|
RE: Cowardly Killer not Hunter - by Billy Nelms
ORIGINAL: uncle matt Yep them stray dogs, or dogs running loose out of their owners control will just let you take a look at thedog tags with theirowners name and address on thempert near every time. Just holler out, "Sit!",and the mutts will be there waiting on you to check the info. Then, when you get all the so readily available info, just never mind that deer you were hoping to get. Take the little rascal back over to wherever he is from (remember the address is on the tag) and put him back where he's supposed to be because that is your job and responsibility - not the owners. Here we go once again with a serious problem in todays society. People putting their responsibilities off on others. Bottom line. Wasthe dog was on the actual owners property andshot by a trespasser? OR was iton someone else's property? Because this issue has beenrun thru the mill countless times here and now its time to try it again with the insertation of the"poor little Timmy" element. It just isn't reasonable or feasible to track down the owners of even a small percentage of these dogs we're talking about. Let's look at the last mutt that ran thru when we were out. It looked like some sort of black lab mixed with something. First heard some bustin in the brush by a creekline and caught a flag running off follwed closely by the mutt. Couldn't tell if it had a collar. Could you please tell me exactly where I can find the owners? Cause I ain't spending my time after dark driving farm to farm asking everyone in the next few miles. And if I were going to waste so much time and effort should I buy and bring them a chain to keep the dogs on? And a couple hundred pounds of food? After all - their dog is my responsibilty right? Can I drive my truck out into your crops and get it stuck? And then make it your responsibility to pull my truck out? And the damage my property caused to your crops? Well thats on you - not me. );self.focus();) !! |
RE: Cowardly Killer not Hunter - by Billy Nelms
ORIGINAL: Hokieman I guess not posting your property with landowners name and number helps hunting dog owners find you and contact you to ask permission to retrieve our dog. By the time someone drives down the road and walks up to your house not knowing if your home or out and about at the sametime the dog could have fallen into an uncovered well or eaten poision put out by the owner illegaly to kill coyote or set out traps or anything that may endanger a hunting dog. It may take hours to find the owner when infact the welfare of the dog is of utmost importance. It goes both ways. The State of Virginia gives hunting dog owners a right to retrieve hunting dogs not for disrect of the landowner but for respect of their property and the welfare of the dog. To get back to the article at the beginning of this thread. I wouldn't shoot a hound or approve of anyone else doing it. The fact isif thehound hadn't got off their lease(going off your statement, Mr Nelms didn't mention that in the article),it wouldn't have been shot. Same withhounds dropped or run near busy roads and getstruck by cars, whose fault is that? What if the hound causes a accident?Should the hounds owner be liable or maybe the landowner, ifthey gave permissionfor the hounds to be run. You never answered my question from the start of this thread. Would the VHDA push for stiffer penalties and laws against anyone shooting a dog. |
RE: Cowardly Killer not Hunter - by Billy Nelms
How about some steep penalties for owners whose dogs are running (obviously out of the owners control) on other peoples land? Say there should be a law that you have to hand$1000 bucks, to the land owner for every dog who runs someone elses land? 2 dogs = $2000,3 dogs = $3000.And $500 to every hunter who can snap a photo of a dog on the land they are hunting, public or private.
Why should some irresponsible dog owner have some "right" to claim it is only some minor mistake that very well could ruin a great hunt, a rare opportunity to hunt or a chance at a deer of a lifetime? Let the hunters hunt. If someone chooses to corral deer or drive deer it should have an impact on those who are actually hunting. Yeah that seems fair enough.Why should this be all about protecting the dog from an irresponsible owner? Some stiff monetary fines ought to instill some responsibility in the dog owners and protect innocent hunters from having their hunts screwed up by others irresponsible acts. Basically consider it an extension to alot of existing Hunter Interference Acts/Laws. |
RE: Cowardly Killer not Hunter - by Billy Nelms
ORIGINAL: rick64 ORIGINAL: Hokieman I guess not posting your property with landowners name and number helps hunting dog owners find you and contact you to ask permission to retrieve our dog. By the time someone drives down the road and walks up to your house not knowing if your home or out and about at the sametime the dog could have fallen into an uncovered well or eaten poision put out by the owner illegaly to kill coyote or set out traps or anything that may endanger a hunting dog. It may take hours to find the owner when infact the welfare of the dog is of utmost importance. It goes both ways. The State of Virginia gives hunting dog owners a right to retrieve hunting dogs not for disrect of the landowner but for respect of their property and the welfare of the dog. To get back to the article at the beginning of this thread. I wouldn't shoot a hound or approve of anyone else doing it. The fact is if the hound hadn't got off their lease(going off your statement, Mr Nelms didn't mention that in the article), it wouldn't have been shot. Same with hounds dropped or run near busy roads and get struck by cars, whose fault is that? What if the hound causes a accident? Should the hounds owner be liable or maybe the landowner, if they gave permission for the hounds to be run. You never answered my question from the start of this thread. Would the VHDA push for stiffer penalties and laws against anyone shooting a dog. Elimination of the RTR and a minimum acreage to run hounds for deer is needed Do you honestly think eliminating the RTR will stop the law breakers. I don't. I feel that hound hunters need to no tolerate the law breakers and turn them in and weed out the few bad apples. And to your other question. Not at the present time, However every incident is being recorded and will continue to be until such time that action might be taken. |
RE: Cowardly Killer not Hunter - by Billy Nelms
ORIGINAL: uncle matt How about some steep penalties for owners whose dogs are running (obviously out of the owners control) on other peoples land? Say there should be a law that you have to hand $1000 bucks, to the land owner for every dog who runs someone elses land? 2 dogs = $2000, 3 dogs = $3000. And $500 to every hunter who can snap a photo of a dog on the land they are hunting, public or private. Why should some irresponsible dog owner have some "right" to claim it is only some minor mistake that very well could ruin a great hunt, a rare opportunity to hunt or a chance at a deer of a lifetime? Let the hunters hunt. If someone chooses to corral deer or drive deer it should have an impact on those who are actually hunting. Yeah that seems fair enough. Why should this be all about protecting the dog from an irresponsible owner? Some stiff monetary fines ought to instill some responsibility in the dog owners and protect innocent hunters from having their hunts screwed up by others irresponsible acts. Basically consider it an extension to alot of existing Hunter Interference Acts/Laws. |
RE: Cowardly Killer not Hunter - by Billy Nelms
ORIGINAL: Hokieman ORIGINAL: uncle matt How about some steep penalties for owners whose dogs are running (obviously out of the owners control) on other peoples land? Say there should be a law that you have to hand$1000 bucks, to the land owner for every dog who runs someone elses land? 2 dogs = $2000,3 dogs = $3000.And $500 to every hunter who can snap a photo of a dog on the land they are hunting, public or private. Why should some irresponsible dog owner have some "right" to claim it is only some minor mistake that very well could ruin a great hunt, a rare opportunity to hunt or a chance at a deer of a lifetime? Let the hunters hunt. If someone chooses to corral deer or drive deer it should have an impact on those who are actually hunting. Yeah that seems fair enough.Why should this be all about protecting the dog from an irresponsible owner? Some stiff monetary fines ought to instill some responsibility in the dog owners and protect innocent hunters from having their hunts screwed up by others irresponsible acts. Basically consider it an extension to alot of existing Hunter Interference Acts/Laws. The difference between legal and illegal actions. Someone setting a stand , even 100 yards from yours, is not illegal if it is on property they have a right or permission to be on. (Unlike a dog running loose on property they have no business on). Oh yeah, maybe I should mention that whether it messes up a hunt in any way shape or form has nothing (atleast in my mind) to do with the animal having to be a buck. |
RE: Cowardly Killer not Hunter - by Billy Nelms
The difference between legal and illegal actions even if the dog was on posted property and the owners in the wrong this isvirginia,and shooting a dog that has not attacked a person or livestock is a felony. |
RE: Cowardly Killer not Hunter - by Billy Nelms
ORIGINAL: uncle matt ORIGINAL: Hokieman ORIGINAL: uncle matt How about some steep penalties for owners whose dogs are running (obviously out of the owners control) on other peoples land? Say there should be a law that you have to hand $1000 bucks, to the land owner for every dog who runs someone elses land? 2 dogs = $2000, 3 dogs = $3000. And $500 to every hunter who can snap a photo of a dog on the land they are hunting, public or private. Why should some irresponsible dog owner have some "right" to claim it is only some minor mistake that very well could ruin a great hunt, a rare opportunity to hunt or a chance at a deer of a lifetime? Let the hunters hunt. If someone chooses to corral deer or drive deer it should have an impact on those who are actually hunting. Yeah that seems fair enough. Why should this be all about protecting the dog from an irresponsible owner? Some stiff monetary fines ought to instill some responsibility in the dog owners and protect innocent hunters from having their hunts screwed up by others irresponsible acts. Basically consider it an extension to alot of existing Hunter Interference Acts/Laws. The difference between legal and illegal actions. Someone setting a stand , even 100 yards from yours, is not illegal if it is on property they have a right or permission to be on. (Unlike a dog running loose on property they have no business on). Oh yeah, maybe I should mention that whether it messes up a hunt in any way shape or form has nothing (atleast in my mind) to do with the animal having to be a buck. |
RE: Cowardly Killer not Hunter - by Billy Nelms
ORIGINAL: Hokieman ORIGINAL: uncle matt ORIGINAL: Hokieman ORIGINAL: uncle matt How about some steep penalties for owners whose dogs are running (obviously out of the owners control) on other peoples land? Say there should be a law that you have to hand$1000 bucks, to the land owner for every dog who runs someone elses land? 2 dogs = $2000,3 dogs = $3000.And $500 to every hunter who can snap a photo of a dog on the land they are hunting, public or private. Why should some irresponsible dog owner have some "right" to claim it is only some minor mistake that very well could ruin a great hunt, a rare opportunity to hunt or a chance at a deer of a lifetime? Let the hunters hunt. If someone chooses to corral deer or drive deer it should have an impact on those who are actually hunting. Yeah that seems fair enough.Why should this be all about protecting the dog from an irresponsible owner? Some stiff monetary fines ought to instill some responsibility in the dog owners and protect innocent hunters from having their hunts screwed up by others irresponsible acts. Basically consider it an extension to alot of existing Hunter Interference Acts/Laws. The difference between legal and illegal actions. Someone setting a stand , even 100 yards from yours, is not illegal if it is on property they have a right or permission to be on. (Unlike a dog running loose on property they have no business on). Oh yeah, maybe I should mention that whether it messes up a hunt in any way shape or form has nothing (atleast in my mind) to do with the animal having to be a buck. It is legal for a dog to be shot by it's owner, I doubt the VHDA will want this to change. |
RE: Cowardly Killer not Hunter - by Billy Nelms
My mother's parents live in an area where dog hunting is really prevalent. I try to keep an open mind, but it is hard for me to understand how this is not a nuisance. My dog has run over 30 miles behind my mountain bike, so it is hard for me to think how can anyone who doesn't own several thousand acres expect to keep their dog off other people's land.
I am not saying that shooting someone else's dog is optimal. But if it is your land and it is a persistent problem, it is understandable. People are really strange about dogs. I love dogs, don't get me wrong. But I live in an area where lots are .25 acres or less, and two of my neighbors have very loud dogs that stay outside all the time. I am paying close to $2,000 per month in rent, and there are days when I can't read a book or watch TV in my own home because of my neighbors dogs. The bottom line is that you don't have a right to keep an animal in such a way that it is a nuisance to others and an infringement upon their enjoyment of their property. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:33 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.