Art,
Just so you know, in the state of Texas a dog is not capable of tresspass, but a hunter is. So if I go out with my hog dogs and strike a hog on your neighbors and the hog decides to bay-up in your front yard, my only legal option is to call you and ask for permission to retrieve my dogs, or call the warden and ask him to retrieve my dogs should you deny me access. Now I hunt a couple times a week with my dogs and most of the area we hunt, we have permission on lots of surrounding areas, and most of the time the hogs don't run very far before the dogs get them stopped(normally a couple hundred yards at most).
A few months ago a good friend of mine was invited on a hog hunt on 1500 acres where the owners had gotten permission on right at another 3,000 acres in adjoining land, the only person who refused permission and didn't want the dogs there was a man who had stocked hogs into the area in order to run hunts, but he refused to fence his property to keep the hogs from destroying grazing land and cropland. To make a long story short the dogs struck a large hog well inside the 1500 acres and the boar ran across the road into the 50 acres they didn't have permission on. These drunk hillbillies took it upon themselves to grab a rifle and go shoot the damn dogs killing their hogs. The hunters with the dogs where standing on the country road calling their dogs. All the dogs had tracking collars, cut collars, and reflective material to help in id. The boar ran into a stock tank and the dogs tried to catch it in the water. The landowner claims that upon arrival he felt they had a calf caught, but could not tell for sure. So as this black mass that could be heard grunting from the road where the hunters where, threw a dog free, the landowner shot it. Now at some point the dogs realizing what was happening tried to make a break for the road and they ended up killing 3 of the dogs and crippling 2, one dog they shot 9 times. Now when the police arrived, the story was that a pitbull and this pack of dogs had attempted to attack them and they shot in self defense, cept every dog was shot in the rear, and most of them poorly placed Texas heart shots. The story then changed to they felt the dogs where attacking livestock...
So the Sheriff in Guadalupe county began his investigation into the landowner illegally shooting the dogs. He found sufficient evidence to show that what transpired that night was premeditated, that the landowner was outside simply because he saw trucks drive up with dogs. What happened later and which nobody can believe to this day, is the DA, didn't want to prosecute the man, even though the game warden had specifically informed him it was illegal to shoot hunting dogs, and the landowner had in the past allowed the hunters to enter his property and retrieve dogs as long as they allowed the hog to live. No nasty words to the hunters in the past, no warning, just if it bays on my land, don't shoot it. The Humane society became involved in the case because of media coverage plus some other animal rights groups, it was an uneasy truece between hunters and them as this worked out. But with enough pressure from hunters, the media, the sheriff, and the AR's the DA finally agreed to place the case before the grand jury. According to the newspaper and the interviews of those who did the shooting, the DA instructed the jury that what was being sought was a indictment under the new State Cruelty laws, the ones that mandate a min. two year sentence. But have only been used to prosecute people that torture animals. He never instructed them as to the state law on the books outlining under what guidelines a dog may be shot on your property which are: Defense of Persons, livestock, or to stop destruction of property. A dog chasing deer is not a legal target, nor is one baying a hog.
The Grand Jury "No Billed" the shooters on animal cruelty charges and the sheriff is now attempting once again to have the shooters indicted on the original law violation he tried to have the DA get in the first place.
What is going to happen next is anyones guess. I'm sure a civil case will be brought at some point by the men who lost dogs.
What makes this case different is this is the first case of this kind to be lost in the state of Texas in the last ten years. Every other instance when a landowner shot a dog that was baying a hog, the landowner has been charged, convicted, and made to pay civil reperations to the hunters.
Just something for everyone to think about. I run dogs and I am not always sure how I feel about all this. I have a strong sense of private property rights, but also feel responsible citizens look out first and formost for the protection of the native wildlife, which hogs are not.
Art it is a tough situation to get a grasp on, most of the guys I know do everything within their power to keep their dogs on places they have permission on. It doesn't always work. Five years ago I owned a pack of dogs I could call off a race if they went into anothers property, but the amount of time invested to get to that point and the training it required is something that most guys simply can't do, or they lack the knowledge to do. The dogs we use to do this with are willing to accept pain and keep after it, most bird dogs if they got cut will call it a day. Alot of times hog dogs will be baying with several large cuts from getting a little to close. So the use of a shock collar often isn't enough to get a dog to quit a race and come in, they are just to used to pain.
I'm starting over with a new pup at present and am planning on having her to the point I can call her off by the time she is two years old or so. But even with the best broke dogs, the best training, sometimes it just doesn't work. I've been in the middle of 15,000 acres and lost a dog, only to find it hours later bayed up miles away in a neighboring ranch we didn't have permission on, and I have never owned a dog I could call off a bay unless I was right there at the bay.
In short we do all we can to stay legal and we attempt in anyway we can to keep the dogs off your place or anyones we are not to be in. But dogs can't read, they don't know the meaning of purple posts, and so the state found it prudent to protect them and their owners with the laws they put in place. The thing is it applies and protects all manner of dogs, which is the main problem with the way it is written.
Just thought i'd chunk this in, haven't been here in awhile and return by writing what is probably a really long winded essay...
