Possible changes to Deer Management Laws

Hunting Hunting
201
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by Cracker Larry
quote:
It really has little if anything to do with whether doggers should be allowed to do what they're currently doing..

Which has nothing at all to do with this topic, which is a change of management laws to 8 deer a season and $15 in permits. WTF?

Capt. Larry Teuton
Cracker Built Custom Boats

“Ships are the nearest things to dreams that hands have ever made.” -Robert N. Rose

Nice catch!!! Looks like Warbler is the master of the red herring!!! LOL!!!

If you folks don’t think the proposed law has ulterior motives when it comes to dog hunting (ulterior motives that I wholeheartedly approve of), you are kidding yourselves. This is the first step in hobbling the dog clubs.

The first rule of fight club is…

202
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by Warbler

Here it is again below. There’s nothing to clarify. Read the scenario and then answer the question posed at the end:

As to the “invasion of privacy” angle, you’re still not getting my point. Let’s try this: here’s a scenario (I could come up with a hundred of these, both involving hunting on my land or not):

I’m down at my pond. Got my wife, my kids, my dog. We’re cooking out. Enjoying the afternoon. The kids are throwing the ball in the pond for the dog to retrieve. Then I hear it—those f’ing deer hounds yap, yap, yapping away. They’re clearly on my property and getting closer. After chasing a deer around my “back forty” for a while, they lose the trail and come meandering up to us at the pond. My lab goes to check them out and starts tangling with a couple of them so as I’m dealing with that (after all, they’re invading his territory), another one of the bastards steals some food off my tailgate. Being a nice guy, and especially since my wife and kids are there, I don’t blow them all to hell. In fact, maybe even I suspend my family activity, round up as many of the mutts as I can, and take them down the road to a dogpen. Even leave them some water. (You see, unlike doggers, I’m a good person…hell, I probably treat their deer dogs better than they do). In any event, put on your honest injun hat for a second—is that something that I should have to deal with?

The first rule of fight club is…

I already answered this question... What part of "fine" do you not understand?

And again, I asked you a follow up question. Who do you blame when it’s not dogs, but coyotes?

<hr height="1" noshad
203

Skinnee Wrote:

That being said, you don’t understand the full context of this law. Note that it was only introduced in 2010. Maybe it was put in place to protect us from something… Hmmm… Maybe we have not seen the full fruition of this law in it’s current form…

Response:

In reference to, ?Maybe we have not seen the full fruition of this law in it’s current form,? I hope you are right, but to claim I don?t understand it is plain garbage from your point of view and not based in any kind of fact. Nor, do you know what I?m thinking until it is communicated and both of us are seeing eye-to-eye. That?s a false claim.

Skinnee Wrote:

But, back to the point. My point was that we have “natural” rights and we have “legal rights”. You only seemed to recognize legal rights as a “right”, and you refused to acknowledge that hunting was either a natural right or a legal right for South Carolinians.

Response:

In the context of our discussion and the direction it led, no. I didn?t recognize natural rights because it had nothing with how either of us presented our side and the points we were making. Now here at the end, we see really what we are trying to get across as we go through our day with little breaks to debate (see the bottom).

Skinnee wrote:

That being said, you accuse me of splitting hairs, but it was you who originally corrected me on the use of the word “rights”… Do you not recall this (page 6)? We wouldn’t even be going down this path now if you didn’t try to call me out on it.

Response:

100 percent wrong. I agreed with Archer on hunting privileges (pg.6), and you quoted me and started the cat/human comparison to clearly disagree with me on privileges vs rights. Then, we had an amicable debate for the most part. Below is the proof where you started:

quote:

Originally posted by Skeeter22

Hunting privileges–precisely! Hunting is not a right although some try to interpret the l

204
quote:
Originally posted by Warbler
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by Warbler

Here it is again below. There’s nothing to clarify. Read the scenario and then answer the question posed at the end:

As to the “invasion of privacy” angle, you’re still not getting my point. Let’s try this: here’s a scenario (I could come up with a hundred of these, both involving hunting on my land or not):

I’m down at my pond. Got my wife, my kids, my dog. We’re cooking out. Enjoying the afternoon. The kids are throwing the ball in the pond for the dog to retrieve. Then I hear it—those f’ing deer hounds yap, yap, yapping away. They’re clearly on my property and getting closer. After chasing a deer around my “back forty” for a while, they lose the trail and come meandering up to us at the pond. My lab goes to check them out and starts tangling with a couple of them so as I’m dealing with that (after all, they’re invading his territory), another one of the bastards steals some food off my tailgate. Being a nice guy, and especially since my wife and kids are there, I don’t blow them all to hell. In fact, maybe even I suspend my family activity, round up as many of the mutts as I can, and take them down the road to a dogpen. Even leave them some water. (You see, unlike doggers, I’m a good person…hell, I probably treat their deer dogs better than they do). In any event, put on your honest injun hat for a second—is that something that I should have to deal with?

The first rule of fight club is…

I already answered this question..
205
quote:
It opens a whole new can of worms, but the fox pens have released many coyotes accidentally. Many of the pens I have seen are only one good thunderstorm away from a limb falling on the ragged fence and letting 50 or more coyotes go at once.

But all those yotes who escape the pens were originally caught in the wild, to stock the pen to start with, so it changes nothing. They don’t breed in a fox pen.

Capt. Larry Teuton
Cracker Built Custom Boats

“Ships are the nearest things to dreams that hands have ever made.” -Robert N. Rose

206
quote:
Originally posted by Cracker Larry
quote:
It opens a whole new can of worms, but the fox pens have released many coyotes accidentally. Many of the pens I have seen are only one good thunderstorm away from a limb falling on the ragged fence and letting 50 or more coyotes go at once.

But all those yotes who escape the pens were originally caught in the wild to stock the pen to start with, so it changes nothing. They don’t breed in a fox pen.

Capt. Larry Teuton
Cracker Built Custom Boats

“Ships are the nearest things to dreams that hands have ever made.” -Robert N. Rose

Maybe some, but I know for a fact most were brought from out of state adding to the problem. Don’t ask me how I know. I just know.

2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101

207

My point about coyotes, is thank goodness Warbler has someone to blame with the dogs!!!

208

skinneej’s FIRST post on this thread:

Don’t need to lose hunting rights… A fine per violation, per dog, would bring in a lot of cash to the state . Most dog hunters I know would give up dog hunting after a few fines if they were significant.

Archer says

What’s more significant than losing your hunting priviledges for hunting violations? The DNR could always use more funding but a fine will not be more of an attention getter than suspending one’s hunting priviledges. Just like with breaking any law…a fine stings but losing your freedoms and being tossed in jail is a bit more sobering. Play by the rules and you don’t have to worry about either. Personally I believe if you make an example out of a few, the masses will pay attention. In my opinion, a fine just isn’t significant enough.

Skeeter says

Hunting privileges–precisely! Hunting is not a right

Now, these 3 posts are right in a row… Notice that Archer never uses the word “rights” in his response? So, you come in and make a point to say that hunting is not a “right” but a priviledge… Do you see why I would think you are correcting me?

Do you even notice that your response quoted my original response to this topic?

209

So, I think it’s black and white how it started!!! Also, if you noted, my FIRST post (which is my original intent before we got off on a pointless tangent) was not about “rights” vs “privs”. It’s about fines instead of jail time or losing the ability to hunt.

210
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej

skinneej’s FIRST post on this thread:

Don’t need to lose hunting rights… A fine per violation, per dog, would bring in a lot of cash to the state . Most dog hunters I know would give up dog hunting after a few fines if they were significant.

Archer says

What’s more significant than losing your hunting priviledges for hunting violations? The DNR could always use more funding but a fine will not be more of an attention getter than suspending one’s hunting priviledges. Just like with breaking any law…a fine stings but losing your freedoms and being tossed in jail is a bit more sobering. Play by the rules and you don’t have to worry about either. Personally I believe if you make an example out of a few, the masses will pay attention. In my opinion, a fine just isn’t significant enough.

Skeeter says

Hunting privileges–precisely! Hunting is not a right

Now, these 3 posts are right in a row… Notice that Archer never uses the word “rights” in his response? So, you come in and make a point to say that hunting is not a “right” but a priviledge… Do you see why I would think you are correcting me?

Do you even notice that your response has my original quote in it?

Right Skinnee, but I was not the first to correct as you claimed (at least not toward you), and then leaving a question at the end clearly inviting a response. But it is fine. We just don’t see it the same way apparently. No big deal. I was simply agreeing with Archer.

2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101

211
quote:
Originally posted by Skeeter22
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej

skinneej’s FIRST post on this thread:

Don’t need to lose hunting rights… A fine per violation, per dog, would bring in a lot of cash to the state . Most dog hunters I know would give up dog hunting after a few fines if they were significant.

Archer says

What’s more significant than losing your hunting priviledges for hunting violations? The DNR could always use more funding but a fine will not be more of an attention getter than suspending one’s hunting priviledges. Just like with breaking any law…a fine stings but losing your freedoms and being tossed in jail is a bit more sobering. Play by the rules and you don’t have to worry about either. Personally I believe if you make an example out of a few, the masses will pay attention. In my opinion, a fine just isn’t significant enough.

Skeeter says

Hunting privileges–precisely! Hunting is not a right

Now, these 3 posts are right in a row… Notice that Archer never uses the word “rights” in his response? So, you come in and make a point to say that hunting is not a “right” but a priviledge… Do you see why I would think you are correcting me?

Do you even notice that your response has my original quote in it?

Right Skinnee, but I was not the first to correct as you claimed (at least not toward you), and then leaving a question at the end clearly inviting a response. But it is fine. We just don’t see it the same way apparently. No big deal. I was simply agreeing with Archer.

2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101

</blockq
212
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej

So, I think it’s black and white how it started!!! Also, if you noted, my FIRST post (which is my original intent before we got off on a pointless tangent) was not about “rights” vs “privs”. It’s about fines instead of jail time or losing the ability to hunt.

Yeah, no need for jail time unless it is a person that just is not getting it and is a multiple offender. There are some real knuckleheads out there.

2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101

213
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by Skeeter22
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej

skinneej’s FIRST post on this thread:

Don’t need to lose hunting rights… A fine per violation, per dog, would bring in a lot of cash to the state . Most dog hunters I know would give up dog hunting after a few fines if they were significant.

Archer says

What’s more significant than losing your hunting priviledges for hunting violations? The DNR could always use more funding but a fine will not be more of an attention getter than suspending one’s hunting priviledges. Just like with breaking any law…a fine stings but losing your freedoms and being tossed in jail is a bit more sobering. Play by the rules and you don’t have to worry about either. Personally I believe if you make an example out of a few, the masses will pay attention. In my opinion, a fine just isn’t significant enough.

Skeeter says

Hunting privileges–precisely! Hunting is not a right

Now, these 3 posts are right in a row… Notice that Archer never uses the word “rights” in his response? So, you come in and make a point to say that hunting is not a “right” but a priviledge… Do you see why I would think you are correcting me?

Do you even notice that your response has my original quote in it?

Right Skinnee, but I was not the first to correct as you claimed (at least not toward you), and then leaving a question at the end clearly inviting a response. But it is fine. We just don’t see it the same way apparently. No big deal.

214

In GA the regulations are already fairly strict. If hunting on a lease you must have at least 1,000 contiguous acres to get a dog permit. If on private land you have to own at least 250 contiguous acres for a dog hunting permit.

Each vehicle hunting the property has to have the club permit # in the back window. Each dog turned out has to have the permit number on it’s collar. Each hunter has to have a dog hunting permit. If a dog gets out of bounds of a permitted club, and someone catches it and complains, the fine is about $250. If it happens again the fine is about $750, depends on the judge. If it happens a 3rd. time the fine is $1,000 and loss of dog hunting permit.

I live in the middle of redneck dog hunting country, but most everybody does their best to keep their dogs on their land. And most people are tolerant and understanding that some some get loose. It’s a matter of intent.

Capt. Larry Teuton
Cracker Built Custom Boats

“Ships are the nearest things to dreams that hands have ever made.” -Robert N. Rose

215
quote:
Maybe some, but I know for a fact most were brought from out of state adding to the problem. Don't ask me how I know. I just know.

Maybe some:question::question: Show me a stocked pen that every animal wasn’t trapped in the wild. You don’t buy baby yotes and fox at Petsmart. So if they get loose, they are right back where they started.

And I’ll tell you what I know to be a fact, a fellow forum member from SC recently contacted me here in GA, wanting to sell some SC yotes, so it all balances out. And no, I didn’t :smiley:

Capt. Larry Teuton
Cracker Built Custom Boats

“Ships are the nearest things to dreams that hands have ever made.” -Robert N. Rose

216

Well, no matter how the coyotes arrived, we are stuck with them now. There is no getting rid of them. We might make a dent occasionally, but they are here to stay. Maybe some meaning some caught inside the borders of the state. That’s all. Basically agreeing and adding to your point…not being defensive and contradictory, Cracker. Well, except I would like to see all the coyotes dead. Dang phone is tougher to type on.

2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101

217

I’m with you on the coyotes, they all need to be gone, but I’m afraid we are stuck with them. At least in GA there is no closed season and no limits, so blast them at every opportunity.

When I bought my property 20 years ago it was over run with rabbits and had a very good quail population too. Now we don’t have many of either one, but we sure have a lot more yotes.

Capt. Larry Teuton
Cracker Built Custom Boats

“Ships are the nearest things to dreams that hands have ever made.” -Robert N. Rose

218
quote:
Originally posted by Cracker Larry

I’m with you on the coyotes, they all need to be gone, but I’m afraid we are stuck with them.

Not if we put up signs in their natural coyote language that threatens to send them to gitmo if they are ever caught eating off of Warbler's picnic table like the hounds do now...
219
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by Cracker Larry

I’m with you on the coyotes, they all need to be gone, but I’m afraid we are stuck with them.

Not if we put up signs in their natural coyote language that threatens to send them to gitmo if they are ever caught eating off of Warbler's picnic table like the hounds do now...

Did you locate that law I was asking about…the one that would provide for a fine under my “picnic table” scenario?

My proposed penalties (huge fines, jail time) are extreme, no doubt. But the point is that there needs to be some incentive for the doggers not to let their hounds roam free. Clearly, as things currently stand, no such incentive exists.

The first rule of fight club is…

220
quote:
Originally posted by Warbler
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by Cracker Larry

I’m with you on the coyotes, they all need to be gone, but I’m afraid we are stuck with them.

Not if we put up signs in their natural coyote language that threatens to send them to gitmo if they are ever caught eating off of Warbler's picnic table like the hounds do now...

Did you locate that law I was asking about…the one that would provide for a fine under my “picnic table” scenario?

I didn’t realize I had a homework assignment. Why would I research that? Wouldn’t it be more efficient if you just pointed me to it?

quote:
My proposed penalties (huge fines, jail time) are extreme, no doubt. But the point is that there needs to be some incentive for the doggers not to let their hounds roam free. Clearly, as things currently stand, no such incentive exists.

The first rule of fight club is…

Well, are there ANY fines enforced? Why not just enforce existing measures? You could make the fine 10 million dollars, but if it's not enforced ever, it would be just as effective...

PS, not only are they “extreme”, they seem to be a violation of the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution