# Bait hunters vs. dog hunters Bashing thread



## lang49

hiawathahunter said:


> And I'm not talking about some MBHA vs bobcat trapper issues. The topic of this thread is bait hunters vs dog hunters, and I still say that if we want to continue to fight amongst each other, we can eventually kiss our hunting privledges goodbye.


With activities like suing the DNR in order restrict access to the resource, I guarantee you can kiss it goodbye...


----------



## Neal

Nwing said:


> I beg to differ Neal, but it is not.
> You cannot legally enter private property to retrieve game, dogs, or for any other reason, w/o the land owners permission.
> Hound hunters(or anyone else for that matter) do NOT have a legal right to trespass just to follow or retrieve dogs.
> An unfortunate number of them seem to think they do..but they simply do not. I have researched this..it's very cut and dried. Any DNR officer will tell you that if pressed by a land owner, they MUST make an arrest if someone is trespassing. Dont' get me wrong..I'm not advocating that in most situations, indeed, if a hound hunters comes to us and ASKS to follow a dog pack..if we are not hunting or something ourselves(and often even if we are) we are happy to allow it. But...said hunter must have permission before they can enter the property. The same goes for game recovery, that also does not allow you a blanket ticket to trespass.


I may be wrong, but i'm basing my comments on the following Michigan law.



> 324.73102(4) A person other than a person possessing a firearm may, unless previously prohibited in writing or orally by the property owner or his or her lessee or agent, enter on foot upon the property of another person for the sole purpose of retrieving a hunting dog. The person shall not remain on the property beyond the reasonable time necessary to retrieve the dog. In an action under section 73109 or 73110, the burden of showing that the property owner or his or her lessee or agent previously prohibited entry under this subsection is on the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney, respectively.


----------



## soggybtmboys

Neal said:


> I may be wrong, but i'm basing my comments on the following Michigan law.


 
Wouldn't a no tresspassin sign under no circumstances cover this? Dog retrieval is alot different than running a pack thru a property chasing a bear. I beleive that is really pushing it. The *intent* of the law is to allow someone to get their dog back if they run off, not having a dog pursuing game thru private property on purpose. 

I believe if pressed, you would have show cause and the violator would be introuble. That particular law does not give prejudice to allow tresspassing to be legal, just because a dog is present and there is an active hunt under way.


----------



## Neal

soggybtmboys said:


> Wouldn't a no tresspassin sign under no circumstances cover this?


We've had these discussions several times on here before, and I don't believe "No treaspassing" signs" are adequate.



> Dog retrieval is alot different than running a pack thru a property chasing a bear. I beleive that is really pushing it


Well, I'm sure the dogs are there cause they're pursuing game. Either way you have strangers on your property, against your wishes.

I'm still hoping Nwing is correct.


----------



## soggybtmboys

Ok, soooo you are kinda saying that as a landowner, you are powerless to stop this? I really find that very hard to believe and even harder to swallow. 

If this is truly the case, I would imagine there would be a catastrophe on the near horizon.


----------



## Neal

Thats exactly how I see it. The way it looks to me, ANYONE can go on my property, and if caught say "just looking for my dogs". I dont see anything in the rules that says that they have to actually produce the dogs.



> Ok, soooo you are kinda saying that as a landowner, you are powerless to stop this? I really find that very hard to believe and even harder to swallow.


You can stop them by warning them verbally or in writing, even then the burden of proof that you warned them is on you.


----------



## Nwing

Neal said:


> Thats exactly how I see it. The way it looks to me, ANYONE can go on my property, and if caught say "just looking for my dogs". I dont see anything in the rules that says that they have to actually produce the dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> You can stop them by warning them verbally or in writing, even then the burden of proof that you warned them is on you.


Neal, I don't have the documentation handy..but no trespassing means just that, according to every law officer(and 2 lawyers), I've talked to.
I you have NOT signed your property..you can still bring up trespassing charges, but it may be more difficult for them to stick.(the law no longer states that your land has to be signed, btw, that law was revoked a number of years ago).
The law does not allow an active hunt in progress to intrude onto your land. That's been made very clear to me by a number of people I've talked to.
IF I am wrong(and the legal eagles I've talked to also are) then the previous poster is correct..that's going to cause some real issues, real soon.


----------



## Neal

> The law does not allow an active hunt in progress to intrude onto your land. That's been made very clear to me by a number of people I've talked to.


I'm not questioning that, the law say they may NOT possess a firearm, thus not hunting.


----------



## Nwing

True, but leaving your firearms in your vehicles does not count, IMO.
By any definition, running dogs(be it for bear, coyote, whatever), IS an active hunt, thus even the law you posted would seem to preclude allowing people to follow dogs onto, and across private property.
The bottom line is this law is not designed to allow hunters to follow dogs around on private property. I would guess that if you tell a person to stay off your land..that's it. I really don't think they can say "the law allows me to go wherever I want, as long as my dog had already gone there". Gun or no gun..I don't think that law allows a dog pack to be followed w/o permission.
That law DOES seem to leave some room for interpretation however..which is indeed a real problem, and a recipe for real trouble down the road.


----------



## fishwhisperer

Well I talked to a bait hunter that is on private property and he has pictures of hundsmen and their dogs on his bait. When he confronted them they said oh well. Why should we have to come to threats. Hound hunters need to stay off private property.


----------



## soggybtmboys

I will stand on my previous statement with regards to *intent*. The law was written with the *intent* for someone to recover their dog. The law was not written with the *intent* to supercede landowner rights. A guy(s) running a pack of dogs, starting them on the road or directing those dogs thru private property, definintely shows *intent* to willingly tresspass.

There are alot of rulings that come out of legal proceedings where *intent *is the defining legal charactersitic that determines outcomes.

A guy parked on the side of the road next to my property and turns hounds loose, well I believe he definitely *intended *to tresspass. 

A guy who turns his dogs loose miles away, and they come on to my property, well I believe he did not *intend *for that to happen.

There is an enormous difference in the two, and the* intent* of the law was to protect the later gentleman to allow him to recover his dogs. I believe the *intent *of the law was not to protect the first fella.


----------



## Neal

I PM'd Boehr for his insight, however "Intent" or not, the law gives someone I probably dont know, and certainly doesnt have permission access to my property to retrieve his. It is my belief that No one, except in a life threatening situation, should be on my property without my permission.


----------



## u.p.trapper

THE MBHA SEALED THERE FATE TO STAND ALONE THE NEXT TIME THEY TRY TO BAN RUNNING HOUNDS.What they did was the most foolish thing they could have done.By being greedy and selfish they invited antis into the state.Now they say we should stand together.horsepucky!Hound guys and trappers have never got along simply because they compete for a resource and use the same areas.So trappers catch hounds and some hound hunters steal traps.When they tried to ban hounds,trappers stepped to the plate put aside their differences and stood beside our brothers.Then we were stabbed in the back.If they would have sued to ban bobcat harvest because the resource couldn't handle it fine we could have lived with that.But what they did is unacceptable and unforgivable.Hound hunters piss off every other sporting group in the state and show just how ignorant and dirty most of them are.(I say most because the MBHA filed the suit and they represent the hound hunters.)they say its for the good of the resource but they continue to harvest the cats there are not enough of !The sad part is I have been on hunts running **** and bear and it is fun hearing the dogs.I can see why they enjoy the sport.However by alienating other sporting groups and the public they will lose it.And I will watch and shake my head knowing it could have been avoided.At the same time thinking my sport wil be next.Thanks alot MBHA hope it was worth it!


----------



## Frantz

To me it coems down to this, regardless of the law, which we all know is ignorant in this case, how can any hounds man justify even running his dogs in an area that he/she knows, for a fact, will cause this problem? 

They start at one end of the block, a group of them go to the other end of the block a mile up, now tell me they have no control or clue where the dogs are running. You know I don't want them, or you on my property, the bright orange signs I spent countless hours posting and littering the woods with make it quite clear, so stay the F off, period.


----------



## FMann

The law conserning me retrieving my dog on "YOUR" property is very clear and I "CAN" get my dog reguardless of where it was turned loose. I run Coonhounds and have had the law called on me a couple times while I was running my dogs when they got on the next property and I went to retrieve them. Now when doing this I can not drive across your property or onto it, but I can park next to it and "WALK" in and get my dog. I do have to produce a dog when I come out and the officer is sitting next to my truck or I can and usally will recieve a ticket. If my dog is on your property you can Bet I will Get My Dog! you wont stop me I have that right by LAW and I hope your standing ther with me when the law shows up so you can find out your WROUNG! And if you harm or molest my hound while it is on your property you can bet I will press charges agenst you. The one thing to remember with hound hunters is most of them put tracking collars on thier hounds so we know where they are at! Most hound hunters like most people are nice people and respectful of the property they are crossing to get thier hounds. I'm not trying to be a ***** but if they take away hound hunting for bears then the ***** and rabbits and birds will be only a short time away!


----------



## Frantz

I will tell you what. Post your REAL address here, I will be more than happy to take my little dog to your house a number of times and will let it go to "RUN" something. Then me and my buddies can park out in front of your house while your wife or kids are home alone and just wander on around your property to get him. I mean it is the law that I can do it so you should be OK with that, regardless of the moral or ethical issues involved with me walking all over the property you pay a mortgage, taxes and upkeep on, correct. Your family should have no concerns or issues with the invasion so post it on up here for us all.


----------



## Neal

> I do have to produce a dog when I come out


Can you show mer where the law stipulates this? Thanks.

Frantz, that is what I always tell them. I'm betting that they wouldnt be too happy with strangers treading across their property, cause they lost control of their recreation. This just so opens a can of worms.


----------



## Nwing

FMann said:


> The law conserning me retrieving my dog on "YOUR" property is very clear and I "CAN" get my dog reguardless of where it was turned loose. I run Coonhounds and have had the law called on me a couple times while I was running my dogs when they got on the next property and I went to retrieve them. Now when doing this I can not drive across your property or onto it, but I can park next to it and "WALK" in and get my dog. I do have to produce a dog when I come out and the officer is sitting next to my truck or I can and usally will recieve a ticket. If my dog is on your property you can Bet I will Get My Dog! you wont stop me I have that right by LAW and I hope your standing ther with me when the law shows up so you can find out your WROUNG! And if you harm or molest my hound while it is on your property you can bet I will press charges agenst you. The one thing to remember with hound hunters is most of them put tracking collars on their hounds so we know where they are at! Most hound hunters like most people are nice people and respectful of the property they are crossing to get their hounds. I'm not trying to be a ***** but if they take away hound hunting for bears then the ***** and rabbits and birds will be only a short time away!


With all respect to yourself, and officer Boeher...I also just called a good friend of mine, and if that property is posted..you are both incorrect.
Posting constitutes a written document removing permission to enter property. Who knows..perhaps even that can be debated, but it will at minimum, earn you a court date if you wish to push it. The law as originally posted(some thread here) actually does address that fact..that POSTED land is of a catagorie that precludes recreational trespass under any circumstances w/o the permission of the land owner.
I see officer Boeher is in the Plainwell district. I may even call him directly with the contact number for my friend(not gonna "out" them as they have no iron in this fire) so they can put their heads together on this.
Law enforcement,(w/search warrant), search and rescue, as well as selected other member of public works can enter..but you cannot enter "just cause my dog ran onto your property".(again, at least according to my source, which is also in "the business").
If the land is not posted, you likely are correct, although that is not a bit of a grey area and would likely end up in court.
However..on POSTED property, the law is relatively clear..posting your property against ALL trespass does indeed mean just that.
Using this law to run around on, and flaunt private property, as you did in your last post, is exactly why houndsman are currently at the bottom of the "social acceptance" pecking order among hunters, and land owners, in Michigan.
I again call on houndsman to OPEN YOUR EYES and see whats going on.
You are on the road to ruining it for yourselves, and perhaps the rest of us, if you keep this attitude up.
edited to add, that I just found out that you may not even need to have it posted. If ONE of the exceptions applies in the case of trespass law...that may well be sufficent. Waiting on clarification on thnat point from my source.


----------



## Neal

I hope your right Nwing, and also that we can get a definitive answer so that everyone is clear on the law. Sometimes even the field officers are unclear of that actual specifics of some laws.

Boehr is recently retired and living in Florida, but he is very knowledgeable on these issues and can usually come up with the actual verbage of the law.


----------



## Nwing

Neal said:


> I hope your right Nwing, and also that we can get a definitive answer so that everyone is clear on the law. Sometimes even the field officers are unclear of that actual specifics of some laws.
> 
> Boehr is recently retired and living in Florida, but he is very knowledgeable on these issues and can usually come up with the actual verbage of the law.


I really will see if the guy I talked to today is interested in hashing it out.
He's a lawyer, so any chance for new cases may interest him:lol:
Some more points. The law as quoted here(some place..I'm getting a few of these threads mixed up) is also clear that if a landowner tells you no..that means NO. So..regardless of the issue of the sign as a legally binding document...if I see a guy getting ready to "recover" a dog(or 5 or 10 guys, as is often the case), all I need to do is tell them no, and revoke their "permission".
In THAT..the law is crystal clear.
You at that point are done, from a legal standpoint..no arguing, the law is clear, there.
Beyond that...what I worry about, is that this attitude of "pushing" and flaunting the law to in effect, trespass, may well backfire on "hunters" and that the dogs will suffer. 
What do I mean? Simple...regardless of the legality of all of the rest of this discussion..one thing you CAN do is to defend your life and property against a perceived threat. If "I" see dogs on my property, and I decide to catch them, I may try to do that(hopefully in a benign manner). If I catch up to the dog and the dog then acts aggressive, or attacks, or I perceive that it may, however, I have every right to defend myself.
I use the term "I" in the general sense here, as it applies to the general public. If a dog is "trespassing" on a piece of private land, and said land owner is attacked or threatened in the act of attempting to remove that dog, he has the right to defend himself. OR if the dog is damaging or attempting to damage property(including livestock) he also has the right to defend that.
A smart land owner won't shoot a dog for trespassing..but they may indeed need to defend their property and family against an aggressive animal.
So...See the very slippery slope that using the law in a "round about" way, can lead to? 
Again...all it takes is some common sense, and decency on the part of the houndsman here...you guys need to quit ignoring the problem, and tackle it head on. 
DON'T run dogs in areas of private land, it's that simple. Even in southern Mi. there are plenty of large state game areas(Allegan and Barry come to mind in s.w. Michigan), and of course, a two hour drive for most of us puts us in areas of hundreds of thousands of acres of wild, PUBLIC land, where this kind of a conflict is greatly reduced. 
Run your dogs there, and avoid all the rest of this stress.


----------



## Nwing

First, thanks for replying in such detail. I believe that what you have written here will go a great way towards clarifying what can, and cannot, be done in a dog trespass situation. I'll reply to specifics below..but all in all, this really should put a lot of the confusion to rest! It certainly did with me!
Anway....



boehr said:


> Posted signs are not equivalent to what the law states; *unless previously prohibited in writing or orally by the property owner or his or her lessee or agent*, which means by letter or in person. Posted signs are already one of the elements in preventing a "recreational" activity from happening on the property, in this case, hunting. Retrieval of dogs alone, without a firearm (or bow) does not fall under the definition of recreational activity in this case under this law. If signs were sufficient under the "written" portion then there would be no need to have this particular section of the rec trespass law.


This does indeed make sense. I'll talk to my friend(who I found out left to go hunting in Texas this afternoon...I thought it was next week...WITH DOGS for hogs..how ironic is that?)...but now, I tend to think this is correct, if unfortunate from a landowner standpoint. Still, if it's just for the retrieval of dogs, and NOT in a case of circumventing the law, I personally would have let them in anyway as long as I felt it was a legit thing(and not a situation with repeat incidents).




boehr said:


> But that is what we are talking about, the legitimate retrieval of a person's dog(s). Anything else such as someone trying to circumvent the law obviously would be handled differently.


 I tend to agree, although what I have been talking about is really related to such cirumventing of the law. It's obvious from both personal experience and what I read here, even from the very words of some on these forums, that many dog runners DO feel that this law gives them effectively a "free pass" to run dogs on private land, and access it at will to "retrieve" them. As you show below...this simply is not the case.



boehr said:


> You are exactly correct, that is what I am saying and also what Neal has said. You can say no.


Thanks..thats what many of us have been trying to say. If one of the dog owners says they have an ABSOLUTE right to enter your land for whatever reason(even retrieval) they are simply wrong. They do NOT, if you say they do not. No prior warning needed, no "only after the first time". If you are there, and say no, even before they enter..then that's it, no is no.
THANK YOU for making that clear!



boehr said:


> You are exactly incorrect in this. Please post the paperwork you would have in your hand that gives a citizen the right to hold a person for the possible misdemeanor charge of rec trespass or any misdeameanor charge for that matter. I'm not talking about parking your vehicle behind theirs or something of that nature. I'm talking about using some type of force to hold a person. You would find yourself in greater trouble that the other person for the trespass. Not only that but if the other guy assaulted you because you held him he would not get into trouble for it. Anyway post your paperwork about this topic (holding a person).


Ah...this is interesting. The paper I was talking about was not a "hold" law, but the original law (that you verified above) stating that I had the right to say no. In this quote, that's what I was talking about. I DID think you had the right to make a citizens arrest in a situation where said rule was not followed, so if not, I was wrong. This sort of pertains to the next quote anyway..



boehr said:


> If I were called, you would not had to have told the person no in my presence, all you would have to do is tell me you told him and if the guy was still there he would be arrested. If they guy wasn't there then he obviously left like you told him. If the guy had a gun or was hunting in violation of the law and was gone, then I would get a warrant for the guys arrest because even a CO or LEO can not make an arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in their presence.


Excellent! That's been another thing brought up, that the "proof" of having said no, was on the shoulders of the person registering the complaint. While that no doubt is the case, the fact that all I need to do is tell the LEO that I told the person "No" and that's sufficient proof...certainly solves that problem! Again, excellent information.



boehr said:


> Again if armed they are trespassing provided you land meets the requirements of posted etc. If unarmed and you told them to leave and they refused they would be arrested.


Again, excellent, and this again answers a lot of issues.



boehr said:


> Let me make something clear that I don't believe has been so far. If someone's dogs go onto someone else's property and the unarmed owner is trying to retrieve them and is told to leave by the owner of the property, he must leave at that time, not after he retrieves the dogs. In that can the owner has the only option of going to the property line or to wherever he has permission to be a call his dogs until they come. Once told to leave they must immediately leave.


As above, this clarifies things immensely. The claims by dog owners that they "absolutely will" access the property and that the land owner cannot stop them...is put to rest with this one.
ANY decent land owner, myself included, would under normal circumstances allow a person to retrieve a dog(or a deer for that matter) if asked, or if previous arrangements had been made. But..this seems to have been the crux of the matter, the houndsmen claiming that regardless of a land owners wishes, they had the absolute right to retrieve a dog(thus, gain access) even if told no(for whatever reason). This then..is again shown to NOT be the case.
If a land owner says no, and the dog man does not comply....he will be in violation of the trespass law, end of story. Again..thank you for clearing this up! It will make things much clearer, I feel.



boehr said:


> I wouldn't be so polite as "escorting the trespasser off", if the property owner presses charges, they get arrested, if the property owner will not press charges, which happenes a lot, they are told to leave. I can't think of a time in many, many years where I had to escort any one anywhere except to jail.


I was trying to be politically correct in that situation...I'm glad to see that you take the issue of personal property rights seriously! Too bad a few of the houndsman, seem not to.
I'd like to again stress one point that may have been overlooked.
I would not, and will not, refuse access to someone who is legitimately(IMO) attempting to retrieve a dog, or anything else(deer, whatever) on property I own or controll. While this was indeed the core of the legal part of this discussion...the "real world application" of that law, has been that a small(but very visible) percentage of dog owners were, and are, using it as a method of hunting private land.
Simply put..this needs to stop. When a dog man comes on here and says he WILL access your land, even if you say no...that's been the problem, their belief that this law allowed them to do that. Clearly...it does NOT.
My assumption is that this law was put in place in order to allow for recovery of animals when a land owner was not home, or could not be found. I don't feel it was put in place to remove said landowners right of refusal. This seems to be still well in place, for use in such situations where a land owner feels that it is NOT a legitimate recovery issue(or..he's simply tired of dealing with it over and over again).
I think that other then the sign issue(which seems at t his point moot anyway) the rest of this is cleared up...bottom line is that per Mr. Boher(and the law as written), a property owner CAN INDEED refuse access in person, if he or she wishes...and a dog owner cannot legally circumvent that decision. It is not a matter of "we can do it one time"...it's a matter of "you cannot do it at all, if I tell you you cannot".
I've learned a lot in this..and wish to thank Officer Boher(hope that's your name, if not, your screen name is all I've got to go by!) for clearing this stuff up!


----------



## withgrace

I think the intent of the law is to let houndsman get their dogs back when what they are hunting is treed or if the dog is injured. Why would you want hounds that have treed a bear or **** to stay on your land? A good hound is going to keep that bear up there for a while. If the bear is running there is no reason for a houndsman to be on your land they can just wait for the dogs to push it off. Which is what most hunters are going to do.


----------



## Nwing

FMann said:


> Ok first if I am going to "retrieve" my dog on private property I "MUST" be unarmed if not I will be in violation of the Law (you have a case). Now if the landowner tell's me NO I can not get my hound then you can bet I will be the one calling the LAW, and I will with the officer's help get my dog (I have the right).
> 
> Now to the person that stated they have the right to defend themselfs and their property if they feel threatened. Well let me tell you something. This is only true if your feeling threatened in your own home "NOT" on your own property! Shoot someone that is in your home and let them make it out side and leave them ther for the law to find, YOU will be going to Jail and you wont pass start and you wont collect 200 dollars. Shoot a dog and let the owner of the dog figure it out and again no 200 dollars, you go to jail. The one thing you didn't think about is I too have the right to defend myself and my property (hound).
> 
> Now most of you are missconstruding the retrieval of my hound with hunting with my hound. I only have the right to retrieve my hound if it is on your land. I "DO NOT" have the right to follow my hound across your land. I will agree a simple Hey can I get my hound I believe he is on your property would make things a hole lot better.


Don't know if you are even still reading this Fman...but the post above clears things up nicely, IMO.
IF for some reason, I tell you no...that does indeed mean no. If you call an LEO to intervene...they would as Boher above points out, have to defer to the wishes of the property owner, whatever those may be.
So..you do NOT have the legal right to access private property for ANY reason if a land owner tells you you cannot.
End of story.
Now....again, if you came up and asked, would I let you? As long as I was satisfied that you were indeed just retrieving a lost dog..you bet I would.
If you were part of a group running hounds over private land you had no access to, and it was part of a pattern of repeat offense in this area..Id tell you no, wait for the dog to wander onto a road and recover it then.
Either way...you enter my land at my digression, not yours.
As to defense of property, I don't have the applicable regulation in front of me, but a person does NOT have to be in their own home to defend themselves, against either a dog or another person. CCW laws are clear on that, and if a person is attacked in public, they absolutely have the right to defend themselves.
Do you seriously think that if a dog attacks me, or livestock on my property, I don't have the right of self defense.
If you think that..you are very simply wrong.
Do I think that's at all a likely scenario? Nope, not at all. But...it's a possible one, and if a person feels the need to defend themselves against an unknown dog...they do indeed have that right.


----------



## Nwing

withgrace said:


> I think the intent of the law is to let houndsman get their dogs back when what they are hunting is treed or if the dog is injured. Why would you want hounds that have treed a bear or **** to stay on your land? A good hound is going to keep that bear up there for a while. If the bear is running there is no reason for a houndsman to be on your land they can just wait for the dogs to push it off. Which is what most hunters are going to do.


That may be the case(the dogs staying a long time) and personally I'd more then likely allow a recovery IF it was an isolated incident. But the law is NOT in place to compel me to do so. IF for some reason, I(or any land owner) feels that they wish to say no(which I agree, I can't really imagine happening unless its the result of a pattern of people abusing the law)...then morally right or not..it IS my right to do so.
This also touches on something else..training. It would not surprise me if someone were to try to use the "recovery" law to allow pretty much unfettered running of training on private land. After all..you are not armed, you are "recovering" your pack...even if you spend a half hour at the "recovery" site where the bear is tree'd......
The landowners ability to say no, would at least put a damper on that practice also(this practice was touched on in another thread some place, but I'll be darned if I can find it!).
As to recovery of a hurt dog..to me that's a no brainier, I absolutely would allow it, and if anyone disallowed that, they are morally reprehensible to a degree I cannot imagine.
However...I don't see a clause in the law stating that I would be obligated to do so...so I'd guess that a LEO on the scene would strongly try to convince the land owner to allow access under that circumstance..but I also suspect that IF a property owner was being a totally ass...then they COULD legally stop even that.
I think it would be nearly inhuman to do so, however.


----------



## Shop Rat

FMann said:


> Now to the person that stated they have the right to defend themselfs and their property if they feel threatened. Well let me tell you something. This is only true if your feeling threatened in your own home "NOT" on your own property! Shoot someone that is in your home and let them make it out side and leave them ther for the law to find, YOU will be going to Jail and you wont pass start and you wont collect 200 dollars. Shoot a dog and let the owner of the dog figure it out and again no 200 dollars, you go to jail. The one thing you didn't think about is I too have the right to defend myself and my property (hound).
> .


I have to tell you that last year, my brother was on his 40 up north, in his blind and 3 of the neighbors large dogs (mangy bouviers sp?) were running all over his property. My brother was actually target shooting when they came into his property. He waited until they were out of sight, he proceeded to walk back to his cabin and the dogs came back. The 3 dogs charged him, he shot one with his .308 and it made it to the ditch on the neighbors side of the road. It was later put to sleep.

The deputy (who needs to go back to school according to the lawyer because he tried to tell my brother that even if the dog was biting him or biting his small children, he would have to wait for the police to do anything to the dog) said that they could charge my brother with animal cruelty and get up to 4 yrs in prison. 

After threats, charges filed and getting an lawyer, it was clear that the charges were going to be dropped. Other neighbors were chased by these dogs and they all wanted to testify.

The neighbor who owns the dogs had to pay 3x dogs on the loose tickets and 3x unregistered dog tickets and get the 2 remaining dogs registered. 

Now, I know that hunting dogs for the most part are very friendly. I have had them come into my yard up north with the radio collars on and no owner around. I usually give them a few hot dogs or salami and send them on their way. We had one come into my yard a few weeks ago, he tried to poke his nose through our screen door (damaged the screen) and he left before we could get close enough to look for a phone number on his collar. This last one was skinny and it looked like he was lost for quite a while.

The part about you defending your property (dog) what does that mean? If you put yourself into a situation, such as trespassing and dogs on the loose, where are you in defense? Someone on their own land is put into that situation by the dog and the owner. That attitude could end dog hunting here. The bottom line according to my brothers lawyer, is that

*If you believe that you are in danger you can defend yourself or another person.*

There was no jail and it was not 200 dollars, it was more like $4,000.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA

soggybtmboys said:


> This statement is incorrect, defense laws are also extended to said property, does not have to be homesteaded. Again, it is a stretch as I do not believe someone's bear dog would be viscious towards a person. However, dog runs on to my property goes after one of my children. I have an 8 yr old and a 3yrold, they both go in the woods with me all the time. Think I am gonna let something happen to them, because you can't keep your stickin hound off my property, think again pal. And I said if, and I said I do not believe the bear dogs to be viscious towards people, but If a scenario went down like this, you can be rest assured that pooch is gonna be taking a dirt nap, and you better believe I will not receive not even a ticket.
> 
> Your stance makes no sense, if that were the case, then why are the CPL laws there, I can get robbed and beat within an inch of my life, but because I am not at home, I cannot shoot this guy???



Same for these big wild dogs called wolves. One threatens you and tries to attack you on you rroperty you can kill the stupid thing.


----------



## Shop Rat

I have to add that there is some added rights for farmers. My brother's lawyer said that if he made his place a farm, he would not have to feel that his life was in danger to do something about it.

I love dogs, I think that the owners need to be in control of them at all times and are responsible for the dogs actions. If the dogs are on private land, the dog owner needs to recognise that it is not his right, because his property is now on my property, that he can now take control of my land and my rights as a property owner. The dog owner's property is out of his control and he should be sorry for his actions. 

If you think that the dog might travel on to private land, you should keep it on a leash and go around the private land (get some running shoes). I don't drive my 4 wheeler across anyone's land chasing deer. 

The attitude of "The bear went there, the dog followed, the dog is my property and now I have the right to trespass to get my dog or follow the bear into someone else's land" will end bear hunting with dogs.

If the dog and or owner are into the private more than 1 private owner deep, the dog owner should be ticketed immediately and take his license. That is blatant trespassing and they did not contact the property owner(s) before going into the first property.

How far are the dogs from the owner until they are considered "Dogs on the loose"? Are they exempt because they are hunting dogs?


----------



## FMann

Shop Rat
I would say your Brother was very lucky. This same thing happened to my dad and the Dog Owner sued my dad and won in a cort of law. This was a German Sheapard and was running back and forth along my dad's Chicken fence trying to get to his chickens. Dad shot the dog with 00 buck the dog made it 3/4 of a mile and died on the owners property. He (dog owner) said he seen my dad shoot his dog and called the police, My dad was given a ticket and lost the cort case. Now this was over 15 years ago and the laws may have been changed I don't know. That is what I was basing my answers/post on. 

NWing
I for one would first ask if my dog was on your property. Or at the least try and find out who the land owner is and try and make contact. If you tell me No. I will leave and call the Law and inform them that my dog is on your property and you wont let me get them. Like you stated the LEO will "TRY" and convince you to let me get my dog. I have even had the LEO inform the land owner that they had to grant me and them permision to retrieve my dog this happened 4 years ago. So I was going on what happened to me personaly. FYI this was the State Police that told the land owner this. While the Officer's wher telling the land owner this my hound came out to the road so I didn't have to enter his property. 


Now to clear up some things I don't run my hounds on bear only **** and birds. On the propertys I **** hunt I go around to the other land owners with connecting property and inform them of the fact that I have permision to hunt a spific property and ask for permision to retrieve my hound if they get off said property. I also inform them that I will be unarmed, in most cases the land owners tell me to bring in the gun and shoot every **** the dog has in the tree. As **** hunting is done at night I do this so I don't have to knock on a persons door in the middle of the night to go and get my dog.


----------



## captjimtc

fishwhisperer said:


> :evilsmileThe issue is about the houndsmen period! If it is about bobcat trapping or bait hunter VS houndhunters. It is the same. It needs to be stopped. I do not care if someone thinks that we should all stick together. If some other hunting group is doing something wrong in the eyes of another group there should be a legal discussion between both groups and not be favored to one side or the other. Our DNR is a joke. They just won't listen to us spotsmen and women.I guess we are going to have to go to our state represenitives to get something done.:coolgleam


33 Emails sent to state representatives regarding this issue with link to this exact thread showing the dislike of this method of hunting by fellow hunters. I also suggested bringing back the vote. I urge the rest of you to do the same. Guess the only way to voice your opinion without having some super moderator pull the thread...Let them know as a real sportsman you want this method banned...:SHOCKED:


----------



## Frantz

Myself, i do not think they should put an end to hound hunting, I think the better solution would be to make it legal for the property owner to shoot a dog that ventures into his property. This is the only way to eliminate the slobs and allow the good houndsmen to continue on with their sport.


----------



## benster

captjimtc said:


> 33 Emails sent to state representatives regarding this issue with link to this exact thread showing the dislike of this method of hunting by fellow hunters. I also suggested bringing back the vote. I urge the rest of you to do the same. Guess the only way to voice your opinion without having some super moderator pull the thread...Let them know as a real sportsman you want this method banned...:SHOCKED:


 
I don't think there is a overwhelming vote here that wants to ban anything? People are voicing there opinions for seperate seasons? When is the training season? can you train right up til the opener? If you can how about a week of quiet time before the opener?


----------



## Shop Rat

FMann, you said that your dad was sued. That was civil, and not criminal. My brother had the criminal charges (animal cruelty up to 4 yrs) dropped. The owner could have sued him, but he did not. This dog was 10 yr old mangy buvier and the value was virtually 0. There was a history of these dogs loose and chasing neighbors.

It would be different if you were in your house, saw the dog and got out to shoot it, unless you are defending someone else. At that point, you are putting yourself into the situation when you were safe in your house.

If you are walking and a pack of dogs comes after you, you will probably be run down, then you are not in a safe situation. 

I am not trying to argue, but straighten out the differences from your dad's experience and my brothers. (I don't know exactly what your dad's situation was) My brother shot one of three dogs, they were running at him at about 15 feet away. If the shot would have been far, in the rear, or a small single dog, he would have been in big trouble.


----------



## soggybtmboys

captjimtc said:


> 33 Emails sent to state representatives regarding this issue with link to this exact thread showing the dislike of this method of hunting by fellow hunters. I also suggested bringing back the vote. I urge the rest of you to do the same. Guess the only way to voice your opinion without having some super moderator pull the thread...Let them know as a real sportsman you want this method banned...:SHOCKED:


 
I do not think anyone wants hound hunting banned, I think everyone would like to see those who are in violation of tresspass laws dealt with accordingly. I think pretty much both sides are in somewhat agreement as well, to have seperate seasons and would end the conflicts between the two groups. I think that is what has been discussed. No banning, learn to read.


----------



## Nwing

soggybtmboys said:


> I do not think anyone wants hound hunting banned, I think everyone would like to see those who are in violation of tresspass laws dealt with accordingly. I think pretty much both sides are in somewhat agreement as well, to have seperate seasons and would end the conflicts between the two groups. I think that is what has been discussed. No banning, learn to read.


I agree, I do NOT want hound hunting banned.
Lets make that clear right away.
My issue is with property rights. MY Land...MY choice as to access.
As I've stated here, in the instance of a legitimate recovery(and assuming again, it's not an ongoing issue), I'll absolutely allow access for that reason.
But...I should(and it appears, do) have the final CHOICE as to if I want to make that call.


----------



## Nwing

FMann said:


> NWing
> I for one would first ask if my dog was on your property. Or at the least try and find out who the land owner is and try and make contact. If you tell me No. I will leave and call the Law and inform them that my dog is on your property and you wont let me get them. Like you stated the LEO will "TRY" and convince you to let me get my dog. I have even had the LEO inform the land owner that they had to grant me and them permision to retrieve my dog this happened 4 years ago. So I was going on what happened to me personaly. FYI this was the State Police that told the land owner this. While the Officer's wher telling the land owner this my hound came out to the road so I didn't have to enter his property.



Fman, if you came up and asked, and It was not a situation where it was happening all the time, I'd allow you in in a heartbeat. Indeed...if you were running bear, and had a tree..I may well allow you to take the bear!
That being said..the law both from what has been posted here, and from what Boher has said..is obviously clear. IF for some reason, I decline access..then even a state cop cannot compel me to allow it.
I've no reason to doubt what you say happened, but I do know that if I were that land owner, the cop would have not convinced me short of cuffing me and putting me in his cruiser. Then..I'd have had a very cut and dry case, and would have pressed charges against the local PD, as well as the tresspasser.
I am fully aware that some here are thinking "this guy is a real jerk"..but you would not be more wrong. If someone shoots a deer and it comes onto our place, they can come right on in and we'll likely help them find it. A beagle hunter is looking for his lost 4 legged hunting buddy...I'm there with him, beating the bushes. **** hunter trying to recover a pack, same deal.
This issue however..goes to the heart personal property rights. Simply put..MANY houndsman(NOT all..I think we've established that), seem to think that they have the right of "free travel" anyplace, they wish, based on the law.
As has been shown..that is flat out not the case. IF I say no access...that's exactly what I mean, and that IS what will happen.


----------



## captjimtc

soggybtmboys said:


> I do not think anyone wants hound hunting banned, I think everyone would like to see those who are in violation of tresspass laws dealt with accordingly. I think pretty much both sides are in somewhat agreement as well, to have seperate seasons and would end the conflicts between the two groups. I think that is what has been discussed. No banning, learn to read.



Seasons would not end my conflict with hound hunters at all. I don't want them trespassing on my land ever. Training, hunting, never. Going to law enforcement proved to be a joke when trying to deal with tresspass. Chasing animals across and off of private land is unacceptable and will never be tolerated. KNOW YOUR BOUNDARIES OR RISK LOSING YOUR MUTTS.


----------



## GrouseBuster

I saw how well every one stuck together as sportsman when we voted for the dove hunt. As a land owner my stance is simple. If I could vote to end running bear with dogs today I would unless the DNR created meaningfull and enforceable laws to protect land owner rights.


----------



## withgrace

Grousebuster
Do you hunt grouse with a dog? If bear hunters lose the right to hunt with dogs because their fellow sportsman did not back them up and actually fought for it. All dog hunting would be in danger and I think we would lose rabbit hunting, **** hunting and probably hunting birds with dogs.
The antis would have a field day with what is being posted in this threas by our fellow hunters.


----------



## Northcountry

withgrace said:


> Grousebuster
> If bear hunters lose the right to hunt with dogs because their fellow sportsman did not back them up and actually fought for it. All dog hunting would be in danger and I think we would lose rabbit hunting, **** hunting and probably hunting birds with dogs.


Isnt it a shame that things have come to this? But remember, the popular distaste for hound hunting is primarily the result of the hound hunters actions. You cant expect landowners, trappers and other hunters to accept poor treatment, without a backlash.


----------



## Shop Rat

Northcountry said:


> Isnt it a shame that things have come to this? But remember, the popular distaste for hound hunting is primarily the result of the hound hunters actions. You cant expect landowners, trappers and other hunters to accept poor treatment, without a backlash.


Very true.

Why didn't someone in touch with the outdoors and in charge come up with a simple plan such as this. A PERMIT SYSTEM FOR BOBCATS WHERE YOU CAN GET 1 BY EITHER TRAPPING OR HUNTING. You have one bobcat tag, it is your choice on how to harvest the animal.

Oh, ya I was going to stay out of this.


----------



## peggy_jeff

There is a video on the tread wolves vs. beardogs . The guy lost a dog to wolves. He said they starting the dogs off bait ,do they start baiting first so they have a place to start????or are they starting off someones bait.If you run dogs, i guess the wolves are a chance you have to take .


----------



## hyperformance1

Boy it's a really good thing we can't run deer with hounds like alot of other states. you guys would have a field day with that.


----------



## Nwing

Northcountry said:


> Isnt it a shame that things have come to this? But remember, the popular distaste for hound hunting is primarily the result of the hound hunters actions. You cant expect landowners, trappers and other hunters to accept poor treatment, without a backlash.


And the sad thing is..it likely really is a relative minority that cause this.
If hound hunters would simply ply their sport in areas with no private land, most of this would be avoided. Many baits are on private land, so just keeping the dogs of it would help greatly. Treating private property owners with respect, and their property as just that, private, would go a long way toward easing the tension also.


----------



## vancreek

i am responding to put my .02 cents in.i am an advid hound hunter,i make every attempt to steer clear of situations where i will have conflict with landowners.i permission to hunt on most tracks surronded by public land.on some occasions i enter private land to retrieve dogs,though ask permission if i see the owners present but alot of times if the owner resides other than on the property this is not an option,i respect all landowners rights and if told i cannot enter a piece of land will try to retrieve from an adjacent piece where i have permission,i have not run into the situation where i was told no but will contact the law enforcement to come and retrieve if the situation dictates,as well i will prosecute anyone whom harms my dog as well as get the humane society after them(the biggest anti group known)and they have the resources to prosecute.i think what happened with the bobcat law suit sucks and they should have attempted to shut down the untire lower if the numbers were as low as to allow a repopulation period.unfortunately most members have no say in the way the mbha is run and it is solely up to the directors.i am sure the membership has suffered,there are a few sleaze bags that tresspass and try to intimidate and the only way to deal with them is to contact the authorities.i have more time in the woods and more money into a pack of dogs than i would like to admit,i am a workin man and my passion is hounds,if i were to tell you the amount of effort that goes into training a decent hound you would ask why i would waste all that time,truth is most people you have trouble with have a pack of junk that rarely tree bear,they stand out like sore dinks in a whore house because they dont have a clue what their dogs are running,we are stuck with each other in the lower with the way the season is split but they should maybe allow rifles during the archery season as there is no dogs during that time or go across since the bait hunters have the first week with no dogs.regardless bears travel several miles,trust me,i trail them sometimes over seven miles and still never have them tree,some pop right up,but if you own a 160 acre piece be sure that if the bear only resides on your land it is a yearling and doesnt have any territory of its own,thus is eating your feed,most baits have several bears feeding on it,have pics to prove it check hunt 101 and look at my gallery vancreek its right there.i wish each and every one the best of luck,i you run into me and my dogs end on your land i would most likely say if they had a bear treed let me put my leash on them and you can have the bear or let it go all i want is my dogs.happy hunt. jerry


----------



## soggybtmboys

vancreek said:


> i am responding to put my .02 cents in.i am an advid hound hunter,i make every attempt to steer clear of situations where i will have conflict with landowners.i permission to hunt on most tracks surronded by public land.on some occasions i enter private land to retrieve dogs,though ask permission if i see the owners present but alot of times if the owner resides other than on the property this is not an option,i respect all landowners rights and if told i cannot enter a piece of land will try to retrieve from an adjacent piece where i have permission,i have not run into the situation where i was told no but will contact the law enforcement to come and retrieve if the situation dictates,as well i will prosecute anyone whom harms my dog as well as get the humane society after them(the biggest anti group known)and they have the resources to prosecute.i think what happened with the bobcat law suit sucks and they should have attempted to shut down the untire lower if the numbers were as low as to allow a repopulation period.unfortunately most members have no say in the way the mbha is run and it is solely up to the directors.i am sure the membership has suffered,there are a few sleaze bags that tresspass and try to intimidate and the only way to deal with them is to contact the authorities.i have more time in the woods and more money into a pack of dogs than i would like to admit,i am a workin man and my passion is hounds,if i were to tell you the amount of effort that goes into training a decent hound you would ask why i would waste all that time,truth is most people you have trouble with have a pack of junk that rarely tree bear,they stand out like sore dinks in a whore house because they dont have a clue what their dogs are running,we are stuck with each other in the lower with the way the season is split but they should maybe allow rifles during the archery season as there is no dogs during that time or go across since the bait hunters have the first week with no dogs.regardless bears travel several miles,trust me,i trail them sometimes over seven miles and still never have them tree,some pop right up,but if you own a 160 acre piece be sure that if the bear only resides on your land it is a yearling and doesnt have any territory of its own,thus is eating your feed,most baits have several bears feeding on it,have pics to prove it check hunt 101 and look at my gallery vancreek its right there.i wish each and every one the best of luck,i you run into me and my dogs end on your land i would most likely say if they had a bear treed let me put my leash on them and you can have the bear or let it go all i want is my dogs.happy hunt. jerry


You are a good man Charlie Brown. You represent exactly what the rest really should be striving to do. Well said. Happy hunting and good luck to you as well.

Best regards,

SBB


----------



## Nwing

Jerry, you sound like a good guy. While I don't agree that calling the law in the case of a property owner saying no to a trespass request, is going to accomplish much..I guess we all just have to do what we have to do.
I have a question for you...if you tree a bear on private land, and no one is home to ask permission to take it..do you leash the dogs and leave, or kill the bear(if it's one you are interested in). Remember..this is assuming private land you do not have previous permission to hunt.
The answer to that question will really tell us a lot, I think. Indeed..it would be an interesting subject for a poll, although I suspect that not many would answer it truthfully!



vancreek said:


> i am responding to put my .02 cents in.i am an advid hound hunter,i make every attempt to steer clear of situations where i will have conflict with landowners.i permission to hunt on most tracks surronded by public land.on some occasions i enter private land to retrieve dogs,though ask permission if i see the owners present but alot of times if the owner resides other than on the property this is not an option,i respect all landowners rights and if told i cannot enter a piece of land will try to retrieve from an adjacent piece where i have permission,i have not run into the situation where i was told no but will contact the law enforcement to come and retrieve if the situation dictates,as well i will prosecute anyone whom harms my dog as well as get the humane society after them(the biggest anti group known)and they have the resources to prosecute.i think what happened with the bobcat law suit sucks and they should have attempted to shut down the untire lower if the numbers were as low as to allow a repopulation period.unfortunately most members have no say in the way the mbha is run and it is solely up to the directors.i am sure the membership has suffered,there are a few sleaze bags that tresspass and try to intimidate and the only way to deal with them is to contact the authorities.i have more time in the woods and more money into a pack of dogs than i would like to admit,i am a workin man and my passion is hounds,if i were to tell you the amount of effort that goes into training a decent hound you would ask why i would waste all that time,truth is most people you have trouble with have a pack of junk that rarely tree bear,they stand out like sore dinks in a whore house because they dont have a clue what their dogs are running,we are stuck with each other in the lower with the way the season is split but they should maybe allow rifles during the archery season as there is no dogs during that time or go across since the bait hunters have the first week with no dogs.regardless bears travel several miles,trust me,i trail them sometimes over seven miles and still never have them tree,some pop right up,but if you own a 160 acre piece be sure that if the bear only resides on your land it is a yearling and doesnt have any territory of its own,thus is eating your feed,most baits have several bears feeding on it,have pics to prove it check hunt 101 and look at my gallery vancreek its right there.i wish each and every one the best of luck,i you run into me and my dogs end on your land i would most likely say if they had a bear treed let me put my leash on them and you can have the bear or let it go all i want is my dogs.happy hunt. jerry


----------



## cadillacjethro

Why wouldn't you let someone get their dog? The law allows for a person who is not armed (no hunting), to go on private property to retrieve his/her property (dog). They are supposed to get their dog and leave. The law doesn't allow them to throw rocks through your windows, rape your wife and beat your kids, or even kick your cat. Just get their dog and leave. What are you going to do with someone else's dog? If you keep it, you're a thief. Take it to the pound and you're king sized SOB. Kill it; well I hope you have a good lawyer. If you have a problem with trespassing, I would bet you know who they are. Take care of _that_ problem. Not everyone walking the woods is a trespasser looking to do damage to your property.


----------



## oldforester

I am a private land owner. I worked hard for many years to buy a place of my own, and do what I can to promote wildlife. I do not want anyone using dogs to chase game off my land so they can shoot it. They need to find appropriate locations to dog hunt where it will not cause problems. I may be an SOB, but that is MY right.


----------



## Nwing

cadillacjethro said:


> Why wouldn't you let someone get their dog? The law allows for a person who is not armed (no hunting), to go on private property to retrieve his/her property (dog). They are supposed to get their dog and leave. The law doesn't allow them to throw rocks through your windows, rape your wife and beat your kids, or even kick your cat. Just get their dog and leave. What are you going to do with someone else's dog? If you keep it, you're a thief. Take it to the pound and you're king sized SOB. Kill it; well I hope you have a good lawyer. If you have a problem with trespassing, I would bet you know who they are. Take care of _that_ problem. Not everyone walking the woods is a trespasser looking to do damage to your property.


I have been very clear in that if they were just retrieving a dog, I would let them, assuming it was not a part of a larger habitual repeating incident. 
As pointed out however..the law allows them to enter without permission to retrieve a dog, but IF a land owner specifically says no, and tells them to stay out..the law does NOT allow them to ignore that directive.
If I did not allow someone on my property, that' just means that..it does not mean I plan to "do something" with the dogs. The dogs will eventually leave on their own, the owners would simply have to wait them out at the edge of the property. Indeed.. properly trained dogs will come to a call..so I'd suggest that dog owners take the simple precaution of training their dogs to come to a call.
Let me repeat however..that unless this was part of a pattern of abuse of the system...I WOULD allow for recovery of the dogs.
There is a VERY simple answer to all of this..control your animals and stay in areas where there is little or no private land! The manistee and Huron national forests have extensive areas like this, as does much of the U.P.
Get in the truck, drive 300 miles if that's what it takes..but keep to areas where the likelihood of straying onto private lands are minimized.
If you are hunting an area surrounded by land you do NOT have permission to hunt..then you have NO one to blame but yourself if you have a trespass issue.


----------



## Nwing

1oldforester said:


> I am a private land owner. I worked hard for many years to buy a place of my own, and do what I can to promote wildlife. I do not want anyone using dogs to chase game off my land so they can shoot it. They need to find appropriate locations to dog hunt where it will not cause problems. I may be an SOB, but that is MY right.


That is one of the best, and most concise, posts in this entire thread.


----------



## cadillacjethro

1oldforester said:


> I am a private land owner. I worked hard for many years to buy a place of my own, and do what I can to promote wildlife. I do not want anyone using dogs to chase game off my land so they can shoot it. They need to find appropriate locations to dog hunt where it will not cause problems. I may be an SOB, but that is MY right.


I understood this to be situation where an animal was started off your property and ended up treeing on your property. An owner coming to retrieve their dog cannot be carrying a firearm so shooting the animal (bear) is not an issue if the law is being followed. They are removing their dog from your property _only. _If this is not an on going problem, I would think you would want the dog removed so it would not be harming your hard work. In the case of a bear chase, it could have started a mile or more from your property with absoluty no ill intent.


----------



## cadillacjethro

Nwing said:


> I have been very clear in that if they were just retrieving a dog, I would let them, assuming it was not a part of a larger habitual repeating incident.
> As pointed out however..the law allows them to enter without permission to retrieve a dog, but IF a land owner specifically says no, and tells them to stay out..the law does NOT allow them to ignore that directive.
> If I did not allow someone on my property, that' just means that..it does not mean I plan to "do something" with the dogs. The dogs will eventually leave on their own, the owners would simply have to wait them out at the edge of the property. Indeed.. properly trained dogs will come to a call..so I'd suggest that dog owners take the simple precaution of training their dogs to come to a call.
> Let me repeat however..that unless this was part of a pattern of abuse of the system...I WOULD allow for recovery of the dogs.
> There is a VERY simple answer to all of this..control your animals and stay in areas where there is little or no private land! The manistee and Huron national forests have extensive areas like this, as does much of the U.P.
> Get in the truck, drive 300 miles if that's what it takes..but keep to areas where the likelihood of straying onto private lands are minimized.
> If you are hunting an area surrounded by land you do NOT have permission to hunt..then you have NO one to blame but yourself if you have a trespass issue.


This thread is talking about hunting bear with hounds, and I would agree with you on locating to an area where you would hope this wouldn't be a problem. The same rules apply to your neighbor's bird dog or beagle. I suspect this happens much more than a bear or **** hound. I have not seen or heard of a dog that behaves as you the owner would like 100% of the time, nor have seen the dog that can read a No Trespassing sign. Any dog owner will tell you there have been moments when they have been less than impressed with their animal. I like your attitude as expressed in dealing with this issue. Respect is a two way street, and in my opinion you are showing it perfectly.


----------



## Northcountry

cadillacjethro said:


> Respect is a two way street...


Thats right, so people should expect it from houndsman. 

Freecasting and trespass have been the primary focus in this thread. But let us not forget that there are well-known issues of antagonism by the houndsmen, toward other sportsman...primarily trappers.

Houndsmen have successfully pushed to change coyote and fox snaring rules (equipment limitations) to the point of ineffectiveness. This, for the safety of their hounds as they run through private property. Thats right, snaring is only allowed on private property...not public land where the hounds ought to be running.

Secondly, the good old bobcat issue. Houndsmen successfully sued the DNR/NRC to stop them from allowing trappers to harvest bobcats in the NLP. Meanwhile, they continue to hunt them with their hounds...believe it or not.

Respect is a two-way street, you say?


----------



## oldforester

cadillacjethro said:


> I understood this to be situation where an animal was started off your property and ended up treeing on your property. An owner coming to retrieve their dog cannot be carrying a firearm so shooting the animal (bear) is not an issue if the law is being followed. They are removing their dog from your property _only. _If this is not an on going problem, I would think you would want the dog removed so it would not be harming your hard work. In the case of a bear chase, it could have started a mile or more from your property with absoluty no ill intent.


I have seen too many times when dogs are set loose and allowed to run where ever they may. There is no form of control over what direction they go and where they end up. (Thus the need for radio locator collars) There is no way of knowing what they jumped and where they jumped it.

My answer is easy, keep the dogs under direct control or keep them home.


----------



## boehr

FMann said:


> ...If you tell me No. I will leave and call the Law and inform them that my dog is on your property and you wont let me get them. Like you stated the LEO will "TRY" and convince you to let me get my dog. I have even had the LEO inform the land owner that they had to grant me and them permision to retrieve my dog this happened 4 years ago. So I was going on what happened to me personaly. FYI this was the State Police that told the land owner this. While the Officer's wher telling the land owner this my hound came out to the road so I didn't have to enter his property.


Just to be clear, this is incorrect. The state cop was 100% wrong if that is what happened. No LEO, state trooper, CO, deputy, none, can compell or order a person to allow another to go onto property they have no ownership for in order to retrieve their dog(s). I have been involved in this type of thing many times, lots of dog / fox and coyote hunters in the thumb and very little public property to be running dogs. The owner says no, you call and wait for your dogs to come to you where you have a legal right to be. That is all there is to it, or the dog owner gets arrested.


----------



## fishwhisperer

I talk to a C.O. today and he told me that a lot of the C.O's in this state have asked for a season change to take care of the conflict between bait hunters and houndsmen; but they do not even get listened to.Us that are not bear dog hunters need to go right to our state representatives to get something done.The DNR does not care about us sportsmen all they care about is our money.Also the officier that I talked to was checking baits and I told him I knew of a bait that hound hunters were using before Aug. 21 and he said '' I know'' and shrugged his shoulders.


----------



## Frantz

cadillacjethro said:


> Not everyone walking the woods is a trespasser looking to do damage to your property.


Actually, that is the whole point, if they are walking in my woods, they are a trespasser, period.


----------



## cadillacjethro

Frantz said:


> Actually, that is the whole point, if they are walking in my woods, they are a trespasser, period.


I would choose to look at this situation differently than someone jumping a fence and shooting a deer.


----------



## benster

cadillacjethro said:


> I would choose to look at this situation differently than someone jumping a fence and shooting a deer.


 
So I guess if you were sitting in your kitchen having dinner with your family and you look out the window and someone you don't know is just walking around your yard you wouldn't even question it? I don't think it matters if it is your hunting property or your home in the burbs, If there is something that isn't supposed to be there you are going to look into it?


----------



## cadillacjethro

benster said:


> So I guess if you were sitting in your kitchen having dinner with your family and you look out the window and someone you don't know is just walking around your yard you wouldn't even question it? I don't think it matters if it is your hunting property or your home in the burbs, If there is something that isn't supposed to be there you are going to look into it?


Absolutly I would. Having said that, if it were someone looking their dog I would treat it differently than someone stealing my truck.


----------



## soggybtmboys

:lol::lol::lol::lol: Jk, would never deliberately try to trap a dog,,,or a person. Little humor fellas


----------



## hyperformance1

Michigan in such a sad state. and they say we need more hunters, that we are loosing to many. well i hope we loose alot. if they are like the majority of you people on here. it like it's the end of the world if someone's dog runs a deer of your little piece of paradise that will definitely return any way. thats fact.


----------



## Dano73

I have to agree with that.
Its almost like these people have something to hide!!!!!


----------



## benster

cadillacjethro said:


> Absolutly I would. Having said that, if it were someone looking their dog I would treat it differently than someone stealing my truck.


I think most members here have stated that they would grant permission to get dogs and even help out. This is more about some thinking that whatever they are told by the landowner they still have the right to tresspass to get their dogs. I had a group of hound hunters pull 11 dogs off our property and I even walked one of them back onto the land to get his dogs. I did not know at the time but you are only allowed to run 8 dogs while training? I think that some landowners deal with this year after year and I understand their point. We have had our place four seasons now and every year we have dogs come through. I'm sure i will be P.O.ed in a few years when I get a permit and this is still going on?


----------



## benster

hyperformance1 said:


> Michigan in such a sad state. and they say we need more hunters, that we are loosing to many. well i hope we loose alot. if they are like the majority of you people on here. it like it's the end of the world if someone's dog runs a deer of your little piece of paradise that will definitely return any way. thats fact.


 
It's not hard to pick out the houndsmen on this thread? I'm sure if you had a neighbor you did not like and his dog was chasing squirrels in your yard a couple of weeks during the year you wouldn't have a problem with that? It would be different if it was your best friends dog? Thats what I am talking about, not all houndsman are bad.


----------



## Frantz

OMG TROLLS



Michigan in such a sad state. and they say we need more hunters, that we are loosing to many. well i hope we loose alot. if they are like the majority of you people on here. it like it's the end of the world if someone's dog runs a deer of your little piece of paradise that will definitely return any way. thats fact.

I have to agree with that.
Its almost like these people have something to hide!!!!!


----------



## soggybtmboys

Yep I bet he sure loved his neighbors hounds!!!!!!


----------



## soggybtmboys




----------



## yooee

Right on with Native Americans fighting immigration


----------



## Nwing

Dano73 said:


> I have to agree with that.
> Its almost like these people have something to hide!!!!!


edit..never mind, you have no clue anyway.


----------



## Nwing

boehr said:


> Originally Posted by *FMann*
> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...If you tell me No. I will leave and call the Law and inform them that my dog is on your property and you wont let me get them. Like you stated the LEO will "TRY" and convince you to let me get my dog. I have even had the LEO inform the land owner that they had to grant me and them permision to retrieve my dog this happened 4 years ago. So I was going on what happened to me personaly. FYI this was the State Police that told the land owner this. While the Officer's wher telling the land owner this my hound came out to the road so I didn't have to enter his property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Just to be clear, this is incorrect. The state cop was 100% wrong if that is what happened. No LEO, state trooper, CO, deputy, none, can compell or order a person to allow another to go onto property they have no ownership for in order to retrieve their dog(s). I have been involved in this type of thing many times, lots of dog / fox and coyote hunters in the thumb and very little public property to be running dogs. The owner says no, you call and wait for your dogs to come to you where you have a legal right to be. That is all there is to it, or the dog owner gets arrested.


I think a lot of the conflict here rises from the fact that a large and vocal number of dog hunters do NOT seem to understand this point.


----------



## Dano73

A person other than a person possessing a firearm may, unless "previously" prohibited in writing or orally by the property owner or his or her lessee or agent, enter on foot upon the property of another person for the sole purpose of retrieving a hunting dog. The person shall not remain on the property beyond the reasonable time necessary to retrieve the dog. In an action under section 73109 or 73110, the burden of showing that the property owner or his or her lessee or agent previously prohibited entry under this subsection is on the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney, respectively(taken from the Michigan wildlife protection act)

looks pretty cut and dry
the way i read it ,you don't need to seek permission to enter but, if the landowner tells you to stay out then you must stay out.
maybe some of this problem could be resolved if land owners put a address or a phone number on the postings to gain permission to retrieve the hound.

sometimes its near impossible to figure out who owns the piece of land .If it its obvious who the land owner is i will seek permission but im not about to hunt around half the day knocking on doors trying to find out who the owner is .im going to go and get whats mine.

the way the penalty is, min$100-max$500 its way cheaper to get a ticket for tresspassing than to lose a hound.


----------



## soggybtmboys

Dano73 said:


> A person other than a person possessing a firearm may, unless "previously" prohibited in writing or orally by the property owner or his or her lessee or agent, enter on foot upon the property of another person for the sole purpose of retrieving a hunting dog. The person shall not remain on the property beyond the reasonable time necessary to retrieve the dog. In an action under section 73109 or 73110, the burden of showing that the property owner or his or her lessee or agent previously prohibited entry under this subsection is on the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney, respectively(taken from the Michigan wildlife protection act)
> 
> looks pretty cut and dry
> the way i read it ,you don't need to seek permission to enter but, if the landowner tells you to stay out then you must stay out.
> maybe some of this problem could be resolved if land owners put a address or a phone number on the postings to gain permission to retrieve the hound.
> 
> sometimes its near impossible to figure out who owns the piece of land .If it its obvious who the land owner is i will seek permission but im not about to hunt around half the day knocking on doors trying to find out who the owner is .im going to go and get whats mine.
> 
> the way the penalty is, min$100-max$500 its way cheaper to get a ticket for tresspassing than to lose a hound.


Sure I can understand.....but why not talk to nearby landowners first...just in case....and who knows, maybe you would get permission to even hunt there?

I am not about tooo....equates to stuff it....to lazy and disrespectful to do what is proper...........I am gonna go and get whats mine...blah blah blah equates to I will do what I want and the heck with your rights as a landowner. Then, heck I can afford a ticket....if I get caught. 

Ya wonder why there are problems......look at the attitude and mentality.

So I guess I can walk my dog, let him run around a little and piss all over your wife's flowers, then walk thru the flower beds at your house and say, hey I had a right to be there and get my dog without saying nothing to ya? Please......by the way...your address???:evilsmile


----------



## Nwing

Dano73 said:


> A person other than a person possessing a firearm may, unless "previously" prohibited in writing or orally by the property owner or his or her lessee or agent, enter on foot upon the property of another person for the sole purpose of retrieving a hunting dog. The person shall not remain on the property beyond the reasonable time necessary to retrieve the dog. In an action under section 73109 or 73110, the burden of showing that the property owner or his or her lessee or agent previously prohibited entry under this subsection is on the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney, respectively(taken from the Michigan wildlife protection act)
> 
> looks pretty cut and dry
> the way i read it ,you don't need to seek permission to enter but, if the landowner tells you to stay out then you must stay out.
> maybe some of this problem could be resolved if land owners put a address or a phone number on the postings to gain permission to retrieve the hound.
> 
> sometimes its near impossible to figure out who owns the piece of land .If it its obvious who the land owner is i will seek permission but im not about to hunt around half the day knocking on doors trying to find out who the owner is .im going to go and get whats mine.
> 
> the way the penalty is, min$100-max$500 its way cheaper to get a ticket for tresspassing than to lose a hound.


Dan..you and the people like you are the reason that if I were a betting man, I would bet that in less then a decade, hunting with hounds will be against the law. That will be a tragedy..and the sad thing is, the people most to blame for it..will be the dog hunters themselves.
The pure arrogance and disregard for property rights illustrated in your post, make the rest of our points better then we ever could.


----------



## Nwing

You know what? Screw it. I am going to start looking into what it takes to get a referendum up and running. It's been done by the anti's several times already...and property rights are a BIG deal to the average person.
Not to outlaw dog hunting..but to have the "dog recovery" bit rescinded. If enough of us raise a stink, I bet we can get it on the ballet.


----------



## soggybtmboys

Have you hound guys ever thought beyond the end of your noses. Ask first, heck you might be surprised.

Might tell ya, heck go ahead, nothing going on this weekend.
Hey, can I tag along?
Hey, I have a bear problem, go over here and look.....
I would let ya push the property, but I am gonna have my brother in from Cali, and have not hunted with him in 4 years......maybe next weekend.

Sorry, no can do, I have a trapline out on my property and have sets for canines...having a yote problem, but come on back after......and you can have at it.

Nope, can't run the property here, but I have a neighbor with a big bear problem, his name is...and is over.......

Ding ding ding.....any lights come on yet????


----------



## Dano73

says your from southeast mi..
can't imagine you have too many problems with bear hunters down there


----------



## soggybtmboys

Nwing said:


> You know what? Screw it. I am going to start looking into what it takes to get a referendum up and running. It's been done by the anti's several times already...and property rights are a BIG deal to the average person.
> Not to outlaw dog hunting..but to have the "dog recovery" bit rescinded. If enough of us raise a stink, I bet we can get it on the ballet.


 
You guys had it coming. Not sure about a total rescintion but heavily modified with strict defined provisions on penalties. I could support that Nwing. I would start with the Michigan Trappers Association for support, the Mid-Michigan Independent Trappers Association, and I would also contact the National Trappers Association as well. I bet locally here you would garner an incredible amount of support just from these groups, and that is not including the bait hunters and property owners.


----------



## soggybtmboys

Dano73 said:


> says your from southeast mi..
> can't imagine you have too many problems with bear hunters down there


 
I don't own property because I reside in SE Mich, or my family? Just proves my point to the inability to think beyond the end of your own nose.


----------



## Dano73

im not interested in gaing permission to hunt anybodys land and like i stated before if i know where to find the owner i will ask before entering .also im not one to go roaming around someones land , i will only go in there if i know for sure my hound is in there.


----------

