# I don't want your hounds on my land...



## davi5982

noshow said:


> If the hunters are runnin coyotes with those hounds then so be it, i say. Get as many as u can. U should be glad someone is hunting them in ur neighborhood. They should have made contact with all neighboring property owners first and let them know what they are doing. Now if they are marching all over my land or there dogs suck and are runnin my deer then there is a problem.


Here is the real problem with hunting these days. "My deer", are you kidding me that's all I hear. I understand "my land" or "my car" but "my deer" come on. This is the problem, MINE,MINE, MINE.

sent from the great outdoors


----------



## bucko12pt

swampbuck said:


> I understand the laws and realise you may not even know the people, But just an Observarion..........
> 
> Until I was eleven years old (1977) I live in Brant, Much of my extended family still does.....My ancestors built the Brant bar.
> 
> When I was a kid, nobody cared if one of the locals got some rabbits off their property, Permission wasnt a big concern and there werent any no tresspassing signs....hell if the landowner had time he might join them, Neighbors used to stop bye and borrow our dog....
> 
> Its your property, do what yo.u want......But I still have to wonder, what to hell happened to this society.


 
Society moved in and the first thing they did is post their land.


----------



## FixedBlade

Call the law the first time. After that just start shoot'in their dogs.


----------



## jafurnier

homer hounds said:


> ias long as they try to do right


*Do you believe they think they will shoot the coyote on the small parcel they have permission to hunt?* 

There are 40 landowners in the section...one guy gave them permission.

I have hunted behind dogs. It is a riot. But the guys I hunted with are not THESE guys. They hunt legally and ehtically. They either have permission over a large area or hunt the huge tracts of public land in the area. They do not find someone with 10 acres to let them drop off their dogs so they can run them from one end of the township to another.


----------



## jafurnier

I let numerous people hunt my place...because they ASKED. These "hunters" do not ask...they TAKE. I find it completely amusing you are more critical of people who buy something for their own personal use than someone who "takes" it. Amusing that the owner is the one with the problem. YOU ARE WRONG. Plain and simple. Only in a warped society do people see the "takers" as somehow getting screwed.

What if they asked me for permission? In this case, because there are so many people who hate these guys in the section...I would say no if they asked. Why? Because the nieghbors shouldn't have to put up with the dogs, guns and vehicles.

I also do not see these guys as doing a "public service". The way I handle the coyotes...some guy I didn't know asked to hunt them with calls...so I said yes. Another guy asked to trap...I said yes. This way it does not tick off the neighbors...like 15 guys standing all along the road with guns...and trucks parked every 200 yds.


----------



## jafurnier

I do recognize the dogs are doing what tehy are trained to do. I would not shoot them. I also would not put out snares. I know guys who would...but the dog is not the one really causing the problem.


----------



## boehr

homer hounds said:


> i run beagles and understand you cant cotrol were a dog gets ran when following game, with that said i followed a pack of dogs on a coyote in mid mich and we covered 14 miles in 30 minutes. If you are posting on here your suppose to be a SPORTSMAN, as long as they try to do right, you try to do right and enjoy a new eye opener, ask to tag along before you judge, just my thoughts, you might like it. (GET OUYSIDE ITS A GREAT PLACE TO BE)


Correct me if I'm wrong but if you hunted in Michigan on that 14 mile trek I find it difficult to believe you had persmission on all the land you covered for that 14 miles and you are posting on here as a "sportsman"?

As to the OP, I understand greatly just how and what is happeneing. I used to love working coyote hunters in Feb and March especially after a light fresh snow. They would turn their dogs loose on a track and the dogs would take off and run for an hour while these clowns road around in their trucks with their rifles waiting for the coyote to get tired out (they weren't good enough shots to shoot a coyote on a full run until they slowed down) before they would shoot it on some unknown persons property from their truck or the road. I worked at finding all the radio frequencies (since most use radios for communication) on their radios so I could monitor the action from a distance so they wouldn't see my patrol vehicle and got ready to pounce on them at the right time, Boy, would they whine like babies when I issued them tickets for trespass, loaded/uncased guns in a motor vehicle or hunt from a motor vehicle, took the yote and their gun. It took time to learn how they operated (about 2 years) but once I figured it out I did have fun, year after year. Some of those clowns did deer drives using their radios too and had fun catching hunters shooting multiple deer and someone else tagging them etc., too.

That is not to say all dog hunters are like this because they are not. It is just like everything else, the minority makes the majority look bad and the majority ends up getting screwed with new laws and landowners saying "no" because of the clowns. I would say poachers instead of clowns but some always seem to want to agrue what a poacher is. lol


----------



## casscityalum

boehr said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but if you hunted in Michigan on that 14 mile trek I find it difficult to believe you had persmission on all the land you covered for that 14 miles and you are posting on here as a "sportsman"?
> 
> As to the OP, I understand greatly just how and what is happeneing. I used to love working coyote hunters in Feb and March especially after a light fresh snow. They would turn their dogs loose on a track and the dogs would take off and run for an hour while these clowns road around in their trucks with their rifles waiting for the coyote to get tired out (they weren't good enough shots to shoot a coyote on a full run until they slowed down) before they would shoot it on some unknown persons property from their truck or the road. I worked at finding all the radio frequencies (since most use radios for communication) on their radios so I could monitor the action from a distance so they wouldn't see my patrol vehicle and got ready to pounce on them at the right time, Boy, would they whine like babies when I issued them tickets for trespass, loaded/uncased guns in a motor vehicle or hunt from a motor vehicle, took the yote and their gun. It took time to learn how they operated (about 2 years) but once I figured it out I did have fun, year after year. Some of those clowns did deer drives using their radios too and had fun catching hunters shooting multiple deer and someone else tagging them etc., too.
> 
> That is not to say all dog hunters are like this because they are not. It is just like everything else, the minority makes the majority look bad and the majority ends up getting screwed with new laws and landowners saying "no" because of the clowns. I would say poachers instead of clowns but some always seem to want to agrue what a poacher is. lol


You must have worked some of the thumb groups. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## DFJISH

I started a post similar to this one last year and it got locked PDQ. This gives me a chance to continue....for a while? :lol:
I spend a LOT of time contacting land owners to get permission to hunt(call) and trap( and snare) coyotes in my county. _EVERY year_ there are gangs of hound hunters that work the roads adjacent to where I call and snare. If they cut a hot track they dump out the dogs and it's GAME ON. Both the landowners and myself have caught them standing by their trucks with guns loaded. They have been told and warned, and last year even got a citation. _It made *NO DIFFERENCE.*_ They keep coming back. Because I have permission on so many big parcels over such a large region I KNOW they have no permission to hunt where I do. 
_The current regulations pertaining to trespassing hounds are inadequate, unfair, and ineffective._ 
Yes, tiimes have changed. 30-40 years ago most of this area was big farms and landowners could care less if hounds ran foxes across their fields. Now those farms have been chopped up into 10-20 acre mini-farms and everyone has a fenceline heavily posted. *They don't want hounds running on their land.* Since hound hunting is what it is and can't really be changed, my suggestion is that running canines with hounds should be restricted to PUBLIC land. I can't snare on public land so let's get fair. There is a gazillion acres of state land in MI and that is where hounds can run without trespassing. I know that will never fly so my other suggestion is that some _much more_ serious consequences result from trespassing hounds. If the groups in my area were nailed with a very hefty fine I think they might go hunt somewhere else.


----------



## kingfishcam

I know the community around Fowlerville has had enough of the disrespectful coyote hunters using dogs. Every fresh snowfall brings another round of discussion.
It is unfortunate that hunters can't respect landowner rights, and the law does little to help.


----------



## Justin

DFJISH said:


> _The current regulations pertaining to trespassing hounds are inadequate, unfair, and ineffective._
> Yes, tiimes have changed. 30-40 years ago most of this area was big farms and landowners could care less if hounds ran foxes across their fields. Now those farms have been chopped up into 10-20 acre mini-farms and everyone has a fenceline heavily posted. *They don't want hounds running on their land.* Since hound hunting is what it is and can't really be changed, my suggestion is that running canines with hounds should be restricted to PUBLIC land. I can't snare on public land so let's get fair. There is a gazillion acres of state land in MI and that is where hounds can run without trespassing. I know that will never fly so my other suggestion is that some _much more_ serious consequences result from trespassing hounds. If the groups in my area were nailed with a very hefty fine I think they might go hunt somewhere else.


Nonsense. It's not trespassing hounds that are the real problem, it's the hunters. The way to stop this is to nail the hunters...hard. Take their weapons and vehicles. Fine the crap out of them. They are usually road hunting or trespassing themselves. This gives all dog hunters a bad name. You can't hardly compare these guys to me running rabbits with my beagle, or someone bird hunting behind a pointer. You seriously want to stop all private land dog hunting? That sounds like a city boy that's moved to the country.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

DFJISH said:


> I started a post similar to this one last year and it got locked PDQ. This gives me a chance to continue....for a while? :lol:
> I spend a LOT of time contacting land owners to get permission to hunt(call) and trap( and snare) coyotes in my county. _EVERY year_ there are gangs of hound hunters that work the roads adjacent to where I call and snare. If they cut a hot track they dump out the dogs and it's GAME ON. Both the landowners and myself have caught them standing by their trucks with guns loaded. They have been told and warned, and last year even got a citation. _It made *NO DIFFERENCE.*_ They keep coming back. Because I have permission on so many big parcels over such a large region I KNOW they have no permission to hunt where I do.
> _The current regulations pertaining to trespassing hounds are inadequate, unfair, and ineffective._
> Yes, tiimes have changed. 30-40 years ago most of this area was big farms and landowners could care less if hounds ran foxes across their fields. Now those farms have been chopped up into 10-20 acre mini-farms and everyone has a fenceline heavily posted. *They don't want hounds running on their land.* Since hound hunting is what it is and can't really be changed, my suggestion is that running canines with hounds should be restricted to PUBLIC land. I can't snare on public land so let's get fair. There is a gazillion acres of state land in MI and that is where hounds can run without trespassing. I know that will never fly so my other suggestion is that some _much more_ serious consequences result from trespassing hounds. If the groups in my area were nailed with a very hefty fine I think they might go hunt somewhere else.


Thats just it, most don't care. They run them from the Ohio border all the way up to Gaylord. They know they are doing wrong and think its funny. Most are too fat to run themselves, just plain lazy, and thats a lot of them. I wouldn't care if it went away. I'd never miss it.


----------



## wise8706

homer hounds said:


> i run beagles and understand you cant cotrol were a dog gets ran when following game, with that said i followed a pack of dogs on a coyote in mid mich and we covered 14 miles in 30 minutes. If you are posting on here your suppose to be a SPORTSMAN, as long as they try to do right, you try to do right and enjoy a new eye opener, ask to tag along before you judge, just my thoughts, you might like it. (GET OUYSIDE ITS A GREAT PLACE TO BE)


Agree!!!!


_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors._


----------



## wadevb1

noshow said:


> If the hunters are runnin coyotes with those hounds then so be it, i say. Get as many as u can. U should be glad someone is hunting them in ur neighborhood. They should have made contact with all neighboring property owners first and let them know what they are doing. Now if they are marching all over my land or there dogs suck and are runnin my deer then there is a problem.


I take issue with this statement. I have permission to hunt large sections of private property in Northern Michigan.

Grinds me after a three hour trip to find locals ran it dry. A few years back they circled it after I parked and was actively calling. I wrote down a plate and phoned 911. Guy got on the radio and split, but I'm sure they returned the following day.

Private means private.


----------



## boehr

casscityalum said:


> You must have worked some of the thumb groups.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Ya think.:evilsmile


----------



## hunterrep

Had the same issue this year with hounds running coyotes across my land and many neighboring properties. They thought that since they had some permission and they waited until after deer season, it was OK to run wild where they pleased. 
Luckily, we found out who they were and the problem has stopped in our area but I'm sure they just moved to another area. I would have had them arrested if it weren't for the fact that one of the kids is good friends with my daughter. Truth is, they were very polite kids that felt they weren't doing anything wrong. If there is a next time, I will have them arrested.
For those that think this is no big deal, you obviously don't devote the time, money and effort into establishing ideal, unmolested whitetail habitat. After they did this for 3 weekends before we caught them, there were ZERO deer on my farm that usually houses many.
On another note, I called the DNR and they said that I have to physically catch them on my property and hold them there before I can prosecute. I was told this after being on hold for 15 minutes when I called the RAP line. I haven't called RAP in many years it was a very unpleasant experience.


----------



## mcfish

We get the same thing here in Muskegon/Ottawa but not one of us landowners care as long as the coyotes are getting killed. We've got more 'yotes than game at this point. 

From what I've seen, the dogs sprint through the section and really don't spend that much time hurting anything.


----------



## SlapchopKid

mcfish said:


> We get the same thing here in Muskegon/Ottawa but not one of us landowners care as long as the coyotes are getting killed. We've got more 'yotes than game at this point.
> 
> From what I've seen, the dogs sprint through the section and really don't spend that much time hurting anything.


My thoughts also.

My opinion, if they want to run and kill coyotes, let em.

Most people want the phesant population to rebound.


----------



## Justin

mcfish said:


> We get the same thing here in Muskegon/Ottawa but not one of us landowners care as long as the coyotes are getting killed. We've got more 'yotes than game at this point.
> 
> From what I've seen, the dogs sprint through the section and really don't spend that much time hurting anything.


The difference is now many landowners are trying to hold deer on their land and think the dogs will run them off. It's been my experience that this just doesn't happen. I have watched dogs run right past deer and the deer just stand there or run a short distance and then return. Deer know if they are being chased or not. Too many landowners won't allow access to coyote hunters or trappers and then whine about all the coyotes on their land. The coyotes will do more to run off the deer than dogs will.


----------



## ibthetrout

What about those of use that hunt coyotes on our own properties? We should just put up with someone else taking game off our property? I'd be hot if it were happening to me. I might call RAP, but I'd be outside confronting them too, as I do any tresspasser/poacher!


----------



## hunterrep

Justin said:


> The difference is now many landowners are trying to hold deer on their land and think the dogs will run them off. It's been my experience that this just doesn't happen. I have watched dogs run right past deer and the deer just stand there or run a short distance and then return. Deer know if they are being chased or not. Too many landowners won't allow access to coyote hunters or trappers and then whine about all the coyotes on their land. The coyotes will do more to run off the deer than dogs will.


You couldn't be more wrong about your last sentence. You also couldn't be more wrong about disturbing sanctuaries. If it is done over and over, they will vacate the property. And, it isn't just the dogs on your land. I had 6 guys that covered every section of mine and my neighbors property "retrieving their dogs". One of them even climbed one of my tree stands to "retrieve his dog". They use this crutch because they can legally retrieve their dog but they choose to ignore the part about carrying guns while they retrieving their dogs.
Bottome line, I actually think what they do is kind of cool, but that style of coyote hunting just isn't possible to do in parts of Michigan because of the fractured land. Too many landowners to get permission from and they know it, but they do it anyhow and there lies the problem.


----------



## captjimtc

Yup have the same problem every year on our property too. Dogs running loose all over chasing deer! Setting up 330 conibears baited with meat is all that works in my necks of the woods. LEO's don't seem to care about dealing with trespassers and the owners only understand one thing! It's too bad but if you don't own the land go to state land were you belong! I have lost all respect for hound hunters period. You want to hunt grouse or waterfowel with dogs that's fine but I'm all against running bear, *****, or yotes with dogs. Personally I wish that type of hunting would be BANNED forever and I don't really care about the hunters sticking together at this point because I don't consider that to be hunting!


----------



## DFJISH

Justin said:


> Nonsense. It's not trespassing hounds that are the real problem, it's the hunters. The way to stop this is to nail the hunters...hard. Take their weapons and vehicles. Fine the crap out of them. They are usually road hunting or trespassing themselves. This gives all dog hunters a bad name. You can't hardly compare these guys to me running rabbits with my beagle, or someone bird hunting behind a pointer. You seriously want to stop all private land dog hunting? That sounds like a city boy that's moved to the country.


You obviously misread my post. I suggested "nailing *the hunters* hard." I also said that running *CANINES* with hounds should be restricted to public land....not running rabbits or bird hunting.

To the guys who have said to just _"let the hounds run the coyotes to get rid of them."_ Thanks a helluva lot for _totally disregarding_ MY rights to call and trap and snare coyotes on the private lands where I GOT PERMISSION to do so!!!!
Fact is that running hounds often interferes with calling, trapping, and snaring. What we have are two user groups after the same animal in the same place. I HAVE PERMISSION to be there AND HOUND HUNTERS DON'T. That shouldn't be very hard to understand!!!


----------



## Justin

hunterrep said:


> You couldn't be more wrong about your last sentence. You also couldn't be more wrong about disturbing sanctuaries. If it is done over and over, they will vacate the property. And, it isn't just the dogs on your land. I had 6 guys that covered every section of mine and my neighbors property "retrieving their dogs". One of them even climbed one of my tree stands to "retrieve his dog". They use this crutch because they can legally retrieve their dog but they choose to ignore the part about carrying guns while they retrieving their dogs.
> Bottome line, I actually think what they do is kind of cool, but that style of coyote hunting just isn't possible to do in parts of Michigan because of the fractured land. Too many landowners to get permission from and they know it, but they do it anyhow and there lies the problem.


No.. I'm not wrong. Do you really think a dog running through will bother a deer as much as a coyote that is chasing him? If the deer abandon your sanctuary that easy it's not much of a sanctuary. I can spend half a day hunting rabbits on the farm and the deer are back that night. I chase them out of my garden and they're back the next day. Now I'm certainly not sticking up for these guys. They make all dog hunters look bad. By all means...prosecute them. BTW, the impression I got from the op was that the hunters stayed on the road. If they enter the property, that's another story.


----------



## brookie1

hunterrep said:


> You couldn't be more wrong about your last sentence. You also couldn't be more wrong about disturbing sanctuaries. If it is done over and over, they will vacate the property. And, it isn't just the dogs on your land. I had 6 guys that covered every section of mine and my neighbors property "retrieving their dogs". One of them even climbed one of my tree stands to "retrieve his dog". They use this crutch because they can legally retrieve their dog but they choose to ignore the part about carrying guns while they retrieving their dogs.
> Bottome line, I actually think what they do is kind of cool, but that style of coyote hunting just isn't possible to do in parts of Michigan because of the fractured land. Too many landowners to get permission from and they know it, but they do it anyhow and there lies the problem.


They can only use the excuse once if you tell them they don't have permission to be on your land. If they do it again, even to "retrieve dogs", they are trespassing. Not that it's a deterent, but it is the law.


----------



## Justin

DFJISH said:


> You obviously misread my post. I suggested "nailing *the hunters* hard." I also said that running *CANINES* with hounds should be restricted to public land....not running rabbits or bird hunting.
> 
> To the guys who have said to just _"let the hounds run the coyotes to get rid of them."_ Thanks a helluva lot for _totally disregarding_ MY rights to call and trap and snare coyotes on the private lands where I GOT PERMISSION to do so!!!!
> Fact is that running hounds often interferes with calling, trapping, and snaring. What we have are two user groups after the same animal in the same place. I HAVE PERMISSION to be there AND HOUND HUNTERS DON'T. That shouldn't be very hard to understand!!!


You are correct, I missed the "canines" part. Sorry, hope that explains my response.


----------



## METTLEFISH

boehr said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but if you hunted in Michigan on that 14 mile trek I find it difficult to believe you had persmission on all the land you covered for that 14 miles and you are posting on here as a "sportsman"?
> 
> As to the OP, I understand greatly just how and what is happeneing. I used to love working coyote hunters in Feb and March especially after a light fresh snow. They would turn their dogs loose on a track and the dogs would take off and run for an hour while these clowns road around in their trucks with their rifles waiting for the coyote to get tired out (they weren't good enough shots to shoot a coyote on a full run until they slowed down) before they would shoot it on some unknown persons property from their truck or the road. I worked at finding all the radio frequencies (since most use radios for communication) on their radios so I could monitor the action from a distance so they wouldn't see my patrol vehicle and got ready to pounce on them at the right time, Boy, would they whine like babies when I issued them tickets for trespass, loaded/uncased guns in a motor vehicle or hunt from a motor vehicle, took the yote and their gun. It took time to learn how they operated (about 2 years) but once I figured it out I did have fun, year after year. Some of those clowns did deer drives using their radios too and had fun catching hunters shooting multiple deer and someone else tagging them etc., too.
> 
> That is not to say all dog hunters are like this because they are not. It is just like everything else, the minority makes the majority look bad and the majority ends up getting screwed with new laws and landowners saying "no" because of the clowns. I would say poachers instead of clowns but some always seem to want to agrue what a poacher is. lol


Wow... I did not know it was about having fun.. something about serve and protect.....


----------



## Justin

captjimtc said:


> Yup have the same problem every year on our property too. Dogs running loose all over chasing deer! Setting up 330 conibears baited with meat is all that works in my necks of the woods. LEO's don't seem to care about dealing with trespassers and the owners only understand one thing! It's too bad but if you don't own the land go to state land were you belong! I have lost all respect for hound hunters period. You want to hunt grouse or waterfowel with dogs that's fine but I'm all against running bear, *****, or yotes with dogs. Personally I wish that type of hunting would be BANNED forever and I don't really care about the hunters sticking together at this point because I don't consider that to be hunting!


Dogs chasing deer is another topic. Most hunters don't run dogs that chase deer. Setting 330's with meat is not a good solution, just gives trappers a black eye.


----------



## DFJISH

brookie1 said:


> They can only use the excuse once if you tell them they don't have permission to be on your land. If they do it again, even to "retrieve dogs", they are trespassing. Not that it's a deterent, but it is the law.


And it HAS NOT been a deterrent in my neck of the woods. I have told them to leave, the landowners have told them to leave(more than once), and one gang was given a citation. 
There is a solution to the law being no deterrent. If they get hit with a big enough fine they will _probably_ get the message. That solves MY problem, but then sends it elsewhere. I only see two solutions. 1) Restrict hunting CANINES with hounds to state land or B) ban the hunting of canines on private land.


----------



## SlapchopKid

I support the dispatch of every coyote, with every legal method. If people are having that bad of an issue with others-repeat offenders(and I do support tickets for those that tresspass), there must be an over abundance of coyotes??

If this is the case, I would not be in favor of any restrictions or limitations.


----------



## Justin

People in the U.P. have the same problem with some bear hunters. The answer is harsh penalties for repeat offenders. As a law abiding dog hunter I support that.


----------



## kingfisher 11

I hate that it has to come to this, but its the changing of the times. I totally understand this since I have been on both sides of the issue. I gre up in Antrim county and did two things in the fall. Deer hunted in Nov and **** hunted the rest of the year.

When I finally had to move south for a job. I gave up my dogs. I just could not, in good concience hunt in Southern MI. I loved running dogs but they ran all over private ground. That never sit well with me. I guess I just repected other peoples property too much.

I have heard time after time that deer don't seem bothered by dogs running around. I agree to a point and I can't prove it. Yet, the big bucks I like to hunt are strange creatures. I personally believe they don't like to be disturbed. If they are pushed one too many times... I believe they find another bedroom. I have hunted ground where big bucks were seen daily in Oct. As soon as the ***** got prime and the dogs came in the big buck sighting dropped off. Even during the rut when we should been seeing them.

This is not much different then the large group of guys who come in an do deer drives on private ground. They hope they can get in and out before LEO arrives.


----------



## Hiperformance

So wanting to ban running game with hounds because of some bad groups out there is like saying I would like to see deer hunting banned because every year I have to kick some a-holes of my land because they trespass. I would never want that to happen to any legal way of hunting. We just need to get rid of the bad ones in every sport. I am all for stiffer penalties.


----------



## hunterrep

kingfisher 11 said:


> I hate that it has to come to this, but its the changing of the times. I totally understand this since I have been on both sides of the issue. I gre up in Antrim county and did two things in the fall. Deer hunted in Nov and **** hunted the rest of the year.
> 
> When I finally had to move south for a job. I gave up my dogs. I just could not, in good concience hunt in Southern MI. I loved running dogs but they ran all over private ground. That never sit well with me. I guess I just repected other peoples property too much.
> 
> I have heard time after time that deer don't seem bothered by dogs running around. I agree to a point and I can't prove it. Yet, the big bucks I like to hunt are strange creatures. I personally believe they don't like to be disturbed. If they are pushed one too many times... I believe they find another bedroom. I have hunted ground where big bucks were seen daily in Oct. As soon as the ***** got prime and the dogs came in the big buck sighting dropped off. Even during the rut when we should been seeing them.
> 
> This is not much different then the large group of guys who come in an do deer drives on private ground. They hope they can get in and out before LEO arrives.


You are correct in that the style of hunting for ***** or coyotes just does not work within the land fragmentation framework of southern Michigan. I commend you for realizing and adjusting to that instead of just doing it anyhow.
I also believe you are spot on with deer behavior relating to intrusion. Repeated intrusion just is not tolerated by mature deer. They will eventually move on and find quieter ground.

I too would hate to see the abandonment of using dogs for hunting purposes. Just like all trespassing and poaching infractions, stiffer penalties are the key. It is hard to get a conviction, make it hurt real bad when you do get one.


----------



## bassdisaster

How about we all just act like Government and keep taking away our own rights Ok, we apparently don't like our selves or anyone, so lets just make hunting with dogs a CRIME, because if by chance they (the dog) trespass then the owner should be strung up with a NEW ROPE!
Love thy neighbor! this is not talking about YOUR actual neighbor, but EVERYONE, if all you want to be concerned about is ME, ME, ME then go burn by your self cause I ain't joining you in H*ll

BD


----------



## SlapchopKid

As far as the "dogs disturb deer" issue, this is what my past experience tells me. 

With all the hunters gone from the woods, usually by the time winter coyote season starts (Most guys I know run em after deer season)....You would think that WE do more damage to push the deer around, than 3 dogs hot after a coyote. Those deer (Big bucks included) just went through 3 months of continued deer hunting pressure. After all the ruckus about youth seasons, veteran hunts, EAS and all others- of which I am in favor of (Also not to mention phesant/squirrel/turkey hunting in the fall); You would think that THESE activities would be more pressure than dogs in an off season.

I don't mean to keep going on, but I think an occasional coyote hunt during feburary would mean nothing to deer, while trained dogs run coyotes. I seriously believe that COYOTES do more damage at spooking the deer herd, during archery season, than we give them credit for. I experienced a very jumpy deer herd last fall, knowing that coyotes were around (I have trail cams, evidence).


----------



## Magnet

I've heard residents complain too. But mostly about not feeling that it is safe to let their kids, grandkids, pets, etc. play outside when the hounds are running and there are armed guards parked up and down the road.

It would suck not feeling comfortable letting your kids or grandkids play outside on your own property.


----------



## Michihunter

Gotta love the 'runnin deer off my property' argument some have presented. Must be the 'health of the herd' they're concerned with. Lol
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## casscityalum

Today me its the respect. Come ask and yes you can. Don't ask then heck no. Its not a me society but a simple respect that seems to be lost.

I know first hand some of the dog guys in the thumb that boher was mentioning. First experience was when I was very little and just a kid playing in the snow banks on our property and neighbors who we're are babysitters. All of a sudden a truck comes barreling down the two track. A guy hops out with 3 others and guns already out of case before they exited truck. Scared the crap out of me as a 10 year old. Later discussions with the neighbors that owned the land said they definitely did not have permission and were trespassing. Some calls were made and I don't recall seeing that group again on our section as they got into some trouble.

I hate yotes and glad guys get um. Just simply ask me and not step foot on our land with a gun before I give you permission. Simple task that many seem to disregard. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Hart

Wow. I'm truly surprised by the number of "sportsmen" who, either obliquely or blatantly, want to somehow justify or rationalize trespass.

Yes, it's a noble endeavor to cut back the coyote population to save the pheasants, snails, quails and the whales. This notion entirely misses the point, however. The point is trespass and respecting the property of others - property that ISN'T YOURS!!!!! 

Yes, it would be simply grand if we could travel back in time when the property surrounding Brant and St. Charles (where, it should be noted, I've spent a good deal of time pheasant hunting) was still held in large, 160+ acre parcels, where everyone knew everbody else, and turning dogs loose on a mile-wide 'yote hunt would never be considered an issue. *We don't live in those times!!!!!!!!!!!*

The suggestion by one person to "join in" with the trespassers who he claims are "trying to do it right", who have dogs running all over hell's half acre is one of the most ridiculous notions I've ever heard. "Join" them on their hunt to somehow reinforce their clearly illegal behavior and make it okay? Bull*****. 

It doesn't matter if you're a flatlander who has bought property up north, whatever. You lay down the coin for the real estate and pay the taxes, you CERTAINLY have a reasonable expectation of having it to yourself. Obviously, those instutitional trespassers who have grown up doing it, and are six generation violators, won't be so quick to agree, but what do you expect from dirtbags? 

Bottom line: you get permission to hunt a certain parcel, you hunt that certain parcel. You have no entitlement to further encroachment on neighboring properties no matter what game you're hunting or the time of year. 

This is a simple matter of sportsmanship, common courtesy, and respect. I would submit that those of you taking issue with the OP and trying to justify the trespass unfortunately suffer from a lack of one or more of the above character traits, and sure as hell don't fit the definition of "sportsman" as I was taught it:

You don't trespass on another's property w/out permission. Period.


----------



## Rainman68

srconnell22 said:


> Can someone show me the law that dictates that turning the dogs loose on a coyote on property that the hunters have permission to be on, and then staying on public roads in their trucks while the dogs run said coyote through a section is illegal?


Legal or NOT, which I believe is correct in this case... Try to prove tresspass against an animal. LEO's are spread as the the case you could prove here. Not that I condone this type of behavior but I believe some are using it to skirt the law. 

I've run into a group of hound/bear hunters yearly on private roads. The violations start well before releasing the hounds. Tresspass (driving through a well posted gate) also with your 10 year old kid sitting on the hood looking for tracks to start.


----------



## riverroadbeagles

I grew up hunting fox with hounds and loved it we turned dogs loose on a fresh track pretty much anywhere nobody cared a lot of times property owners would jump in one of the trucks just hoping to get a glimpse of a fully prime red fox. We hardly ever went into the section we just waited at the road at a likely crossing spot usually where a fence row came up to the road. Many times snow plow drivers and occasionally even a Leo would ask us what channel are cb was on so they could listen in on the chase. Then deer started to move into all areas and some people are so worried that there deer are going to vacate the county if dogs go through the wood lots in jan and feb. Deer have ruined about every other kind of hunting people use to not care if you rabbit hunted or chased some tree rats or goosed hunted on there property but not now all they care about are there deer. Oh how times have changed


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Hart

I realize no laws may have been broken, but I've never been big on the "if it's legal, it must be okay" theory. Being legal doesn't necessarily make something ethical or right. 

We see politicians virtually every day hinge bad behavior on some legal technicality whereby they can claim that they acted "entirely within the law", despite their actions being clearly unethical and/or immoral. 

Not that I claim to be a choirboy myself, but........... you get my point. Personally, I try to set the bar for my behavior a little higher than "strictly legal". 

Hunterrep has it exactly right when he says that the fractured land ownership this state now has unfortunately makes this type of hunting impractical in more situations then we might realize. We'd all love to go back to the days when pheasants were rampant, we could leave our car windows open at night, our houses unlocked...........but we can't. A different reality has set in. 

I would also tend to agree with Hawgleg when he mentions the lack of respect for other citizens and their property. 

I applaud the legality by which you hunt your yotes, Connell.


----------



## Justin

riverroadbeagles said:


> I grew up hunting fox with hounds and loved it we turned dogs loose on a fresh track pretty much anywhere nobody cared a lot of times property owners would jump in one of the trucks just hoping to get a glimpse of a fully prime red fox. We hardly ever went into the section we just waited at the road at a likely crossing spot usually where a fence row came up to the road. Many times snow plow drivers and occasionally even a Leo would ask us what channel are cb was on so they could listen in on the chase. Then deer started to move into all areas and some people are so worried that there deer are going to vacate the county if dogs go through the wood lots in jan and feb. Deer have ruined about every other kind of hunting people use to not care if you rabbit hunted or chased some tree rats or goosed hunted on there property but not now all they care about are there deer. Oh how times have changed
> 
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


You are 100% correct.


----------



## eyeball

bassdisaster said:


> How about we all just act like Government and keep taking away our own rights Ok, we apparently don't like our selves or anyone, so lets just make hunting with dogs a CRIME, because if by chance they (the dog) trespass then the owner should be strung up with a NEW ROPE!
> Love thy neighbor! this is not talking about YOUR actual neighbor, but EVERYONE, if all you want to be concerned about is ME, ME, ME then go burn by your self cause I ain't joining you in H*ll
> 
> BD


We are not trying to take your rights away. But im not, paying taxes, mortgages, and sweat equity for you to poach my land. 
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## hunterrep

riverroadbeagles said:


> I grew up hunting fox with hounds and loved it we turned dogs loose on a fresh track pretty much anywhere nobody cared a lot of times property owners would jump in one of the trucks just hoping to get a glimpse of a fully prime red fox. We hardly ever went into the section we just waited at the road at a likely crossing spot usually where a fence row came up to the road. Many times snow plow drivers and occasionally even a Leo would ask us what channel are cb was on so they could listen in on the chase. Then deer started to move into all areas and some people are so worried that there deer are going to vacate the county if dogs go through the wood lots in jan and feb. Deer have ruined about every other kind of hunting people use to not care if you rabbit hunted or chased some tree rats or goosed hunted on there property but not now all they care about are there deer. Oh how times have changed
> 
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


There is probably a lot of truth in this statement as far as deer changing the land use, but another way to see it is that deer gave landowners an alternate species to manage that was more appealing, rewarding and fulfilling to many of them (the ones that own the land) than the tree rats or bunnies ever did. To say deer ruined any way of hunting is only looking at it from your perspective, the non-landowner who used to have free use of other land. So did deer ruin it, or enhance it? I guess it depends on whether you own land or whether your looking for free land to hunt.


----------



## DFJISH

_"You people who seem to think that trespassing is somehow justified obviously have never had stands stolen, cameras stolen, found heads cut off deer on your farm, or had your house broken into. Let me tell you, it is a very sick feeling when any of the above happens."_
_[/COLOR]_ 
And they probably don't call, trap, or snare coyotes either. It's obvious to most of us that for more and more landowners, hunting canines with hounds is an increasingly unwelcome way to hunt. I predict that pressure from the public will solve the problem and hound hunting will come to an end in MI.


----------



## lang49

srconnell22 said:


> My premise remains the same. If the dog was released on ground where the hunter had permission, and they run through your property, whether you want the hounds there or not, there have been no laws broken.


Actually, this is not true. Though the DNR has been lazy about enforcing it, many of these hunters are in violation of the Dog Law of 1919 which states:


*DOG LAW OF 1919 (EXCERPT)*
*Act 339 of 1919*

*287.262 Dogs; licensing, tags, leashes.* 

Sec. 2.
It shall be unlawful 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.

 
The act defines hunting "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."

Therefore, if the handler of said dog is not within sight or sound of the dog, they are in violation of the basic leash law.


----------



## SlapchopKid

Hart said:


> We'd all love to go back to the days when pheasants were rampant, we could leave our car windows open at night, our houses unlocked...........but we can't. A different reality has set in.


 
Some still do! LOL At least around here, must be alot different in other parts of the state.

The yote hunters I know, call and ask permission to hunt land. 90-95% farmland around here.


----------



## jafurnier

srconnell22 said:


> Am I so naive as to say that I think that is all that happens? Of course not. But I also understand that there are a few bad apples that most are discussing here, versus the ones that abide by the rules.


In all honesty...thinking about FRAGMENTED southern lower pensinsula here (e.g. Midland Co.) can you look me in the eye and tell me that even the majority of the coyotes shot by these hunters are on land they have permission to hunt?

If you say yes...then i am going to insult you and call you Musterlndr.  He has the gift for even disagreeing with the obvious!

I do suspect you are right about the finer points of the law though.


----------



## eyeball

bassdisaster said:


> How about we all just act like Government and keep taking away our own rights Ok, we apparently don't like our selves or anyone, so lets just make hunting with dogs a CRIME, because if by chance they (the dog) trespass then the owner should be strung up with a NEW ROPE!
> Love thy neighbor! this is not talking about YOUR actual neighbor, but EVERYONE, if all you want to be concerned about is ME, ME, ME then go burn by your self cause I ain't joining you in H*ll
> 
> BD


Btw i do not object to dog hunters, i object to the thought process that some here think its ok to run wild with there dogs wherever they please just because thats what happened back in the day. Love thy neighbor????? What happened to you shall not steal? 
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## fairfax1

First, as a caveat: I have no idea on the reality of your county's judicial and/or law enforcement situation.

Still, with that said, most counties have a very similar framework......so I would suggest this in order to really effect change:

Call up your local sheriff and ask for a meeting........or, write him a letter and ask if you (and maybe a neighbor or two) could meet with him on XX date at XX time in order to discuss an enforcement issue in your neighborhood.

Sheriff's get into office, and hold office, by being voted in. They generally will be responsive to sincere & serious-minded .....voters.

Do the same with the local DA. He too, is voted in.

At the same time, you could write letters to the small handful of judges.....district/circuit.....that hold court in your county. Tell them in a sincere & serious letter of your concerns. They can't do much at this point....other than write a polite letter back to their voting constituent recommending you seek out the sheriff or the DA. 

And that's OK, 'cause you have now salted the mine...alerted them that there is a problem out there that is making their constituents unhappy. So if, or when one of your violating tresspassers may show up in front of the court.....well, the magistrate just may remember your letter. And that's a good thing for you.

It has been my experience----and I have walked that walk, done exactly what I describe above ----- that my complaints get taken a whole lot more seriously when I've laid some ground work, established a relationship, with the sherrif, the DA, and the judges. 

In short, I WANT them to know who I am. And that I can and should be taken seriously.

So...........when a problem pops up, when those dogs show up with their rude owners, well then when you make the call to the sherrif's hotline you will have a better than even chance that the 'legal establishment' will know you and know of your problems. 

You've got an improved hand at that point. 
If you need to make something happen .....don't deal with monkeys, deal with the organ grinders.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac

bassdisaster said:


> How about we all just act like Government and keep taking away our own rights Ok, we apparently don't like our selves or anyone, so lets just make hunting with dogs a CRIME, because if by chance they (the dog) trespass then the owner should be strung up with a NEW ROPE!
> Love thy neighbor! this is not talking about YOUR actual neighbor, but EVERYONE, if all you want to be concerned about is ME, ME, ME then go burn by your self cause I ain't joining you in H*ll
> 
> BD


It seems to me that it's the (inconsiderate) hound hunters who are being selfish here. They want to use somebody else's land for free. They want the pleasure of running their hounds without paying the price for using the land they run on. Their activity can damage the value of the property their dogs run across, but they don't care. At most they just hope their dogs won't do anything that gets them sued or cited, but they're really just hoping they get away scot free before the LEOs show up.

Landowners show concern for everyone by standing up for their rights. A society where landowner rights are respected and protected is a society where people can make a living. A society where people routinely get away with tromping on the rights of others in the name of getting along is a society that makes it easy to decide to abandon it.


----------



## Justin

lang49 said:


> Actually, this is not true. Though the DNR has been lazy about enforcing it, many of these hunters are in violation of the Dog Law of 1919 which states:
> 
> 
> *DOG LAW OF 1919 (EXCERPT)*
> *Act 339 of 1919*
> 
> *287.262 Dogs; licensing, tags, leashes.*
> 
> Sec. 2.
> It shall be unlawful 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.
> 
> 
> The act defines hunting "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."
> 
> Therefore, if the handler of said dog is not within sight or sound of the dog, they are in violation of the basic leash law.


Those dogs are seldom out of hearing. Even if they are it would be tough to prove.


----------



## srconnell22

It's generally no secret who runs yotes in your neck of the woods. 

In my opinion, if you don't want them around, the best bet would be to let them know that they do not have permission to enter your property to hunt or retrieve their dogs. If they enter, after you've told them they are not allowed to, then they are subject to a ticket for recreational trespass. 

For those whom have said they will take it out on the dogs, you would then be the only one committing a crime and I can almost guarantee you'd be sued which you'd lose that one almost automatically (or worse). 

As with most aspects of our hunting community, it's no fun to talk about the guys that play by the rules, introduce others to the sport of hunting, and do good things to promote the culture. The bad apples will almost always get more press than those who do it correctly. To advocate eliminating a form of hunting/fishing/trapping or any other outdoor recreation simply because you don't do it or agree with it is to chip away at the foundation of the outdoor lifestyle as a whole. 

As stated, I won't advocate trespass... I won't advocate taking other people's opportunities to enjoy the outdoors either.


----------



## lang49

srconnell22 said:


> To advocate eliminating a form of hunting/fishing/trapping or any other outdoor recreation simply because you don't do it or agree with it is to chip away at the foundation of the outdoor lifestyle as a whole.
> 
> As stated, I won't advocate trespass... I won't advocate taking other people's opportunities to enjoy the outdoors either.


It's obvious that you're part of the problem, not part of the solution...


----------



## srconnell22

jafurnier said:


> In all honesty...thinking about FRAGMENTED southern lower pensinsula here (e.g. Midland Co.) can you look me in the eye and tell me that even the majority of the coyotes shot by these hunters are on land they have permission to hunt?
> 
> If you say yes...then i am going to insult you and call you Musterlndr.  He has the gift for even disagreeing with the obvious!
> 
> I do suspect you are right about the finer points of the law though.


I don't have a clue what happens with coyote hunters in Midland County. I went to school there (Northwood) and beyond knowing there are some dang nice bucks on campus, I don't know the first thing about hunting Midland County, so I shouldn't say anything without knowing what happens there. 

We hunt mostly big country, public land blocks where we don't typically have to deal with the issue your seeing. 

Munsterlndr is a better devil's advocate than I am. I'll eventually get tired, go to bed and move on with my life tomorrow. 

Lang, 

I will admit that I don't know much about that part of the law. I applaud your research. 

With that being said, there are typically a few trucks in a hunting party. If you put four trucks out, one on each side of a block of timber, one of those four trucks will undoubtedly be able to at least get a voice copy on the dogs.


----------



## Michihunter

lang49 said:


> It's obvious that you're part of the problem, not part of the solution...


 not nearly as obvious as your ignorance of the man you are referring to. Scott has done more good for the outdoors and the people who enjoy it than the vast majority on these boards. You really should do your homework before casting aspersions on such a fine gentleman.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lang49

Michihunter said:


> not nearly as obvious as your ignorance of the man you are referring to. Scott has done more good for the outdoors and the people who enjoy it than the vast majority on these boards. You really should do your homework before casting aspersions on such a fine gentleman.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What this "fine gentleman" is advocating for in this situation is just as unethical as those who shoot the dogs. I don't care what he has done in the past. His lack of ethics in this case speaks louder than his previous actions.

At some point in my lifetime, I guarantee the dog retrieval clause of the Recreational Trespass act will be repealed. When it is, I won't have any sympathy for you people...


----------



## srconnell22

lang49 said:


> What this "fine gentleman" is advocating for in this situation is just as unethical as those who shoot the dogs. I don't care what he has done in the past. His lack of ethics in this case speaks louder than his previous actions.
> 
> At some point in my lifetime, I guarantee the dog retrieval clause of the Recreational Trespass act will be repealed. When it is, I won't have any sympathy for you people...


I'm sorry if I've offended you. Understand that I don't take any of this personally. 

I'm not real sure what I am advocating that is unethical. I have stated on multiple occasions that I don't advocate trespass, and that I don't hunt in these highly fragmented blocks. I've not advocated the breaking of any game law. 

I have advocated the uniting of sportsman no matter what form of our sporting heritage they choose to engage in. I have promoted the following of game laws. I have supported the introduction of youth, elderly, and the handicapped into the outdoors whenever possible. I would much rather help someone else enjoy the hunt versus doing it on my own. 

I will continue to promote these things throughout the remainder of my hunting career.


----------



## Magnet

So, for the guys that have no issue with their dogs (or someone elses) pushing through private property without permission:

Would you have a problem with me and 7 of my closest friends setting up along the road where you live with high powered rifles? Like armed guards. If you have small kids at home that play outside, would that make a difference? Would you understand if I told you that I am waiting form my dogs. Would it make you feel better if I told you that they were released legally 4 miles away?

What if my armed guard group sits out in front of your place a couple days a week? Like we're staging for an armed attack. Would that be ok?

I don't like the concept of trespass or road hunting. But some of you guys are living in the old days. It is not acceptable anymore. I'm sure the laws will reflect that before too long. Until then, try to absorb the overall image of what you represent from the perespective of a typical resident. It doesn't paint a very ethical pictutre.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

Magnet said:


> So, for the guys that have no issue with their dogs (or someone elses) pushing through private property without permission:
> 
> Would you have a problem with me and 7 of my closest friends setting up along the road where you live with high powered rifles? Like armed guards. If you have small kids at home that play outside, would that make a difference? Would you understand if I told you that I am waiting form my dogs. Would it make you feel better if I told you that they were released legally 4 miles away?
> 
> What if my armed guard group sits out in front of your place a couple days a week? Like we're staging for an armed attack. Would that be ok?
> 
> I don't like the concept of trespass or road hunting. But some of you guys are living in the old days. It is not acceptable anymore. I'm sure the laws will reflect that before too long. Until then, try to absorb the overall image of what you represent from the perespective of a typical resident. It doesn't paint a very ethical pictutre.


Road hunters suck, including all of the dog runners who sit on the roads everywhere (except public lands) hunting illegally, and they all know it too and show it by the big stupid smiles they ALL have when you drive by. Did I say ALL? 

Call the cops and tell them you have heavily armed guys standing out in front of your house, they might be Kornky militia wack jobs too, and your children are terrified.


----------



## Rasputin

Magnet said:


> So, for the guys that have no issue with their dogs (or someone elses) pushing through private property without permission:
> 
> Would you have a problem with me and 7 of my closest friends setting up along the road where you live with high powered rifles? Like armed guards. If you have small kids at home that play outside, would that make a difference? Would you understand if I told you that I am waiting form my dogs. Would it make you feel better if I told you that they were released legally 4 miles away?
> 
> What if my armed guard group sits out in front of your place a couple days a week? Like we're staging for an armed attack. Would that be ok?
> 
> I don't like the concept of trespass or road hunting. But some of you guys are living in the old days. It is not acceptable anymore. I'm sure the laws will reflect that before too long. Until then, try to absorb the overall image of what you represent from the perespective of a typical resident. It doesn't paint a very ethical pictutre.


 
Now that you mention it, I do like most dogs better than I like most people......


----------



## boomer_x7

Rasputin said:


> Now that you mention it, I do like most dogs better than I like most people......


Now that you mention it, Most people like dogs better than you....:evil:


----------



## Rasputin

boomer_x7 said:


> Now that you mention it, Most people like dogs better than you....:evil:


 
Ouch!

Better to have a few good friends than to try and be loved by everyone!:gaga:


----------



## eino

I am not defending the issue of tresspass. But people parked on the side of the road during a coyote hunt are not always shooters. I have a right to be on the road and love to spectate on a coyote race. I talk on a raido and let people know if I see something. I'll listen to what they are seeing. If you see people engauging in illeagle activity you have every right to get the law involved, but don't presume that a parked vehicle is a violating road hunter shooting illeagly.
As far as dogs running deer off the property. It isn't likely. Go out sometime with a houndsman with a dog that does not run deer. You will see time and time again deer just watching the dogs go by. I have walked in to more than a few trees at night with a dog treeing and deer laying down within 50 yards. People pressure may run them off if the get too close but I don't recall even one time seeing a deer act nervous about a dog that is not chasing them. I was a little turned around one night on private land(had permission to be there) and had to catch my hound that was barking in the woods on a **** track. I finally caught the dog and shined a bunch of eyes less than 50 yards away. I called my friend and talked to him in a normal tone to try and find out how to get out of the woods. I never did jump the deer. A couple stood sentry while the others ate.
I understand tresspass is a troublesom issue, but the argument about deer leaving the county because of a dog is just tireing.

Ed


----------



## Pinefarm

The "old" hound laws are as outdated as old smoking in public laws. Unfortunately for many hound hunters, the hound "groups" won't bend on ending running hounds in more populated area's and they'll end up standing firm on "no compromise", only to watch over a total ban of hounds for bear, coyotes and *****. 

If the hound groups want to save the longterm future of running hounds in the north, they'd be smart to suggest no running of hounds south the M-55.

It's just like the Xbow debate years back. If the bow groups had went along with liberal handicap rules, we'd have no full inclusion now. The hound groups won't agree to common sense changes, and since few landowners OR deer hunters in the southern 2/3's of the LP would ever vote to retain the current hound rules when it eventually hits the ballot, hound hunting will likely get a statewide ban.

When the bet is all in, when the odds are clearly stacked against you, you usually end up losing big. 

The hound lobby groups should concentrate on how to save and secure hound hunting in the northern 1/3 of the LP and the UP. Trying to save hound hunting in the southern 2/3's of the LP will only cost houndsmen everything, in the not too distant future.


----------



## eino

Pinefarm said:


> If the hound groups want to save the longterm future of running hounds in the north, they'd be smart to suggest no running of hounds south the M-55.


How is that a comprimise? The biggest percent of us below the line would essentially be banned from hunting our hounds. I run rabbits with a beagle and cur dogs on squirrel and ****. No one would travel up there to routinely do that. Besides if a law like that did pass and we houndsmen were okay with it, imajine the amount of hound pressure youd have north of 55. You think all the private land owners would like about a 40% increase of hunting in their neck of the woods?

Ed


----------



## boehr

No hounds, big mistake. Any law of that nature will end all dog hunting in that area and provide reasoning to end all dog hunting throughout the state. That will be the beginning of the end of bear, yote, rabbit, pheasant, everything. What has to happen is for people to report the bad guys, dog hunters to insure they do it right by talking with landowners and peer pressure by the dog hunters on their own group.

Watching dogs run whatever game one is hunting is a great sight. Any legal hunter has to appreciate the action and the way it happens. When those that do it wrong screws the legal guys because the dogs are not being watched but the hunters actions themselves. The stupid arguements some of you are having are just that, stupid. Stay on the right track and try do get it right verses bringing yourselves down to the same level as the clowns causing the problems.


----------



## SlapchopKid

Magnet said:


> So, for the guys that have no issue with their dogs (or someone elses) pushing through private property without permission:
> 
> Would you have a problem with me and 7 of my closest friends setting up along the road where you live with high powered rifles? Like armed guards. If you have small kids at home that play outside, would that make a difference? Would you understand if I told you that I am waiting form my dogs. Would it make you feel better if I told you that they were released legally 4 miles away?
> 
> What if my armed guard group sits out in front of your place a couple days a week? Like we're staging for an armed attack. Would that be ok?


You know, I should not reply to this. I am not in any way, trying to be rude, but bringing up this point. What happens on opening day of firearm season for whitetail? Are we naive enough, to think that the 'army of orange cladded hunters' are not on a road, with weapons? How is this any different to a child? Especially, for those that live around state land? I would venture to say, that this could be more of a possiblity than yote hunters.

3 years ago, when I finished hunting on private land on Nov. 15th, I seen 3 people, dressed in orange, with weapons, walking down the roadside next to land that they have permission to hunt. Whats up with that?

Again, not trying to be rude at all. Its possible that because I live out in nowhereville, away from urbanville, that I am not disturbed by the normal occurance of hunting. But, for the sake of argument that coyote hunters were legally on the road right of way with permission to hunt farmland, I see this no different than whitetail hunters accessing hunting land during firearm season.

Heres a scenario, (Highly likely in my area), A homeowner that owns 3 acres, surrounded by 400 acres of farmland, sees a coyote pickup 1/2 mile down the road with dog box in the back, checking for tracks on a dirt road. Dogs are already down, he sees the yote, gets out of truck and sets up on land he HAS permission to be on (Ya, that big farm field) and makes a clean shot. 

How is this wrong?


----------



## tdduckman

boehr said:


> No hounds, big mistake. Any law of that nature will end all dog hunting in that area and provide reasoning to end all dog hunting throughout the state. That will be the beginning of the end of bear, yote, rabbit, pheasant, everything. What has to happen is for people to report the bad guys, dog hunters to insure they do it right by talking with landowners and peer pressure by the dog hunters on their own group.
> 
> Watching dogs run whatever game one is hunting is a great sight. Any legal hunter has to appreciate the action and the way it happens. When those that do it wrong screws the legal guys because the dogs are not being watched but the hunters actions themselves. The stupid arguements some of you are having are just that, stupid. Stay on the right track and try do get it right verses bringing yourselves down to the same level as the clowns causing the problems.


 
A post that is not name calling and makes sense 

That is almost a first for this thread

Obey the rules, and call the RAP line if you see someone breaking them.

How much easier could it be?


TD


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac

> Heres a scenario, (Highly likely in my area), A homeowner that owns 3 acres, surrounded by 400 acres of farmland, sees a coyote pickup 1/2 mile down the road with dog box in the back, checking for tracks on a dirt road. Dogs are already down, he sees the yote, gets out of truck and sets up on land he HAS permission to be on (Ya, that big farm field) and makes a clean shot.
> 
> How is this wrong?


Here's an alternate scenario (fairly typical in my area). On one section (640 acres) there are 12 different landowners. On all 8 surrounding sections, the average is 12 different landowners per section for an average of 53.33 acres per landowner. But it's really mainly a blend of 5 acre house lots and large crop fields and woodlots. There are gravel roads on all four sides of the section and mostly around the other sections with a paved county road along one edge of the whole 9 sections. There are crop fields and house lots on about 75% of the center section and the rest is woods. Four of the landowners are downstaters and not easily contacted for permission. Four of the landowners are farmers who only have crop fields and do not live within the section.

Now this part is not all that typical. One cantankerous old landowner who really doesn't want hounds on his property owns 1/4 of the section, has a camp there, spends lots of time there but lives a few miles away, plants food plots, snares coyotes in January and February, traps *****, calls coyotes, hunts deer, turkeys, and rabbits. He also gives permission to others to call and trap coyotes and *****.

One guy who lives in a corner of the section on 80 acres of cropland is drinking buddies with a hound/coyote hunter and gives him permission to hunt coyotes on his property because he hears coyotes quite often. The hound hunter doesn't bother to ask any other landowners because his drinking buddy tells him, "Oh don't bother, they're mostly downstaters and absentee farmers."

So the hound hunter shows up on the weekend with 8 of his buddies each with at least one hound and off they go, chasing a few coyotes around the 9 sections, but mostly into the thick cover where all the snares are because coyotes don't try to hide in crop fields when they're being chased.

See anything wrong with that?

It's those guys that give hound hunting a bad rep.


----------



## casscityalum

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> Here's an alternate scenario (fairly typical in my area). On one section (640 acres) there are 12 different landowners. On all 8 surrounding sections, the average is 12 different landowners per section for an average of 53.33 acres per landowner. But it's really mainly a blend of 5 acre house lots and large crop fields and woodlots. There are gravel roads on all four sides of the section and mostly around the other sections with a paved county road along one edge of the whole 9 sections. There are crop fields and house lots on about 75% of the center section and the rest is woods. Four of the landowners are downstaters and not easily contacted for permission. Four of the landowners are farmers who only have crop fields and do not live within the section.
> 
> Now this part is not all that typical. One cantankerous old landowner who really doesn't want hounds on his property owns 1/4 of the section, has a camp there, spends lots of time there but lives a few miles away, plants food plots, snares coyotes in January and February, traps *****, calls coyotes, hunts deer, turkeys, and rabbits. He also gives permission to others to call and trap coyotes and *****.
> 
> One guy who lives in a corner of the section on 80 acres of cropland is drinking buddies with a hound/coyote hunter and gives him permission to hunt coyotes on his property because he hears coyotes quite often. The hound hunter doesn't bother to ask any other landowners because his drinking buddy tells him, "Oh don't bother, they're mostly downstaters and absentee farmers."
> 
> So the hound hunter shows up on the weekend with 8 of his buddies each with at least one hound and off they go, chasing a few coyotes around the 9 sections, but mostly into the thick cover where all the snares are because coyotes don't try to hide in crop fields when they're being chased.
> 
> See anything wrong with that?
> 
> It's those guys that give hound hunting a bad rep.


But you shouldn't punish the rest when they do it right although what they did was wrong and I see that.

we might as well ban all hunting since poachers and trespassors make all of us look bad.

Yote, deer, and small game guys all have their bad and troublesome groups imo and all need to be reported. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Pinefarm

Wisconsin doesn't allow hounds for bears in their southern units for a reason. Too many people, too little public land and too fragmented, small private parcels.

What will happen is, when hound hunting for bear, coyotes and ***** hits a ballot in the future, it will be hunting landowners who'll make sure they vote to ban it. 

The houndsmen lobby is a tiny yet vocal lobby. They show up at every NRC meeting to push their agenda of using other peoples private land.

Virtually ALL of my hunting landowners CANNOT STAND the bear houndsmen running wild all over our lands in late Summer and early Fall. We pay the taxes. There isn't one houndsman group I've had to boot off my land that seemed to own land anywhere. They all seemed like they owned about 1/3 of an acre in Taylor or Muskegon. None owned any of the private land they where running wild over.
Everyone of us can't wait to either ban the practice or at least put a ban on any electronics that allow hound owners to release dogs to run wild for miles. We'll stand in line come any election day, to protect our land rights.

What's odd is, we the landowners actually have RIGHTS. Hunting is just a priviledge. 

If houndsmen had to keep their dogs on a leash at all times, I think that would be a good compromise.

The problem isn't bird hunters with dogs that stay close and with a beeper.

The problem is guys that bring 6 hounds 50 yards from my fence and then turn them loose for 2-3 hours and they run a couple miles over 10-20 different landowners lands.

The houndsmen have done such a terrible PR job that they've turned every landowner in my area against them in a HUGE way. In fact, some of my local year round residents hate them and their tresspassing ways so much, I fear that violence is going to happen or worse.

The best long term approach for any future of hound hunting for bear and coyotes is to keep it far up north, on huge parcels of public land and far away from populated area's of private land who only dream of how to slash tires or shoot dogs and not get caught. 

The other compromise is, change the law so any landowner can shoot any roaming dogs or feral cats that are on his land, like some Western states allow. That way hound owners will be very careful not to turn their dogs loose on landowners who very vocally express that they do not want the dogs there almost every day, for over a month.

Either way, banning radar electronics and requiring that the bear and coyote dogs remain on a leash, like deer tracking dogs, is a good compromise for the landowners who actually own the land and pay the taxes of the land the houndsmen are running every day.

I'd also require that anyone running bears in a certain BMU must actually have a bear tag for that BMU. 
How would deer hunters like it of a group of untagged people did a deer drive on your land everyday? It's the same thing going on with the houndmen. They drive our properties several times a week, for months. 

When you see a several big, fat hillybilly's all smoking and chewing while walking all your two-tracks and running thru your santuary area's, checking out your treestands (casing) with obviously no scent control or waking you up every Saturday and Sunday morning at daylight because a pack of wild hounds is barking like mad by your house, you start wondering about what kind of anti-freeze treats you should leave on your porch.

Our area is the #1 in the state for bear hound complaints for a reason. It's too populated and nobody who actually owns the land wants them there, unless they want to pay a lease price.

If the houndsmen want to lease my land for maybe $2000 to run their dogs in August, I'd actually consider that. If there's 10 guys in a group, that's $200 a man and only $50 a week, per man. Very cheap deal.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac

casscityalum said:


> But you shouldn't punish the rest when they do it right although what they did was wrong and I see that.
> 
> we might as well ban all hunting since poachers and trespassors make all of us look bad.
> 
> Yote, deer, and small game guys all have their bad and troublesome groups imo and all need to be reported.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


I agree that we shouldn't punish the rest. I agree that banning hound hunting would be bad. That's why the word needs to get out to hound hunters to do more self policing and to not take advantage of a small toehold they get into a section, but to make a serious effort to contact all the landowners or stick to public land for their group hunting forays. You can look at a satellite image and predict where coyotes will go if pressured by a group hounds. Those properties need to be the highest priorities for getting permission and if those landowners put restrictions on how often and how many dogs and how many hunters, those restrictions need to be respected.


----------



## Luv2hunteup

Pinefarm; what makes you think that anyone north of you wants you exporting your problem to our back yard? Your problem you deal with it.


----------



## Pinefarm

The major problem in populated area's is, simply following the rules isn't enough.

In the area of 20 square sections around my land, that's 20 miles, only about 15% of it is public land and the largest public parcels are one of 320 acres and another of a patchwork of zig zagged parcels that maybe makes up 800 acres. But all the others are 40's, 80's and 160's. 

No matter how much you try, when you release 10 dogs on an isolated 160 acres that's 100% surrounded by private land, you cannot keep the dogs only on that public land.

Now, in the future, perhaps there can be a dog collar that uses GPS coord's and when the dog hits a private fence, he gets zapped and can't cross that line. I'm fine with that too. As long as the dogs stay where they belong, especially when the owners purposely release them right on private fence lines, on purpose. 

I would think with google earth, dog owners would have to take the responsibility to enter the GPS numbers of the only places their dogs would be allowed to roam. Any dog without such a collar can be shot by the landowner and possible further damages could be sought against any dogowner who does not have such a collar.


----------



## Pinefarm

Luv2hunteup said:


> Pinefarm; what makes you think that anyone north of you wants you exporting your problem to our back yard? Your problem you deal with it.


I'm trying to deal with it. I've been in recent contact with the MDNR Bear Specialist and my legislator. 

In the north, with large parcels of public land, it seems it's a tradition. It sure isn't in the south. However, if you folks up north want better rules, like GPS collars or the right to shoot dogs on sight, I'll gladly join you.


----------



## Pinefarm

Other options is all hounds must wear a blaze orange vest with a big ID number on it so gross offenders can be identified.

Also, blaze orange vests with big ID numbers on their back, like a big back tag, is also needed.

I'd also require that when the dog owners sit in their trucks as the dogs run, that a big magnet ID number on both sides of the truck be required. Let the dog owners order two of them months in advance so they have them come training season.

Also, for the collars, maybe have a tracking chip, so when the CO is invariably called (they get called every couple days in my area, mainly from my neighbors to the north), then there's a way to see where they dogs have been.

Every burden and every cost should be on the dog owners, nothing additional should be on the landowners. We already pay the payments and taxes for the complete strangers from elsewhere to use.


----------



## casscityalum

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> I agree that we shouldn't punish the rest. I agree that banning hound hunting would be bad. That's why the word needs to get out to hound hunters to do more self policing and to not take advantage of a small toehold they get into a section, but to make a serious effort to contact all the landowners or stick to public land for their group hunting forays. You can look at a satellite image and predict where coyotes will go if pressured by a group hounds. Those properties need to be the highest priorities for getting permission and if those landowners put restrictions on how often and how many dogs and how many hunters, those restrictions need to be respected.



Now that I agree with. The hound community needs to police them selves a little better and these other so called groups need to be punished. Have a good day all.


----------



## Pinefarm

How about requiring a collar something like this...
http://www.americas-pet-store.com/sportdog-gps-tracker-and-e-collar-tek-v1lt.html

But then the dog owner must set the distance for the shock no greater than the public land they are on? 

Meaning, if all the houndsman has is 1/4 mile radius of public land around him, that he has to set the collar so the shock goes off at 1/4 mile. Problem solved.


----------



## hunterrep

casscityalum said:


> Now that I agree with. The hound community needs to police them selves a little better and these other so called groups need to be punished. Have a good day all.


Cass, I agree with that too but I am a realist. That is not going to happen. The bottom line is that things are not like they used to be and guess what, they NEVER will be again. Hunting methods such as this and I will also add **** hunting, need to adapt and the fact is, this type of hound hunting is not possible, even by the most meticulous law abiding hound hunter, without invading property that they don't have permission on. If anybody can find a 1 mile stretch of land where you can get permission from a multitude of different landowners for this type of hunting to take place, you are doing something extraordinary. That said, even a one mile stretch isn't enough for this type of coyote hunting so do the multiplication. If somebody has the time, ambition, and sheer luck to get that kind of permission within geographies of severely fragmented land ownership, well I would have to see it to believe it. It just won't happen. 
This style of hunting is simply outdated for southern Michigan and probably a lot of northern Michigan and I agree with Pine, if it isn't addressed and dealt with, a lot of types of dog hunting will be affected. That would be a downright shame to see that happen.


----------



## plugger

If I had to put with bears and bear dogsI would just give up and move to the Grand Rapids area!:lol:

Seriously I love the fact that we have some bears around.


----------



## lang49

casscityalum said:


> The hound community needs to police them selves a little better and these other so called groups need to be punished. Have a good day all.


Policing within the group will never happen. The majority like Sconnell don't even recognize the fact that a dog running across private property in unethical.

There are several changes that should be made to the law and ethical hound hunters should support these changes (but they won't).

The law is clear that non hunting dogs may not wander around unattended (on public or private land). If the owner of a non hunting dog can be ticketed when his dog wonders onto private land unattended, there is no reason that the law should give the owner of a dog in act of hunting special priviledge in this regard.


----------



## DFJISH

boehr said:


> What has to happen is for people to report the bad guys, _dog hunters to insure they do it right by talking with landowners_ and peer pressure by the dog hunters on their own group.


I can only speak for the situation in my own region. Landowners have gone to the road and told coyote hunters to leave but they are reluctant for call to make a report to a LEO. I have confronted them (I have permission to trap/snare and call where their dogs were runnng.) at the road and was "fluffed off" by their saying they would be gone in a few. I was also told I would be in for big trouble if one of their hounds got killed in one of my snares. The way laws are nowadays, they're probably right.

Coyote hunters in my area haven't "talked with landowners" in the past. NONE. The trespass laws have been on the books for years and coyote hunters have paid no attention at all. They do what they do the way they have always done it. Expecting coyote hunters to pre-plan hunting by including a visit with the neighborhood landowners doesn't take into account the spontaneous way coyote hunters operate. Find a fresh track, turn the dogs loose, race to where the coyote might cross the road and get the guns ready. You really expect coyote hunters to get together with landowners with that way of hunting? 

Coyote hunters are a very unique group. "Peer" pressure from within the group? I think that's strike 3.


----------



## elysian

The sweeping generalizations on this thread are quite humorous and relatively petty.

If you and your neighbors don't want dogs pushing predators out of your property thats your prerogative... I disagree with you but, oh well. Gather up your neighbors and have them sign something saying they do not want the hunter or their dogs in your/their property. Next time they show up don't be a d!ck, just be nice and tell them this is their last hunt in the area. Next time they show up, which I doubt they will, feel free to contact the LEO's.

Its really not that big of a deal. This sweeping debate about property rights and whatnot is laughable...


----------



## casscityalum

hunterrep said:


> Cass, I agree with that too but I am a realist. That is not going to happen. The bottom line is that things are not like they used to be and guess what, they NEVER will be again. Hunting methods such as this and I will also add **** hunting, need to adapt and the fact is, this type of hound hunting is not possible, even by the most meticulous law abiding hound hunter, without invading property that they don't have permission on. If anybody can find a 1 mile stretch of land where you can get permission from a multitude of different landowners for this type of hunting to take place, you are doing something extraordinary. That said, even a one mile stretch isn't enough for this type of coyote hunting so do the multiplication. If somebody has the time, ambition, and sheer luck to get that kind of permission within geographies of severely fragmented land ownership, well I would have to see it to believe it. It just won't happen.
> This style of hunting is simply outdated for southern Michigan and probably a lot of northern Michigan and I agree with Pine, if it isn't addressed and dealt with, a lot of types of dog hunting will be affected. That would be a downright shame to see that happen.


I agree but I know of many places in the thumb where hounds can run and not be a problem. There are some very good groups in the thumb that are good people.

where my parents live you can go 4 miles west and only cross 3 to 4 parcels that are not owned by the same group of farmers. My square mile there is 4 owners that do not own over 5 acres. Most are 1 to 1/2 acre. One or 2 farmers own almost the whole section. So I still believe it can be done right and ethically.

Lang- call me unethical. But i wont lose any sleep if my beagle runs a rabbit off our 80 and I go fetch him with out guns. That rarely happens and only happens maybe once a year or less. Most time its never an issue. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Justin

elysian said:


> The sweeping generalizations on this thread are quite humorous and relatively petty.
> 
> If you and your neighbors don't want dogs pushing predators out of your property thats your prerogative... I disagree with you but, oh well. Gather up your neighbors and have them sign something saying they do not want the hunter or their dogs in your/their property. Next time they show up don't be a d!ck, just be nice and tell them this is their last hunt in the area. Next time they show up, which I doubt they will, feel free to contact the LEO's.
> 
> Its really not that big of a deal. This sweeping debate about property rights and whatnot is laughable...


Good post! Many speaking out against hound hunting don't even have a clue how it's done. They don't know the difference between **** hunting and coyote hunting, of rabbit hunting for that matter. Advocating shooting or poisoning dogs makes them less of a sportsman than those they complain about. If the hunters break the law...CALL THE LAW! We have enough laws, they're just not being enforced.


----------



## SlapchopKid

casscityalum said:


> I agree but I know of many places in the thumb where hounds can run and not be a problem. There are some very good groups in the thumb that are good people.
> 
> where my parents live you can go 4 miles west and only cross 3 to 4 parcels that are not owned by the same group of farmers. My square mile there is 4 owners that do not own over 5 acres. Most are 1 to 1/2 acre. One or 2 farmers own almost the whole section. So I still believe it can be done right and ethically.


 
Good post. This is reality. We all don't live in the burbs with 10 acres out back.


BTW- Justin, nice sig line.:lol:


----------



## aimus1

DFJISH said:


> _"You people who seem to think that trespassing is somehow justified obviously have never had stands stolen, cameras stolen, found heads cut off deer on your farm, or had your house broken into. Let me tell you, it is a very sick feeling when any of the above happens."_
> 
> And they probably don't call, trap, or snare coyotes either. It's obvious to most of us that for more and more landowners, hunting canines with hounds is an increasingly unwelcome way to hunt. I predict that pressure from the public will solve the problem and hound hunting will come to an end in MI.


I sure hope not. This will set the precedence for rifle hunting whitetails to come to an end in Michigan because of all the aholes I have to run off my land during firearm season. Would you support this to help pacify my frustration with the individuals who trespass on my land deer hunting? I can guarantee that a lot more "hunters" trespass during deer season than the guys running hounds for yotes do. Ending the hunting of yotes with hounds in Michigan is not the answer. If I had a problem with trespassers such as the OP has had then I'm sure I could find a way to resolve the issue without killing their dogs or taking it out on people who hunt this way legally.:gaga:


----------



## Justin

aimus1 said:


> I sure hope not. This will set the precedence for rifle hunting whitetails to come to an end in Michigan because of all the aholes I have to run off my land during firearm season. Would you support this to help pacify my frustration with the individuals who trespass on my land deer hunting? I can guarantee that a lot more "hunters" trespass during deer season than the guys running hounds for yotes do. Ending the hunting of yotes with hounds in Michigan is not the answer. If I had a problem with trespassers such as the OP has had then I'm sure I could find a way to resolve the issue without killing their dogs or taking it out on people who hunt this way legally.:gaga:


Thank you.


----------



## aimus1

lang49 said:


> It's obvious that you're part of the problem, not part of the solution...


This coming from a guy whose solution is stripping hunters of their now perfectly legal and ethical way of hunting because of a few bad apples:lol: But then again he probably doesn't hunt this way so why not support something that wouldn't have any negative effect on you. Wait a minute....how about the amplified overpopulation of yotes. Would that have a negative effect on the species HE enjoys hunting?
For the record... I don't hunt coyotes this way either.


----------



## 204sniper

Once you get started on this thread it's like a train wreck, you have to keep reading. My calling partner and I watched a pair of coyotes bed in a small woodlot this past Sunday around 10 a.m. We like everyone else have been waiting for snow and we finally had a fresh falling. We waited til around 4 and started into the set. Suddenly we catch dogs hauling ash from the woodlot at Mach 4....at first glance you think coyote but quickly realize its a wad of hounds. Blues, Reds, Plotts, Tans, and I believe I saw a Schtzu or two mixed in. Soon the trucks were hammering around the block and we figured it out. After a little research we found out they got permission from a small parcel 2 sections over. Now this is Concord, Albion area in southern Michigan where 5 acre land barrons abound. It was very disappointing to have our hunt ruined and the coyotes run off by dogs that can't be held responsible for doing what they were bred to do....other than the Schtzu's. We followed them around at a distance and watched guys jump out at several different locations, guns soon in hand, and then off they'd go again. Similar to a camo fire drill.It was at the very least entertaining. We ran into our farming buddies only to find out they had given no one permission to run or shoot coyotes on them but us. They were quite upset and proceded to make some calls. I firmly believe this happens quite a bit from what I witnessed. Soon thereafter a CO rolls on thru and stops to talk with us wondering if we are with the dog hunters. He had recieved 5 calls with complaints in as many hours and was monitering them on the radio. He stated that this same group of guys had been issued several citations for uncased weapons, guns loaded inside the vehicle, shooting onto property from the road they can't hunt, and poaching deer during **** season. He said he can write them citations everytime they have a hunt. And hopefully he does. Obviously the fines don't fit the crime or they would not be repeat offenders. And unfortunately this clan of people is the most visible due to them running all day in broad daylight. Miss Jones does not understand armed guys in camo lining the roads and running around but I can assure you she lumps them into the "Hunter" category. But it's not just this group of guys as this thread attests to they are all over the state. It appears they out weigh the decent real hunters substantially. They are a black eye for all of us. I would no more run my dogs down here in this populated area due to the hassles you know you are going to get into. How can it possibly be worth it. I would head to some of the MILLIONS of acres of public land where no one can tell me no and enjoy a CO free day. Without some serious policing in their ranks these dog hunters will be their own demise. JMO. We came over one steep hill and the guy was squared off facing us, gun raised as a dog ran across in between us! It made me think: how far does a .416 Rigby go after it bounces off the frozen road? :yikes:Things that make you go Hmmm..but I truly don't believe that they would shoot intentionally right down the road would they in the heat of the chase???.........Hmmmm Highly unlikely it was a .416....but it is legal during daylight hours, so the possiblity exsists, especially with these guys.


----------



## DFJISH

If 12 pages and 172 replies doesn't indicate the seriousness of this problem to most of us, nothing will. PINEFARM is doing such a great job of posting my exact thoughts on this issue, I'll just step back and read how this plays out.


----------



## Pinefarm

The whole premise of hound hunters in my area is unethical.

They have zero access or permission to hunt any of the private land. Yet, they want to get at the game on that private land. So in order to get to the bear and coyotes that the landowners in no way want them to have access to, they turn dogs loose to drive game off the land that the landowners EXPRESSLY DO NOT want them to have access to.

So they drive game off land they would never get permission to, in the hopes that they can somehow drive the game onto public land that they can hunt.

What part of YOU ARE NOT INVITED OR WELCOME don't they understand?

The old laws where houndsman can go get dogs on private land are just that, old. Years back, people could trespass and few cared. Those days are long over.

People no longer want complete strangers using dogs or setting fires to drive game off of theor private land that they pay the taxes on, to hunt themselves.


----------



## Pinefarm

I'm going to forward this thread to the MDNR bear specialist.


----------



## Burksee

Pinefarm said:


> ....People no longer want complete strangers using dogs or setting fires to drive game off of their private land that they pay the taxes on, to hunt themselves.


 Amen! 



Pinefarm said:


> I'm going to forward this thread to the MDNR bear specialist.


Thank you!


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac

Justin said:


> Good post! Many speaking out against hound hunting don't even have a clue how it's done. They don't know the difference between **** hunting and coyote hunting, of rabbit hunting for that matter. Advocating shooting or poisoning dogs makes them less of a sportsman than those they complain about. If the hunters break the law...CALL THE LAW! We have enough laws, they're just not being enforced.


Does it really matter how it's done if it's done unethically? Falling back on the excuse that it's legal doesn't matter, because that can be changed and that becomes more likely when unethical behavior is repeatedly defended on the basis that it's legal.

Defending one's property rights can be ethical even when illegal means are used, because laws against defending rights can be ridiculous. Defending the use of somebody else's property without their permission or paying rent is a good way to cause an overreaction in the political arena. The problem here is groups running roughshod. Maybe limiting the group size to 3 dogs and no more than three or four hunters is the way. It protects the bunny and bird hunters from suffering at the hands of the rolling posses.


----------



## lang49

aimus1 said:


> This coming from a guy whose solution is stripping hunters of their now perfectly legal and ethical way of hunting because of a few bad apples:lol: But then again he probably doesn't hunt this way so why not support something that wouldn't have any negative effect on you. Wait a minute....how about the amplified overpopulation of yotes. Would that have a negative effect on the species HE enjoys hunting?
> For the record... I don't hunt coyotes this way either.


A. Letting your dog run across land that you don't have permission to hunt is not ethical! That's the whole point of this entire thread and you still don't get it! It's so obvious that the majority who participate in this sport have no concept of what is ethical and what isn't.

B. I trap coyotes. So yes, your unethical actions do have a negative impact on me.


----------



## Hiperformance

There are a lot of groups out there that run yotes that don't even carry guns. If you have good enough hounds there is no need for guns. Plus it is a lot easier to gain permission when you state that there isn't guns being used. People feel better sometimes when you tell them that first .


----------



## Robert Holmes

There is nothing like the sound of a hound dog in the morning.:evil: They even get better sounding when the are running a **** or yote through lots of 5 acre parcels.:evil:


----------



## Pinefarm

Here's a question, how can a training dog be a "hunting dog" when there is no open season?

Michigan defines the rule this exact way...

Hunting dog means a dog allowed to range freely to engage in or aid in hunting *on the day the dog enters the property of another person*.

During the Summer months, there is no hunting "ON THE DAY" the dog enters the property of another.


----------



## Justin

Pinefarm said:


> What do you do when the landowner says "stay the F off the property and we'll call the cops so they can escort you to get the dogs that you already knew in advance would be on my land"?
> 
> It's the current retrieval law that makes trespassing like a welfare entitlement for some. That's what we're going to change.
> 
> After we change it, you can pay your fine at the courthouse, then the landowner can go get your dogs while you wait at the fence and you can then pay him for his time and the rental fee for the use of his land while housing your dogs.


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## taylorswalker

Ill make sure my mastiff is run with my hounds that night my friend. Make sure I'm payin ya real good for ur time 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sasquatch Lives

You hound guys crack me up. In case you haven't noticed, many states have changed their dog running laws and outlawed your trespassing habits. Posts like many of yours are doing nothing but furthering the landowners cause and giving them more ammo against you to get the laws changed. Nice work.


----------



## Burksee

Sasquatch Lives said:


> You hound guys crack me up. In case you haven't noticed, many states have changed their dog running laws and outlawed your trespassing habits. Posts like many of yours are doing nothing but furthering the landowners cause and giving them more ammo against you to get the laws changed. Nice work.


Shhhhh! :shhh: They're on a roll, don't stop'em now!


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

Pinefarm said:


> What do you do when the landowner says "stay the F off the property and we'll call the cops so they can escort you to get the dogs that you already knew in advance would be on my land"?
> 
> It's the current retrieval law that makes trespassing like a welfare entitlement for some. That's what we're going to change.
> 
> After we change it, you can pay your fine at the courthouse, then the landowner can go get your dogs while you wait at the fence and you can then pay him for his time and the rental fee for the use of his land while housing your dogs.


The third part is the best, we can only pray.  Mastiff's are big babies.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Frantz said:


> So you are saying that it is not OK to enjoy your work and have fun while doing it? Please, I am confused.





boehr said:


> I am not quite sure what your statement is suppose to mean but I will tell you right off, 95% of the time I did have have *fun* serving and protecting while doing my job, catching poachers, law breakers, violators, clowns or whatever name you would like to give them. I also had *fun* helping others too. So yes, overall I had *fun*. It kind of sounds like you don't have fun doing whatever career choice you do so I feel sorry for you.:evilsmile Having *fun* is what made me good at doing what I did.:evil:


It sounded as if you waited to compile broken laws before apprehending your (the) "perp(s)" you have a sworn duty to protect!... you are not protecting while compiling citations. A certain case in Calhoun County comes to mind, Officers taking matters into their own hands, it did'nt work out so well as I recall.


----------



## Hawgleg

Sasquatch Lives said:


> I would rather have coyotes on my land than a pack of stinkin hounds and the neanderthals who accompany them.


----------



## taylorswalker

I guess I'm blessed that in 20 years of runnin dogs I've never had to deal with any one like yall
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hiperformance

No one has to enter the property just wait till the dogs come out. If you bought a parcel surrounded by one or two farmers that own the rest of the section how can you possibly get upset that some hounds run through your place? If you don't give permission for anybody to be on your land that's fine. The hounds are more than likely be through there in no time.


----------



## Burksee

taylorswalker said:


> I guess I'm blessed that in 20 years of runnin dogs I've never had to deal with any one like yall.


That could go both ways. 

Although I'm sure you'd never tell us the truth of where you run if you are a legal and respectful hound hunter you should never have anything to worry about.


----------



## taylorswalker

Yea I don't get it ether I hunt from porthuron to port hope and have never had any problems I'm guessin this guy just has a bad batch of guys around his place. Or he has a stick up his a--
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Magnet

Justin said:


> Make sure you include the suggesting of poisoning and shooting dogs, including yours.


I'm sure he did, as it would certainly help elevate the urgency of the situation.


----------



## Riva

taylorswalker said:


> Yea I don't get it ether I hunt from porthuron to port hope and have never had any problems I'm guessin this guy just has a bad batch of guys around his place. Or he has a stick up his a--
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Taylorswalker..may I come over to your house, walk right in, get a beer out of the fridge, put my feet up and watch TV while you're not home? Your cavalier attitude surrounding this whole matter is what makes landowners like myself become even more hardened against your actions. What part of the term, "private property" don't you understand?

We don't have a problem with guys running yotes in my section any more. That's because , a few years ago, somebody in my section that I know destroyed a dog that was running coyotes on his land. Shot it dead. Took a boatload of state police officers to separate the parties--all of whom were armed and most of whom were drinking at the time (heavily). It was a HIGHLY charged incident, to say the least.

I did not agree with the actions my neighbor took. I thought it was a gross over reaction. He could have easily grabbed the dog and held it until the police showed up. But, apparently he thought killing the dog was the correct message.

And, he paid a hefty price for his actions. Paid a district court a $1000 fine for indiscriminately killing an animal and, $10K more to the dog owner in civil court. Plus, his employer found out about it and, while he was not fired, his career was put in "park" from that day forward. I humorously refer to it as "the $200,000 dog", when you consider the end price he paid--and will pay.

But, it's not funny. It's a tragedy. And, it's the guys that run their dogs who are as much at fault for this happening because of their absolute and total disregard for the rights of a property owner. They know, and YOU know, that the "just retrieving my dog" line" is a ruse. In other words, a LIE! 

Anyway,as I was saying, we don't have a problem with guys running yotes in my section any more.


----------



## boomer_x7

Robert Holmes said:


> There is nothing like the sound of a hound dog in the morning.:evil: *They even get better sounding when the are running a **** or yote through lots of 5 acre parcels*.:evil:


Prefer that nice "slurp" sound when you push them under 5ft of muck:evil:


----------



## hammerinplott

I have run alot of places just been honest not hid and did what I needed to do only person that ever gave me trouble was drunk and I wasn't even on his place and he got the tickets that night


----------



## kingfisher 11

taylorswalker said:


> I guess I'm blessed that in 20 years of runnin dogs I've never had to deal with any one like yall
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It appears you have never been caught, thats all.


----------



## kingfisher 11

Hiperformance said:


> No one has to enter the property just wait till the dogs come out. If you bought a parcel surrounded by one or two farmers that own the rest of the section how can you possibly get upset that some hounds run through your place? If you don't give permission for anybody to be on your land that's fine. The hounds are more than likely be through there in no time.


You just don't get it. I was a hound hunter and I saw the writing on the wall. It will be guys like you who cause many to lose the sport they love. It just about happened in the UP due to bear hounds running across a Dr's property. Sooner or later someone who can get this going, will take the sport away from many of you.

Bottom line, the land owner no matter how big or small. Should be respected and you have no legal right to be on his land. Your dog or you...... unless he gave you written permission to be there.


----------



## wild bill

Hiperformance said:


> No one has to enter the property just wait till the dogs come out. If you bought a parcel surrounded by one or two farmers that own the rest of the section how can you possibly get upset that some hounds run through your place? If you don't give permission for anybody to be on your land that's fine. The hounds are more than likely be through there in no time.


its the attitude of people like yourself that will ruin it for everyone else. 

i seem to recall you promoted your sport in the same manner your last stay here before you were banned.


----------



## 19rabbit52

Just as Californians have spread tru the west and impose their ways on people I see the same thing happening in Michigan. That is big city people spreading out thru the state with their set of rule(or should I say way of life). That's what I see and it is a shame as their numbers are overwhelming. Quite simply guy's have always hunted big running dogs and now you want them to quite so you can have your personal fiefdom. Build dog proof fences is all I can say.


----------



## taylorswalker

Or they could just check with land owners it really doesn't take much time to look in a plat book and see who ur dealin with and knock on sum doors. I guess everyone knows everyone around my neck of the woods
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Justin

mykass said:


> I think yote guys are on the crap end..... Yes it is the other dogs and other game such as rabbits and bear for the most part that create issues because those coincide with deer season. thats where most issues come up... Rabbit dogs and smoke pole hunters in december and guys running bear through private property before bow season. There is no seperation... Sorry


Do you run dogs? There is a huge difference. The problem is with long range chases. The rabbit hunters that I know wait until after deer season to run dogs. That is getting harder to do with the late deer seasons. We avoid hassles with deer hunters as much as possible. A beagle runs a rabbit in a circle. In most cases the hunter wouldn't even need to retrieve their dog.


----------



## Hawgleg

19rabbit52 said:


> Just as Californians have spread tru the west and impose their ways on people I see the same thing happening in Michigan. That is big city people spreading out thru the state with their set of rule(or should I say way of life). That's what I see and it is a shame as their numbers are overwhelming. Quite simply guy's have always hunted big running dogs and now you want them to quite so you can have your personal fiefdom. Build dog proof fences is all I can say.


This makes about as much sense as you running your hounds with bullet proof vests on.


----------



## Justin

19rabbit52 said:


> Just as Californians have spread tru the west and impose their ways on people I see the same thing happening in Michigan. That is big city people spreading out thru the state with their set of rule(or should I say way of life). That's what I see and it is a shame as their numbers are overwhelming. Quite simply guy's have always hunted big running dogs and now you want them to quite so you can have your personal fiefdom. Build dog proof fences is all I can say.


That is exactly what is happening and there isn't anything we can do to stop it. Rules will have to change because of it. When we bought property up north we went out of our way to fit in with the locals and we get along fine, in fact we pretty much share our properties.


----------



## Riva

Frantz said:


> I have read about 8 pages of this, and many more in years gone by. I remember back to when our family first bought our 120 acres and the locals hating us "city folks" because of it, tough crap locals. Most of us, after 40+ years are now friends, some, well not so much. Fact of the matter is, it is our land, be it 16 meaningless acres as some would beleive, 120 like we own, or the whole damn block. We made a decision to purchase it, pay our taxes on it and see fit to legally do as we wish on it, *so unless we say "sure, go ahead", stay the heck off it.
> *
> Any and everyone who runs a dog has the same opportunity to look for and purchase the land they need to let their hounds run. They also have the ability to go to public land to do the same. According to this ink, http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10366-121638--,00.html
> 
> Michigan's two scenic peninsulas provide 8 million acres of public hunting land, including 4.5 million acres managed by DNR.
> 
> So, why is it that with all this public land and the ability to purchase their own land for hunting, hound hunters feel the need to disrupt, disturb or otherwise flat out disrespect those who own private land, regardless of whether it is a 16 or 1600 acre parcel?


Again, what part of this statement don't you guys understand?

Frankly, I think you understand it all too well. It's just that you have this nice little "get out of jail free" card called: "I'm just gett'n my dog."

Well...the jigs up! Landowners are fed up with your "sport", your "ruse", your lies. Since you prefer to live under the rock that protects you, we're going to flip that rock over, finally expose you to the hot sun, and take back what is ours, which somehow, you have defined as being yours.

Bottom line...you people simply don't "get it". So, starting tomorrow, it's off to Lansing to make sure that you folk, indeed, "get it" going forward. 

You make your bed; you sleep in it. 

Again, suggest moving to Greenland or Antarctica, where there are wide open spaces and no 10-acre parcels for you and your dogs to violate!


----------



## Pinefarm

Riva,
I'll call you tomorrow.
Bob


----------



## Pinefarm

The red flag for the houndsmen should be that it isn't non-hunters or even anti-hunters that are "done" with trespassing pets and their owners who are driving game off their land. No, it's very serious, dedicated hunters/sportsmen who've said "enough" of others stealing game animals and land ownership autonomy from them, with zero financial payments or even a hint of respect or thanks. The old law is akin to a social entitlement. Feel free to use the land of other hard working tax payers, do nothing but take from them. How wonderful.

Alas, again, again, again, I'm all for houndsmen being able to run hounds on THEIR land. Even public land if the public policy and society allows it. Houndsmen should have every priviledge to run hounds on their own land that they pay taxes on or public land, if society allows it on public land. 

This issue is like the recent "Catholic Church vs birth control pills on insurance" issue. It isn't about birth control pills and insurance at all, it's about the federal government having zero authority to dictate to a church what they must cover for insurance purposes. 

The houndsmen have ZERO authority over others private land, other than an old law that was lobbied for decades back, when such activity was socially accepted. It isn't anymore, at least in much of the populated LP. It's over.

Recreational hunting/training with hounds is a mere PRIVILEDGE. It is NOT a right. Land ownership IS a RIGHT. Landowner rights take precedent over a mere priviledge in every case.

If houndsmen want to run hounds, knock yourself out! Go buy a couple square miles of land, high fence it and run your dogs to your delight. I assume everyone here is cool with that. 

But what is no longer acceptable is, looking out the window in the morning only to find strangers swimming in your backyard swimming pool and them claiming that they somehow have some old law to back them up to swim in your backyard pool, when you expressly do not want them swimming in your backyard pool. 

A man's property is/was his castle, at least in "the old America". A small group writing in a loophole taking that power away from taxpaying landowners is about to end.

The days of strangers being able to drive game off of others land is coming to an end, just as smoking cigarettes anywhere did and socially accepted drunk driving also ended. 

The key now is, the houndsmen can cut their losses, compromise with less or lose it all. 

Again, as always, the houndsmen can fight to keep rules for THEIR OWN LAND, but what I think you'll find is, most houndsmen have no land they own, they always expect to hunt our land and to drive the game off our land, onto a road where they can shoot a given game animal on some road "easement".

Road hunting is now taboo for most Michigan hunters, yet if you notice, the houndsmen line trucks up, arm up and wait for the animals they've driven off others land, with the intention of shooting them in the middle of a dirt road.

For every guy that's been turned down for hunting permission in the last 10 years, I maintain it's this activity that has soured non-hunting/yet not anti-hunting landowners as much as anything. 

A few apples have actually soured the barrel for far more hunters than we know.


----------



## fightem

Just shoot the dogs if they are running your land plain and simple people. They will get the hint when their dogs don`t come back after hearing some shots. If I owned land and some ones dog is running deer or rabbits or what ever ,I would just do some culling and thats that. I wouldn`t broadcast it I would just shoot and bury .If this hurts your feelings sorry. Jsut keep your dogs tied up.


----------



## Pinefarm

One wonders what the average houndsman's opinion is concerning illegal aliens coming in from Mexico?

Given the expressed opinions, logic would dictate the houndsmen would be all for the "rights" of illegal aliens to come here and do whatever they like. 

US citizens should just accept it and keep their mouths shut, right?


----------



## Justin

fightem said:


> Just shoot the dogs if they are running your land plain and simple people. They will get the hint when their dogs don`t come back after hearing some shots. If I owned land and some ones dog is running deer or rabbits or what ever ,I would just do some culling and thats that. I wouldn`t broadcast it I would just shoot and bury .If this hurts your feelings sorry. Jsut keep your dogs tied up.


What a moron.


----------



## Justin

Pinefarm said:


> One wonders what the average houndsman's opinion is concerning illegal aliens coming in from Mexico?
> 
> Given the expressed opinions, logic would dictate the houndsmen would be all for the "rights" of illegal aliens to come here and do whatever they like.
> 
> US citizens should just accept it and keep their mouths shut, right?


I think everyone gets your point. Your analogies are absurd.


----------



## boehr

These pages, at least the last 4 or 5 pages give me reason to reflect on why I'm glad I'm retired and don't have to even try to protect or serve the hunting privledges (not rights) of hunters anymore. I have even given up hunting because I got to the point to believe if they (hunters) don't care why should I? This shows just a small part of why too many hunters can't be trusted any longer to do what is right. There can be no more getting along even between hunters little lone hunters and non-hunters or hunters and anti's. Hunters continue to split themselves apart on different topics and mostly because of selfishness. I will sit back and watch you all destroy yourselves.


----------



## chewy

this post is why I am glad I am moving out of this state. there are such extreme opinions about trespassing and running "my deer". if you own 40 acres guess what. you don't own deer they live on a bigger parcel than just 40. 

then u have the ones who say mi is like California. you are probably the ones that push for that stuff. u want welfare unemployment benefits think he government should take cafe of u. u r probably a union member who wants social services and Obama. 

Michigan is a very liberal state and I've had enough. moving to a conservative state. 

enjoy have pissing matches about your almighty 5 acre parcel. 
oh and 
take the car on blocks out of your property please!!!


----------



## Hiperformance

You only have a handful complaining here. There are way more people that give permision and want the coyotes gone. Guys being on the roads waiting for dogs is how you can gain alot more permission. Passer Byers stop and ask what's going in then tell you to come to there place and get rid of them. It's very simple. Enforce the laws we have. That's it period!!!


----------



## hammerinplott

fightem said:


> Just shoot the dogs if they are running your land plain and simple people. They will get the hint when their dogs don`t come back after hearing some shots. If I owned land and some ones dog is running deer or rabbits or what ever ,I would just do some culling and thats that. I wouldn`t broadcast it I would just shoot and bury .If this hurts your feelings sorry. Jsut keep your dogs tied up.


Hope you like prison that's 3 felonies

Pine farm yes its your place your problem is with certain groups not the whole of us.

My offer still stands you and Riva are invited to hunt


----------



## Rooster Cogburn

Boher is right. What started out as a specific complaints against one or two groups has now evolved into a feeding frenzy making unfounded accusations against hound hunters across the state. I am wondering why MichiganSportsmen.com allows this endless rant to go on.


----------



## swampbuck

boehr said:


> These pages, at least the last 4 or 5 pages give me reason to reflect on why I'm glad I'm retired and don't have to even try to protect or serve the hunting privledges (not rights) of hunters anymore. I have even given up hunting because I got to the point to believe if they (hunters) don't care why should I? This shows just a small part of why too many hunters can't be trusted any longer to do what is right. There can be no more getting along even between hunters little lone hunters and non-hunters or hunters and anti's. Hunters continue to split themselves apart on different topics and mostly because of selfishness. I will sit back and watch you all destroy yourselves.


 Great post, boehr

I dont have a problem with dog guys. And an unintentional dog tresspass is is just that unintentional, But it appears that the unethical side of the group is about to screw it up for everyone. An occurence that is far to common these days.......It is truley sad what we have become as a society, Sad for everyone.:sad:

On a lighter note there are large tracts of public land to the North, where you can run coyotes to your hearts content. In fact Roscommon County is half public land and is infested with coyotes. I would be more than happy to suggest some areas with plentiful coyotes.....Begining within 100 yd's of where I am sitting.


----------



## boomer_x7

swampbuck said:


> Great post, boehr
> 
> I dont have a problem with dog guys. And an unintentional dog tresspass is is just that unintentional, But it appears that the unethical side of the group is about to screw it up for everyone. An occurence that is far to common these days.......It is truley sad what we have become as a society, Sad for everyone.:sad:
> 
> *On a lighter note there are large tracts of public land to the North, where you can run coyotes to your hearts content. In fact Roscommon County is half public land and is infested with coyotes. I would be more than happy to suggest some areas with plentiful coyotes.....Begining within 100 yd's of where I am sitting*.


And yet in the next county over sitting less than 100yards from that same chunk of state land, coyote hunters do the same **** they do every where else. Like you said, thousands of acres of state land and they still come down my road and release there dogs on the neighbor's propertys witch have left for the winter, ect. 

When it comes down to it, there is a lot of coyote hunters that just dont care. They dont care if they run your land just like they dont care if they areparked in the middle of the road at the bottum of an icey hill. 

There are some that respect other people property and rights but, i feel they are a minority. I actually have a friend that runs coyotes that is very respectfull. His group had a guy that lived near by asking questions about what they were doing. Even though they were legal and not running his land they still agreed to call him whenever they run the area "just to let him know". But i can also point out two other groups of yote runners that will run your property, drive where ever ect. and never think twice about it. 

I think most people wouldnt have an issue if ocasionaly, dogs ran across there property, or a group stopped and said hey my dogs are coming through, or asked if it was o'k' to retrieve there dogs. But the mmajority has leaned towards the "do what i want" attitude..... Unfortunitly, the hunters that try and do things right will eventually have all the slobs ruin it for them.

As far as the entire theory about "city" people spreading out in michigan... I have lived "up north" my entire life and most people around here are tired of them too.....


Overall i am not against running yotes with dogs. But dog runners need to have more respect for land and land owners!! Also the laws need to be inforcedmore strictly with larger consiqueces!!


----------



## tdduckman

I attribute this whole thing on too many "Sportsmen" tolerating unethical behavior


1) Report all law breaking including tresspassing

2) dont make excuses for law breakers and unethical hunters

If the hound hunters who obey the laws and hunt ethically did not tolerate this crowd they wouldnt be facing this uprising from hunting landowners.


That said I hope this can worked out without more laws and regulation that punish law abiding dog hunters. Pitting dog hunters against deer hunters will result in 2 losers.


We need to clean up the hunting sport and that starts with me. I will report law breaking including small violations, so that bigger violations do not occur. 


TD


----------



## johnhunter

By golly, I love a healthy set of R4's.


----------



## Pinefarm

I don't believe that falls under "normal farming practices".


----------



## boehr

farmlegend said:


> By golly, I love a healthy tractor.


Best post in this thread.


----------



## Pinefarm

Let's stay on topic. We're talking about the hound hunters here. LOL


----------



## Burksee

Wow PF, that was a down right low down underhanded double cross'n buzz kill of post right there... :sad:


----------



## Pinefarm

:lol::evilsmile


----------



## Justin

Looks kinda like Ed Spin in the middle.


----------



## Justin

farmlegend said:


> By golly, I love a healthy set of R4's.


Good God!:yikes: I'd quit hunting and give my dog away for a crack at her!


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac

Hiperformance said:


> No one has to enter the property just wait till the dogs come out.


Are you prepared to wait until I release them from my snares the next day?



> If you bought a parcel surrounded by one or two farmers that own the rest of the section how can you possibly get upset that some hounds run through your place?


Landowners are under no obligation to justify being upset at intrusions on their land.



> If you don't give permission for anybody to be on your land that's fine.


Did you miss the posts where we talked about allowing trappers, callers and other less obnoxious hunters onto our land?



> The hounds are more than likely be through there in no time.


Not if they're caught in traps or snares.


----------



## Rasputin

farmlegend said:


> By golly, I love a healthy set of R4's.


 
Did you just turn this insto a baiting thread?:xzicon_sm


----------

