Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wind in Her Hair
Our neighbors who "ran dogs" always called to let us know that they would be "running the dogs tonite". We appreciated that - as it allowed us a chance to pen our own dogs, chickens, whatever we thought might disrupt the hunt) and to know to expect an errant hunting dog on the place the next day or so.
|
your property, your choice.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wind in Her Hair
When the lost hunting dog showed up - we always just caught them and put them in the stock trailer and offered them water. Then we called the hunter - whose name was either grease painted on the dog's side or on a collar or tag and he came immediately to pick up his dog. We were quite appreciative that there were still men who were willing to "run dogs" and run the predators out of our area. This has been an established practice in this country since Colonial times.
|
Again, your property, your choice. It has also been an established practice in this country since colonial times that a persons home is their castle and that trespassing is a crime. Seeing as you want to present the practices of colonial times as justification of current behaviors, I have to assume that you are also in favor of slavery, dunking and the shooting of injuns.
Shifting gears slightly, will I have the opportunity of seeing you at the next Mayflower Society get-together? I will be at the local one next Sunday. Not sure if we will be going to the national one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wind in Her Hair
These same men also hunted hogs with their dogs and helped eliminate a danger and a nuisance on our property - at no cost to us.
|
Again, your property, your choice
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wind in Her Hair
And Hoop, FYI - its safe to say that not everyone who hunts with dogs is a crazy uneducated moron hell-bent on trespassing .(Personally, I haven't noticed that a college degree really matters when it comes to character, good judgment, honor, or integrity. By the way, what college did you say you graduated from? ) But I digress...
|
Doesn't matter if they are educated or not. If a person indicates they don't want them on their property then they should respect that persons decision. Obviously, ignoring a landowners stated decision (as indicated by no trespassing signs) is a good indicator that the trespassing hunter lacks character,honor, integrity and good judgement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wind in Her Hair
We had a good relationship with the hunters in our area and never encountered a problem.
|
Again, your property, your perogative.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wind in Her Hair
However, that was because we understood and accepted that "trespassing" and hunting with dogs almost always go hand in hand. Dogs do not understand borders or fences or "No Trespassing" signs. They are dogs for heavensakes. It is only trespass if a hunter comes onto your property without your permission to retrieve their dog. Is it really that hard to grant them permission? Is that really too much to ask? Would you deny them permission to step onto your property if their child strayed onto your propery or would you require law enforcement to be involved? Isn't it possible that you are creating a problem where one doesnt exist because you are unwilling to bend and try and get along with your neighbor? Would you rather the dogs NOT be retreived by their owner and just hang around your place? Would you really rather a wounded deer be left to slowly die and become carrion for the buzzards just because you woudln't allow a hunter to retrieve or trail a wounded deer across a silly line?
|
First off, I paid for that property and that silly line. I want to know who is on my property and why...especially if they are carrying a weapon. You may disagree with me but it is my property and NOT yours. If you want to post a sign saying "trespassers welcome", that is your perogative for YOUR property.
By running dogs on my property without my permission the individuals are putting myself, my family, my dogs and other animals at risk.....simply to suit their desire to run dogs. If I choose to come to your place and urinate on your living room floor would you accept my statement that it is you that is at fault for getting upset? Why is the dog hunters desire to hunt on my land against my wishes more important than my desire to urinate on your living room floor? Both should be considered unacceptable by any reasonable person.
The problem was created when the individuals decided to intentionally turn loose animals that they could not or would not maintain control over. The problem was not created "by a silly line".
The dogs would not "just hang around" my place. They would either be shot or trapped. I don't allow my dog to run on other peoples property and I expect them to keep theirs off of mine unless I have given them explicit permission.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wind in Her Hair
I have trailed wounded deer across property lines and it isn't always possible to stop and call the land owner. MOST land owners would appreciate a hunter whose concern is to finish the kill and not waste the harvest. ]
|
It is always possible to stop when one comes to the edge of the property the hunter is entitled to hunt on. Did some great howling tornado come along and blow the hunter across the property line? Perhaps an earthquake tumbled the hunter across the line. Or are you saying that the hunter is unable to control themselves?
The harvest won't be wasted. Nature will deal with the wounded animal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wind in Her Hair
If your REAL issue is hunting dogs, then you could always lobby to change your local hunting laws. That would be a reasonable way to deal with this issue. If your REAL issue is POWER, then you're likely to go on battling with the local hunters until the issue comes to a head - and thats almost always gonna end up with somebody - usually an innocent - getting hurt.
|
So let me see if I understand you correctly. It is the landowners fault if they make an issue of armed individuals coming on their property against their wishes? It isn't simply a question of power.....it's a question of people having THE RIGHT not to have to deal with this crap on THEIR LAND.
I have nothing against people hunting with dogs.....hunt on your own land, land that someone has given you permission to be on or public land open to hunting. If someone doesn't want you on their land then accept it. How difficult is that?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wind in Her Hair
Being a landowner does not come without a price tag and one of those price tags is developing healthy relationships with your neighbors -which usually includes the local hunters. Thats a choice. it doesn't cost an awefully lot - maybe a little flexibility and compromise from time to time- but the payoff can be immense.
|
You expect the landowner to be flexible and "compromise" but say nothing about the hunter respecting the owners wishes. If you go to a hunter safety course in Ohio you will go through a section which makes it clear....NO MEANS NO. You may not like someone saying no.....tough. Find someplace else to hunt.
Some neighbors I allow to hunt on our place and other folks I don't. That is my perogative. Are you claiming that my right to manage wildlife on MY property is trumped by some strangers desire to hunt?
There's only one fellow down the road who runs dogs (He moved from California and is moving out after being in the area a year....not civilized enough for him). I don't believe in SSS....After seeing his dogs on my place (killing an animal) I gave him one warning. Next time I'll shoot the dogs.
I get along fine with most of my neighbors. They accept my attitude towards property lines because they see that I respect theirs to the same degree that I expect them to respect mine. That doesn't mean I don't give anyone permission to be on my place....it means that it is my decision. There are any number of reasons I may base my decision on. From wildlife managment to the fact that I have already given others permission to hunt at that time. I owe no explanation to the person who shows up uninvited on my land.
Unless I have someones permission I don't go on their property. About the only exception is if a person were yelling help and in immediate threat of life and limb.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wind in Her Hair
It was these hunters that were the first to notice smoke when a grain truck clipped an electric line and started our hay meadow on fire. Those hunters TRESPASSED because were out of town and they dropped what they were doing and risked life and limb to save our property. Until the firetrucks arrived, they fought the fire with tractors and buckets and blades and feed sacks and shovels - all to save our property.
|
So your logic is, that the fact that something bad happened WHILE THEY WERE TRESPASSING and they helped out, that trespassing is justified. Please excuse me if I call that a stretched and twisted piece of logic.
Ask yourself, would your neighbors lift a finger to save yours? [/QUOTE]
Maybe some would and maybe some wouldn't. That is between my neighbors and myself. It has to do with much more than whether I allow them to hunt on my land.
The issue being discussed is whether it is acceptable for armed individuals to come on someones property against their expressed wishes. As far as I'm concerned the answer is a resounding NO. And the law in Ohio backs that up.
If you wish to have random armed individuals wandering your property, that is YOUR perogative. Why do you refuse to accept that others choose NOT to have random armed individuals on their property?
1Likes
