Beagles Killed!

I think it was wrong that the guy mentioned above shot the beagles. The post made me think about the guy I know that has had the problems with the other guys longhorns eating up his alfalfa and wrecking his fences. The local sherrif wont do a damn thing about it either. If a dog is running livestock it should be shot, or dealt with however the rancher chooses to. The guy that shot the beagles that were rabbit hunting over reacted or thought that the owners of the dogs were not around and thought he could get away with it. That was wrong but, if someone has an animal that is not being controled or supervised and it is causing damage to another guys property the owner of the property should be able to deal with the out of control animal any way he see's fit.
 
Luckily my dogs are hog dogs and are short to medium range dogs, hogs rarely run very far before they stop and fight the dogs. Most of the time the bay is only about a 1000 yards from the truck, on the rare occasions that the dogs do run off on someones property I sit either on my property or at the road of the last place I seen them and call them until they come back, maybe a few hours sometimes but it's better than getting my a$$ in a sling. I enjoy hunting a little to much to have my hunting rights taken away over something as stupid as poaching. The landowners around where I hunt know and have no problem with my dogs occasionally running onto there property, but I don't hunt on there property so I stay out unless I have to. Now if I can hear a big fight going on you can bet your a$$ I'll cross the fence because I don't like doctoring dogs and plus I hunt with a knife so there is never the possibility of shooting someones livestock. This thread could go on and on forever so all I'm going to say is that there are bad hunters and there are responsible hunters that try and preserve a dying sport I'm the later of the two just as I imagine the rest of the houndsman on this board are. The same can be said about hunters of any species of animal so why give us adrenaline junkies a hard time! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Ronald, I argree with you now. If a dog is destroying property, threating people or something of that sort, yes I do agree you should do something about that. And like many of us houndman have said, if you don't do it, we will! But just shooting or shooting at a dog thats just on your property, out in a open pasture, with no livestock, then you shouldn't even think of shooting it. Thanks, MOyotehunter
 
GC, I didn't grow up in a trailer park. Everyone in my family has always been a property owner, myself included. In fact, I'm looking to buy 4 sections here in CO.

I wouldn't tolerate anyone coming specifically to my property, going in, and starting to hunt without my permission, either. But if he's already in pursuit of game, and simply crosses my land during the chase, I'm not offended. I don't feel violated or betrayed. And I damn sure don't want him knocking on my door at 1 AM to tell me he thinks his hounds may chase an animal onto "some" portion of my property. Good Gawd, how anal!
 
Good Gawd, how anal!
Click to expand...
NASA,
Ease up hoss. I meant no offense and didn't disparage your family heritage. The problem with the internet is that it's sometimes difficult to construe the meaning of a persons written reply. I know this is a hot topic, however, that doesn't mean that it can't be debated with civility. The emphasis on "your land" may have been taken out of context by me. If so, sorry about that. If not, then I contend that's a poor attitude regarding others property. In my case, with the coon hunters, I didn't expect, nor actually want them to knock on the door at 11 PM. However, if they had stopped by within a few days, they would now have permission to hunt my property. As is, if I catch them here again odds are very good they'll be asked to leave and not return or be prosecuted for tresspass. I will explain the reason for this and tell them that if they'd like to hunt here to stop by early next year and we'll talk hounds, hunting, and where my problems are with nuisance coons. I hope they'll be more considerate of the next landowner and we'll both benefit from the experience.
 
I don't care that the dog cannot read the NO TRESPASSING signs, the owner can and what part of NO TRESPASSING do you not understand. If dogs are caught they are going either to the game warden or the pound on the second time they are caught.

If you do not have enought respect for the landowner or the leaseowner you should get what you deserve. I don't believe in killing the dog and I hate to see a dog get hurt over someone that doesn't give a rats a## for other peoples property. So you hit them where it hurts, in their wallet. I believe one warning is enough.

If you are not responsable enough to contain your dogs to an area, either by shock collars or people you should not be using them. If all you want to do is here them run, that is why there are fenced areas where people can run foxes and coyotes.

Enough said on my part I will not return to this topic. You can disagree all you want, but to me it is a respect issue. And what I have observed in todays time, there seems to be a lack of it on alot of people's part.
 
Hey Song_dawg,
Whether you see my post of not I shall tell you to ask Vargy what happens when people load up his hounds and take them to an animal shelter! I'll tell the story, because he has told it many a time. (by the way vargy lives in IA, and the laws are the same up there about dog hunting as they are here in MO)
Vargy was out running one day and using his tracker to find his collared hounds. He was tracking them right at the road so he walked in about 25 yards, and they were pointing back at the road. Right when he crossed the fence again he found 3 of the tracking collars laying in the ditch unbuckled. So he called the Sheriff right then, and the other guy that he was hunting with and Vargy got together and only saw one vehicle around, it was a Jeep, and two women were in there. So the Sherrif went to their house, and asked where they came from and the said they had been up north visiting friends. But Vargy talked to a farmer and saw them coming from the south. SO the Sheriff went back and talked to them again. They then confessed and said they thought they had been abandon, and they looked hungry so they took them to an animal shelter... Although this shelter was even in a different county! Vargy then found the 4th Tracking collar in a ditch behind their house. The sheriff made them pay the animal shelter for the amount they charged for food, and for filing a false accusation. The Sheriff asked if he wanted to press charges against the two women but he declined because Vargy knew what kind of life they had been living. So I know here in MO, if you called the Sheriff and had the hound hauled away, you are gonna be the one paying... And you better at least have the scence to come find me and tell me you took it away, or you'd be in deep **** with me!!
----- Song dawg by the way I can tell you've never used hounds because if you had you'd understand that once a hound is on a track its hard to get him to stop unless you have a shock collar. And if you shock him because he's going onto someone's property that he shouldn't ben on, then you've just ruined your dog, thats a FACT! THAT DOG DOES NOT KNOW THE REASON THAT FENCE IS THERE IS BECAUSE ITS A NEW OWNER!!! THERE'S ANOTHER FACT! If you pay 1000 dollars for a hound, and you shock him for doing what he's supposed to do, you might as well have donated your money to PETA!!!
.... Why is that so hard to understand?
___ Am I saying you should turn your hounds loose anywhere you want? NO, we had places around here that people don't want us on, and we repect that... BUT, you can't ALWAYS, keep the hounds off there, and if you've even been hound hunting you'd understand! But as I can tell, most of you haven't.
See ya later, MOyotehunter
 
BTW, I dont feel inferior to you or anyone else in here NASA. My only point is that if someones animal is destroying something that belongs to someone else the person that owns the property should be able to deal with the animal if the owner of the animal will not. What would you do if someones cows were destroying your fences and crop and the guy that owned the cows would do nothing to stop it?
 
Ronald, I really didn't mean to imply that you did. But you certainly cleared things up with "if someones animal is destroying something that belongs to someone else the person that owns the property should be able to deal with the animal". At least have some legal recourse. That statement puts us both on the same page. Peace. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
In Missouri,
It is legal to follow your hounds on foot. However I believe it is considered poaching if you are using radios and tracking the dogs from a motorized vehicle. Especially if you shoot from the road as I have seen too much here.

I can understand a landowner getting irate about tresspassors, and poachers. When someone uses their land without their permission. I could also see someone jumping into someone elses truck (or other property) and using it without permission getting the owner a bit angry too.

And no, I am not saying all hound hunters are poachers, tresspassors, or thieves.
 
LOL junki, no offence but I think you are wrong about both things you said. About following your hounds on foot, you can but you can't go onto someone's property you don't have permission. Maybe thats not what you meant though???...... But I know you are wrong about the radios. You can use a two-way radio at anytime and hunting any kind of game here in Missouri! Including deer. Same goes for using your tracking equipment from your vehicle. But you are right about it being illegal by shooting from the road and vehicle. Just some insite, MOyotehunter
 
MOyotehunter_w_hounds,
Maybe I should have worded it a little different. I never intended to be interpreted that a person has the right to tresspass because he/she is on foot. You can follow your dogs on foot as long as you don't tresspass.

But pursueing game in a motorized vehicle while the hunt is on is illegal. Following your dogs while they are chasing game, in a motorized vehicle is considered pursueing. Most people I have seen doing this were using radios or perhaps Nextels. I didn't mean to imply that radios were illegal.

Locating your dogs to pick them up is legal in a motorized vehicle. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
FIRST OFF I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS TOPIC STARTED OUT BEING ABOUT BEAGLES THAT WERE SHOT BECAUSE "THE BEAGLES" GOT ONTO SOMEONE'S LAND WITHOUT THE OWNER'S PERMISSION!!!! I started this topic so people that weren't familiar with Missouri law would know more now! But now we are off onto a compleatly different subjuct.
But I would respond to that last reply and ask a simple question... If we aren't allowed to follow our hounds with vehicles then how are we supposed to prevent them from getting onto unwanted property? I guess this is your answer to why you can't shoot a dog for just being on your property! Because the onwer of the dog can't walk 2 miles across a section to get there to stop them. Does that make sense? Probably not anyway.... Good day, MOyotehunter
 
let me explain alittle on how i hunt. i always cast my hounds in a section that i have permission to run. when ever i see my hounds heading to unwanted land i make every attemp to turn the game or stop my hounds. that dont aways happen. when i see some out in thier yard i always stop and talk to them so they atleast know what im doing. i always make every attemp to talk to the land owners before i walk in to catch my hounds. if i cant i them walk in with no gun. i dont even carry a gun in my truck very ofton .i have spent many aday just driving and nocking on doors to get permission. i dont drive on land unless i have permission. and then i only drive on the land when the ground is frozen.
i know there are some hound hunters that really make a bad sence for the rest of us.i love my sport and work very hard in keeping a good pack of hounds. i just pray that some idit will not shoot my hounds just because i missed them and didnt get them shut down. if they catch my hounds both my numbers are on my collars. cell and home phone is both on them. all they have to do is call me. mt name is also on them so they know who i am.

Vargy
 
I believe the guy who shot the Beagles was wrong, and I am glad he was punished.

You started this topic so people that weren't familiar with Missouri law would know more now! I expanded on Missouri law, so hopefully someone else wouldn't suffer from getting their dog or dogs shot. Sorry if that upset you.

I know that many people sometimes break the law with out knowing it, sometimes they don't care. If I can help a hunter to stay legal I will.
 
It seems the heated debate over hunting with hounds has reared its not so pretty head once again. With talk of shooting trespassing hounds and hard feelings on both sides.
While I am not too fond of these discussions anymore, if we can stay civil then we can all learn something from each other hopefully.
Yes there are slob hound hunters out there who have little respect for peoples property. Believe me when I say these are a small minority, most houndsmen care too much for thier dogs and hunting privilages. But yes the few who do, give us all a bad name.
It's much easier to notice baying hounds on private property than the guy who slips onto private property and takes game unlawfully without dogs, and we all know that happens quite frequently.
Sometimes it just cant be helped and dogs cross or tree/bay on some ones property. Some think it's right to kill someones dogs for this. Even if the law in your state says you can. Well if you're in the right of the law and can pull the trigger in good moral conscience than knock your socks off. Just dont be chicken$hit about it, let the owner of them dogs know what you did and why. Or if you're so disturbed by this then call the law and file the charges your state allows. Someone said something like hound hunting should be sacrificed for the good of all hunting. Well buddy, you can count me out. You get rid of all your guns first and I still wont think about getting rid of my hounds. Maybe when it goes to the polls some of you will vote against hound hunting, thats your right. But lets say your an avid trapper and hound hunting just got banned, now trapping is next on the chopping block. You will be looking for support, right?
Aint gonna help when the antis are showing pics of a kid crying and her toy poodle jammed in a 330 conibear that was set on private property by a slob trapper, is it?
Here in NY bear hunting with hounds was lost in 1990 to the antis, or should I say anti-houndsmen.
Well in 1995 we were given back a "training" season, due mainly to a rising bear population and more frequent man-bear conflicts.
The past season was a record in bear harvest here(without hounds), many bears are pests now and do quite a bit of property damage. Houndsmen are an important tool in bear management for the authorities here. They help homeowners and farmers avoid expensive losses from marauding bears. Not far from me a bear even recently killed an infant it snatched from a stoller, and a rabid bobcat entered a school yard and attacked some kids a few years ago.

I dont know what goes on in the rest of the country, but it is my experience that most farmers welome houndsmen, whether coon, rabbit, fox, coyote etc. can't say the same for city folk who move up here.
 
NiteFright is making the point I was trying to make earlier, about this issue being very complex. Earlier I posted that I felt Mo and his buddies were the exception to the rule when it came to houndsman behavior. I appologize, in that my wording should have included IN MY AREA. I had no right to speak for all regions.
I would like to tell you where I'm coming from, and touch on a couple of the issues NiteFright brought up. First off, I run a gunshop in a rural area. My customers are mostly farmers, and loggers, and plain old country folk. There are A LOT of houndsman in the area. Dogs are pretty popular with a number of my regular customers. There are also a heck of a lot of tourists, weekenders, and retireies,in my area with more moving in every day, breaking up the land more and more. Many of these also shop my store. In other words I hear from quite a few parties, and the issue of hounds is always a hot button topic.
If you look at the break up of property in my area you would see that through much of the central and northern lower peninsula of Michigan it would be very difficult to go even 3-4 miles in one direction WITHOUT crossing property for which you CANNOT get permission to hunt. There are just too many people these days who WILL NOT, for what ever reason, grant permission to trespass. These are not just newbies moving to the area, there are many life long locals that don't grant permission anymore. So in other words, virtually all of the houndsmen in my area
are setting themselves up as potential trespassers every time they loose a hound on a coyote or bear. Do I consider these guys slob hunters - HELL NO! Most of them are good honest sportsmen trying to hang onto a dwindling sport and heritage. But it doesn't change the fact that other people feel offended when these folks run across their property without permission. It's a difficult situation, and one I'm sure is common to much of the eastern US.
I would never suggest that houndsmen or any one else give up their sport for the good of all. I for one want to see all of our hunting traditions kept alive. But NiteFrite brought up the point about sportmen NOT supporting each other. I'm afraid this is all to true, and another big part of the problem. We now have to fight each other, as well as the non-hunting public, and the antis. The trappers /houndsmen issue that was mentioned is great example of this. Here in Michigan houndsmen faced the loss of bearhunting a few years ago. Sportsman of all kinds rallied behind them to prevent this especially most the more prominant trappers groups. Now, the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation and a number of other houndsman groups are trying to further restrict and regulate the sport of trapping. And I can tell you there are a number of customers in my shop that are HOT over this issue. These groups may not represent ALL houndsmens opinion on the issue of trapping. But, they do act as the political voice of Michigans houndsmen... There are guys that come in my shop who will NEVER support the houndsmen again, they feel betrayed and it doesn't seem likely that they will be getting over it any time soon. I think that you understand this thinking NiteFright, if I read you post correctly you imply that if you lost your hound hunting privliges, you would in turn not support someone elses trapping privliges? To each their own. But it is not just a conflict between trappers and houndsmen. Here during bear season both baiting and running dogs occure at the same time. There are jerks that look long and hard for bait stations to start their dogs off. Michigan bear tags don'r grow on trees, and a guy who puts the time into a bait station and has a good bear working the bait, probably ain't gonna be happy when a group of guys and their dogs come in and run off the pile. I know these guys are the exception, but it happens, and when it does there is another potential anti houndsman.
There are no simple answers to the whole topic of free casting hounds. But I know that we cannot turn against each other and hope to keep any of our sports alive. I think that houndsman that belong to orginizations should try and encourage the leadership of those groups to push for better education amongst land owners in their area. Try to encourage better access for hounds and houndsmen. And perhaps encourage them to spend less time trying to restrict other facets of the outdoor sports. Trapping groups need to quite worrying about houndsmen trying to ban their sport. I don't believe that most are. Many of my houndsmen customers are trappers as well. They sure as heck don't want the sport banned, they just want to limit the possibility of accidently losing a dog in a killing set. And we all need to be a bit less paranoid with regards to each other. Just because I question a given prectice or facet of a sport, it doesn't automatically nmean I want it banned. It just means I have a question. And we all need to consider how our actions will be percieved by both our fellow sportsmen and those that don't participate in our sports.
Lastly; Your right MO, this started as one thing and turned to another. To me that kind of shows how broad and volitile this subject can be. Me personally, I'm glad they stuck it the idiot that shot them beagles, and I hope that more judges pay attention. The last thing we need is that kind of nonsense.
 
Back
Top