers" tent, and it takes him all night to cover the 2 acre site. Apparently the pursued animal can't find it's way out of there either. If you have something productive to say, even if it's a different opinion, then by all means, let's have it, but you might want to think just a little bit before you speak.....it helps.

 

[Speckmisser]

I've held off on saying much more on this, because I can't find information or FACTS about the guys in Tulare County anywhere. Cincoflats says the guys were already sentenced, and Dreaminhogs says he just saw where they were arrested. Which is it? I don't know.

With that in mind, I can't say more than I have... 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.

No mitigating factors should be considered, especially since they were videotaping and marketing their activities in clear violation of the law. And worse, they were representing themselves as houndsmen and hunters.

As hunters, we need to help to ferret this crap out, and show it to the world for what it is. We do NOT protect ourselves or our traditions by trying to push these people and their activities under the carpet. And Josh...

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

From this, I am naturally led to conclude that you would also support the infringement of the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution if it would prevent a crime or apprehend a suspect (i.e Patriot Act). Is this indeed your position? If not, how are they different?[/b]

That's about the weakest and most ridiculous leap of logic I've ever heard from you. But...

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[grtwythunter]

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

Think about all the anti-hunters houndsmen have pissed off over the years, running dogs all night, driving up an down roads, yelling at dogs, whistling.[/b]

Think about all the anti hunters you've pissed off over the years sneaking around the forest with your rifle trying to kill Bambi. It doesn't matter to them how you're hunting. We're all evil in their minds.


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

This stuff is all ethical under hound hunting standards. Do you have a favorite place to run your preferred animal? What doyou do when there are people camping, hiking, riding horses, fishing, hunting, or just enjoying the outdoors? Do you run em or keep em kenneled up?[/b]

What do you do when you're hunting deer by whatever method you choose and John Q. Public shows up? Do you give up and go home? Why should hound hunters? Is it because some find it unethical and not P.C.? I'll say it again...antis don't care how you're hunting. To them you're just as bad as anyone running dogs. If you think otherwise you're only fooling yourself.

Cinco....Whether it's spot and stalk, still hunting, running dogs, etc, it's all hunting and as long as it's done on the up and up none of us should be ripping the other guys choice. I've had far more hunts screwed up by non-hound hunters than will ever be screwed up by dogs.

My

Scott

 

[cincoflatspirate]

If you guys have never heard or seen hounds in the woods you need to spend more time in the woods. The most recent event was some hounds chased a bear into our camp at first none wanted to leave finally the hounds left then we coaxed the bear out with some yelling and some rocks. Have you ever seen a picket line of horses with a bear in camp with dogs chasing it? It's not a fun occasion. I've also had dogs run through a camp at friis camp in the lpnf, after talking to the houndsmen the next day he said he frequents that area because of some bobcats there, he didnt kill them, he just chased them. As far as me being a racist, why does that matter? I have the right to feel however I want to feel about anybody, period.