What would you do?

[RIFLEMAN]

boarhunter67,

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

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.[/b]

Yes, I know that in subsequent posts you have indicated that you do not oppose using dogs to hunt hogs. I am glad to hear that.

What I was referring to was your statement that hoghunting public land with dogs will impact spot-and-stalkers because you witnessed dogs running across the mountainside while bearhunting with dogs. You used that experience to take issue with, or point out a drawback to, hoghunting with dogs.

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

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.[/b]

I can't be responsible for how certain people interpret the use of a word or sentence. If they have misunderstood my statements, I am certainly happy to try to clarify. However, if they cannot distinguish the difference between themselves and their opinions, I cannot do anything about it.

I did not call anyone ignorant; I criticized an opinion as being based on ignorance. There is an immensely large difference between the two. Calling someone ignorant implies a quality or ascribes a trait specifically to the individual. Calling someone's opinion ignorant places the label in the context of the opinion, not the person.

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

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.[/b]

You are missing my point. I objected to your use of your reference to running bear with dogs because you assumed that running hogs with dogs is the same. I use the same dogs for bear, cats and hogs, and I can tell you that there is a difference in most aspects of the pursuit. Just because the dogs may bark during the pursuit does not mean the pursuits are the same.

I never said that you don't know jack about hoghunting with dogs because you have never hoghunted with me. I essentially said that you don't know jack (your words, not mine) about hoghunting with dogs because you have never hoghunted with dogs. Pretty reasonable statement to make, wouldn't you say?

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

I defer back to Speck's post earlier. It's hard to argue with cold hard logic as he has layed it out.[/b]

What statement, specifically?

 

[muskeg]

I just glanced through the thread ... after reading a few post when it first started.

I don't think I would take the game in either situation ... but I would probably jump in to the action. If the guy running the dogs didn't like it ... i would head out.

Dog hunting can be fun. Years ago I had dogs .. about 25 at one time. Up around Fiddletown. It was a good time on those nights out hearing the dogs runnen coon, bobcat. Not many Bear around there then, as the moonshiners probably had them hunted out. There were a lot houdsmen from Oklahoma that setteled in there.

We also used dogs on Deer drives.

I saw a fresh Bear track there last year while doing the Turkey opener. It was a nice 5 footer probably. Close in. Too many houses out in the woods there now to do any Hound hunting.

But when we ran our hounds up high on 88 you didn't have to worry about getting on anybodys private ground.

Also when we were kids we would ride our bikes out to the railroad tracks that ran through the duck clubs, between Suisun and Benicia. back then the RR didn't care much. We got good at shooting ducks as they were being called in by a club member in a blind.

You just had to learn when to hit them so they dropped on the RR right of way.

Most of the time they didn't care to much. It was fun hunting for everyone.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

boarhunter67, Speckmisser, et al...

Let me clarify something that was either mis-stated on my part, or misunderstood/not apparently thought through on yours...

1. I have not said that I am a superior hunter. I said that my knowledge of, and experience in, using dogs to hunt hogs is superior to your own. Please be clear on that.

2. Let's review my statements concerning some of the primary differences (in time, money, etc, spent) between houndsmen and spot-and-stalkers. These statements apply to the general processes of the two general groups, not individuals, so no one should take this personally. This is not a comparison between me and any of you, but merely what is essentially required (in terms of Development, Maintenance, and Proficiency/Use) to use either a dog, or a rifle/handgun/shotgun/bow (hereby called a "weapon")...

a.Time-
Development: It requires more time to breed, select, raise and train a dog to take hogs than it does to develop a weapon for the same purpose. It will take months or years before the dog will be to the point where it can be relied upon in the same manner as a weapon. A spot-and-stalker may customize, or arrange for the customization of a weapon to meet their requirements, but the weapon has already been developed to the point where the spot-and-stalker may use it soon after acquiring it. It comes out of the box largely ready to use and is able to kill something it is pointed at. A dog hunter may replicate the minimal time requirement of the spot-and-stalker by buying a dog that is already developed and ready to use. This however, will dramatically increase the cost.

Maintenance: No matter how often either tool is used, it requires more time to feed, water, clean up after, and play (form bond and socialize) with a dog than it takes to care for a weapon. How often must a firearm be cleaned and oiled?

Proficiency/Use: It requires more time to keep the dog proficient in the taking of hogs than it does to keep the hunter proficient in the use of their desired weapon. Once sighted in, a weapon will generally remain sighted in (barring any jarring, or other event that affects it), so the time to ensure proficiency entails only the process of sighting it in, and then learning to master the weapon once it is sighted in. Certainly, it is in the best interest of the spot-and-stalker to remain proficient in the use of their weapon by practicing regularly, but the time required to do so does not equal the time required to keep a dog proficient. The dog is bred to hunt, but it still requires a lot of time to keep them at their best, far more time than to keep the spot-and-stalker and his weapon at their best. If a spot-and-stalker goes two weeks without firing his weapon, he will remain far more proficient and disciplined than a dog will.


b. Money-
Development: The cost of purchasing and developing a dog for use to hunt hogs is more substantial than the cost to purchase and develop a weapon for use to hunt hogs. It will often require more than one individual to own several dogs before one has the qualities necessary. As mentioned before, a hunter may avoid the time necessary to develop a dog, but doing so could easily cost him far more money than any weapon would.

Maintenance: It requires more money to feed, water, and provide vet care for a dog than it does to clean and oil a firearm, or care for a weapon. Now multiply this by the number of dogs necessary to find one that meets the expectations of the hunter.

Proficiency/Use: Time is money, so due to the fact that using a dog requires more time than using a weapon, using a dog requires more money than using a weapon. It is also very important to point out that the houndsman must buy most, if not all, of the equipment that a spot-and-stalker must plus all of the dog-specific equipment.


c. Dedication/Committment/Sacrifice-
Given the many factors such as the increased time and money requirement, the decision and practice of using a dog to take hogs demands more of a concerted committment to continue to spend time and money hoghunting than to employ the use of a weapon. One who uses dogs often must go, even when their schedule, mood, and energy level do not make it convenient to do so just so the dog can leave its kennel and exert its energy and do what it was bred to do, whereas, a spot-and-stalker feels no obligation to his weapon to take it out of its case. An ethical and responsible spot-and-stalker can go when they choose, whereas an ethical and responsible doghunter must go even when it is not their choice.

One who uses a dog cannot live in the same inexpensive circumstances that one who uses a weapon can. One who uses a dog cannot often be employed in the same industries as one who uses a weapon. Both the living and employment requirements will invariably impact the lifestyle choices a hunter who uses a dog has available to him, whereas, these influences are lessened or non-existent in the case of a hunter who uses a weapon.

For these reasons, the desire to use a dog may require the hunter to sacrifice other desires in life that the desire to use a weapon usually do not exclude.

***Now, multiply these factors by multiple dogs (the typical doghunter uses many dogs), and you will see that the use of dogs easily requires more than the use of a weapon.***


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

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.[/b]

C'mon, I was referring to the general mechanics and prerequisites of the two methods, not to anyone specifically. It is fair to make these statements in general terms just as it is fair to say that men are stronger than women, though there are some women stronger than some men.

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

That's what I object to: the arrogant "I'm better; I care more; I know more, because I'm a dog hunter.[/b]

Again, refer to my statements. I did not say that I am better, but merely, my knowledge of using dogs to hunt hogs (which this topic does focus on, does it not?) is better than yours. There is a big difference between the two, boarhunter67. I never said I care more, so you can omit that. I do know more about the subject than you, as I am a houndsman and you are not.

 

[gonehunting]

Man, this is a long winded thead......seriously people, we have a lot of antihunters out there trying to shut hunting down bit by bit...Do we really need to support their cause by blasting and stereotyping other hunters just because they don't hunt the way you do?

 

[wello]

Originally posted by RIFLEMAN@Apr 9 2005, 02:50 PM
wello,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

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

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. [/b][/quote]

What the hey Rifleman? Do you have yer hands so full that in attempting to answer question's you just answer them out of context while missing words in the actual sentence along with explanatory setup either prior to or after? Not only are you doing such to my questions but constantly to others as well since the first question posed to us in here. A logical or comprehensive approach does require context leading to generally accepted/appropriate assumptions. Like the last poster, I tire of the long-windedness with key elements missing in Mr. Spock or Mr. Data land.
You gonna tell me you missed the now bold "no" in my question or the "based solely on houndsman experience" supporting words directly after that puts the question in context? If you did not want to answer the question for what it was or didn't understand it then maybe you should respectfully decline instead of effectively creating it into a put down or houndsman bashing. Even though that post of mine could be interpreted as unfinished in terms of what I might be doing with the answer material at some point in future does not make it uninteligiable in terms of what it was driving towards from the common market...It had specific wording that I have bolded for all that choose to ignore them...And no that is, as you have made clear to others, not a calling you ignorant statement...

You , I suspect, have not had only, solely, or no perspective outside hounding since the day you took up that sport hence putting you somewhere else perspective wise. You cannot go back unless you loose yer mind. That would be part of the context...



Everyone else, yes this is straying from topic but it may give some measure of context as to the quality of expert witness material we are presented with and hence left to consider or swallow...

 

[SierraExplorer]

Originally posted by wello@Apr 10 2005, 12:21 PM
Everyone else, yes this is straying from topic but it may give some measure of context as to the quality of expert witness material we are presented with and hence left to consider or swallow...

Kiwi's anyone ???

 

[pig guide]

Rifleman....You have my complete and total sympathies.
To believe that you HAVE the right to TRESPASS to retrieve???
A very tragic and twisted state of mind my friend. I just hope you don't cross the boundaries of the wrong rancher.

 

[MikenSoCo]

First of all... Nice goin' Speck! Secondly, and lastly, it's hard for "dog people", of which I am, to realize not everyone is a "dog person". I say this because I live it. I say we end the thread with a respectful "Do unto others in the field, as you would accept yourself". Now if I could just get the old lady to become a doggie person

 

[gonehunting]

Originally posted by MikenSoCo@Apr 10 2005, 06:55 PM
"Do unto others in the field, as you would accept yourself".

Well said........I am by no means a dog person, but I have hunted with dogs with freinds who were avid houndsmen. It is by no means a easy hunt. But it's just not my thing. Like stated, public land is just that, public. And really, in any state that private lands hugely out weighs public land. The hunting isn't really going to be that good, and dogs would be a great way to go about it. But as far as dogs messing up other peoples hunts.....Seriously, I have had countless yahoos who were out on a "armed nature hike" fowl up my hunting way more than people running dogs. But thats ok, because they have just as much right to be there as I do, and theirs always tomorrow

 

[boarhunter67]

Since the tangent was brought up about trespassing, let me see if I understand the two positions. According to one "more dedicated and knowledgeable" hunter, if my dog went on someone's property I could follow it. If the dog then went to the ranch house on that property and went into a doggie door, I could follow it. I could enter someone's house, as long as I didn't break in, to retrieve my property. Is that correct? According to the other argument, I would first have to obtain permission in writing. Is that correct?

 

[wmidbrook]

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

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

Sierra, agreed. Sad story too.

Goes to show about the nature of the sport. Ultimately, no houndsman can fully guarantee that he can control where a hound ultimately ranges while in pursuit of game.

As such, it's probably best if houndsmen were to use this knowledge when planning a hunt. In other words, should probably have a good 10 mile buffer between where the hunt begins and the nearest private property that you don't have permission to be on. Or he should at least be familiar with the potential outcomes of their dogs running onto private lands where they are not welcome.

Basically, there are a lot of landowners that will shoot unfamiliar dogs on their property. And knowing that most houndsmen care deeply for their hounds well-being, it's probably best hunting where there's not a chance of that happening--either deep in public lands or on a very giant ranch where they have permission to hunt or retrieve dogs from the neighbors if need be.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

wello,

I do not see where I answered the question out of context, at least, as I understood it. No, I did not miss the "no", or the "solely", but simply misunderstood the question in the way it was written. I understood the question to ask me when was the last time I was in the field in something other than a houndsman's perspective.

As I hunt several other species without the use of my hounds, I think it is entirely reasonable to say that I do not apply my houndsman's perspective or experience when pursuing those species.

If it is your position that my experience as a houndsman clouds or jades my perspective, please explain how this might be.

Answer this question for me: How does my experience or perspective as a houndsman (for hog, bear, bobcat and coon) affect my experience or perspective as a deer hunter, a pronghorn hunter, etc? In other words, how does my experience as a houndsman alienate my perspective as a deer hunter from the deer hunter with no "houndsman experience?"

Explain how a houndsman could not separate or distinguish between the two perspectives.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

pig guide,

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

You have my complete and total sympathies.[/b]

Thanks, but they aren't needed.

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

To believe that you HAVE the right to TRESPASS to retrieve???
A very tragic and twisted state of mind my friend. I just hope you don't cross the boundaries of the wrong rancher.[/b]

Why don't you try responding to the points of my response, as they pertained to 1)intent, 2)the absence of a weapon, and 3)the absence of case law.

Do you want me to call Fish and Game for you, or will you take the initiative?

 

[RIFLEMAN]

boarhunter67,

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

Since the tangent was brought up about trespassing, let me see if I understand the two positions. According to one "more dedicated and knowledgeable" hunter, if my dog went on someone's property I could follow it. If the dog then went to the ranch house on that property and went into a doggie door, I could follow it. I could enter someone's house, as long as I didn't break in, to retrieve my property. Is that correct? According to the other argument, I would first have to obtain permission in writing. Is that correct?[/b]

No, you do not understand. Neither of us were framing our discussion to include a person's house, because a house is not within the context of hunting.

A dog that is being kept in a person's house is no longer within the purview of the DFG laws, but rather, penal laws.

Once it was determined that the dog was in someone's house, I would have to knock on their door. If they refused to give it back to me, I would have to return with the local law enforcement to recover my stolen property.

 

[boarhunter67]

Rifleman,
I re-read the law that you were going by and re-read your comentary regarding the law and the law talks about trespassing, not hunting. You said that the law says a person could enter someone else's property without a weapon and retrieve property as long as the intent is not to damage (paraphrase). I don't see in the law that was quoted where it mentions hunting. I also see the word "property" not "land". A house is considered property. Therefore if you are correct, I could enter a house to retrieve my dog. If pig guide is right, I would need permission. I know...tangent, tangent.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

boarhunter67,

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

I re-read the law that you were going by and re-read your comentary regarding the law and the law talks about trespassing, not hunting. You said that the law says a person could enter someone else's property without a weapon and retrieve property as long as the intent is not to damage (paraphrase). I don't see in the law that was quoted where it mentions hunting. I also see the word "property" not "land". A house is considered property. Therefore if you are correct, I could enter a house to retrieve my dog. If pig guide is right, I would need permission. I know...tangent, tangent.[/b]

You re-read the DFG Code, correct? That is what I was "going by" in my commentary, and is what is most relevant to the discussion with pig guide. The penal trespassing provisions are not what primarily govern my behavior while I am out in the field, just as the DFG trespassing provisions are not what primarily govern my behavior while I am in the city.

I use the word "property" in its common use to mean land, as in, "Get off of my property."

I did not assert that one could enter the house of another, just the land of another.

 

[boarhunter67]

Does that mean I could throw a frisbee onto a property I am hunting next to and hop the fence to get it so that I could look around? Still sounds kind of suspicious. I'm going to have to side with Pig Guide. He's got the letter of the law on his side and just makes more sense.

 

[jawtightener]

rifle is correct, side with pig guide if you like...

 

[bayedsolid]

These threads would be a much more helpful, interesting, and accurate if we could stick to the topic and quit throwing these rediculous twists on everything. Retrieving your dog on private property turns into crawling through doggie doors of a house. Now we are packing frisbee's to toss over the fence and ask "what if". Don't you think we should at least stick to something that is at least probable. What are the chances of a hunters dog making it to a ranch house, going in the doggie door, staying in the house, and then being followed by the owner? Come on now. Now you are going to toss a frisbee to get 30 feet over the fence for a better look around. Really guys. If the general purpose of this place is to exchange ideas, then let's try to keep somewhat of an open mind and cut the B.S. Half of this thread is just folks trying to be right instead of being accurate.

 

[larrysogla]

Do these tracking, hound, hunting dogs actually chase livestock, ranchpets when it trespasses into neighboring ranches??? If that is so, there is a serious issue here, as a cow or other livestock could break its' leg trying to run away from an aggresive trespassing dog. Even just barking can set livestock on a dead run. Hound hunting may just set off some unstable fellow when he sees his livestock running to get away from the hounds. It can be an adrenaline rush for the houndsman but could be pure hell for the owner that loves his livestock like family.
Getting back on the original topic, I am unfamiliar with hound hunting & therefore would not really know when the boar has been cornered, "claimed", tagged, bayed. If that piggie rushes by me within rifle range, I might just out of sheer ignorance take a potshot at that piggie. Yes, I could hear the hounds, but if I don't see the hounds, I might assume that the piggie rushing by COULD BE a different piggie flushed by all the commotion & not the target piggie being actually chased by the hounds. In any case if I shoot & kill the piggie & the houndsman later walks up & claims the piggie as his hound harvest, I would say, "take it". None to argue about something that 3 years from now looking back is really inconsequential. It is more important to be kind than to be right. Out in the woods, you really do not know who you are dealing with. Better to difffuse the situation right away & move on. Plenty of piggies in this world. God Bless. larrysogla.