Hunting in NC

[gtldy53]

North Carolina... My husband and son were hunting on OUR land, a club had let their hunting dogs out about a mile from our property, of course, they ran thru chasing the scent of a deer. My husband shot the tail off one dog and killed another, carried him to the river and thru him in, he had a tracking collar on, the other dog with the missing tail ran off. Wildlife officer investigated this and gave my husband 3 tickets. We want to be fair and all for this, my husband is sorry he did this, but we are afraid the "good ole boys" will jack the cost of everything up. They even stated that they were going to make an example of us for the whole area. Can someone advise how we can reduce/throw out the charges and just let us pay for the collar,dog, and a REASONABLE vet bill. By the way, the hunters did not take the dog to the vet until the next day. They were all so concerned with the shooting. We had over 40 men trying to get down to the river. sb

 

[Florid-aise]

I live further South than NC and as it is the heritage of the South to hunt deer with dogs, I am aware of that practice. During the settlement of this country in the form of the Thirteen original colonies, the rich, settled predominantly in the South - and as the rich were prone to do, make sport of chasing the fox with the hounds.

You will find here, that there may be one or maybe two figures who can answer your legal questions from a knowledge of NC law; but I fear that you may also have subjected yourself to having no competant answers given you as you have described them. In other words Lady, there ain't gonna be much sympathy had for your husband's actions.

 

[stealth2]

In other words Lady, there ain't gonna be much sympathy had for your husband's actions.

That's for sure. Of course, hounds CAN be ever so dangerous.

 

[Florid-aise]

That's for sure. Of course, hounds CAN be ever so dangerous.

Enacted THIS year, THIS hunting season in Florida, the dogs used for hunting purposes are now required to wear radio tracking collars. Simply because the dogs cannot read "No Trespassing" signs in their haste in the chase, and there has been this same poster's scenario played-out multiple times in recent years, thus the reasoning behind the newly enacted legislation.

Hopefully to avoid and mitigate this type event in the future.

 

[stealth2]

An even better deterent to trespassing hounds is this amazing invention known as..... a fence. Is it expensive to fence in a large piece of land? Sure it is. Is it reasonable to kill a dog (that can't read) and dump it into a river? Uuuuh, no. Sorry, I have little sympathy for someone who thinks it's a solution to the problem. The "point" pinhead was trying to make for the hunters came at a rather high price - the life of an innocent animal.

And for the record, I am neither anti-gun nor anti-hunt. I am anti-pinhead-with-gun, tho.

 

[Florid-aise]

And for the record, I am neither anti-gun nor anti-hunt. I am anti-pinhead-with-gun, tho.

Double-dog ditto !

 

[stealth2]

So here's a thought.... Suppose a toddler wandered onto this property, which is apparently littered with "NO Trespassing" signs. Kid can't read any better than a hound can, but.... no trespassing is no trespassing and those damned hunters should know better! Easy solution - shoot the kid & dump him into the river.

Pretty ridiculous, no? But I guess a kid's more of an issue than a stupid dog. Sorry - this sort of thing just fries me. Go hunting, use the meat of what you kill. But don't kill (or maim) just to make a point.

 

[gtldy53]

animal farm

I understand your feelings but I guess it's not your fault for giving judgment when you don't have all the facts. We have a 33 acre farm with 110 animals on it, we DO have fences ( which the dogs tear down all the time). Our animals are harrassed by these dogs constantly. My point is (and he did admit he was wrong,ok?), these "hunters"????, have hundred of acres to run their dogs, but they want to let them loose in back road property, which they DON"T have permission to hunt on. They stand on the side of the road with their weapons and wait for the dogs to run the deer out of whoevers land to shoot them. We are not anti gun either, but who is responsible for the land owners property, does he not have any rights concerning these so called "hunters".

 

[stealth2]

but who is responsible for the land owners property, does he not have any rights concerning these so called "hunters".

Pinhead didn't shoot a hunter, now did he?

 

[Florid-aise]

I understand your feelings but I guess it's not your fault for giving judgment when you don't have all the facts. We have a 33 acre farm with 110 animals on it, we DO have fences ( which the dogs tear down all the time). Our animals are harrassed by these dogs constantly. My point is (and he did admit he was wrong,ok?), these "hunters"????, have hundred of acres to run their dogs, but they want to let them loose in back road property, which they DON"T have permission to hunt on. They stand on the side of the road with their weapons and wait for the dogs to run the deer out of whoevers land to shoot them. We are not anti gun either, but who is responsible for the land owners property, does he not have any rights concerning these so called "hunters".

Please, please, please, don't misunderstand me. This issue in Florida has decidedly two different "camps". Florida, the mecca for Northern retirees, is finding itself in the initial throughs of a massive change in its future for the Florida/Southern native hunter.

To answer your question as to whether you, as a landowner, have property rights; yes, you do. You have rights to protect your livestock. Shoot the attacking animal...wolf, dog, bear, coyote, and contact the Game Commission with your report. But to kill one for being present, and to dump it in the river, gives one pause. Admit that, and you may get help here from those that know more than I.

 

[stealth2]

But to kill one for being present, and to dump it in the river, gives one pause.

Bingo!

 

[You Are Guilty]

I was about to reply when I suddenly heard the "Deliverance" theme music start playing - so instead, I will just run away. Far, far away.

 

[gtldy53]

and he did admit he was wrong,ok?

I want to thank you all for your opinions. I can see I will get no help here (one of you did warn me).
And just for the record, the hunters were not THAT interested in the dog as they were retreiving the collar.
All I would ask of any of you, which I try to do before I convict someone, is put yourself in their shoes before passing judgment, which means, knowing (living) with this situation. Have a good life.

 

[stealth2]

See, I'd accept "he was sorry he did this" if it had been one dog he shot, and that was it. But it wasn't. He maimed one, shot another and then physically carried the hound to the river and tossed him/her in. That's not sorry. That's being an *******.