The proposed ban on deer driving with dogs could really change things up here in South Carolina, interested on yalls thoughts. The bill states that driving on tracts larger than 1000 acres is legal, but that kind of land is sparse, let alone those who can afford it. Being primarily a stalk and still hunter myself, I see the argument against it much clearer. It does seem a little ironic to refer to running dogs as hunting, considering the thought and preparation into tracking a deer’s movements and taking it without it ever seeing you. That being said, I see the heritage in the sport, but question whether that’s solid grounds to preserve it. I have many friends who own small tracts of land, less than 50 acres, who often have dogs run right through their property, occasionally in the middle of their hunt, which I think we all can agree that there needs to be something done to protect those land owners further, but do y’all believe a ban will be effective? Then there’s the management side of the picture, I’m curious to y’alls thoughts on the impact of the legislation on our current herds, whether it will allow some deer to mature into trophy’s, or have a negative impact with the increase in numbers surviving. There is a lot at stake here, and I’m interested in any other perspectives.
I used to hunt at a dog club…had some memorable drives there and plenty of good times. I don’t really go either way with the argument, but I can understand the gripes of all the parties fighting over it.
-Lewis
http://www.lowcountrykayakanglers.com
http://www.facebook.com/groups/lowcountrykayakanglers/
Over 1000 acres is probably ok. However, I have dog hunters on the north and south side of my property. They have less than 100 acres of woods on each side and a few hundred crop on each side. They put the dogs in on one side and stand on the other side. Absolutely illegal and grossly low class.
Hunting, fishing, and poker are my sports. Work when necessary.
As someone who grew up dog hunting in the lowcountry it’s sad to see the sport decline, but unfortunately a few bad apples have ruined it for everyone else. Using the excuse that the dogs don’t know property lines doesn’t work anymore. Also, the poor treatment of some of these dogs, especially the ones that “don’t make the cut” and are simply abandoned to starve and suffer. Trust me, if you find a hound that’s skin and bones wandering around with no collar, chances are it’s not missing, it’s abandoned. Constant trespassing issues, no building of relationships with adjacent land owners, etc…These are just a few of the issues that plague not only dog hunting, but all hunting. I hope I’m wrong for the sake of the ethical houndsman, but I don’t see dog hunting being legal in SC much longer at this rate.
I don’t think it’s just the “bad apples” (but they are a big help) that is causing the decline in dog hunting. It is the simple fact that many “city” folk are buy a piece of heaven in the country and breaking up all the contingent land that no one really gave a crap about anyone hunting. As a matter of fact most farmers loved you to hunt it to get rid of the overpopulated deer.
The 1000 acre thing is great to keep the sport alive, but still not going to keep dogs off others land. A 1000 acres is not going to hold a fresh pack of Walkers. 100 acres with a pack of small beagles would be manageable. Also we need to keep standers off our roads, they scare me. I’ve been around many hunters and some(of course not all) see the brown over the family sedan coming down the road.
“If Bruce Jenner can keep his wiener and be called a woman, I can keep my firearms and be considered disarmed.”
A BILL
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-325 SO AS TO DEFINE THE TERM “HUNTING DEER WITH A DOG”, TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON HUNTING DEER WITH A DOG MUST CAUSE THE DOG TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH A COLLAR, TO PROVIDE THE PROCEDURE WHEREBY A LOST DOG IS RETURNED TO ITS OWNER, TO PROVIDE THAT THE OWNER OF A DOG THAT TRESPASSES ON ANOTHER PERSON’S PROPERTY IS LIABLE FOR CIVIL DAMAGES, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STEAL, HARM, OR KILL A DOG IN PURSUIT OF A DEER THAT HAS IDENTIFIABLE OWNER INFORMATION OR REMOVE OR DESTROY ANY MEANS OF IDENTIFYING OR TRACKING THE DOG, TO PROVIDE THAT HUNTING DEER WITH A DOG IS UNLAWFUL ON A TRACT OF LAND THAT CONTAINS LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND ACRES UNLESS THE TRACT OF LAND IS ENCLOSED BY A FENCE, AND TO PROVIDE VARIOUS PENALTIES.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Article 3, Chapter 11, Title 50 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 50-11-325. (A) For purposes of this section, ‘hunting deer with a dog’ includes:
(1) the act of releasing or in any other way causing a dog to attempt to pursue or be in pursuit of deer;
(2) taking or attempting to take deer by aid of a dog; or
(3) participating in the pursuit of deer with a dog.
(B) A person must be considered hunting deer with a dog until the dog owner or his agent regains physical possession and control of the dog.
(C) Any person hunting deer with a dog must cause the dog to be identified with a collar bearing the dog owner’s name and telephone number. A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than two-hundred dollars nor more than five-hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than thirty days.
(D) Any dog in pursuit of deer on property for which the dog’s owner does not have permission to hunt that is found without a collar or without the name and telephone number of the owner on the collar may be considered to be ‘running at large’ and m
Personally, I say do away with dog hunting completely and make it illegal indefinitely. I’m sick and tired of someone else’s muts running through my property, on my trail cameras, and in my garbage can–sick of it. Sign it Governor, and torque the screws down a couple more foot lbs. This bill will finally start to give the victims a way to fight back. I used to be some what tolerant of it in my younger days, but now that I have my own property, I DO NOT WANT OTHER PEOPLE OR THEIR MUTS on my property–ever–without my permission. In the end, this is not about hunting, really. It is about property rights, and the dog hunters letting their muts run wherever do not have a leg to stand on.
2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101
quote:
Originally posted by Partners-ShipOver 1000 acres is probably ok. However, I have dog hunters on the north and south side of my property. They have less than 100 acres of woods on each side and a few hundred crop on each side. They put the dogs in on one side and stand on the other side. Absolutely illegal and grossly low class.
Hunting, fishing, and poker are my sports. Work when necessary.
They don’t care one bit, and that is why people are getting sick and tired of it.
2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101
quote:Who's selling the land to the city folk?
Originally posted by Fred67I don’t think it’s just the “bad apples” (but they are a big help) that is causing the decline in dog hunting. It is the simple fact that many “city” folk are buy a piece of heaven in the country and breaking up all the contingent land that no one really gave a crap about anyone hunting. As a matter of fact most farmers loved you to hunt it to get rid of the overpopulated deer.
The 1000 acre thing is great to keep the sport alive, but still not going to keep dogs off others land. A 1000 acres is not going to hold a fresh pack of Walkers. 100 acres with a pack of small beagles would be manageable. Also we need to keep standers off our roads, they scare me. I’ve been around many hunters and some(of course not all) see the brown over the family sedan coming down the road.
“If Bruce Jenner can keep his wiener and be called a woman, I can keep my firearms and be considered disarmed.”
Bill says NOTHING about banning dog hunting, READ the bill! Common sense reforms but bill will never get out of committee from what I hear from a contact in the House. Sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in.
In the end, dog hunting may not go away immediately, but the bolts are going to get tightened to the point where there will be a complete loss of interest and affordability. Why feed multiple dogs all year only to be able to utilize them a couple of times? Some will still do it, but many will just give up. There is no viable argument from the side of the dog hunters for violating another person’s property rights. That argument is over. The dog hunter nor their muts have any right to another person’s property. Otherwise, we would not be talking about it. The vast majority of hunters do not care one bit about how another person hunts, but almost every person will get seriously upset when trespassing is involved. Trespassing and property rights is the issue with dog hunting; not necessarily the method. People love to cite the State Constitution about hunting being a right, but it clearly states “List of Privileges” right on your license. That “right” to hunt runs out at my property line when the so called “freedom” in fringes on me and removes my freedom to do as I want on my own property without a pack of muts screwing it up. I hope they make another bill right after this one that completely eradicates the coyote pens as well.
2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101
There is no end in site. House member I spoke with said over 800 people had called in in opposition to the bill and 2 in favor. I think mostly because of exactly the way this topic was posted. When a dog has more rights than a property owner something has gone too far south. It will be YEARS before we have any relief!
It’s interesting that it seems the same ones so strongly against DNR telling them how many deer they can kill with the implementation of tags have no problem defending doggers and telling people they have to accept their "tradition” to run their muts wherever they please.
2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101
A court case dealing with trespassing hounds was settle out of court when a Charleston Lawyer whos intials are G.H. was having continual problems. Thus the leases on large timber companies lands for dog clubs being taken away. This may be the only relief is ever gained.
Yup, more CNN fake news headlines. That is why I posted the bill.
quote:
Originally posted by longbearded1Bill says NOTHING about banning dog hunting, READ the bill! Common sense reforms but bill will never get out of committee from what I hear from a contact in the House. Sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in.
2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101
This is the biggie :
(G) For five or more occurrences on the same day or more than five occurrences involving the same dog owner within three months, the activity is a public nuisance and the landowner may enjoin the activity and have a cause of action against the dogs, their owners, and the owner of land on which the dogs originated. Liability is established by proof of an intrusion by the dogs. Damages are equal to one-fifth of the current assessed value of the landowner’s entire property.
If 5 dogs run over your property line and you can prove it, the dog runner + owner of the property where the action originated can be liable for damages equal to (not UP TO) 1/5 of the entire property value.
May not be “banned” in the letter of the law, but very few hunting leases are going to tolerate that risk imo. If you own land, would you trust 1/5 of your neighbors property value to dog drivers never crossing the line > 5x in 3 months?
quote:
Originally posted by longbearded1I think mostly because of exactly the way this topic was posted.
Please elaborate on this, do you mean how it was left open to debate? Or how it was written not to purposefully attack either side?
“The further one gets into the wilderness, the greater the attraction of its lonely freedom”
Well, don’t start no crap; won’t be no crap. Very simple concept that the doggers don’t want to accept. Keep Out, and No Trespassing means exactly that up to and including their muts. What is it going to take to get the dogger to stay on their own property then? Just telling them “don’t do that” aint working. Hit em in the pocket book hard, and they will either stop, or they will finally learn to contain their muts.
quote:
Originally posted by mhebbardThis is the biggie :
(G) For five or more occurrences on the same day or more than five occurrences involving the same dog owner within three months, the activity is a public nuisance and the landowner may enjoin the activity and have a cause of action against the dogs, their owners, and the owner of land on which the dogs originated. Liability is established by proof of an intrusion by the dogs. Damages are equal to one-fifth of the current assessed value of the landowner’s entire property.
If 5 dogs run over your property line and you can prove it, the dog runner + owner of the property where the action originated can be liable for damages equal to (not UP TO) 1/5 of the entire property value.
May not be “banned” in the letter of the law, but very few hunting leases are going to tolerate that risk imo. If you own land, would you trust 1/5 of your neighbors property value to dog drivers never crossing the line > 5x in 3 months?
2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101
EDIT: what skeeter said!
To me, its a pretty fair solution-
If you have enough land to hunt and not worry about your dogs running off into someone elses property, you can keep doing what you are doing.
If you are confident enough in your lessees that they are playing by the rules, you can let them keep doing what you are doing.
If your neighbors dont GAF, you can keep doing what you are doing.
Repeat offenders around folks who are unhappy with trespassing dogs / hunters are penalized harshly $$$$ -> no more dog hunting on small tracts around neighbors who are unfriendly to dog hunting.
We will see how this works out -
You started the Conversation with a subject of “Dog Drive Ban.” While “ban” can be implied, as pointed out, due to second and third order affects of the consequences, the bill does not state “ban” in it. So, (1) you started a controversial topic without posting the bill to start with, and (2) you misnamed the subject with the implied consequences of the second and third order affects of the bill. So, automatically, you came out on the side of the dogger albeit it was likely unintentional. Doggers and their muts are never allowed on my property without my permission. That will never be up for debate.
quote:
Originally posted by red.hunterquote:
Originally posted by longbearded1I think mostly because of exactly the way this topic was posted.
Please elaborate on this, do you mean how it was left open to debate? Or how it was written not to purposefully attack either side?
“The further one gets into the wilderness, the greater the attraction of its lonely freedom”
2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101