Started By
Message
re: Hunting Dogs Serious Bidness--Star City Jury Awards 145K for Death of Dog
Posted on 3/9/14 at 4:14 pm to WonderWartHawg
Posted on 3/9/14 at 4:14 pm to WonderWartHawg
quote:
You do have the right to hunt your land, without someone without FORETHOUGHT, INTENT and MALICE interfering with your hunt.
As long as you are intending to do the act that leads to trespassing (not the actual trespass) you are guilty according to the law. If you parachute out of a plane and the wind carries you onto a posted property you are guilty. I found this out when I was 17 riding in the backseat of a car and the driver turned around on a posted gravel road. Even though we had no intention of doing any harm, and I had no control over where the car went, I had to pay a $500 fine.
quote:
Reasonable folks understand though that sometimes ' shite happens'. If I understand correctly, this is just one of those things that happened.
If you read my entire post I don't see how you could conclude that I was anything other than reasonable. For the 3rd time the guy was wrong to shoot the dog.
The problem with people today is that they have the oh well, "shite happens" attitude. How about being courteous of your neighbors. I've hunted for over 30 years (we ran dogs up until Arkansas started APRs on deer) and not one single time did our dogs ever go onto someone else's property without prior permission.
The White River Refuge is 160,000+ acres. There is plenty of land to hunt far enough away from the property lines to eliminate the risk of trespassing.
2
Posted on 3/9/14 at 4:15 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Sure seemed like it was your point, from the bolded. Care to clarify?
Me:
quote:
No one can know in what way the property owner felt threatened by the presence of the dogs.
It's pretty obvious that the guy was just an a-hole and did not feel threatened. I never said he felt threatened. But we can't KNOW that he wasn't.
What I'm saying is we shouldn't be able to make legal judgement based on how things appear. It's subjective.
I'm saying that the law should be based on the only thing not subjective in this scenario, property rights.
quote:
I don't see how you can defend that.
I haven't defended his actions at all. As a dog lover, the guy is sub-human in my mind, and I admit I am, from a personal stand point, happy that he is being punished. But my personal feelings are irrelevant.
This post was edited on 3/9/14 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 3/9/14 at 4:19 pm to WaveHog
quote:
yep. i have no idea why any reasonable person would defend the shooter.
I don't think anyone is defending the guy for shooting the dog. My point is that the dog owners share in the responsibility. Had they not been guilty of committing a crime themselves, this would have never happened.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 4:24 pm to Raz4back
no, what you typed definitely sounds like defending the shooter.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 4:28 pm to WaveHog
quote:
no, what you typed definitely sounds like defending the shooter.
Typing on 3 separate occasions that the guy shouldn't have shot the dog is defending the shooter
quote:
The guy was wrong to shoot the dog,
quote:
I agree that what the guy did was wrong. I would have handled it completely differently.
quote:
For the 3rd time the guy was wrong to shoot the dog.
My whole point from the first time I posted was that dog owners have a responsibility to keep their dogs off of other people's property. It's a cop out and a deflection of personal responsibility to say that dogs can't read posted signs
This post was edited on 3/9/14 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 3/9/14 at 5:43 pm to Raz4back
quote:
If you read my entire post I don't see how you could conclude that I was anything other than reasonable. For the 3rd time the guy was wrong to shoot the dog.
It was the shooter that I was referring to as being 'unreasonable', not so much you.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 6:12 pm to WonderWartHawg
quote:
It was the shooter that I was referring to as being 'unreasonable', not so much you.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 8:55 pm to Porky
The guy obviously wanted to kill the dog. He said he would shoot the dog and anyone who attempted to retrieve them, yet he didn't offer to retrieve the dogs for the men. He wanted the dogs there so he could kill them. Had it been 150 years ago, his is the same type of sub-worm POS that would have shot a runaway slave crossing his property and enjoyed doing it, only because he had the right, caring of nothing more than satisfying his sadistic urge to hurt and kill.
He deserves any shite that comes his way IMO.
He deserves any shite that comes his way IMO.
This post was edited on 3/9/14 at 9:24 pm
Posted on 3/9/14 at 9:48 pm to The Sultan of Swine
quote:Yeah, we can know. The owner had the dog leashed. The shooter told him not to retrieve the dog or he'd shoot. That makes it pretty clear that the shooter's intention was not to defend himself.
It's pretty obvious that the guy was just an a-hole and did not feel threatened. I never said he felt threatened. But we can't KNOW that he wasn't.
What I'm saying is we shouldn't be able to make legal judgement based on how things appear. It's subjective.
I'm saying that the law should be based on the only thing not subjective in this scenario, property rights.
And as for not being able to make a legal judgment--I think that's already water under the bridge.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 10:20 pm to Hog on the Hill
I'm an advocate for gun rights and the second amendment but anyone who commits a senseless, cruel, and irresponsible act such as this doesn't deserve the right to own a firearm any more than a criminal who commits such acts. He's a loose cannon with a short fuse. Just my honest opinion.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 10:18 am to Raz4back
I'd like to see dog hunting outlawed in Arkansas.
The pathetic deliberately fricking starved hounds I see while hunting are reason enough.
I hate people who can't or won't control their animals. You know it wasn't the first time the guy who killed it had other people's dogs on his property.
I support the property owner more than I do people who raise and "develop" hunting dogs. That's its own type of cruelty from what I've seen.
The pathetic deliberately fricking starved hounds I see while hunting are reason enough.
I hate people who can't or won't control their animals. You know it wasn't the first time the guy who killed it had other people's dogs on his property.
I support the property owner more than I do people who raise and "develop" hunting dogs. That's its own type of cruelty from what I've seen.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 10:47 am to wmr
quote:
I'd like to see dog hunting outlawed in Arkansas.
That topic of discussion would be good for about a 100 page thread on some of the outdoor forums I've been on in the past--at least as it pertains to deer hunting with dogs.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 11:27 am to Litigator
Oh I know, its tradition, etc.
Its un-needed, and if we're concerned about the welfare of animals, dogs chasing a deer or other animal until its exhausted isn't exactly humane.
Dog-chased venison is going to taste shitty, too, because its had adrenaline pumping through its veins for hours.
Its un-needed, and if we're concerned about the welfare of animals, dogs chasing a deer or other animal until its exhausted isn't exactly humane.
Dog-chased venison is going to taste shitty, too, because its had adrenaline pumping through its veins for hours.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:14 pm to wmr
O
It already is illegal to hunt deer with dogs in many areas of Arkansas. I wouldn't have a problem with it being outlawed completely along with baiting, like the property owner was doing. Sociopath, POS people like the property owner should be banned from owning firearms. They are insane, dangerous, and probably should be locked up.
quote:
h I know, its tradition, etc.
Its un-needed, and if we're concerned about the welfare of animals, dogs chasing a deer or other animal until its exhausted isn't exactly humane.
Dog-chased venison is going to taste shitty, too, because its had adrenaline pumping through its veins for hours.
It already is illegal to hunt deer with dogs in many areas of Arkansas. I wouldn't have a problem with it being outlawed completely along with baiting, like the property owner was doing. Sociopath, POS people like the property owner should be banned from owning firearms. They are insane, dangerous, and probably should be locked up.
This post was edited on 3/10/14 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:19 pm to wmr
quote:
Oh I know, its tradition
Our camp used to do it and I didn't like it then. I guess I'd rather "earn" killing a deer by woodsman ship rather than kill one that's being chased by dogs.
That's why 90% of the deer I've killed over the past 10 years have been with a bow.
What I really don't get are how guys that run deer with dogs aren't killing illegal deer. Arkansas has had APRs for years and there is no way to be sure a deer has 3 1" points on one side while it's being chased through a south Arkansas pine thicket by dogs.
quote:
baiting
I don't have a problem with baiting. It's not my cup of tea (I do bait for my trail cameras though) but it's really not any different than hunting a small food plot or over a hot oak tree. On the flip side, baiting has become so prevalent that it is hurting hunting. Deer don't have to move near as much to find food and they have become very nocturnal.
This post was edited on 3/10/14 at 12:27 pm
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:29 pm to Raz4back
I've never liked it either but I absolutely despise people like the person that killed that dog. I don't like running wildlife with dogs period. Bird hunting is different.
However, I wouldn't have a problem with dogs running down the sorry bastard that killed that Coonhound.
However, I wouldn't have a problem with dogs running down the sorry bastard that killed that Coonhound.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:57 pm to Porky
I would have probably told the guys to get their dog and don't come back onto my property. If I had been having trouble I would have had them arrested for trespassing. The only way I would kill a dog is if it was attacking a person or another domesticated animal (or if it was pack of feral dogs)
This post was edited on 3/10/14 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 3/10/14 at 1:14 pm to Raz4back
I thought the odd thing about it was shooting towards a dog that was being led on a leash by the owner.
There should have been some type of charge for shooting towards the person, not so much worried about the dog. That is gross negligence at a minimum.
At night, drawing a weapon on a group of hunters claiming he was going to shoot the dog and possibly the hunters if they tried to stop him, the land owner seems to me to have been very fortunate to have survived that night. Those hunters showed a lot of restraint.
I usually hunt with my brothers (never with dogs). Someone points a gun towards one of them for any reason is going to learn the hard way to never to do it again.
There should have been some type of charge for shooting towards the person, not so much worried about the dog. That is gross negligence at a minimum.
At night, drawing a weapon on a group of hunters claiming he was going to shoot the dog and possibly the hunters if they tried to stop him, the land owner seems to me to have been very fortunate to have survived that night. Those hunters showed a lot of restraint.
I usually hunt with my brothers (never with dogs). Someone points a gun towards one of them for any reason is going to learn the hard way to never to do it again.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 1:18 pm to Raz4back
this topic in the neck of the woods I was raised in is more touchy than politics and religion combined.
I've been on both sides of the coin,,, my blood has boiled on each side,,, cept, I would have handled it a bit differently, I would hope..
also, when we hear or read a story, even though both sides are supposedly represented,,, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
I've been on both sides of the coin,,, my blood has boiled on each side,,, cept, I would have handled it a bit differently, I would hope..
also, when we hear or read a story, even though both sides are supposedly represented,,, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 1:33 pm to Raz4back
I have fond memories of deer hunting with dogs growing up and killed my first deer in front of dogs. Nothing quite matches the excitement of hearing a hot race and trying to pinpoint the right stand where you think the deer will run. We never had that many deer dogs and primarily hunted with others who did. It was a big deal to hunt with dogs at deer camp which was a nice adventure in and of itself.
Over time and part of the reason is because we began hunting almost exclusively on our own land we turned to still hunting and only encountered dogs when they ran deer across our land. It really hasn't created a problem for us partly because they don't run across our land that much and when they do we don't mind it--it's a change of pace and on several occassions they've flushed out deer other than the ones they were running and I'm sure we may have never seen those but for a race coming through. We've managed to take some coyotes, too--you never know for sure what's being pursued. It seems as though fewer people are running dogs and at least according to some who used to run them they stopped because of the cost.
The times we've killed deer in front of dogs we've usually been able to find the owner and are happy to share the deer with them and the times where someone needed to retrieve a dog off our land we've always worked with them (a number of these people use dog tracking collars on their dogs). So in the grand scheme of things the deer dogs haven't caused any problems for us but we're still hunters now and have been for many years.
We don't have hunting dogs now but used to have them and used them a lot to hunt squirrels, quail, and fur-bearers. We had a line of German Shepherds that were great dogs for hunting squirrels and fur-bearers.
tl; dr: I'm cool with deer dogs but I'm a still hunter.
Over time and part of the reason is because we began hunting almost exclusively on our own land we turned to still hunting and only encountered dogs when they ran deer across our land. It really hasn't created a problem for us partly because they don't run across our land that much and when they do we don't mind it--it's a change of pace and on several occassions they've flushed out deer other than the ones they were running and I'm sure we may have never seen those but for a race coming through. We've managed to take some coyotes, too--you never know for sure what's being pursued. It seems as though fewer people are running dogs and at least according to some who used to run them they stopped because of the cost.
The times we've killed deer in front of dogs we've usually been able to find the owner and are happy to share the deer with them and the times where someone needed to retrieve a dog off our land we've always worked with them (a number of these people use dog tracking collars on their dogs). So in the grand scheme of things the deer dogs haven't caused any problems for us but we're still hunters now and have been for many years.
We don't have hunting dogs now but used to have them and used them a lot to hunt squirrels, quail, and fur-bearers. We had a line of German Shepherds that were great dogs for hunting squirrels and fur-bearers.
tl; dr: I'm cool with deer dogs but I'm a still hunter.
Page 2 of 4
Latest Arkansas News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News