Getting back on topic, I have thought long and hard about this 8 deer deal You let this get passed and it will lay the ground work for more regulations, which we don’t need. Don’t think for a second that once a tag system and bag limits are in place that they wont be reduced further in the future. And go ahead and push to ban dog hunting fellas, I haven’t hunted deer with dogs in 8 years, and Im well aware of the issues with rogues. But guess what happens next? They come after your corn piles, then your high powered rifles, next thing you know you better be able to shoot a bow or you wont be able to hunt. A bunch of hunters fighting amongst themselves will be the downfall of us all.
quote:
Originally posted by salty849Getting back on topic, I have thought long and hard about this 8 deer deal You let this get passed and it will lay the ground work for more regulations, which we don’t need. Don’t think for a second that once a tag system and bag limits are in place that they wont be reduced further in the future. And go ahead and push to ban dog hunting fellas, I haven’t hunted deer with dogs in 8 years, and Im well aware of the issues with rogues. But guess what happens next? They come after your corn piles, then your high powered rifles, next thing you know you better be able to shoot a bow or you wont be able to hunt. A bunch of hunters fighting amongst themselves will be the downfall of us all.
It’s NOT hunters against hunters when it comes to doghunters, at least not for me. It’s hardworking property owners who want to enjoy their property without incursion from a bunch of unwanted hounds against degenerates who knowingly, willingly and sometimes intentionally run their hounds on others’ land and when questioned about their practice they respond, “bo, my dog can’t read no signs, bo.”
The first rule of fight club is…
Out of curiosity, How much land do you own/lease/have permission to hunt? And here is another bill currently waiting review. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess121_2015-2016/bills/3563.htm
quote:Contrary to what you may believe, it is very difficult to teach a dog not to trespass. I can honestly say that my dad's club ran dogs honestly for as long as we had them. We NEVER attempted to hunt any land that wasn't ours to hunt. We h
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.
quote:Good thing you have someone to blame!!! Now, if only you could find the owner of all of those coyotes and hogs that are doing WAY MORE damage to your property than any loose dogs, you would really have a leg to stand on!!!
Originally posted by Warblerquote:
Originally posted by salty849Getting back on topic, I have thought long and hard about this 8 deer deal You let this get passed and it will lay the ground work for more regulations, which we don’t need. Don’t think for a second that once a tag system and bag limits are in place that they wont be reduced further in the future. And go ahead and push to ban dog hunting fellas, I haven’t hunted deer with dogs in 8 years, and Im well aware of the issues with rogues. But guess what happens next? They come after your corn piles, then your high powered rifles, next thing you know you better be able to shoot a bow or you wont be able to hunt. A bunch of hunters fighting amongst themselves will be the downfall of us all.
It’s NOT hunters against hunters when it comes to doghunters, at least not for me. It’s hardworking property owners who want to enjoy their property without incursion from a bunch of unwanted hounds against degenerates who knowingly, willingly and sometimes intentionally run their hounds on others’ land and when questioned about their practice they respond, “bo, my dog can’t read no signs, bo.”
The first rule of fight club is…
quote:People were hunting in SC way before it was colonized. It's definitely a "right". It might not be legally recognized that way, but that's only a matter of paperwork.
Originally posted by Skeeter22Hunting 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.
All animals hunt… Is it a cat’s “privilege” to hunt mice in a field?
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:Good thing you have someone to blame!!! Now, if only you could find the owner of all of those coyotes and hogs that are doing WAY MORE damage to your property than any loose dogs, you would really have a leg to stand on!!!
Originally posted by Warblerquote:
Originally posted by salty849Getting back on topic, I have thought long and hard about this 8 deer deal You let this get passed and it will lay the ground work for more regulations, which we don’t need. Don’t think for a second that once a tag system and bag limits are in place that they wont be reduced further in the future. And go ahead and push to ban dog hunting fellas, I haven’t hunted deer with dogs in 8 years, and Im well aware of the issues with rogues. But guess what happens next? They come after your corn piles, then your high powered rifles, next thing you know you better be able to shoot a bow or you wont be able to hunt. A bunch of hunters fighting amongst themselves will be the downfall of us all.
It’s NOT hunters against hunters when it comes to doghunters, at least not for me. It’s hardworking property owners who want to enjoy their property without incursion from a bunch of unwanted hounds against degenerates who knowingly, willingly and sometimes intentionally run their hounds on others’ land and when questioned about their practice they respond, “bo, my dog can’t read no signs, bo.”
The first rule of fight club is…
<
quote:
Originally posted by salty849Out of curiosity, How much land do you own/lease/have permission to hunt? And here is another bill currently waiting review. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess121_2015-2016/bills/3563.htm
Why does it matter as long as I have rights in the land? And I’ve already weighed in that proposed bill in this thread, I think. It’s a waste of ink as written. Degenerate doggers will bust their mutts through the boundaries on 750 acres or 7 acres. It’s not the size of the property that matters, it’s the doggers themselves. As long as their refrain is “bo, my dog can’t read, bo,” there’s no dealing with them. Hell, even Skinneej, who seems like a reasonable fella, is advancing that argument in this very thread!!! To hell with that. I’ll tell you what, doggers, either teach your dogs to read or pay a fine of $5000 per dog that crosses the line (first offense) or go to jail for 30 days for each subsequent offense. I’ll bet your dogs would “learn to read” real f’ing quick like…
The first rule of fight club is…
quote:Are dogs going into your house and looking around? You are worried about dogs violating your privacy? Why do they bother you more than the coyotes violating your privacy?
Originally posted by WarblerIt’s not about damage, it’s not about deer…it’s about the sanctity of my private property rights. Would you mind if I just decided to come into your house and have a look around? I’m not going to steal anything, or damage anything…I just want to do it b/c I feel like it. Would that be OK with you?
The first rule of fight club is…
I’ll tell you what… If your pet dog accidentally walks into my yard, I promise not to demand that you are thrown in jail.
quote:I advanced the argument that dogs sometimes wander off of their intended property by accident. Do you not agree that this is a possibility?
Originally posted by WarblerHell, even Skinneej, who seems like a reasonable fella, is advancing that argument in this very thread!!!
Are you 100% sure that every time a dog goes where he is not supposed to that it’s the owner’s intention for him to do so? Heck man, I can’t even get my dog to quit eating my socks!!!
quote:Bahahahaha!!! Why not make it one hundred trillion dollars? Or better yet, let's send them to the electric chair!!!
Originally posted by Warblerpay a fine of $5000 per dog that crosses the line (first offense) or go to jail for 30 days for each subsequent offense.
[/quote]
It might not be legally recognized that way, but that’s only a matter of paperwork.
All animals hunt… Is it a cat’s “privilege” to hunt mice in a field?
[/quote]
Cat’s do not govern themselves through legislative means, laws, rules, or regulations, nor is there ANY other species other than humans that have a written language. Come on Skinnee…really. Why would you compare humans to cats or any other animal for that matter? That’s not logical at all. Hunting is still a privilege legally for humans and not a right–fact. BTW, a cat does what a cat does by instinct alone the same as all other predators (except humans) without autonomous conscience thought like humans, nor do they know the difference between right, wrong, legal, illegal, or consequences. The only “rights” that animals know is might makes right…the laws of force and dominance. Animals have NO rights at all…zip…nadda…zilch! When a cat writes a Bill of Rights and starts a new cat nation governed by the rule of law, you show it to me. I would love to see it.
Here is some reading for you:
http://dailyreckoning.com/animal-rights-vs-human-rights/
2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101
You seem to think that the only kind of rights are “legal rights”…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
So you are saying that the only way I have “rights” is if the government says I have rights? That is true for legal rights for sure!!!
What if Obama passed a law that repealed the Bill of Rights by executive order. Would you not have rights anymore? Legally you would not… I think it would be hard for you to convince me thought that I don’t have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness though!!!
Oh, Skinnee, you are reaching. Someone’s pet lab accidently wanders into someone’s yard v. a bunch of doggers intentionally letting dogs loose to chase deer that could go anywhere. Even if the doggers aren’t intentionally running their dogs on others’ property without permission (though, a lot of them do), it’s all about the activity they’ve chosen to engage in. You get it? See the difference?
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…
quote:
Originally posted by WarblerOh, Skinnee, you are reaching. Someone’s pet lab accidently wanders into someone’s yard v. a bunch of doggers intentionally letting dogs loose to chase deer that could go anywhere. Even if the doggers aren’t intentionally running their dogs on others’ property without permission (though, a lot of them do), it’s all about the activity they’ve chosen to engage in. You get it? See the difference?
Yes, I do get it… Again, I am NOT talking about those doing it intentionally. I am talking about those doing in unintentionally. The activity that the “chose” to engage in is LEGAL. Now, if their dogs end up on someone else’s land by accident. Let me ask you this… Let’s say you are in construction and you are building something. A brick falls from the top floor and lands on the head of a worker below… Are you guilty of murder? Should you be thrown in jail just like a person that would intentionally drop a brick on someone’s head? THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR!!!
quote:
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 de
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejYou seem to think that the only kind of rights are “legal rights”…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
Wikipedia…really. You are killing me, Skinnee. Try using wikipedia in any professional environment or academic environment, and you will get BLOWN out of the water–epic fail. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source for anything including discussions. It is not even good enough for wiping your butt. It is very funny though. Thanks for the laugh!
2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:
Originally posted by WarblerOh, Skinnee, you are reaching. Someone’s pet lab accidently wanders into someone’s yard v. a bunch of doggers intentionally letting dogs loose to chase deer that could go anywhere. Even if the doggers aren’t intentionally running their dogs on others’ property without permission (though, a lot of them do), it’s all about the activity they’ve chosen to engage in. You get it? See the difference?
Yes, I do get it… Again, I am NOT talking about those doing it intentionally. I am talking about those doing in unintentionally. The activity that the “chose” to engage in is LEGAL. Now, if their dogs end up on someone else’s land by accident. Let me ask you this… Let’s say you are in construction and you are building something. A brick falls from the top floor and lands on the head of a worker below… Are you guilty of murder? Should you be thrown in jail just like a person that would intentionally drop a brick on someone’s head? THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR!!!
quote:
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 f
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:
Originally posted by WarblerOh, Skinnee, you are reaching. Someone’s pet lab accidently wanders into someone’s yard v. a bunch of doggers intentionally letting dogs loose to chase deer that could go anywhere. Even if the doggers aren’t intentionally running their dogs on others’ property without permission (though, a lot of them do), it’s all about the activity they’ve chosen to engage in. You get it? See the difference?
Yes, I do get it… Again, I am NOT talking about those doing it intentionally. I am talking about those doing in unintentionally. The activity that the “chose” to engage in is LEGAL. Now, if their dogs end up on someone else’s land by accident. Let me ask you this… Let’s say you are in construction and you are building something. A brick falls from the top floor and lands on the head of a worker below… Are you guilty of murder? Should you be thrown in jail just like a person that would intentionally drop a brick on someone’s head? THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR!!!
quote:
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 f
quote:Worst argument I have ever heard especially after you sent me a link from the internet yourself. Just so you know, just because something is from Wikipedia does not mean it's not true. I think you are a victim of the "If it's on Wikipedia, it must not be true" fallacy...
Originally posted by Skeeter22quote:
Originally posted by skinneejYou seem to think that the only kind of rights are “legal rights”…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
Wikipedia…really. You are killing me, Skinnee. Try using wikipedia in any professional environment or academic environment, and you will get BLOWN out of the water–epic fail. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source for anything including discussions. It is not even good enough for wiping your butt. It is very funny though. Thanks for the laugh!
2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101
quote:
Originally posted by WarblerAs to your first point, you are wrong. Under the brick scenario, it’s not murder but there are repercussions, perhaps criminal if reckless, but most definitely civil.
Look what you JUST SAID… “IF”… You gave a conditional… So, suddenly you care about intent… But with “doggers” you don’t care about intent (because it’s your land and you are the victim - i.e. “It’s all about ME!!!”). Surely you can see that you are pinned in a corner if you want to remain consistent…
quote:
What penalty does the dogger face for his hounds invading someone else's property? None that I'm aware of.
Have you tried civil action? Again, I SUPPORT fines and civil repercussion… I do not support the loss of hunting privileges or jail time UNLESS THEY ARE FOUND TO BE INTENTIONAL…
quote:
My proposed penalties are harsh, but the point I'm trying to prove is that the incentives need to change. The doggers need sufficient incentive to prevent their hounds from escaping property they have permission to be on. Right now, they do it with impunity.
Trust me, $425 per dog (I think that’s the max fine nowadays for most game violations) is PLENTY of incentive… 10 dogs on your land is $4k. That’s something “doggers” do not want to pay to kill the spike bucks eating on your feeder. I don’t know ANY doggers that would not be deterred by that fine. Period… No jail time necessar