tell you what you shoot a guys hunting dog on your land and call a warden . tell him just what you did . lets us know how it works out

The same point that I made to Andy in a PM:

Exactly - kind of like shooting a deer in season during legal hunting hours and shooting a deer during the season but at night. Just as humane and just as dead so there shouldn't be any difference in how it's viewed other than that little law-thingy!

Time to dissect § 13A-11-246-(3).

I think we know what "This article shall not apply to any of the following persons or institutions:" means without having to tear it apart. Clearly the exceptions to the law are plainly written below this statement, in an ordered and numbered fashion.

The third (3) exception says "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". So, if you are a person who finds a dog or cat that is off of it's owner's property, then you can kill it. However, there is a qualifier for killing the dog or cat when off the owner's property. This is the "IF" statement... It continues "when the dog or cat threatens immediate physical injury or is causing physical injury to any person, animal, bird, or silvicultural or agricultural industry."

So, killing of a dog or cat is limited to:

(1) it must be off of the dog/cat owner's property or lease
(2) it must be doing one of the following things while off the owner's property or lease
-- (a)threatens immediate physical injury to ANY person, animal, bird, or silvicultural or agricultural industry.
OR
-- (b)causes physical injury to ANY person, animal, bird, or silvicultural or agricultural industry.

There is nothing ambiguous about the law.

Whether or not a person chooses to shoot a dog is up to their personal convictions, but it is clear that under the law they would have the right to do so WHEN ANY DOG OR ANY CAT IS THREATENING PHYSICAL INJURY TO ANY ANIMAL OR BIRD.

Again, the dog cannot be on his owner's property or lease. The dog must be away from the owner's property or lease. The dog must be either causing physical injury or threatening physical injury (barking, snarling, chasing while doing either, etc).

For fairness sake...they ought to additionally introduce a bill making it a felony for a dog owner if your hunting dogs to cross onto another's property. Let's face it...that's the root of the entire problem. Still hunters aren't shooting dogs across property lines anywhere that I am aware of...they are being shot while trespassing.

Since dogs can't read, hold the owners responsible with penalties that have some bite in them.

Sword cuts both ways, then.

So a dog 100 yards (maybe more, maybe less) behind a deer is threatening it with physical harm?

The argument that a dog is threatening harm to a deer by barking while chasing it will not hold up in Court.

I totally agree that the illegal actions of allowing dogs to run on other's property intentionally is Poaching and should be handled accordingly!

The Permit System and Laws forbidding releasing dogs onto the property of others was supposed to help that. I have no experience with it. So, I have no idea if it has helped or not????

I'm not arguing specific instances. I'm simply stating what the law plainly says in black and white.

Either you're a liberal and don't believe in the words that are written or you are a conservative and you believe the words written have a specific meaning and conveyance as to what the law actually is.

I don't condone shooting hunting dogs, but I do shoot coyotes. I've never shot a hunting dog, and we've had dog hunter problems in the past. We dealt with it a different way other than shooting or harming the dogs.

What I am saying is that this new bill does NOT address the "loophole" that Danny likes to call it which plainly and clearly allows a man to shoot a dog if it is "trespassing" onto another's property and is "treatening any animal". Threatening is open to interpretation. Some may get away with it and others may have to go to court to fight it, but it's plainly written into the Animal Cruelty Law in AL that you can shoot a dog that is threatening another animal. PERIOD.

That's you're opinion. What is considered to be "threatening" will be up to the Judge who hears the case. However, there's usually only one witness when a man shoots a hunting dog. If that witness, who is also the shooter says that he thought the animal that was being chased had the potential of being harmed by the dog, then they could get away with shooting the dog.

That's my non-lawyer opinion. Don't spend all two-cents in one place.

Again, in my humble opinion.....your loose interpretation of threatening is looking for a loophole.

Why have the people who shot the dogs in Coffeeville not just stepped up and confessed? If what you are saying is accurate; there would be no legal consequences?

Heck, there is even a reward for information on who they were. Turn em in and the Defend them with this argument.

Continuing to post on the internet about it is not proving to be very effective.

DOG - "Please don't let me get on Bamachem's property"

More laws more laws. In the end will solve nothing. I agree with bamachem on this. Dog hunting sure does cause alot of fuss. Im not for takin peoples rights away, but seems to me like, if we want to help our state become a trophy state for whitetail, it needs to be abolished all together. I would hardly even call it hunting

It would do you some good to learn to comprehend the English Language. I don't shoot dogs, and I don't hunt in AL except on WMAs, so I don't have a dog in this fight.

What?

The dog owners blocked the road so the hunters couldn't leave. The Sheriff Deputy showed up and investigated. He found dead dogs and hunters with guns, but he left without arresting a single person. I can't imagine why...

Ain't legal to run deer with dogs in madison county. If gman is in a tree and one of the MANY unkept yard dogs comes by chasing said whitetails or cotton tails...they gonna (the dogs) take a dirt nap. Period. Right, wrong, cruel if you think so. Folks shoulda kept their dogs in the yard. Used to have fox hunters come thru while i was in stand...never thought bout shooting the dogs cause the hunters were with them, and they had permission. Did think about busting a cap into the air once when 3 of the riders stopped under my stand for about 15 minutes...they had no idea i was in the country. Woulda loved to have seen how high those horses woulda jumped!

I wouldn't shoot a dog just for chasing a deer across my property or just for being there the first time.If he became a problem,continually interfering with my hunting,endangering my family or property,I will kill the dog.I won't ask anyone if it is legal or not.I will not tell anyone I killed their dog.I will dispose of the carcass and I will be happy.

If I kill your hunting dog under thoes circumstances,it's you're fault,and I won't feel bad at all.

I figured that you never actually READ the article.
You would never want to mess up a good argument with any facts!!!!

Nobody confessed to shooting the dogs because it was illegal!!!

Two other people left the property; 1 walking and 1 by a back entrance that was not blocked. They both actually trespassed to leave.

I read the article and watched the video that was posted the day that it hit the news. I didn't follow it after that. Nothing in the original article or video said anything about others on the property.

No need to be an ass Danny. I haven't intentionally been one towards you and was hoping to keep it civil.

Correcting you for your assumptions is not being an a$$.

You just don't like to be wrong and have it pointed out.

I don't mind being wrong and will admit it if proven to be.

I'm stating an opinion, by the way, in reference to the law.

Here's the just of the article from the original thread.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the law applied both ways? If a person shoots a dog on their property and it's a felony, then why wouldn't it be a felony for the Owner of the dog to let the dog wander onto someone else's property?

What's good for one should be good for all right????