# Followup to Houndsmen Poll



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

I think we're just about ready to close this thread.

Nobody has argued that private land owners have the *right* to harm animals or people that happen upon their land. The hunter harassment rule says "Hunters and anglers in Michigan have the right to enjoy their sport free from deliberate interference."

What NorthCountry has indicated is that the presence of dogs on his land (weather or not they can read) is interference. Making special accomodations for an animal or person who fails to ask permission to enter a private piece of land is interference- Thats all we're trying to say.





lwingwatcher said:


> And that is precisely the problem. Property rights DO NOT include the right to injure anybody or anything that happens on private property, invited or not. Just cuz you own the ground does not give you free reign to do as you please so, you had better get used to it because that is what the law says.
> 
> 
> As far as snare laws potentially protecting humans....consider potential litigation as the best case scenario for obtaining redress for losses to hounds or other dogs that are out and about....signs or no signs.


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

Only if he didn't ask for permission...

While it is true that I would be reluctant to grant permission for a party to hunt my land, I wouldn't have a problem with someone retrieving a dog- provided they asked first.



lwingwatcher said:


> I have a question for all the property owners that hate tresspassers....say a houndsman is unable to locate a dog...would you get excited to see the houndsman out wandering around looking to see if maybe the dog is caught in a snare somewhere?


----------



## wild bill (Apr 20, 2001)

lwingwatcher said:


> I have a question for all the property owners that hate tresspassers....say a houndsman is unable to locate a dog...would you get excited to see the houndsman out wandering around looking to see if maybe the dog is caught in a snare somewhere?


yes i would because i know he would be tresspassing.


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

lang49 said:


> Only if he didn't ask permission...



I understand what you are saying and while we try and secure permission before entering a different parcel of land, it is not always possible. Believe me...all the plat books, phone books, cell phones, and radio's in the world don't always make personal contact possible.

Most of the time, folks are really understanding when they happen upon some guy, wringing wet with sweat from humping his azz off through a section looking for a dog (no rifle) cuz somebody at the road with the tracker says the dog is out there somewhere. But, every now and again the irate property owner (sometimes armed and not hunting for game animals) is encountered. Things can and do get a little touchy at times....even when the person that claims to be the property owner is just a friend/neighbor/acquaintance of the actual property owner and really has no standing to be coming off like that.

Two sides to every coin...and until we all have walked a mile in the other guys boots....it is real easy to sit at a keyboard and point fingers...


We often wonder why there aren't as many hunters in this state as their used to be....well.....society as a whole has changed and I guess we all get to suffer from the results....


----------



## Smoknngunn (Oct 4, 2005)

_And that is precisely the problem. Property rights DO NOT include the right to injure anybody or anything that happens on private property, invited or not. Just cuz you own the ground does not give you free reign to do as you please so, you had better get used to it because that is what the law says._

_As far as snare laws potentially protecting humans....consider potential litigation as the best case scenario for obtaining redress for losses to hounds or other dogs that are out and about....signs or no signs._



I dont believe anyone is arguing that a landowner has the right to injure someone or something on his property, whether intentional or not. I think the point is that we work hard to buy, pay taxes and maintain our property, be it a small town lot or a 640 acre farm. I personally would not have a problem with a guy looking for his lost dog on my property. I would even offer to help. However, that is considering that he asked permission first. He does not have the right to go on private property FOR ANY REASON without permission. 
As far as dogs being unable to read and therefor being allowed to do what dogs do, where is the logic in that? It's your responsibility to control your dogs, period. Snares aren't the issue. Trespassing is the issue. Your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others(eg:tresspassing on private property). A hunter does not have the legal right to tresspass to retrieve wounded game. A person does not have the right to enter private property for any reason without the owner's permission. I hunt with dogs. I understand and appreciate someone's love for his dogs. That being said I also understand the frustration of spending your hard earned dollars, time and sweat maintaining private property only to have someone disreguard your rights (by trespassing) so that they can "do their thing". As far as litigation to obtain redress for losses, that works both ways.


----------



## LarryA (Jun 16, 2004)

is not the issue here. Intentional trespassing is against the law period. I know better than anyone about the feelings of having my property violated. I have lost over $800.00 of tree stands in my back yard. I can't get any law enforcement agency interested. This is in my back yard! What is worse my neighbor believes he can give his friends permission to be on my property. So, you can see, I know what it is like to have to deal with trespassers. Trespassing is an emotional issue for most people.

For every instance listed in previous post I can list someone who I know who hunts with hounds and follows the laws to a T. There are bad apples on both sides. Yes, more needs to be done about those individuals, but guys you are letting oranges influence how you feel about apples.


----------



## SJC (Sep 3, 2002)

I think one important point that no one addresses is that in the unlikely event of a dog actually being caught in a snare, it is even more unlikely that it will be seriously injured. The only way I can see a dog being killed in a snare would be a freak entanglement situation, or the dog not being found by the owner or trapper for a few days and dieing from exposure. In the case of the dog not being discovered by the trapper, he would be violating the check laws. How many documented cases are there where dogs were killed in legally set and tended snares? I don't know the anwser but I would bet my billfold that there are not many. I just can't understand why we can't effectively snare when the chances of a dog getting hurt in legally set and tended snare are so slim.


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

Smoknngunn said:


> I personally would not have a problem with a guy looking for his lost dog on my property. I would even offer to help. However, that is considering that he asked permission first. He does not have the right to go on private property FOR ANY REASON without permission.


Well folks, maybe a few more people ought to check out the thread on the legal forum that deals with exactly what we are talking about. I suspect that many of you will be mighty surprised to read what it has to say about retrieving dogs on private property without permission. I will bump it to the top to make it easy for those interested to locate (since I dunno how to cut/paste or do a link).

It is a shame that so many common misconceptions keep being perpetuated to the detriment of us all....

So folks, next time you see a "tresspasser" with a leash or two around his chest like a bandoleer....perhaps you will have a different perspective before you run to the gun cabinet and head out to confront that tresspasser....


----------



## Yoopertrapper (Jan 24, 2006)

Maybe its the critters you should blame,they're the ones leading the hounds!!!!


----------



## LarryA (Jun 16, 2004)

SJC,

Actually, the DNR has records of well over 100 dog deaths in snares most of which were pet dogs and not even hunting dogs. I would have to look back in my collection of materials on this topic. If my memory serves me correctly most of those deaths were in the bottom 1/3 of the state.

Since, I am stuck in the middle of this issue as a trapper and a houndsmen, I have collected nearly two inches thick of paper work regarding both sides. Trust me, all 3 sides have done their share to create this mess.


----------



## Dave Lyons (Jun 28, 2002)

DOG LAW OF 1919 (EXCERPT) 
Act 339 of 1919 


287.262 Dogs; licensing, tags, leashes. 
Sec. 2.
It shall be unlawful for any person to own any dog 6 months old or over, unless the dog is licensed as hereinafter provided, or to own any dog 6 months old or over that does not at all times wear a collar with a tag approved by the director of agriculture, attached as hereinafter provided, except when engaged in lawful hunting accompanied by its owner or custodian; or for any owner of any female dog to permit the female dog to go beyond the premises of such owner when she is in heat, unless the female dog is held properly in leash; or for any person except the owner or authorized agent, to remove any license tag from a dog; or for any owner to allow any dog, except working dogs such as leader dogs, guard dogs, farm dogs, hunting dogs, and other such dogs, when accompanied by their owner or his authorized agent, while actively engaged in activities for which such dogs are trained, to stray unless held properly in leash.



*(f) Hunting means allowing a dog to range freely within sight or sound of its owner while in the course of hunting legal game or an unprotected animal.*


Well it seems this post has went to heck. But since I see that the houndsmen think they have all the rights to tresspass. Maybe they should contact the Dept. of Ag. and get the real answer like I have done myself. But see I have held out on this topic just to see how far it would go.

More FACTS to come.

Dave


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

This is going to suprise alot of people (it suprised me the first time I read it). Below is a question/answer segment posted on the DNR website (http://midnr.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/MiDNR.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php)

Basically, it says that a dog owner can retrieve a dog from private land. But probably only once. Check it out...

---- 09/09/2002 04:49 PM ---------------------------------------------
What are the rules on retreving your dog(s) when they cross onto private property?

At 09/11/2002 06:07 AM we wrote - 

The "rules" that apply are the trespass regulations, which are as follows:

If the property is protected under the Recreational Trespass Part, statute provides, in part, that "A person other than a person possessing a firearm may, unless previously prohibited in writing or orally by the property owner or his or her lessee or agent, enter on foot upon the property of another person for the sole purpose of retrieving a hunting dog. The person shall not remain on the property beyond the reasonable time necessary to retrieve the dog. In an action under section 73109 or 73110, the burden of showing that the property owner or his or her lessee or agent previously prohibited entry under this subsection is on the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney, respectively. [MCL 324.73102]

If the property is not protected under the Recreational Trespass Part, the Penal Code provides, in part, that Any person who shall wilfully enter, upon the lands or premises of another without lawful authority, after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant, agent or servant of the owner or occupant, or any person being upon the land or premises of another, upon being notified to depart therefrom by the owner or occupant, the agent or servant of either, who without lawful authority neglects or refuses to depart therefrom, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor 


----------



## LarryA (Jun 16, 2004)

lwingwatcher,

Most guys I know go ask permission before retrieving their dogs. I know myself, I feel it is a matter of courtesy.

Dave,

The Dog Law of 1919 is an interesting read. Section 287.261 definitions (f) "Hunting" means allowing a dog to range freely within sight or sound of its owner while in the course of hunting legal game" The fact that it says hunting legal game brings the Wildlife Conservation Act into play. Also of interest is that under Section 287.262 Dogs; licenses, tags, and leashes it exempts hunting dogs from the requirement of being in leash. Then there is the Animal Cruelty Act which exempts lost hunting dogs from being considered abandoned dogs. All 3 laws come into play when considering free cast laws.


----------



## Dave Lyons (Jun 28, 2002)

Hey Larry A

I will call you out on your info you say the DNR has on snares.

Well if the DNR had this info then they would have no problem getting my freedom of information act that several have requested about this very subject. So far they can't produce the papers that say anything of what you have writing. Words in the AIR mean nothing. Lets see true documation from the DNR which has been requested. THEY DON'T HAVE IT LARRY!!!!!!!!!!

Dave


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

lang49 said:


> This is going to suprise alot of people (it suprised me the first time I read it). Below is a question/answer segment posted on the DNR website (http://midnr.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/MiDNR.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php)
> 
> Basically, it says that a dog owner can retrieve a dog from private land. But probably only once. Check it out...


Now yur talkin but, how many folks are going to read and retain that information? Like I said, lotsa misconceptions have been perpetuated....and problems continue to arise due to that ignornance of the provisions of the law.


----------



## Dave Lyons (Jun 28, 2002)

Hey Larry,

Not true call the people in charge of this law and find out the facts.

Larry I am 2 steps above you with my info. 

Dave


----------



## LarryA (Jun 16, 2004)

Howdy Dave,

I will openly admit I have only heard of that information 2nd hand, but I do find it interesting the numbers listed in the 2003-2004 Fox and Coyote Trapping Survey

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10371_10403_10408---,00.html

Tell us that 107 dogs were caught in the 2003-04 season alone. That tells me that dogs are being caught. How many died is a guess on anyone's part. Ths only covers the replies of trappers who responded to the survey in that year, and I know I haven't gotten a survey in quite a few years. So you see, dogs have been getting caught, but that isn't the issue now I see it. The snaring laws are unnecessarily strict. The stop needs to changed back and the length requirement needs to be changed, but I do say that the new entanglement language only serves trappers to protect their future rights to snare.


----------



## FieldWalker (Oct 21, 2003)

LarryA said:


> Most guys I know go ask permission before retrieving their dogs. I know myself, I feel it is a matter of courtesy.


I'd feel safer just grabbing my dog- I'd say around half of the property that I hunt which borders private land have out of town owners. 

I enjoy sitting back on a thread with no "real" correct answer that will satisfy everyone.


----------



## SJC (Sep 3, 2002)

Larry,
Last year the CO for my county told me that he did not know of any proven dog deaths in legally set snares. Between myself and a couple of friends we have snared hundreds of coyotes and most of them are still alive, that leads me to believe that most if not all dogs would be as well. I make my opinions from first hand experience not what I hear from someone else say.


----------



## Dave Lyons (Jun 28, 2002)

Larry,

You can not put all 107 dog into snares in that survery. Plus the survery is sent to both houndsmen and trappers. The survery covers all methods of take not just snares. Plus the survery doesn't ask about dead dogs. Keep searching I would like to see in writing the number of caught dogs in snares. This paperwork doesn't exist no worries though there are many state reps on this at this point. 

Plus call the Dept of Ag. and ask them if it is okay to let your dogs run across someone property. 

Stick to facts no second hand crap.

Larry I am not attacking you. But I just want facts. That is all I am posting.

Another fact I have caught dogs in snares and released ALL unharmed

Dave


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

SJC said:


> Larry,
> Last year the CO for my county told me that he did not know of any proven dog deaths in legally set snares.
> 
> I make my opinions from first hand experience not what I hear from someone else say.


----------



## Northcountry (Feb 4, 2004)

SJC said:


> Between myself and a couple of friends we have snared hundreds of coyotes and most of them are still alive, that leads me to believe that most if not all dogs would be as well. I make my opinions from first hand experience not what I hear from someone else say.


Good point. All of the fox and coyote I snared last year were alive and well, also.

Intuitively, you'd think that wild animals would fight the "captivity" or "restraint" much harder than a domestic hound. But in any case, all of my catches were standing there waiting for me...none appeared injured.


----------



## David G Duncan (Mar 26, 2000)

Interesting discussions and I think most of you are keeping your cool.

Any feelings on whether we shall allow this thread to continue or should I be looking at closing it down?


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

Any way to make everybody read the actual law on dog recovery? 

That could prolly solve alot of problems right there if folks actually knew the facts of the matter.

Wishful thinking I know....


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

I don't mind...as long as people aren't going out of their ways to be rude and insulting. However, I'd like to hear suggestions from both sides about what terms they would accept for reintroduction of snaring with just a deer stop (the regs to reduce entanglement are fine by me).

You be the judge Mr. Duncan- I don't really want to argue over who stats are accurate and whos are not. Are there any stats that we agree on the can be discussed to everyone's advantage?



David G Duncan said:


> Interesting discussions and I think most of you are keeping your cool.
> 
> Any feelings on whether we shall allow this thread to continue or should I be looking at closing it down?


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

lang49: I wish I could help with information on snares but, since I am not a trapper...it is hard for me to tell trappers how to do it right. 

All I know is that I haven't liked snares for over 35 years...back when folks were just illegally trying to snare snow shoe hares and were catching beagles. Fortunately, those snares never went over the head and no major injury was incurred, just a cut snout and a scared dog.


----------



## LarryA (Jun 16, 2004)

Dave,

I too have caught dogs in snares and releashed them, and I agree about the numbers should be verified, but the DNR aren't sharing the real numbers. My post regarding the '03-'04 Survey was to show SJC that there were in fact incidental catches not to show how many died. I don't know if any died. I will stand at the front of the any room and argue that proper set snares regardless of their stop will not kill dogs. As a trapper who feels it is my utmost duty to protect trapping rights though, I will not sweep any complaint under a rug. I will do my best to find out if it is true. Then I will do my best to correct the situation if it needs be. Even if that is a simple matter of education. To simply react in a defensive manner does not benefit the protection of my trapping rights. That is how I feel this issue was handled. It was not handled well on either side. Both sides reacted with knee jerk reactions. It is too late now. That doesn't mean i won't still push to change the the stop back to where it was or change the 60" length. On the other hand, it also means I will fight to retain the nonentanglement language. In my mind that is the best manner to protect both of the sports I love.


----------



## SJC (Sep 3, 2002)

lwingwatcher,
I did not say that I have an formed an opinion from what the CO told me. My ideas come from hundreds of hours of real trapping, not from someone telling me that snares kill dogs or vice versa.


----------



## Dave Lyons (Jun 28, 2002)

Larry you and I both know it is just simple education on both side. What I think is being missed is the releasing of neck caught deer. There are more deer in the woods then hounds and the chances of a hound being caught are slim to none. I worked very hard on my system with snares and now today I can't use this system. Many 1000ft rolls of cable and a lot of calls and emails with the top snaremen in the country. All for nothing!!!!!!!

Dave


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

Dave Lyons said:


> What I think is being missed is the releasing of neck caught deer.


Speaking of deer....do you have any idea how many callers are frustrated by the fact that centerfire is not permitted after dark? All that high dollar equipment just sitting there idle...and for what?

Trappers aren't the only folks that have regulations that must be adhered to so... I think you are preaching to the choir on this forum somewhat.


----------



## Joe R. (Jan 9, 2002)

Well I've stayed out of this for quite awhile. But figured I'd just pop in to make my appearance.

Larry A.
I guess I have to start here since you were the first to reply. You stated:
By the way, just for the record here is where I stand: I think the 4 1/2" stop is unnecessary. A dog can still perish with a stop of that length. The stop was intended as a deer stop not to make a snare nonlethal. 
Care to tell me were you come up with that statement. When I talked to you last year you told me you have never caught anything in a snare or even set a snare. In all the searches I've done I've never found a study that uses a 4 1/2" stop to study the lethality of a snare.
You also stated:
Actually, the DNR has records of well over 100 dog deaths in snares most of which were pet dogs and not even hunting dogs. I would have to look back in my collection of materials on this topic. If my memory serves me correctly most of those deaths were in the bottom 1/3 of the state.
Dave Lyons pretty much covered my response to that. If you can't produce the paper to back up your statement don't even bother posting.
You also stated:
I will openly admit I have only heard of that information 2nd hand
This exactly why this topic gets out of control, too many people going on second and third hand information, and yes there are trappers that don't know all the correct information either.
But I really like this comment:
Since, I am stuck in the middle of this issue as a trapper and a houndsmen, I have collected nearly two inches thick of paper work regarding both sides. Trust me, all 3 sides have done their share to create this mess.
You can feel stuck in the middle all you want, but don't go posting second hand information that does nothing further divide the two groups. I don't call that stuck in the middle I call it rocking the boat.


This post is getting long. More to come

Joe


----------



## Joe R. (Jan 9, 2002)

Dave Duncan,



> The fact is, our current right to use snares on land in Michigan was granted by the Conservation Commission on a trail basis, as a result of some outstanding efforts of our Trapping Association leadership. Since our right to use snaring as a wildlife management tool is therefore under major scrutiny, it would behoove us to keep our cool as we work our way through this process of fine tuning the mechanics of how we use snares.


It is true that snaring was granted on a trial basis for the first 3 years. On the fourth year they changed the regulations to add the requirement of a deer stop and a breakaway be attached to the snare. Now then after a year they changed things to the mess we have now.



> It sure would be nice if we could get one of our Michigan Trappers Association leaders to give us an explanation of how the increase in loop size actually came about. But lacking that, I think we can draw some conclusions from the following:


 The new law requirements came about when the MHDF contacted a few trappers one from within the state and 2 from Indiana. They mis-quouted one of the trappers and mis-represented their intentions to another. Both trappers sent rebutal letters to the DNR/NRC before the meeting last summer. The other gentlemen I won't comment on as I had the not so pleasant experience of meeting him last year at Outdoorramma.



> Unfortunately, our Trapper Association Leadership did not have a strong position to negotiate from, since our right to use snaring was granted only on a trial basis! Therefore, if any group petitioned the Conservation Commission to modify the snaring reg.'s, then the C. C. would be inclined to honor their petition, especially during this trail period.


Actually we have a lot of information in our favor, but the DNR tends to do everything on a trial basis any more. Kind of like QDM, the late pheasant season, snaring, bobcat trapping in the NL, etc...
When these new regulation changes came about we submitted close to 300 pages of data to the DNR/NRC to support the use of the snares we had at the time. The decision to change the regulations was not a scientific one, but a political one.

Joe


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

Alright...

This concludes my participation in this thread. Thanks to everyone who weighed in- I learned alot! If anyone has any further input or concerns for me- drop me a PM or email ([email protected]).

It seems to me that the majority of us agree that:

-Education on the proper placement and use of snares is absolutely necessary.

-Tresspassing by either trapper, hunter, or dog unacceptable.

To a lesser extent:

-The current minimum loop is of little benefit to anyone- it neither protects the dog or holds the coyote.

-Some people in the group truly do sit in a real bind as they participate is both sports.

Hopefully I have an opportunity to meet a few of you as I'm certain this topic will be the subject of future meetings. Everyone should make their respective organizations aware of their feelings on the issue; your/our leadership works for us- not for their own personal agendas! Also, I hope to see you all at the polls this November as we *all* vote to *support dove hunting!*

Thanks,
Andrew


----------

