# Should......?



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

*I would like you to give serious consideration to these questions before responding. 

Should a landowner have the unrestricted right to use humane snares (not cable restraints) on their own property to take predators, nuisance animals, and all furbearers? 

Should a landowner have the unrestricted right to use body gripping traps on their property to take predators, nuisance animals, and all furbearers?

Should a landowner be forced to suffer physical damage as well as financial damages to their property, crops, domestic pets, or livestock due to restrictive regulations imposed on them by the State for no reason other than public perception or the fear of some statistically insignificant issue possibly happening? *


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

Patrickr said:


> *I would like you to give serious consideration to these questions before responding.
> 
> Should a landowner have the unrestricted right to use humane snares (not cable restraints) on their own property to take predators, nuisance animals, and all furbearers?
> 
> ...


Comment #1- Absolutely along with the landowner's agent and/or guest.
Comment #2- Absolutely along with the landowner's agent and/or guest.
Comment #3- Absolutely NOT

At my age I didn't need any additional "serious consideration". LOL


----------



## Tilden Hunter (Jun 14, 2018)

#3 sound like trolling. A lot of words to hide what you are really saying. What is it?


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

What do you think it means?

I'm questioning if the MDNR and NRC should have, or has, the right to dictate to a landowner the trapping equipment that is to be utilized on his or her property for fur trapping or to resolve human - wildlife conflicts where the landowner is suffering, or about to suffer, physical and financial damages. 

I'm questioning if the MDNR and NRC should have, or has, the right to dictate to a landowner how and where a particular piece of trapping equipment can be used as well as how it should be used, on his or her property when the regulations are based on public perception or fear of some statistically insignificant issue that may or may not occur.

I believe, when it comes to trapping and trapping equipment, that the landowner should have the right to determine what types and sizes of equipment can be used on his or her property as well as how and where it can be utilized. And they should have the right to extend that right to their designated agent and/or guest on their property if they so desire. 

As fur harvesting (the trapping and hunting of predators and furbearers) and nuisance wildlife management are legally recognized commercial activities I believe the state has an obligation to allow the use of a much larger variety of trapping equipment with almost no restrictions what-so-ever on privately owned property. 

My advice to the various Michigan trapping associations is that they pursue getting unrestricted snaring and body gripper trapping on private property by making it a landowner rights issue. Find out exactly what are the rights of a landowner when it comes to protecting their property, crops, pets, and livestock from wildlife damage.


----------



## micooner (Dec 20, 2003)

As much as i would like to think my fellow property owners would act rationally history proves not. Unrestricted to do whatever we want on our own property is a thing of the past. So my answer is no, no, and no. Sad but true.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

Why are private landowners not allowed to do these things?


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

Feedinggrounds, that is what I would like to know.

Micooner, are you saying that a landowner shouldn't be allowed to set a #330 on dry land on his own property? That he or she shouldn't be allowed to place a snare in a coyote crawl under in his own fence? Or set a snare for beaver on dry land? If the USDA-APHIS-WS wildlife technicians can do these things then why can't the landowner? It is his property. If you say "no" then explain why he or she shouldn't be allowed to.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

They do not own the animals being trapped. They own the land.


----------



## Tilden Hunter (Jun 14, 2018)

Patrickr said:


> Feedinggrounds, that is what I would like to know.
> 
> Micooner, are you saying that a landowner shouldn't be allowed to set a #330 on dry land on his own property? That he or she shouldn't be allowed to place a snare in a coyote crawl under in his own fence? Or set a snare for beaver on dry land? If the USDA-APHIS-WS wildlife technicians can do these things then why can't the landowner? It is his property. If you say "no" then explain why he or she shouldn't be allowed to.


The people own the game, not the land owner. Why should this principle be different for trapping than it is for hunting?


----------



## micooner (Dec 20, 2003)

My only problem with your questions is one word. Unrestricted right. I don't have a problem with snares. 330s on dry land i have a problem with. I know keep my dog under control and there won't be a problem. I use all the latest electronics to do that but anything can happen when i turn ol fred loose.Last thing i want is him in a 330 and I'm sure you don't either.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

Is it wrong to wonder, if I cannot set any type of trap on my land. Why can a hound owner enter upon my land to retrieve a dog. If land is unoccupied the dog owner should contact rap hotline prior to entering land and again upon leaving. If the land is occupied then contact owner prior to entry and again when leaving. Why not? When a houndsman has 10 or more incidents one could question the responsibility of the person. We need to face reality that large tracts of land are fast becoming small tracts of land. The 20 acre landowner does not have less rights than the 600 acre owner. I know traps are very indiscriminate. No easy solution, I question every set I make. I could catch more furbearers with risky sets but it is not worth it to me, I type this as I look at my own dogs. I just love dogs, yours and mine. I will figure out how to do my thing as safe as possible, or I won't do it. Wish coyotes could be caught in trees.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

micooner said:


> My only problem with your questions is one word. Unrestricted right. I don't have a problem with snares. 330s on dry land i have a problem with. I know keep my dog under control and there won't be a problem. I use all the latest electronics to do that but anything can happen when i turn ol fred loose.Last thing i want is him in a 330 and I'm sure you don't either.


It would give me nightmares, I just love dogs, yours or mine.


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

feedinggrounds said:


> It would give me nightmares, I just love dogs, yours or mine.


I think it'd be very hard NOT to find a person who doesn't like dogs but where does the love of dogs trump a property owners rights? If the professed love of dogs is true(I know that it is), why do the loving owners allow their dogs to venture afield on their own and venture onto another person's private property without permission? Yet, these loving dog owners take necessary precautions NOT to allow their dog to run out into the road where they may be injured or killed by a car. Where then is the dog-lovers mindset when it comes to private property where there is the same possibility of dogs being harmed?

Concerning the dogs used in hunting whether it's chasing bunnies or chasing coyote. The excuse has been and is, "dogs don't know which properties they can go on so they just chase because they're dogs!" True enough because that is the "type" of hunting being done by the dog’s OWNER! Everybody has always just taken those facts for granted and the private property owner has had to knuckle under and be restricted in what he can do on his property as it pertains to trapping because of the dog owners desire to continue his sport in an unimpeded manner- "free-range chase"!


----------



## micooner (Dec 20, 2003)

I don't agree with anybody that would knowingly allow their dog to go on others property. Never have and never will. When the dog hunter is banned from free casting his dog by the government rest assured our trapping rights will be next.


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

LOL! What do you mean “will be next”? That’s exactly what we’ve been talking about, or at least I have. The property owner has had his trapping rights restricted to the point of uselessness because of “free casting”! I totally agree, if free-casting was restricted it would change how and the methods hunters use. Sound familar, that’s exactly what happened to trapping, methods and equipment changed by the State because of $$ & politics! The problem for the property owner is that he/we can never regain our rights, never undo the restrictions!


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

micooner said:


> I don't agree with anybody that would knowingly allow their dog to go on others property.


You personally may not BUT that is exactly how the trappers lost snares and now have usless cable restraints! It was because hunters/dog owners allowed their dogs to go on private property without permission. If they had asked permission from the property owner they would have learned there were snares hanging. If a dog owner/ lover knew there were snares hanging, I’d figure they would not have allowed free-casting on that property, just like how dog owners/lovers would never allow their dogs to run the roads and be in harms way.


----------



## micooner (Dec 20, 2003)

Here's one for my fellow property rights unrestricted to do as we please mindset. Check with your local township and get the restrictions for a backyard swimming pool. Some require a fence, a selflocking gate latch plus setbacks. Why? To protect others from accidental death. No different than trapping rules to prevent unintended deaths of non target animals.


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

I have an inground pool and a fence with a locked gate in order to prevent children (as in relation to dogs) from accidental death while trespassing on my property. That is also why a smart pool owner knowing accidents could still happen carries a multimillion $$ liability policy. Your analogy doesn’t cut it because the non target animals that caused the trapping restrictions on private property as Patrickr described were specifically, free-casting dogs.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

Remove the right of dog owners to enter private property unhindered to retrieve a dog. Require a call to authorities prior to entry. Require this each and every time, assign a reference # On private occupied land allow refusal by owner without LEO presence. Trappers have lost, landowners have lost, seems fair that dog hunters should bear some burden for the type of pursuit they choose. Like I said earlier, land sizes are changing along with the times. Hound hunters cannot deny they do see the changes on the horizon. Not as easy as it used to be and it won't get easier. They can be proactive or reactive with the sport restrictions.


----------



## micooner (Dec 20, 2003)

The difference is simple. A foothold trap or a snare with restraint is a forgiving device. A 220 or 330 as patrick used in the question is a killer to anything that sticks its head in. So in my opinion has no place on dry land.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

micooner said:


> The difference is simple. A foothold trap or a snare with restraint is a forgiving device. A 220 or 330 as patrick used in the question is a killer to anything that sticks its head in. So in my opinion has no place on dry land.


What are your thoughts on a requirement of calling LEO prior to entering upon private land to retrieve you dog? It could be done, it will protect your sport by showing who is repeatedly casting hounds that trespass. You said you do not condone that. No exceptions, no call to LEO means you get a trespass warning second time a charge. Certainly nothing wrong with that. Its the bad reckless Hound hunters that will ruin your sport, not trappers or landowners, every sport has them.


----------



## micooner (Dec 20, 2003)

I dont have a problem with something like that. I don't think its feasible though. 
A couple of examples, i called the cops on some fellow houndsmen who wouldn't leave property they were trespassing on. Took leo 90 minutes to arrive. 
Another time a 75 plus year old woman came down this gravel road at 1130pm with a bushmaster rifle by her side in an old buick. I personally had permission from the farmer who owned the land. She wanted me to get my dog and leave. I called washtenaw county sheriff. They suggested i call dnr. Response time was 2 hours. So i dont know how well it would work.
If by chance i get on someone's property i dont have permission i make an effort to touch base with them in the daylight to tell them how i got on their property and how they would like me to proceed if it happens again. Usually no problem except with the deer fanatic who somehow thinks i ruined his bambi hunt.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

micooner said:


> I dont have a problem with something like that. I don't think its feasible though.
> A couple of examples, i called the cops on some fellow houndsmen who wouldn't leave property they were trespassing on. Took leo 90 minutes to arrive.
> Another time a 75 plus year old woman came down this gravel road at 1130pm with a bushmaster rifle by her side in an old buick. I personally had permission from the farmer who owned the land. She wanted me to get my dog and leave. I called washtenaw county sheriff. They suggested i call dnr. Response time was 2 hours. So i dont know how well it would work.
> If by chance i get on someone's property i dont have permission i make an effort to touch base with them in the daylight to tell them how i got on their property and how they would like me to proceed if it happens again. Usually no problem except with the deer fanatic who somehow thinks i ruined his bambi hunt.


It would be a start. It should not matter to you why your not wanted, or allowed on private property Period. I think if a dog is at a tree on private land now, and a owner is there and said no you may not enter his/her land at that point dog or not, you will have to call a LEO and wait if need be, while whistling and calling old Fred from the property line. Would you escalate and defy the landowner or call LEO? I say this because it has gotten pretty bad with the coyote and cat guys up here I have replaced gates and replaced locks, given gamecam pics to LEO's. We have great wildlife habitat that we paid dearly for. I choose to manage the coyotes with traps, on my land. Calling someone a deer fanatic and referring to his quarry as bambi is really none of your business, and does not help a discussion. Again times are changing, some rouge participants in the sport of running dogs will speed that change up dramatically. When restrictions happen to your sport are, you going to look to trappers to side with you? How about the deer fanatic bambi hunters? I would not count on the landowners either. Your dog hunting groups should be proactive and self police, just saying. I took the effort to learn best trapping practices established. I applaud your efforts so far, you seem to be responsible.


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

Decoyslayer and Tildenhunter, it has nothing to do with who owns the wildlife. It is about a landowner's rights on his or her own property.

"Freecasting" of dogs is illegal. The Michigan Dog Law does not allow for dogs to run at will and pursue game wherever it goes. The dog shall be under the owner's, or owner's agent's, control at all times. The dog shall respond to voice or hand commands. Otherwise it is required to be on a leash at all times. Read the law. I always knew where the property lines were when I used to run beagles and **** hounds. If my dogs didn't listen to me and respond accordingly they were done being my dogs. And yes, I loved my dogs. I loved my dogs so much that I snare broke them. I trained them to sit down if they got caught in a snare. It doesn't take long to snare break a dog. A well trained dog will not fight a snare.

I used to use #280 and #330 size body grippers on dry land for beaver on private property quite regularly while doing commercial ADC work for trap wise beaver. The same for snares. Never had a dog issue. I did a tremendous amount of **** hunting during the 70's and 80's. There were probably tens of thousands of body grippers set out on any given night across the state. I live in a very high population area with a high concentration of trappers. Yet I never had a dog caught in a #220 or larger size body gripper trap. Never had one get caught in a foot hold trap either.

I think Micooner is a responsible hunter. He appears to be doing the right things. I've ran into many though that think they can go wherever they want to go, when they want to go. Houndsmen are not the only people who trespass though.

I operate almost exclusively on leased deer hunting lands for most of my canine and **** trapping. I go out of my way to work with the hunters who lease the land and the farmers who lease it out. Good communication and sincere efforts for working together go a long ways in building good, long lasting relationships.


----------



## Lucky Dog (Jul 4, 2004)

1. No
2. No
3. Yes


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

If trappers and landowners want the unrestricted use of body grippers and snares (not cable restraints or RAM snares) back on private lands only, then the trapper associations had better start building coalitions with like minded individuals and groups and pursue this through the legislature or if necessary through the judicial system.

There are other options the trappers could pursue as well.

Thank you Seldom for your assistance in this thread. I always like to receive your input and I value it very highly. Your experience shows.

Make no mistake about it, I am all for landowner rights. And make no mistake about it, I am in no way against running hounds for game animals, furbearers, and predators. But I am opposed to landowners losing rights for political reasons just as I am opposed to fur trappers and commercial nuisance wildlife control operators losing the unrestricted use of valuable tools for political reasons - it hurts the landowner financially.

My use of the #330 and snares on dry land for trap shy beaver was all conducted while I was doing legitimate legal nuisance wildlife control work years ago and was done with the prior consent of the landowners and under MDNR permit or with their special permission. Under our contractual agreement nobody was allowed on that property except the landowner, their immediate family members, and/or their employees. No running of dogs were allowed. Even today when I fur trap I am a stickler about having exclusive permission and no dogs are allowed to run on that property. Nobody wants to accidentally catch a domesticated animal.


----------



## micooner (Dec 20, 2003)

I would really like to have a more optimistic outlook but i don't. Our sport, hobby, recreational pursuit or business however you view it has very little public support. I feel the practices we have in place at this time is the best we have at this time with no upside potential both for trappers and houndsmen.


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

Lucky Dog, maybe you should inform the landowners on whose property you hunt or trap on that you don't care about any financial or physical damages they may suffer from nuisance wildlife, and depredating furbearers or predators. I'm sure they will appreciate how you care about their wellbeing.


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

micooner said:


> I would really like to have a more optimistic outlook but i don't. Our sport, hobby, recreational pursuit or business however you view it has very little public support. I feel the practices we have in place at this time is the best we have at this time with no upside potential both for trappers and houndsmen.


Sad but I believe true, when MI trappers can’t get a deer stop moved even 3/4” on a CR!! Jerks my bobber big time!


----------



## Lucky Dog (Jul 4, 2004)

Patrickr said:


> Lucky Dog, maybe you should inform the landowners on whose property you hunt or trap on that you don't care about any financial or physical damages they may suffer from nuisance wildlife, and depredating furbearers or predators. I'm sure they will appreciate how you care about their wellbeing.


Nice!

Someone disagree's with your point of view and you go on the attack? With an attitude like yours I see a real dim future for the sport I love.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Maybe I missed it somewhere in here but I don't think this is so much a hound hunter issue as it is a pet issue. I ran hounds for many years and understood the risks involved. Pet owners are another story. We shouldn't be so quick to pit trappers against hounds. We need to stick together.


----------



## jeffm (Sep 20, 2008)

Justin said:


> Maybe I missed it somewhere in here but I don't think this is so much a hound hunter issue as it is a pet issue.


Bingo !! Most certainly out west imo. not real up on the michigan deal, but they may have just followed the westerners, who knows..just a rambling thought, either way I do feel all your pain, seriously.
1) yes
2)Yes
3) no


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

Myself I am a involuntary trespass victim, and also a responsible trapper. My land has both been trespassed upon by hounds, feral or pet dogs and humans seeking domesticated lost dogs. I do not know the answer, but just offered up some ideas that may identify those who abuse the right, (so far) to go upon another persons private land uninvited.


----------



## wicklundrh (Mar 18, 2014)

I've told this story before but it is worth mentioning again here.

I own property (a small farm). I also own a dog (a small dog). My dog (when she was younger) would occasionally, when not being watched, decide that she needed to go and investigate the farm on her own. Nothing wrong or illegal with that as it is my property and my land. I could tell you exactly where she went and about when she would be back. She didn't go on others land. Didn't need to in order to have her fun.

As you all know, I am also a trapper. On November the 1st, I set **** traps on my property as well as the managment property I work with. Should I be able to trap **** in southern Michigan prior to November 1st? Yes, but that is for a different debate. 

On the second of November, I was sitting in my chair, well after dark. I had been bow hunting that night. I was wondering where my doggie was. I went down stairs and she was not snuggled up next to my wife. She was GONE! Now, under normal circumstances, and any other year, I would not be concerned BUT, this year, I forgot to include her in my trap settings and again TRAIN her about the traps. My mind knew what was happening.

My dad took one ridge while I took the other. He found her stuck in a LEGAL conibear trap. She was NOT dead. She had been pinned to the ground, trap behind her head, wind pipe pinched and trap trigger down through her nose and out her jaw! She spent 3 days in intensive care at MSU and came home on my birthday. I still have her to this day and she is 15 years old. She is a Jack Russell.

One October 29th, I had fears of catching a dog. For that reason, I decided that I would switch my ENTIRE line to DP traps. I had a huge order in with FnT but it didn't arrive in time to start the season.

In the end, after everything that I went through... I still have the exact same feelings today that I did before. I should have the right to be able to set any trap how I choose on my land. Yes, I did catch a dog (my own) but, as an animal owner, it was MY FAULT! I just got lucky.

FYI, she doesn't run out back now without supervision (her rules not mine). I don't trap ***** with conibear traps anymore (would like to again some day), and all is happy.


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

Lucky Dog, who is on the attack? I was merely making a suggestion for you based on your responses to my questions. Nothing to debate or discuss when you offered no substance/context to support your answers. Everybody has a right to express their opinions and all opinions are valued. If you would like to express your opinions and concerns further please feel free to join the discussion.


----------



## wicklundrh (Mar 18, 2014)

Second part of this:

As I told you, I have a managment property that butts up to mine. I have tons of cameras and normally do not have any issue with tresspessers (mainly because I prosecute them).

Around October 15th, I started getting photos of someone after midnight. It took me a few photos to realize that they had on chaps, and a few more to realize it was a hound hunter. For the record, I have zero issues when doen responsibly.

Eventually, I got a photo of the dogs and a clear photo of the person in question. As luck would have it, a person had recently moved in to the trailer up the road (rental) and they had a dog cage and several **** hound stickers in the back of the truck. As I was on the tractor driving by to the management property, I took note. On my way back, I stopped by for a visit.

At first he denied it. Then he gave me the "I have a right to go get my dog routine". Again, I have no issues. What I DID have an issue with is the fact that he owns no property. Furthermore, there is zero state land and zero permission from any of the property owners. At this point in time, it was determined that he was letting his dogs go in the evening and then using the rouse "I have the right to get my dogs" to retrieve them!!!

I was quick to point out that, it was in fact after october 15th and, although dogs can hunt *****, I cannot trap them until November 1st. That being said... what I CAN do is legally trap Coyotes. I pointed out to him that on my farm and the 98 acre tract I manage, I have no less than 25 foot hold traps. Some being number 2 and number 3 duke 2 spring traps for fox while others are Bridger number 3 4 coil traps. Although it won't kill the dog, it is designed to hold him in place. 

That information along with the visit from the property owner (a Michigan State Trooper) and his guest (A DNR conservation officer) finished the issue once and for all. Now, if his dogs are on the property, it is because they got loose on accident! And, he does what he should do, make an attempt to contact me!


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

Wicklundrh, that was a moving story, so glad it did not result in death. But gosh that was a tough injury. I have 2 small dogs, I am a sucker for Dachsuns but my two are mixed one with poodle the other is a Chaweenie...lol My big worry is dam coyotes they are all around my place and find at least one rabbit shake, tug of war kill by them every week or so. So glad you still have your dog and gosh I love them DP **** traps too. But my hunting land is very remote with nearest house a couple miles away. I do get too many feral cats, I think they are dropped at end of the road.


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

Justin, you are correct in your assessment of the "pet" issue, but where the organized dog hunter groups get into the mix is they are directly responsible for many of the trap and snaring restrictions we have on the books today - not your average urbanite with a dog or dogs that they let run free. The MDNR and MNRC at the urging of the Michigan Bear Hunters Association and the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation have taken more valuable tools from me, have restricted me in more ways, and placed more unnecessary regulations on me in how, where, and when, I can use my equipment than PETA, the Fund For Animals, and HSUS ever have.


----------



## jeffm (Sep 20, 2008)

Patrickr said:


> Justin, you are correct in your assessment of the "pet" issue, but where the organized dog hunter groups get into the mix is they are directly responsible for many of the trap and snaring restrictions we have on the books today - not your average urbanite with a dog or dogs that they let run free. The MDNR and MNRC at the urging of the Michigan Bear Hunters Association and the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation have taken more valuable tools from me, have restricted me in more ways, and placed more unnecessary regulations on me in how, where, and when, I can use my equipment than PETA, the Fund For Animals, and HSUS ever have.


I did not know this, it's been many years since the hound life for me, I do remember on here reading about some bobcat trapping issues on public land for trappers and hound guys not looked at to favorably for not helping with the bobcat decision. 

Guess i better do some googling to get caught up to speed with what's been going on in michigan. Thanks for educating me Patrickr.


----------



## Fool'em (Sep 29, 2016)

Yes
Yes
No

What really trips my trigger is the restrictions on snares. I don't hold much hope for dry land 330s but I would hope that folks are smart enough to understand a snare does not pose a threat to a domestic dog. A snare is not much different than a choke collar. Any dog under its owners control even if remote control like a tracking collar will only be detained the amount of time it takes the owner to arrive and release. 
Deer stops ...... I call BS. I guess the deer hunters would rather count on the coyotes killing their deer instead of the chance that I accidentally catch one and inflict emotional damage to it before it breaks the breakaway device. 

i had a group of coyote houndsmen running the area I used to live. I met them on the road one day and offered them permission to hunt my property. I told then they could access it any time they wanted for coyote hunting but there would possibly be coyote sets in and if their hound didn't come out they would have to get out of the truck and go in and release their dog. They were very wary of snares at first so I showed them how they work and how to remove them. I even caught their dog with one right there by the truck one day and they all saw just how harmless snares really are. 

I guess common sense is not the norm these days and the uniformed get swayed by those with an agenda. I don't hold any hope that our DNR does the right thing but I support any movement in that direction. Just hasn't been any I awhile. 

Wicklunder
I thought that **** season opened on Oct 15th now. Changed a couple years ago I thought.


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

And no it is not a situation where it is case closed because somebody showed some photos of dogs in snares and body grippers. You have to challenge the photos as being staged. You have to force the opposition to produce official law enforcement reports that go along with those particular photos. No report equals the photo is staged and the alleged death event never happened as illustrated. You have to take the initiative and secure copies of all the official law enforcement reports concerning dogs caught in snares and body grippers by using the Freedom Of Information Act on a yearly basis so you have your ducks in row before hand. You have to push the issue of was the dog and/or person with the dog where they had a legal right to be and was the dog under the owner's, or owner's agent's, control and is that information contained in the official law enforcement report. You have to challenge how valuable a particular dog was, or how much it was loved as a pet, since it clearly wasn't under the owner's, or owner's agent's, control as required by law. And when somebody claims a domestic animal is worth a certain price, even if it is a very vague price reference, you challenge them to prove it through documentation (papers showing its bloodline). And above all else, if it is at all possible, depending on the meeting setting, you have to walk a dog in a snare into the hearing room or make darn sure those in a position of making a ruling for or against you see a dog or two alive in a snare in person. Snares and body grippers don't kill dogs; irresponsible dog owner's, or the owner's agent's do by not having their dogs under control and by not training their dogs on choke collars.

You have to be prepared to fight like a defense attorney would since we always seem to be fighting from a defensive position.


----------

