|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
|
|
39 registered members (doublefistful, twaldrop4, Okatuppa, ImThere, WINMAG300, Chad Burnette, janiemae, BCLC, canichols424, sw1002, nomercy, Simpleman, turfarmer, sevenup, Gobble4me757, treemydog, Mossy, Jtide, BC_Reb, woodduck, 3blades, BigA47, jake5050, AC870, Turkey_neck, Big AL 76, trlrdrdave, tucker07, MAG, geeb1, Geezer, TDog93, alhawk, jsubrett6, Honcho, burbank, 3 invisible),
847
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Big stink in Coffeeville over dog killing.......
[Re: Hogwild]
#506291
01/18/13 06:54 AM
01/18/13 06:54 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,086
Lower AL
k bush
12 point
|
12 point
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,086
Lower AL
|
Todd,
I am pretty certain that you know I am not 12.
And, you know I only live a few miles away....
So, tell me.....how much luck have YOU had in getting the music and slow-riding 'Boom-Boom' boxes in Peachtree stopped???
Or, how successful have you been in stopping the road-riding and night-hunting in Peachtree and The Bend??
RIGHT, WRONG, OR INDIFFERENT......you ain't gonna come whipping in there, shoot a couple of dogs and change it!!!! We both know that!!!!
IF you had watched the video and read the text of this case, you would know that the people were locals hunting their own property and the 'shooters' were out of towners that leased the property.
Danny, have you heard exactly where this happened? One version I heard puts the non-dog hunters on a large tract that was bought by a person from out of this area.
"Cull" is just another four letter word...
|
|
|
Re: Big stink in Coffeeville over dog killing.......
[Re: Todd1700]
#506334
01/18/13 08:00 AM
01/18/13 08:00 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788
Thomasville, AL
Hogwild
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788
Thomasville, AL
|
We used to dog hunt in Packers Bend back in the 70's and early 80's when no one around us hunted or cared if our dogs crossed onto their place. But when the local area got crowded with hunting clubs and leases we stopped dog hunting. It was the "RIGHT" and "RESPECTFUL" thing to do for our neighbors. I do not have the right to run my dog across your land without your permission. And since the dog doesn't possess the intelligence to heed property lines it's my responsibility not to turn him loose where he might cross onto someone else's place. And nothing about us having land in the area first changes those facts. And guess what, so did I!!!! But, you are missing the entire point of the post. Of course, you never let that stop you from being a smart-ass!  I guess put it this way: If you are a white racist bigot......Don't move into Lambert's Quarters and complain about the blacks! I am not saying it was right for the dogs to run onto the property. But, it's not illegal. Many people are saying that shooting the dogs was the right thing to do. And, that IS illegal! Now, to me....THAT is an indefensible stand!
|
|
|
Re: Big stink in Coffeeville over dog killing.......
[Re: deadeye]
#506377
01/18/13 08:45 AM
01/18/13 08:45 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,749
Baldwin County, AL
longspur69
8 point
|
8 point
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,749
Baldwin County, AL
|
If you're a white racist and live in the quarters, it's illegal to shoot someone for minding their own business on their property. No one is disputing that.
What if you live in the quarters and someone is breaking into your home? Surely, you're not suggesting it just comes with the territory.
Shooting the dogs may have been illegal. It depends on if the hunters felt threatened. But, whether illegal or not, releasing dogs on a tract you know they won't stay on is completely immoral and unethical, regardless of what the law says. If the law doesn't protect you, are you telling me you wouldn't take the law into your own hands? If guns were completely banned in the U.S., would you still not use one to defend your family? I would. Maybe, just maybe, the law isn't always right.
Dog hunters can't lease a property and expect all of their neighbors to just accept it that they will be using the neighbor's property as well as what they have leased. This is a very weak argument you're presenting.
Last edited by longspur69; 01/18/13 08:47 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Big stink in Coffeeville over dog killing.......
[Re: deadeye]
#506386
01/18/13 08:53 AM
01/18/13 08:53 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 36,987
alabama
BhamFred
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 36,987
alabama
|
I think yer reaching on the "deer dog threatening a person" stuff....and just using it as an excuse to shoot a dog.
I've spent most of the money I've made in my lifetime on hunting and fishing. The rest I just wasted.....
proud Cracker-Americaan
muslims are like coyotes, only good one is a dead one
|
|
|
Re: Big stink in Coffeeville over dog killing.......
[Re: deadeye]
#506407
01/18/13 09:07 AM
01/18/13 09:07 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,216
Henry county
coldtrail
12 point
|
12 point
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,216
Henry county
|
Observation
If someone posts something about baitng or trespassing ect. all thee do gooders are quick to point out thats its illegal and these guys are scum of the earth for breaking the law.
But then these same people will justify breaking the law and kill someones dog when they see fit.
I dont know where yall come from but I was taught that's being a hypocrite. Follow the law or don't preach., it makes you look stupid.
That being said you should not kill the dog because it's not ethical, not because its illegal. I try to live by ethics myself.
"And the days that I keep my gratitude
Higher than my expectations
Well, I have really good days" Ray Wylie Hubbard
|
|
|
Re: Big stink in Coffeeville over dog killing.......
[Re: deadeye]
#506415
01/18/13 09:13 AM
01/18/13 09:13 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,749
Baldwin County, AL
longspur69
8 point
|
8 point
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,749
Baldwin County, AL
|
No, Troy; I didn't shoot a dog. I don't need an excuse to shoot a dog. I'm not even defending shooting the dogs. I have certainly been tempted, but just can't do it. I had a dog shot by a neighbor and wouldn't put anyone else through that. I do understand why someone else would, though.
Hogwild, I've never said that the dog hunters did something illegal. Where are you garnishing your information?
I have stated that I don't know for sure, but would be willing to bet that they turned the dogs loose knowing they wouldn't stay on the property. That would come from my own experience with dog hunting, as well as my experience with still hunting near other dog hunters. I've done both. I've never been fortunate enough to be on a dog hunt where there was enough property to contain the dogs and we all had a great hunt without any dogs getting on someone else's property. If you have, good for you. It was the exception and not the rule.
I also make the assumption based on this quote from the article, "Henderson said tensions had been heating up over property lines leading up to the shooting." Now, it is possible that the dog hunters were having trouble out of those pesky still hunting neighbors, I'm just going with the odds that that wasn't the case.
|
|
|
Re: Big stink in Coffeeville over dog killing.......
[Re: deadeye]
#506420
01/18/13 09:18 AM
01/18/13 09:18 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 15,170
Fairhope
bamachem
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 15,170
Fairhope
|
Fact: In some counties it is illegal to deer hunt with the aid of dogs.
Hypothetical: A group of still hunters lease a property. A neighboring landowner has hunting dogs but had to give up hunting when the state made it illegal for him to do so on his own property. He used to lease all the neighboring property and is upset that others now have use of land that he considered to be his private hunting grounds. He loves to hear the dogs run a deer, so every weekend during season, he will let his dogs loose on his 20-acre farm just to hear them howl. When he does this, he does not possess any firearm or ammunition, so he is NOT hunting.
Of course his prized deer dogs jump deer and chase them all over the place. Not being able to read the NO TRESPASSING signs at the property boundary, the dogs cross over into the neighboring land leased by the club.
Now every person on that lease is subject to arrest for violating the law because of a dog chasing a deer.
How is that fair to the lease holders? They cannot stop the neighbor from turning his dogs loose every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Every time the landowner does this, the lease holders have zero recourse.
What should the club do?
There is no law holding an animal owner liable for their animal's trespass.
Maybe there should be.
Last edited by bamachem; 01/18/13 09:37 AM.
MOLON LABE
|
|
|
Re: Big stink in Coffeeville over dog killing.......
[Re: deadeye]
#506471
01/18/13 09:58 AM
01/18/13 09:58 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 15,170
Fairhope
bamachem
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 15,170
Fairhope
|
Even though this post might look like a 49er-ism, here goes! There's already a law on the books to keep dogs off a Wildlife Management Area. If a dog is found on a WMA, then the owner can be found guilty of a misdemeanor! § 9-11-305. When dogs permitted in areas; liability of owners of dogs at large in areas.
No dog shall be permitted except on leash within any wildlife management area except in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources, and whoever shall be the owner of any dog at large within any wildlife management area shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. There's also a law on the books that says a person may not let their dog run at large off of their own premisis unless the dog is accompanying the owner! § 3-1-5. Permitting dogs to run at large; applicability of provisions of section in counties and certain cities or towns.
(a) Every person owning or having in charge any dog or dogs shall at all times confine such dog or dogs to the limits of his own premises or the premises on which such dog or dogs is or are regularly kept. Nothing in this section shall prevent the owner of any dog or dogs or other person or persons having such dog or dogs in his or their charge from allowing such dog or dogs to accompany such owner or other person or persons elsewhere than on the premises on which such dog or dogs is or are regularly kept. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $2.00 nor more than $50.00.
(b) This section shall not apply to the running at large of any dog or dogs within the corporate limits of any city or town in this state that requires a license tag to be kept on dogs nor shall this section apply in any county in this state until the same has been adopted by the county commission of such county.
In other words, if a DOG trespasses onto private property without his owner, then the DOG OWNER can be charged with a misdemeanor! Yes, it is an enforcable law already on the books! Looks like every time a person catches a deer dog on their property, they need to call the sheriff and the owner. Have a nice little meeting with both, and nicely discuss Alabama § 3-1-5 in relation to hunting dogs. If they dogs are caught on the property a second time, press charges! As far a shooting dogs who are trespassing... § 3-1-14. Unlawful or malicious killing, injury, etc., of dog of another. Repealed by Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, § 9901, as amended, effective January 1, 1980. and... TITLE 13A. CRIMINAL CODE. CHAPTER 11. OFFENSES AGAINST ORDER AND SAFETY.
§ 13A-11-14. Cruelty to Animals.
(a) A person commits the crime of cruelty to animals if, except as otherwise authorized by law, he or she intentionally or recklessly:
(1) Subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment; or
(2) Subjects any animal in his or her custody to cruel neglect; or
(3) Kills or injures without good cause any animal belonging to another.
(b) Cruelty to animals is a Class B misdemeanor and on the first conviction of a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than three thousand dollars ($3,000) or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or both fine and imprisonment; on a second conviction of a violation of this section, shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) nor more than three thousand dollars ($3,000) or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or both fine and imprisonment; and on a third or subsequent conviction of a violation of this section, shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than three thousand dollars ($3,000) or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or both fine and imprisonment.
.........
§ 13A-11-14 COMMENTARY
This section is reproduced from Model Penal Code § 250.11. It is not concerned with the criminality per se of injuring or killing an animal, but is aimed at unlawful cruelty to animals.
Alabama statutes dealing with this type of conduct are: §§ 3-1-10 and 3-1-11 (wanton or malicious injury to animal of another); former § 3-1-12 (cruelty to animals); former § 3-1-14 (unlawful or malicious killing of dogs); and § 3-1-16 (employment of county officer to enforce laws as to cruelty to animals and children; duties, oaths, etc.).
The Criminal Code preserves the purpose of the law to prevent cruel treatment or a cruel killing or injury of any animal.
The qualifying phrase “without good cause” is inserted to cover situations that merit such action but are not otherwise authorized by law, e.g., marauding dogs.
Article 11. Cruelty to Dog or Cat.
.........
§ 13A-11-240. Definitions.
(a) The word "torture" as used in this article shall mean the act of doing physical injury to a dog or cat by the infliction of inhumane treatment or gross physical abuse meant to cause said animal intensive or prolonged pain or serious physical injury, or thereby causing death due to said act.
(b) The word "cruel" as used in this article shall mean: Every act, omission, or neglect, including abandonment, where unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering, including abandonment, is caused or where unnecessary pain or suffering is allowed to continue.
(c) The words "dog or cat" as used in this article shall mean any domesticated member of the dog or cat family.
........
§ 13A-11-241. Cruelty in first and second degrees.
(a) A person commits the crime of cruelty to a dog or cat in the first degree if he or she intentionally tortures any dog or cat or skins a domestic dog or cat or offers for sale or exchange or offers to buy or exchange the fur, hide, or pelt of a domestic dog or cat. Cruelty to a dog or cat in the first degree is a Class C felony. A conviction for a felony pursuant to this section shall not be considered a felony for purposes of the Habitual Felony Offender Act, Section 13A-5-9 to 13A-5-10.1, inclusive.
(b) A person commits the crime of cruelty to a dog or cat in the second degree if he or she, in a cruel manner, overloads, overdrives, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, unnecessarily or cruelly beats, injuries, mutilates, or causes the same to be done. Cruelty to a dog or cat in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
......
§ 13A-11-246. Applicability.
This article shall not apply to any of the following persons or institutions:
(1) Academic and research enterprises that use dogs or cats for medical or pharmaceutical research or testing.
(2) Any owner of a dog or cat who euthanizes the dog or cat for humane purposes.
(3) Any person who kills a dog or cat found outside of the owned or rented property of the owner or custodian of the dog or cat when the dog or cat threatens immediate physical injury or is causing physical injury to any person, animal, bird, or silvicultural or agricultural industry.
(4) A person who shoots a dog or cat with a BB gun not capable of inflicting serious injury when the dog or cat is defecating or urinating on the person's property.
(5) A person who uses a training device, anti-bark collar, or an invisible fence on his or her own dog or cat or with permission of the owner.
So, Cruelty to Animal statutes do not apply to "marauding dogs" or to dogs who are outside the property of the owner and are threatening physical injury to any person, animal, or bird.Since dogs are chasing deer, one can impose that should said dogs actually catch a deer, especially a fawn, they would impose physical injury to said deer or fawn. Therefore, any rational and logical person can deduce that the dogs which are chasing deer are, in fact, threatening physical injury to the deer. In that case, it is completely LEGAL to shoot said dogs when they are NOT on the owner's premisis.
Last edited by bamachem; 01/18/13 11:00 AM.
MOLON LABE
|
|
|
Re: Big stink in Coffeeville over dog killing.......
[Re: deadeye]
#506503
01/18/13 10:23 AM
01/18/13 10:23 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 15,170
Fairhope
bamachem
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 15,170
Fairhope
|
Yes and no. It's subject to the rules in place for that WMA. Dogs are to be leashed at all times on WMA, unless otherwise allowed by the rules. However, our WMA (Upper and Lower Delta) have dog hunting days.
Last edited by bamachem; 01/18/13 10:24 AM.
MOLON LABE
|
|
|
Re: Big stink in Coffeeville over dog killing.......
[Re: Hogwild]
#506507
01/18/13 10:25 AM
01/18/13 10:25 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 15,170
Fairhope
bamachem
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 15,170
Fairhope
|
'Supposedly' (and NONE of us know) they werre hunting legally on their own property and the dogs got past the standers and onto the adjoining property. THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL!
Again, as someone who has a large lease himself, I will say that is unfortunate and a source of frustration. Just not illegal! You SURE about that, Danny? ... NOR, am I afraid to stand up as a voice of reason to a bunch of ill-informed, narrow-minded, hypocrites.
I totally disagree with people intentionally allowing dogs to run on others properties.
But, I think it should be properly dealt with. Since there in fact IS a law on the books, you must support prosecution of dog owners who allow their dogs to trespass, then? Piss-Poor Defense for ILLEGAL activity.....shooting dogs. Ooops. The statute that protected the dogs from being shot was repealed in 1980 and the Statutes regarding Cruelty to Animals do NOT apply as cleary they are excluded from the statutes...
Last edited by bamachem; 01/18/13 10:57 AM.
MOLON LABE
|
|
|
Re: Big stink in Coffeeville over dog killing.......
[Re: deadeye]
#506554
01/18/13 11:13 AM
01/18/13 11:13 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,216
Henry county
coldtrail
12 point
|
12 point
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,216
Henry county
|
TITLE 13A. CRIMINAL CODE. CHAPTER 11. OFFENSES AGAINST ORDER AND SAFETY.
§ 13A-11-14. Cruelty to Animals.
(a) A person commits the crime of cruelty to animals if, except as otherwise authorized by law, he or she intentionally or recklessly:
(1) Subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment; or
(2) Subjects any animal in his or her custody to cruel neglect; or
(3) Kills or injures without good cause any animal belonging to another.
"And the days that I keep my gratitude
Higher than my expectations
Well, I have really good days" Ray Wylie Hubbard
|
|
|
Re: Big stink in Coffeeville over dog killing.......
[Re: coldtrail]
#506560
01/18/13 11:16 AM
01/18/13 11:16 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 15,170
Fairhope
bamachem
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 15,170
Fairhope
|
TITLE 13A. CRIMINAL CODE. CHAPTER 11. OFFENSES AGAINST ORDER AND SAFETY.
§ 13A-11-14. Cruelty to Animals.
(a) A person commits the crime of cruelty to animals if, except as otherwise authorized by law, he or she intentionally or recklessly:
CAN
(1) Subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment; or
(2) Subjects any animal in his or her custody to cruel neglect; or
(3) Kills or injures without good cause any animal belonging to another.
You need to keep reading that statute. You CAN kill "with good cause". One of the allowed causes to shoot a dog is if it threatens to harm another animal while trespassing on another person's property. Deer are animals, and when a dog chases one, it is threatening to harm it by announcing it's intentions with it's bark.
§ 13A-11-246. Applicability.
This article shall not apply to any of the following persons or institutions:
(1) Academic and research enterprises that use dogs or cats for medical or pharmaceutical research or testing.
(2) Any owner of a dog or cat who euthanizes the dog or cat for humane purposes.
(3) Any person who kills a dog or cat found outside of the owned or rented property of the owner or custodian of the dog or cat when the dog or cat threatens immediate physical injury or is causing physical injury to any person, animal, bird, or silvicultural or agricultural industry.
(4) A person who shoots a dog or cat with a BB gun not capable of inflicting serious injury when the dog or cat is defecating or urinating on the person's property.
(5) A person who uses a training device, anti-bark collar, or an invisible fence on his or her own dog or cat or with permission of the owner.
MOLON LABE
|
|
|
Re: Big stink in Coffeeville over dog killing.......
[Re: deadeye]
#506567
01/18/13 11:24 AM
01/18/13 11:24 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 15,170
Fairhope
bamachem
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 15,170
Fairhope
|
Danny, you cannot argue with the letter of the law. It does not state any excuses for hunting with dogs who trespass on other people's property. Read the wording of the statute: Every person owning or having in charge any dog or dogs shall at all times confine such dog or dogs to the limits of his own premises or the premises on which such dog or dogs is or are regularly kept You must keep your dog on your property/premisis unless you are accompanying them. PERIOD. You're the one who apparently can't read. I'm doing just fine, myself. What about your stance on shooting dogs who are trespassing on other peoples property while chasing deer? I guess you say that's still illegal despite what the law actually says, too?
Last edited by bamachem; 01/18/13 11:39 AM.
MOLON LABE
|
|
|
|
