What would you do?

[BGH831]

I had to throw it out there again. If you have never hunted with dogs on foot in the hills around here you have no place to talk smack. Toughest HUNTING I have participated in to date. Anyone who has done it and says that it isn't a gruelling sport that takes more work and dedication than spot and stalk or stand/truck hunting is smokeing crack.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

pig guide,

I am sleepy, so I am going to make this kinda quick and short...

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

Once again, your view of trespassing is wrong. Crossing any boundary, of another's property without asking permission, with or without a gun, and without a trespass permit.....IS ILLEGAL.  I know this intimately as I am in possesion of the Ca. Law Books from the law firm that I work in. This way should I have any doubt when confronted by Fish and Game while I'm afield, I just refer to the books.[/b]

First, let's make sure that we understand each other; the last time you said I was wrong, you were referring to something that I never said.

I am talking about crossing onto private property solely for the purposes of recovering my dog that left property I had a legal right to be on and pursued a game animal that I was legally hunting onto property I do not have permission to hunt on. The game animal was not wounded by myself or my dog during the pursuit. During my attempt to recover my dog, I am not armed with a weapon capable of taking the game animal.

Now that the scenario is accurately laid out, please let me know what Section of the Fish and Game Code that you have handy that would prevent me from recovering my dog. The F&G statutes I am familiar with apply to trespass in the the taking or attempt to take game.

I will admit when I am wrong, and need only the facts. The proof is in the pudding they say, so when I see it, I will own up to my error.

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

And why is it that you come accross in all of your replies that you are a super genius and all others are not worthy. You're being quite harsh. Lighten up.[/b]

Why I come across as a super genius, I do not know. I am merely trying to articulate my opinion and refute other opinions in a manner or language that is going to be as effective or accurate as I can be.

I do not deem others to not be worthy of having or expressing an opinion, but there is nothing wrong with challenging the accuracy of the opinion. If I said that people who lived in the Mid-west for 12 years love Tabasco sauce in their cereal because I once saw a Mid-Westerner put Tabasco in their cereal, or I heard they do, you would probably challenge my opinion, would you not? Wouldn't you want to know how I came to believe something that you know is not true? Would you be harsh in asking me to validate the accuracy of my statement?

As I said, I have not called anyone any names, nor used derogatory language or insulting emoticons. It is my objective to attack ideas, not people. If having one's opinions scrutinized is uncomfortable or threatening to them, they should stick to discussions that won't generate controversy or dissent.

I have a firm opinion on certain things, and argue with great enthusiasm to further those opinions. I play hard ball, but I play by the rules. Win or lose, if we both play by the rules, we'll be able to shake hands and say, "Good Game" when the contest comes to a close.

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

This was all based on hypotheticals and the overwhelming responses that I am seeing are not favorable. Just an observation.[/b]

I do not base my arguments on the prevailing opinion. It matters not that I am in the minority on this issue. Considering the abundance of what could be called inflammatory language (threats against dogs, etc), I think that I have managed to maintain a relatively logical and mature tone.

Don't worry, I have not been yelling at my computer screen or gotten worked up over what has been said or what opinions have been shared. We are all big boys around here and don't need to agree on everything.

 

[wmidbrook]

I love dogs. I love handling dogs (retrievers) but don't know a whole lot about hounds. And I'd even like to hunt bear and cougar behind dogs (just been coon huntin' behind them up in WA for practice. I even got started down that road by adopting a pair of plott/walker crosses that turned out to be too noisy for my wife Julie.) And I'd love to have a nice brindle Plott--very good lookin' dogs and nicely agressive if from the right lines.

But, as a responsible dog owner, i do not think I'd ever allow my dogs to wander onto a person's property without prior permission or hunt in an area where there were a chance of that happening....our uphill neighbors run dogs. That's fine.

What's not fine is when I've seen them come onto my property without permission. If they hadn't tried to do so many assinine things like punch a driveway through our fenceline in some lame attempt to establish an easement they do not need, try to harvest trees growing on our fully fenced property etc., I might have worked something out with them.

I know it's just individuals, not houndsmen in general doing these things that make it increasingly tougher for houndsmen. Same tactics are used by the anti's singling out exceptional incidents in some attempt to sway the masses that hunting invariably results in such incidents and most hunters are that way.....

A houndsmen will almost have nothing going for them when they walk into court and try to convice a judge even if the houndsmen were right....the dead dog on the private property is about the only solid piece of evidence and the houndsmen is already @ a deficit when stepping into court given such a circumstance.....Again, best to avoid such a circumstance.

 

[wello]

Oh my goodness!.. What a load to read if I dare. .. but I don't as work awaits but I chime in to just offer up a single thought for both Rifleman and Bayedsolid...
When was the last time you were in the woods hunting with possably no houndsman experience but with maybe some hunter experience? To make clear that some houndsman opinion can be determined as from only firsthand houndsman experience instead of being in a shoot as bystander situation, I site the following... <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

quote Bayedsolid: I never really gave it much thought before now[/b]

I ask mainly to make sure that your opinion is based solely on houndsman experience instead of the other perspective that is pretty much the defined situation that does not, nor did it ever, ask for a purely houndsman view point to come up with an answer of what would be done. It did not ask us to go and get educated about how to hound. That is the glaring obvious point from my perspective concerning thread shape and form and is a somewhat lame basis for continued debate around it. I know I write alot but gee wiz guys...

 

[jawtightener]

rifle--r u serious dude?? it's a hunting forum, smart guy...you play hard ball???
serious or not i was laughing...you come off sounding like Treb Barta. now, you don't want that do you?

bayed-it's funny you mention it. yeah, i switched those a couple of times before posting. thanks for the correction. it's been 10+years since i used to run with my buddies and their pooches. we didn't get too official with titles and what not, but your right.
now we just have a dog that can follow blood, bark when he finds someth'in, etc. he's only needed when someone screw's up...

 

[jawtightener]

wello-to opine on the topic about the morality/legality of taking hogs that are in various stages of pursuit by hounds and houndsman demands an education of the subject matter. just like the duck example, if you are not cognizant of the protocals of taking working birds, just because you think you should be able to shoot them (because they are in range) does not make that opinion correct.

 

[boarhunter67]

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

You derided the use of dogs for the pursuit and taking of hogs based on your experience with the use of dogs for the pursuit and taking of bear[/b]

Rifleman,
Where do I say that? In fact, if you read my entries I have said several times that I have no problem with hunters using hogs.

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

I cannot, for one second, believe that any of you would not respond in the same way (attacking one's arguments)… I have not dismissed anyone's arguments as being unworthy of response[/b]

Calling someone ignorant carries a certain connotation that goes beyond attacking the argument to attacking the person. Most people will go with the common use rather than the dictionary definition of the word just as if you said you were mad people wouldn't think you had rabies.

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

Telling the tax professional about "This one time..." or "I heard that..."[/b]

If you are talking hypothetically with your tax professional you probably would say that. This is a hypothetical situation.

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

As a houndsman, I do spend more time in the field than you. 3. I do spend more money than you.
4. My use of dogs requires more of a committment in my life
I have to make more sacrifices to other things in my life than you.[/b]

Once again, pretty arrogant. Tell me, how much time do I spend each day hunting? List the specific amount of dollars that each and every hunter and guide spent on hunting last year. Oh you can't? But I thought you were better than all of us and knew it all. That's what I object to: the arrogant "I'm better; I care more; I know more, because I'm a dog hunter.

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

2. If my dogs are closely pursuing a hog (within sight, you hear only the one hog in the brush, the dogs are close and you heard them in the direction the hog came from, etc) and you know that this is the hog they are running, it is inappropriate for you to shoot it no matter how far you are from the road, how badly you want pork, or how far you drove to get there.[/b]

Re-read the senario. It states in #1 that the dogs are barking but the hog isn't bayed. You stated that some dogs are trained to bark as they pursue. I, myself, know people who use the same dogs for bear and cats as they use for hogs. So telling everyone they know jack about hoghunting because they haven't hunted with you...well I'll stop there.

As for the duck hunting. When I have hunted duck, which I'm sure you will belittle if it's not as many times as you, I and all the people at the refuge hunted the same as we hunt for dove. We were far apart from one another and when a bird flew over us, we shot it. We couldn't tell where the bird was flying. If you are talking about setting up intentially to cut someone off, that's wrong. I agree. Once again, it's a case by case basis. If I set up early and someone else set up next to me later in the morning with all the equipment that you mentioned, and he expected me not to shoot because the bird was coming to him, I'd shoot. We'd never know where the bird would have landed because the person set up right next to me. Kind of like someone who starts fishing right next to you and then expects you to stop casting where you were.
I defer back to Speck's post earlier. It's hard to argue with cold hard logic as he has layed it out.

 

[Orygun]

Looked on some of the county codes available at Lexus Nexis(sp?) for California. There don't seem to be the cut and dry policies that are up my way. But they do have provisions for dogs at large and off the property where they owner of the dog has a right to be. I think it was Fresno that went as far as to give authority of an agent to kill a dog that the agent feels may be a menace to livestock. Now it defines agents as enforcement officlas and not private landowners.

A tangent of tangent of a tangent I guess.

But now my question is now that everyone has laid out everything that is opinion based, experience based, general knowledge based, make stuff up as you go based:

On public land available for multiple methods of harvest of feral pigs in California, who gets priority when hunters are using dogs and others are using spot and stalk techniques? Do non dog hunters have to yield to those with canines? or vice-versa? Do they continue to plunge into the chamise unmindful of the wants and needs of their fellows in the hunting community and selfishly plod along in the hopes of a porcine trophy ?

Based on the repomses of posts we have multiple use conflicts (real/imagined/potential) occuring. Will DFG and/or BLM need to designate specific dates and times to acccomodate the variety of hunting methods? All well established and legitimate methods of hunting....

 

[sdbowyer]

Is this part of the whole "defying hunter stereotypes" strategy or is it just self indulgence?

 

[pig guide]

Rifleman......The dog IS the weapon and IT IS still considered hunting as the dog is trained to hunt and won't stop ( if I am Correct? ) until such time as it has been pulled off by you. The law is very specific. You HAVE NO right of trespass, what so ever....EVEERRRR no matter who you may think you are. If it aint yer land and you have no written permission to be there. Yer going to jail. READ THE ACTUAL LAWS OF THE LAND.
I was WRONG> Trespassing pertains to both Civil and DFG laws.

I am just using your words now. That falls under code #'s 3008. The physical control of a dog by its owner while the dog is
engaged in hunting in an area where the owner is otherwise
authorized to hunt, shall be as required by this code or regulations
made pursuant thereto.
2016. It is unlawful to enter any lands under cultivation or
enclosed by a fence, belonging to, or occupied by, another, or to
enter any uncultivated or unenclosed lands, including lands
temporarily inundated by waters flowing outside the established banks
of a river, stream, slough, or other waterway, where signs
forbidding trespass are displayed at intervals not less than three to
the mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails
entering such lands, for the purpose of discharging any firearm or
taking or destroying any mammal or bird, including any waterfowl, on
such lands without having first obtained written permission from the
owner of such lands, or his agent, or the person in lawful possession
thereof. Such signs may be of any size and wording, other than the
wording required for signs under Section 2017, which will fairly
advise persons about to enter the land that the use of such land is
so restricted. ( YOUR DOG IS THE WEAPON

265 (a) (b) or © whichever dog control zone applies to you.
§265. Use of Dogs for Pursuit/Take of Mammals or for Dog Training
2) Three Dogs per Hunter Limitation for the Take of Wild Pigs. Up to three dogs per hunter may be used for the purpose of taking wild pigs, pursuant to the following provisions:
(d) Prohibition on Treeing Switches and Use of Global Positioning System Equipment.( YOU SAID YOU WOULD USE YOUR TRACKING GEAR TO FIND THEM)
(2) Global Positioning System Equipment. Electronic dog retrieval collars employing the use of global positioning system equipment (devices that utilize satellite transmissions) are prohibited on dogs used for the pursuit/take of mammals.



CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
602. Except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (v),
subdivision (x), and Section 602.8, every person who willfully
commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a
misdemeanor
(k) Entering any lands, whether unenclosed or enclosed by fence,
for the purpose of injuring any property or property rights or with
the intention of interfering with, obstructing, or injuring any
lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner of the land,
the owner's agent or by the person in lawful possession.
(1) Refusing or failing to leave the lands immediately upon being
requested by the owner of the land, the owner's agent or by the
person in lawful possession to leave the lands, or
(o) Refusing or failing to leave land, real property, or
structures belonging to or lawfully occupied by another and not open
to the general public, upon being requested to leave by (1) a peace
officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person
in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer
that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's
agent, or the person in lawful possession, or (2) the owner, the
owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession. The owner, the
owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession shall make a
separate request to the peace officer on each occasion when the peace
officer's assistance in dealing with a trespass is requested.
However, a single request for a peace officer's assistance may be
made to cover a limited period of time not to exceed 30 days and
identified by specific dates, during which there is a fire hazard or
the owner, owner's agent or person in lawful possession is absent
from the premises or property. In addition, a single request for a
peace officer's assistance may be made for a period not to exceed six
months when the premises or property is closed to the public and
posted as being closed.
Y

 

[boarrunner]

Pig guide: A tracking or Telemetry system, is based on radio frequency, not satelite.

If a valid attempt is made to attain permission I can go un armed onto your property to retrieve my dog, or any domestic animal.
The way a law is written and the way the courts or officer inturprets it may not allways be exact. I'm sure a landowner could insist that charges were filed, and the judge would probably rule in favor of the tresspasser for trying to limit his liabilities. Most judges frown on their time being wasted on matters that could have been easily resolved outside the court room.

Wello: No I am not a puke either, and the only time my dogs are gone for more than 24 hours is when someone tries to help me out. My dedication to my dogs does not allow me to go home without them, they do their job and find the game, and its my job to find them. Telemetry systems do have their limitation 0-12 miles
depending on terrain and type of system If some

I have brass plates rivited to my collars containing all the info needed to contact me.
name address 2 phone #s and call collect,reward if found.
most of the time if one of my dogs has been found I get a call within a few hours.
There has been the rare occasion when someone has kept my dog for a week or more trying to decide if they liked it enough to keep. lucky for me I live in a relativley small town and most people know my dogs.

I relize this wasn't addressed to me, but, As a houndsman,professional woodsman, and hunter. I am in the woods daily and am allways using my "hunter experiance." As far as when hunting with the dogs, I look for the same things as any experianced spot-stalk hunter. fresh sign, ample cover, available food water.
Dogs are not magic. I still need to know the habits of the game I pursue.

to all: I lost count long ago, the # of hogs(deer,bobcats)I have ran up on or jumped from cover, on the way to a bay. just because dogs are running through a area barking or not, does not meen all of the game has fled the area. lots of times the hogs that are not being pursued while hole up like pheasants until forced from their beds.. If this was not the case I would not be able to catch and tie a hog, and hiss my dogs onto another and catch and tie that one within a short distance. then when its all over turn them loose . I have notched the ear and caught the same hog more than once in the same area on different occasions.
So I don't believe a hunt is ruined, just because dogs are in use in the area.
Just so you all know, There are many times my hunting plans were adjusted because there were spot-stalk, or bow hunters in a area. funny thing is, I don't recall being resentful toward them for pursing in the manner of their choice.
I moved on, as not to disturb them or create a situation. I realize there are unethical houndmen, but do to the percentages of each , there are alot more unethical rifle/ bow hunters.
Thats all the time I have for now.

 

[pig guide]

Rifleman.. you sound like a top notch dog runner. I kew of dozens of dog runners in Missouri and their dogs were like royalty. It was cool.
Just don't ever, ever think that the courts will rule in your favor for trespassing.
My wife owns a law firm and acts as a Judge pro tem. It basically looked at by alot of people on the bench as a heavy offense. But, like you said, it is all in how it goes down.
But seriously. Without the landowners consent....it is just flat out illegal.
Good luck and good hunting. By the way, I know first hand. I had the wrong fence on one of my properties. It is 17 months now and I am still fighting to get my guns back. Cop new I wasn't hunting and still said he " Don't give a s$&*. I just want to make yer life difficult" and I quote.
D.A refused to file charges. None the less. Me guns are still missing in action.

 

[Speckmisser]

I'm on a micro-laptop right now, and my fingers are too big and clumsy for this danged thing... I've tried twice to reply at length, and I give up for now.

Just to say this much...

Rifleman, I don't know how close you set up when duckhunting, but I can guarantee that when I hunt public land, I am not close enough to any "neighbors" to worry about "shortstopping" their birds. With the exception of geese, if a bird flies over my blind, in range, then there is no way of making a realistic guess where he's going. But odds are best that he's working my spread, not someone else's.

If you are shooting close enough to shortstop your "neighbor's" birds, then you're crowding in (or just as likely, you've been crowded in). It's time to move, as hunting that close together is a recipe for an accident as well as hard feelings. Geese, by the way, are a little different, as in my experience they'll work down low, sometimes a couple of hundred yards away from where they're committed... and when I see that, I do hold off. But the simple fact is that the majority of guys on public land don't. Much as it ticks me off, I can't say that they've really done anything "wrong". (I find this whole possessiveness thing fascinating, as much as I realize I'm every bit as subject to it as anyone else.)

But the bottom line is, in the duck marsh you have the opportunity to define a perimeter area that is "yours". Most other hunters will respect that. In hog country, there is no clear zone of operation. Hog hunters are usually on the move, and very often don't even know when their ranges cross.

So let's get the non-examples out of the debate. It's entirely a different situation.

If you feel that you need to defend hog-dogging as "real" hunting, then be assured that I am not the antagonist there. There are those who'd make that argument, but I'm not in their number. I believe your method is every bit as valid and "real" as my choice of traditional archery. So your justifications and your "superior methods" fall on deaf ears. Defend to someone else.

I choose NOT to hunt with dogs, but I never have and never will make claim that MY chosen method is superior to yours.. at least not to anyone but me. Those are my personal values, and you have neither the right nor the experience to judge them as lesser or greater than anyone else's. You know nothing of my dedication or my passion, beyond what I've chosen to share here, so it is true arrogance for you to imply otherwise.

One last note... I created this thread separately from the Laguna Mountain thread because I didn't want to hijack it. I knew it would kick off some lively discussion, and felt that it needed a more appropriate arena. I may have misinterpreted your loaded question there as a challenge to debate values/ethics, but I'm glad I brought this up anyway.

I can't type on this damned thing anymore... this will have to do.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

jawtightener,

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

rifle--r u serious dude?? it's a hunting forum, smart guy...you play hard ball???[/b]

Yes, I play hardball. As in, I take something seriously and try to establish a high expecation for myself and others. I strive to present logical arguments and engage in a lively discussion with those who hold themselves to the same expectation. I can enjoy a thought-provoking debate with those who hold an opinion contrary to mine if they take the discussion as seriously as I do.

This is indeed a forum for hunting, politics and the outdoors, but I do not come here to sing songs and hold hands. I am not stimulated by the sharing of photos or the jokes and silly conversations found in the Campfire. I am glad that Jesse has created a forum that provides the ability for folks to find exactly what it is that interests them, no matter what it is. Some come to make cyper-friends or hunting buddies, while others are interested in learning more about a sport or two.

What interests me is the exchange of information and ideas. Adults comprise the majority of the contributing members here, and adults should expect to have to support their opinion when it is challenged by someone else in the course of exchanging information or furthering ideas.

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

serious or not i was laughing...you come off sounding like Treb Barta. now, you don't want that do you?[/b]

I don't know Tred Barta, so I don't know if I want to or not.

 

[wello]

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

jawtightener Posted on Apr 8 2005, 10:02 AM
  wello-to opine on the topic about the morality/legality of taking hogs that are in various stages of pursuit by hounds and houndsman demands an education of the subject matter. just like the duck example, if you are not cognizant of the protocals of taking working birds, just because you think you should be able to shoot them (because they are in range) does not make that opinion correct. [/b]

I'll speak to the above in a second.. I want to first make clear a couple things, in case I've been misunderstood (very easy thing to do in rereading my own last post

there is point there however hidden it may be)...... I haven't seen hide nor hair of any pukes in here (puke=my word).

I used the word only in regard to a neglectful ungrateful houndsman (perhaps bear hunter) in the specific factual story I gave about a dog coming to our camp long time ago.(maybe offering the story was off topic maybe it wasn't. Don't remember what came before I posted)..Even though some may consider it a non favor to the owner, I considered throwing scraps to the poor dog a more important favor..I trust my story and concern for mans best friend doesn't make me into a less respected opinion for either side of perspective...

The use of perspective is key and it brings me to comment on Jawtighteners post above as well as speaking to Rifleman's overwhelming comprehensive fixation on logic. (some call it arrogance or superiority, I just call it incomplete to point of simplicity(been there-still do that-maybe in a second too))...Hope the following will come across though showing the black and white need for steadfast perspective that actually hints of no need for any extra education or insight to either side of this debate.(except maybe the houndsman in terms of being compassionate towards us scenario#1/#2 non-shooters..JK)

........Now, so if most houndsman offering opinion in here want us still hunters(uneducated for sake of this point) to not shoot preferably in either scenario then how would you have us go about not taking that shot? Do you want us to not take it based on a no-matter-how formed opinion(better than--->) or based on a total lack of/nothing opinion?. You had better want it from the formed. The very fact that most us hunters(or people in general throughout) find and take the right path is enough to validate that forming an opinion is best in all situation. Trust it.. But just in case you don't believe then consider the opposite outcome..please follow along below...
.........What you don't want us to do here is to act (whole different word which has meaning and use differing from the word 'opinion') wrongly by taking a shot. The default prerequisite instinct as hunters out in field for pig (no matter houndsman or still hunter) is going to be 'act out against pig by shooting it'. Therefore it is a must that you want, and indeed expect,our default instinct (perhaps Zen even) to be overruled by the only real action in the situation- 'a non-action'(#1 or #2 non-shooters) made out of pure opinion in our limited example. Since there is very good chance that all possible shooters that houndsman encounter will lack superior knowledge as themselves in shooting a chased or bayed pig it would be best to trust in the forming of opinion no-matter-how by that still hunter. The quality, method, or even the end result is unimportant in respect that it is required no matter what. It is just needed and mandatory. ...The lack of will (an action) results in far worse. Try putting it to a judge,jury, or dfg license giver that you have not opinion and are not mindful enough to make a decision not to act appropriete. Say hello to Mr. cell buddy via law decision..
So anyway..now the shocker, I formed an opinion so as to take the action of not shooting in either situation out of admitting to myself in the moment that I did not have sufficient info of hounding (moral/legality/etiquette, or what have you) to feel comfortable and right in doing so....I myself am by far the wiser and better person to be knowing and having opinion where I stand in the perspective department and to hence put my opinion into action for my best personal outcome in the scenario put to us in the field between two parties of pig hunters, as at least I know I better think about something before I do the opposite of why I am there. Far far superior than someone thinking all their efforts and knowledge add up to something more than opinion and decision in the moment.

To maybe help out understanding the above:
Red Bold= no opinion/lack of opinion
Green Italics= formed opinion (regardless of educated, knowledgeable perspective)
Underlined= instinct,default,prerequisite</span>



Is my point about black and white perspective taken and held valid or is it junk gray matter?
All I know is....the more educated on this the more likely I am to.....<span style="color:green">play dumb ask questions later.

 

[jawtightener]

thank you rifle...laughing harder now (adult laughter).
whew...
Treb Barta has a show on Outdoor Life Network...you'll love it.
wello--i got shit to do and i'm hungover but i'll read your kaleidescope later and respond (if needed). how long did that take?
great thread, it's definetly better than the coverage of the pope...
gotta go ride'in, c u monday...

 

[RIFLEMAN]

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

The dog IS the weapon and IT IS still considered hunting as the dog is trained to hunt and won't stop ( if I am Correct? ) until such time as it has been pulled off by you.[/b]

Dogs are not classified as a method of take for big game and as such, are not considered a weapon.

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

The law is very specific. You HAVE NO right of trespass, what so ever....EVEERRRR no matter who you may think you are. If it aint yer land and you have no written permission to be there. Yer going to jail. READ THE ACTUAL LAWS OF THE LAND.[/b]

I am very familiar with the laws that impact my ability to hunt with dogs. There is something called the Right To Retrieve that allows me to recover my dogs.

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

2016. It is unlawful to enter any lands under cultivation or
enclosed by a fence, belonging to, or occupied by, another, or to
enter any uncultivated or unenclosed lands, including lands
temporarily inundated by waters flowing outside the established banks
of a river, stream, slough, or other waterway, where signs
forbidding trespass are displayed at intervals not less than three to
the mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails
entering such lands, for the purpose of discharging any firearm or
taking or destroying any mammal... on such lands without having first obtained written permission from the owner of such lands, or his agent, or the person in lawful possession
thereof. Such signs may be of any size and wording, other than the
wording required for signs under Section 2017, which will fairly
advise persons about to enter the land that the use of such land is
so restricted.[/b]

I hoped you would bring this up as your "proof" of my transgressions. Without a weapon on my person, I am merely recovering my dog from someone's property. The purpose of my being on another person's land without permission is not to discharge a firearm or take/destroy any mammal, but to recover my dog.

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

265 (a) (b) or © whichever dog control zone applies to you.[/b]

I don't hunt hogs in any dog control zone so this does not apply to me.

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

(d) Prohibition on Treeing Switches and Use of Global Positioning System Equipment.( YOU SAID YOU WOULD USE YOUR TRACKING GEAR TO FIND THEM)[/b]

Yes, and I still would. I use neither treeing switches nor GPS to find my dogs. No violation of law there.

Consult with CADFG regarding your misunderstanding of a hound as a weapon if you refuse to believe me. Better yet, provide me with some case law that leads you to think that I would go to jail.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

wmidbrook,

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

But, as a responsible dog owner, i do not think I'd ever allow my dogs to wander onto a person's property without prior permission or hunt in an area where there were a chance of that happening...[/b]

It is not necessarily a matter of allowing my dogs wander onto a person's property; it is an unfortunate possibility that I want to avoid. There is always a chance of it happening no matter where one hunts given the possible distance a hog may run, as well as the age of the scent and the range of pursuit a hound is capable of. However, no houndsman in his right mind wants this to occur. Nothing good can come of it.

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

A houndsmen will almost have nothing going for them when they walk into court and try to convice a judge even if the houndsmen were right....the dead dog on the private property is about the only solid piece of evidence and the houndsmen is already @ a deficit when stepping into court given such a circumstance.[/b]

No matter what happens in court, my dog would be dead. Nothing could change that, and whatever the court's decision, I couldn't get my dog back. However, if the law is on my side (as it would be in the event that my dog was shot merely for being on someone's property in the scenario mentioned previously), I would pursue the rights and protections it affords me. Legal precedent favors the owner of the hunting dog.

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

Again, best to avoid such a circumstance.[/b]

No argument there.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

wello,

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

When was the last time you were in the woods hunting with possably no houndsman experience but with maybe some hunter experience?[/b]

I hunt deer and pronghorn every year, and try to get out for waterfowl and upland birds when time permits, so I think I do get enough "hunter experience" on a regular basis to have a well-rounded perspective.

 

[SierraExplorer]

Originally posted by wmidbrook@Apr 8 2005, 10:11 AM
But, as a responsible dog owner, i do not think I'd ever allow my dogs to wander onto a person's property without prior permission or hunt in an area where there were a chance of that happening....our uphill neighbors run dogs. That's fine.

Widmenbrok- When I was 12'ish- My dads cousin retrieved all his dogs but one on a bear. This was in an area between Olympic Nat Park and the Quinalt Indian Res. (about 25 miles border to boarder I believe)

Anyhow- evening of 3and day looking for said dog along ridge roads firing shots and listening- we are about .5 miles from the reservation. Someone radios that there is a man with his dog and wants a reward. My dads cousin shows up- and the person that has rights/lives on the Res. ask for $500- He offers the guy $65 (all he had on him and amongst the people there and a thanks)- He declines- takes a sawed off shotgun from behind his back and shoots the dog in the head leaving him there.

(serious- although I was not there, he was so distrought at camp). Tells him to keep the dogs off the res.

Then the person that lives on the res. then sayes "you can buy the bear hide for the $30 that the dog had treed."

my point- You can never control the game you are chasing. And the people that have "some" rights.

Murder for a fine dog- at least he was the better man to walk away.