quote:As long as he pays his license fees,out of state permits or whatever,who cares?
Originally posted by tigerfinAnyone want to take bets on where warbler is from? I’m going with Florida.
'06 Mckee Craft
184 Marathon
DF140 Suzuki
He has property rights just the same as the guy who hunts his family farm.
Point is, the guys from out of state who bought 100 acres in the middle of nowhere for a private hunting spot are just as bad as the doggers. They put up a stand on every third tree on the property and kill everything that crosses it. There is a reason that we have the smallest bucks around. If we would let them get to breeding age and then only kill the “ugly bucks” that are old enough and kill one doe for every one buck you shoot. Shooting that basket rack 8 point is not something to brag about.
Fact is, there are way more people hunting now than when I was a kid.
'06 Mckee Craft
184 Marathon
DF140 Suzuki
Good God, it’s like arguing with children. I’ve already said this (listen up, Tigerfin, Freedomchaser, Fred, whoever else). This…has…nothing…to…do…with…the…deer. It has everything to do with doghunters not pursuing their sport properly, and, as a result, treading on my property rights.
Dog country? That’s about all of the rural areas in the lowcountry. And you know what, not that it matters, but I’m not from Florida…I’m from SC. And I own property. Yes, it’s in dog country, which, as I said above, is basically everywhere in this area. The funny thing is, most of you doggers don’t own jacksquat. Maybe a few acres where you live with all your dogpens. That’s probably why you don’t have a problem with what you do. You have no stake in property ownership.
And the term “redneck” is and has always has been pejorative. That’s why I used it. The term y’all would like to be called is “country boy” or “country folk.” Country folk respect things, like property rights. Rednecks, on the other hand, just say, “bo, my dog can’t read no property signs, bo.”
The first rule of fight club is…
quote:
Originally posted by WarblerGood God, it’s like arguing with children. I’ve already said this (listen up, Tigerfin, Freedomchaser, Fred, whoever else). This…has…nothing…to…do…with…the…deer. It has everything to do with doghunters not pursuing their sport properly, and, as a result, treading on my property rights.
Dog country? That’s about all of the rural areas in the lowcountry. And you know what, not that it matters, but I’m not from Florida…I’m from SC. And I own property. Yes, it’s in dog country, which, as I said above, is basically everywhere in this area. The funny thing is, most of you doggers don’t own jacksquat. Maybe a few acres where you live with all your dogpens. That’s probably why you don’t have a problem with what you do. You have no stake in property ownership.
And the term “redneck” is and has always has been pejorative. That’s why I used it. The term y’all would like to be called is “country boy” or “country folk.” Country folk respect things, like property rights. Rednecks, on the other hand, just say, “bo, my dog can’t read no property signs, bo.”
The first rule of fight club is…
You are the child us grown ups are arguing with. Does all the name calling make you feel good?
Take your bitterness and be gone. Put up a fence and be happy like bolbie did. They say good fences make for better neighbors.
As for “doggers” not owning “jacksquate”. Well sir/mam that statement alone should show how ignorant you are in this subject. You really don’t have a clue and are to self centered to realize it.
Can’t you just put your hatred and ignorance aside to realize not all dog hunters are the devil?
quote:
Originally posted by Fred67quote:
Originally posted by WarblerGood God, it’s like arguing with children. I’ve already said this (listen up, Tigerfin, Freedomchaser, Fred, whoever else). This…has…nothing…to…do…with…the…deer. It has everything to do with doghunters not pursuing their sport properly, and, as a result, treading on my property rights.
Dog country? That’s about all of the rural areas in the lowcountry. And you know what, not that it matters, but I’m not from Florida…I’m from SC. And I own property. Yes, it’s in dog country, which, as I said above, is basically everywhere in this area. The funny thing is, most of you doggers don’t own jacksquat. Maybe a few acres where you live with all your dogpens. That’s probably why you don’t have a problem with what you do. You have no stake in property ownership.
And the term “redneck” is and has always has been pejorative. That’s why I used it. The term y’all would like to be called is “country boy” or “country folk.” Country folk respect things, like property rights. Rednecks, on the other hand, just say, “bo, my dog can’t read no property signs, bo.”
The first rule of fight club is…
You are the child us grown ups are arguing with. Does all the name calling make you feel good?
Take your bitterness and be gone. Put up a fence and be happy like bolbie did. They say good fences make for better neighbors.
As for “doggers” not owning “jacksquate”. Well sir/mam that statement alone should show how ignorant you are in this subject. You really don’t have a clue and are to self centered to realize it.
Can’t you just put your hatred and ignorance aside to realiz
Shoot every dog that crosses the property line. That will teach them… and quit your b#^=?ing.
I really don’t have a problem with them. My neighbors all get together once or twice a year and let a big club run all of our land at the same time. Usually when we do that its on a doe day, so there were years when they killed 80 deer in a day. But on a daily basis, I don’t have to worry about it. It sure is nice and quiet around here!
'06 Mckee Craft
184 Marathon
DF140 Suzuki
Ok, so your two points are: 1) shoot the dogs…got it…super idea
The first rule of fight club is…
Stop wasting your time warbler,arguing with these folks will get you nowhere.
Maybe one day they will understand property rights,understand how to properly manage a deer herd,and maybe try and be good stewards of the land.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess121_2015-2016/bills/3563.htm
South Carolina General Assembly
121st Session, 2015-2016
Download This Bill in Microsoft Word format
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
H. 3563
STATUS INFORMATION
General Bill
Sponsors: Reps. Goldfinch and Pitts
Document Path: l:\council\bills\swb\5256cm15.docx
Introduced in the House on February 11, 2015
Currently residing in the House Committee onAgriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs
Summary: Deer hunting
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Date Body Action Description with journal page number ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/11/2015 House Introduced and read first time (House Journal-page 7) 2/11/2015 House Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs (House Journal-page 7)
View the latest legislative information at the website
VERSIONS OF THIS BILL
2/11/2015
(Text matches printed bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.)
A BILL
TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-310, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO OPEN SEASON FOR ANTLERED DEER IN THE VARIOUS GAME ZONES THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND HUNTING AND TAKING OF DEER, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS IT IS UNLAWFUL TO PURSUE DEER WITH DOGS.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Section 50-11-310 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 227 of 2014, is further amended by adding the following appropriately lettered subsection:
"( ) It is unlawful to pursue deer with dogs except during the prescribed season for hunting deer on tracts of at least seven hundred fifty contiguous acres which are owned by the person pursuing deer with dogs or which the person pursuing deer with dogs has the written permission of the owner or owners thereof to use for such purposes. However, invitees of this person also may engage in the pursuit of deer with dog
That’s a waste of ink. What about the adjoining landowners? Doggers have proved time and again they lack the ability to stop their hounds. B/c they want to “run their whole tract, bo.” Right up to the property lines. Then, when they didn’t have enough standers, the dogs bust through onto someone else’s property.
It’s all about incentives. Right now, the doggers don’t have sufficient incentive not to be degenerate hunters. Some stiff fines and then jail time might help, but I would vote for a total ban (except, maybe, for places like Middleton).
The first rule of fight club is…
quote:
Originally posted by WarblerThat’s a waste of ink. What about the adjoining landowners? Doggers have proved time and again they lack the ability to stop their hounds. B/c they want to “run their whole tract, bo.” Right up to the property lines. Then, when they didn’t have enough standers, the dogs bust through onto someone else’s property.
It’s all about incentives. Right now, the doggers don’t have sufficient incentive not to be degenerate hunters. Some stiff fines and then jail time might help, but I would vote for a total ban (except, maybe, for places like Middleton).
The first rule of fight club is…
I don’t know, Warbler. But, something is better than nothing…the same as the original topic of the thread. In the end, I doubt any of our hunting styles, limits, or other changes will just suddenly be banned except under extreme conditions. Instead, it will be stepped down or phased out, if you will, over time. Just my thoughts.
2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101
quote:
Originally posted by tigerfinPoint is, the guys from out of state who bought 100 acres in the middle of nowhere for a private hunting spot are just as bad as the doggers. They put up a stand on every third tree on the property and kill everything that crosses it. There is a reason that we have the smallest bucks around. If we would let them get to breeding age and then only kill the “ugly bucks” that are old enough and kill one doe for every one buck you shoot. Shooting that basket rack 8 point is not something to brag about.
Fact is, there are way more people hunting now than when I was a kid.
'06 Mckee Craft
184 Marathon
DF140 Suzuki
They buy that land because the land owner knows SC locals won’t pay their high prices but Nonresidents will. Who’s to blame there?
And as far as why SC “has the smallest bucks around,” resident hunters still outnumber nonresident hunters and I know tons of SC hunters that are (**()ed proud of the stack of peahead racks in the back of their pick-um up trucks. So you can’t blame that on NR hunters.
Hell, I’ll go one step further and make some of you even madder. When some of you say to charge NR hunters more, I call BS. SC charges a ridiculous sum of money to hunt here. As a nonresident, I can hunt in Kentucky (where the quality is exponentially better than SC) AND Maryland (where the quality is exponentially better AND the season runs from the middle of September to the end of January…4 1/2 months) for only $50 more than a nonresident can hunt SC (purchasing all available tags and permits in all locations). Two states for almost the same price as just one…AND I don’t have to worry about who’s running their dogs responsibly or not AND the deer quality is better AND game laws are actually enforced!!! I’d say SC is getting more than their fare share
It should never be the burden of a property owner to fence in his investment for the sake of keeping people or dogs off. Plain and simple. Respect and common sense are a thing of the past these days.
" It is what it is".
I was a resident of SC for 35 years and bought my 171 acre piece of paradise 15 years ago.
If I still live in SC full time or not has nothing to do with my property rights.
The neighboring owners had the opportunity to buy it back then and chose not to because they had been running dogs through it without owning it and saw no need to pay for something they had been hunting for free, That is Bullxxxx.
Buy your property or hunt public land and stay off of mine. Period.
Hunting, fishing, and poker are my sports. Work when necessary.
Goldfinches bill needs to mirror Georgias law where dogs have numbers or chips that mark them. First offense trespassing dog is caught a fine is payed, third offense dog hunting rights are taken away from club. Until some meaningful penalty for infringement of a persons right to enjoy his 1, 5, 100 or 10,000 acres is made a law we will continue to have this problem. We have always done it this way, a dog can’t read and other useless terms will be the ultimate demise of dog hunting. To save it the guys claiming to do it right had better come up with a MEANINGFUL solution or they will have no one but themselves to blame for it being done away with. This is not meant to bash dog hunters but I have yet to have one admit that they are one of the bad dog hunters, they all claim to do it right. If your dog trespasses one time then you are part of the problem.
quote:Don't need to lose hunting rights... A fine per violation, per dog, would bring in a lot of cash to the state :smiley:. Most dog hunters I know would give up dog hunting after a few fines if they were significant.
Originally posted by longbearded1Goldfinches bill needs to mirror Georgias law where dogs have numbers or chips that mark them. First offense trespassing dog is caught a fine is payed, third offense dog hunting rights are taken away from club.
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:Don't need to lose hunting rights... A fine per violation, per dog, would bring in a lot of cash to the state :smiley:. Most dog hunters I know would give up dog hunting after a few fines if they were significant.
Originally posted by longbearded1Goldfinches bill needs to mirror Georgias law where dogs have numbers or chips that mark them. First offense trespassing dog is caught a fine is payed, third offense dog hunting rights are taken away from club.
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.
Earn it everyday
If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.
quote:
Originally posted by archerquote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:Don't need to lose hunting rights... A fine per violation, per dog, would bring in a lot of cash to the state :smiley:. Most dog hunters I know would give up dog hunting after a few fines if they were significant.
Originally posted by longbearded1Goldfinches bill needs to mirror Georgias law where dogs have numbers or chips that mark them. First offense trespassing dog is caught a fine is payed, third offense dog hunting rights are taken away from club.
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.
Earn it everyday
If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.
Hunting privileges–precisely! Hunting is not a right although some try to interpret the legislative pathway for the “right to hunt” as a right and not a privilege. It clearly states on your license the begining of “privileges” and in
quote:
Originally posted by WarblerIt’s all about incentives. Right now, the doggers don’t have sufficient incentive not to be degenerate hunters. Some stiff fines and then jail time might help, but I would vote for a total ban (except, maybe, for places like Middleton).
Whoa boy, whoa… a total ban except for middleton?? Now you are showing your true colors. 
See Warbler, not all dog hunters are bad!!! Middleton aside, there are so many more that are as good or better. You just are ignortant to them. 
We argue on this, but bottom line not all dog hunters are evil. Oh yes a lot are and I have pictures of a couple of trucks releasing on the backside of my property to run across 4 other land owners to reach where they have standers… yes this pisses me off and needs correction and in my case has gotten it. BUT, not all dog hunters are ass wipes.
I only mentioned the fence like Bolbie put up as an intermediate solution to your delema with renegade dog hunters. I’m in the process of fencing in the majority of my property. A big expense, but at least my own dogs will not stray and I think I’m going into the goat business. Goats are bringing a prime price right now.
quote:
Originally posted by Fred67quote:
Originally posted by WarblerIt’s all about incentives. Right now, the doggers don’t have sufficient incentive not to be degenerate hunters. Some stiff fines and then jail time might help, but I would vote for a total ban (except, maybe, for places like Middleton).
Whoa boy, whoa… a total ban except for middleton?? Now you are showing your true colors.
We argue on this, but bottom line not all dog hunters are evil. Oh yes a lot are and I have pictures of a couple of trucks releasing on the backside of my property to run across 4 other land owners to reach where they have standers… yes this pisses me off and needs correction and in my case has gotten it. BUT, not all dog hunters are ass wipes.
I only mentioned the fence like Bolbie put up as an intermediate solution to your delema with renegade dog hunters. I’m in the process of fencing in the majority of my property. A big expense, but at least my own dogs will not stray and I think I’m going into the goat business. Goats are bringing a prime price right now.
Nice try, Fred, but you should read what I really posted, not what you’d like to think I posted. I clearly said, “places like Middleton.” I will bet you that list can be counted on two hands. If we identify them, I’m fine with letting them keep on keepin’ on. Live and let live, right. But as for the rest of 'em, which you and I both know is the VAST