Running Coyotes and Trespassing

No argument Krakadawn, none. They never have and never will. Id still blame myself even if I thought the landowner was out of line. I took the risk, I put my dog in that situation to begin with

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smitty55

All this talk about prosecuting a land owner for shooting trespassing dogs brings up another question for me. First off, you would have to prove he was actually the person who shot it in the first place. It's not like he's about to come out and admit it or allow anyone to come on his property to confirm that either. Even if the dog has a radio collar anyone with half a brain would be sure to remove it and either take the battery out or destroy it so there is no signal to follow. Pretty hard to charge someone without enough evidence.
One more thing. I may be wrong but in the past at least I thought it was legal to shoot dogs running deer on your property. So all a landowner would have to say is that the dog was running deer.

Cheers

---

When using GPS. type collars, the signal ends at where the collar was destroyed or battery taken out. You can see this on the receiver and easily determine on what or whose property it happened. The maps on the receivers are a great thing.

This happened to us a number of years ago, one land owner caught my dogs, two of them, removed the collars and the batteries from them , and destroyed the collars, took the dogs to his place.
We tracked the dogs to the last place there was a signal and saw from foot prints in the snow and determined what happened.
We went to the landowner and talked to him and he denied everything, we then called the police and went with them to his place and with us there the police confronted him with our evidence.He at first denied everything , but when the police told him he would be charged with theft , two collars and two dogs, he admitted everything. he gave us the two dogs right then and there, they were in his garage, but said that he destroyed the collars. After some very heated arguments about the price of the collars and having to pay shipping from the U.S., he wrote us out a check and apologized for his actions.His biggest reason for not wanting the dogs on his property was , "that the dogs were peeing on his evergreens " he was told that he should perhaps put up a coyote proof fence as they will also pee on his trees when marking out their territory.

I was really happy to get my two dogs back safely, but then about three weeks later, someone had stolen my youngest dog, took off the collar and left it at the side of the road, again tracks in the snow told the story.
I finally found out where my dog wound up, after about 8 years , a fellow showed up at my buddies place and showed him a picture of their best dog that they had, it was killed on the road. My buddy immediately recognized the dog as being mine, and asked how this fellow got the dog. He said he bought it 8 years ago from a guy who my buddy knew, [a shady type that lived in our area] but nothing could be done as this "thief " had left the country , moved to the U.S.

I don't get all this talk about shooting hounds. Trying to justify it by implying that hounds hot on a trail are attacking livestock shows you know nothing about hounds. The dogs have no interest in anything but the coyote. Blaming a dog that is trained to hunt is ridiculous. Yes by all means go after the owners if they are knowingly trespassing but killing the dog isn't going to accomplish anything positive. All that will happen is the lawyers will get to upgrade thier BMW's. How anybody could shoot a dog for running a coyote is beyond me. Now if some dog did come on your property and actually attacked livestock or your pets that is a very different situation but not what this thread is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I don't get all this talk about shooting hounds. Trying to justify it by implying that hounds hot on a trail are attacking livestock shows you know nothing about hounds. The dogs have no interest in anything but the coyote. Blaming a dog that is trained to hunt is ridiculous. Yes by all means go after the owners if they are knowingly trespassing but killing the dog isn't going to accomplish anything positive. All that will happen is the lawyers will get to upgrade thier BMW's. How anybody could shoot a dog for running a coyote is beyond me. Now if some dog did come on your property and actually attacked livestock or your pets that is a very different situation but not what this thread is about.

---

What Jaycee says about the collars - true - it wouldn't be hard to figure out what happened to the dog if its wearing a GPS collar.

Both the shooting of dogs (outside of protecting poultry and livestock) and the theft or destruction of collars are illegal activities. Why is this discussion even being permitted here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smitty55

All this talk about prosecuting a land owner for shooting trespassing dogs brings up another question for me. First off, you would have to prove he was actually the person who shot it in the first place. It's not like he's about to come out and admit it or allow anyone to come on his property to confirm that either. Even if the dog has a radio collar anyone with half a brain would be sure to remove it and either take the battery out or destroy it so there is no signal to follow. Pretty hard to charge someone without enough evidence.
One more thing. I may be wrong but in the past at least I thought it was legal to shoot dogs running deer on your property. So all a landowner would have to say is that the dog was running deer.

Cheers

---

Shooting dogs on your property is only permitted in defense of poultry and livestock.
Dogs running deer may only be shot by a CO - and CO's are very, very hesitant to do this in the event that it is someone's pet.
A story about a CO officer shooting someone's pet is not something the MNR wants to see in the news.

A houndsman with a gps tracker that shows a hounds trail ending on your property is all that is needed to make your life very, very difficult.
And if there is any suspicion that you used a firearm to shoot the dog, you will be dealing with police as well as the CO.
Also, you can lie to cops, but not to a CO - that in itself is an offence.
I know one individual that lied to a CO, and the initial offence being investigated was dropped, but they spent another 18 months pursuing a "lying to a CO" charge on which he was eventually convicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krakadawn

Just so we're clear my comments are not to support individuals being careless with their dogs nor hunting without permission.

There are numerous judgements rendered to cover the cost of dogs shot without due cause. You can research these, several come to mind....Bancroft where a farmer shot 2 hounds he claimed were running deer out of season. He was charged and costs plus an ascertained value of $1700 per hound levied.
You may wish to read the ACT and read carefully. The responsibility is clearly on the individual to prove livestock was in need of protection. Shooting a dog just crossing your property will cause you grief. You may tell us that it was most often 'the hunter' who was charged but there are numerous convictions on file for illegally shooting a dog. What costs are retrieved depends on the owner and how much they wish to pursue this. Many dogs are currently running with expensive collars thereby adding to the value at stake here.

Too bad this kind of situation was the exception and hopefully most coyote hunters have secured the required permission and all is well.
If you are unable to prove your livestock or your person was in immediate danger you're likely going to lose this argument. Kind of like shooting and intruder walking down your driveway after he broke into your house. We all know why you would like to but in a situation like this your claim of personal protection is a lost cause.

---

OK,which "ACT" are you referring to? No one,anywhere,posted that dogs could be shot just for shytes and giggles. Of course,evidence must be presented,but,that's quite easy with today's technology. A few pictures of damage or injury or at best,video evidence is a slam-dunk in Court. I'd be seizing the dog's collars,too,especially if they were GPS units,as proof where the dogs were. Back when,all we needed to know was who owned the dog and it was a guaranteed ticket. Today,I'm willing to bet it would be a hell of a lot more expensive than it was then, if the dog owner was held responsible for damages to livestock or produce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

OK,which "ACT" are you referring to? No one,anywhere,posted that dogs could be shot just for shytes and giggles. Of course,evidence must be presented,but,that's quite easy with today's technology. A few pictures of damage or injury or at best,video evidence is a slam-dunk in Court. I'd be seizing the dog's collars,too,especially if they were GPS units,as proof where the dogs were. Back when,all we needed to know was who owned the dog and it was a guaranteed ticket. Today,I'm willing to bet it would be a hell of a lot more expensive than it was then, if the dog owner was held responsible for damages to livestock or produce.

---

The act is the protection of livestock and poultry act.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90l24

It is the municipality, not the dog owner, that is liable when dogs kill livestock or poultry. It is up to the municipality to recover those costs from the dog owner in civil court. There is no protection for the protection of produce or crops that I am aware of.

How often does this occur?

im thinking its uncommon to rare. As krakadawn said, 2 wrongs will never make a right.
If someone's dogs were running lose on my property, I'd detain the dogs. Fill my truck with pig poop. When the hunter arrived, we'd talk. Come to an agreement, which involves getting his address and following him home... And once having dumped a ton of manure in his driveway, "how's it feel"...And if it conintues the next time Im letting my cows/pigs loose in your back yard...

if it repeats I'm going to try to let Leo handle it.

if they harass my livestock, I'm going to try to stop it. And if I can't then yes, I can see myself shooting it/them and too damn bad.

if you love your dogs that much, um.....did you ask your dog if it was ok to put it at it risk??? And it really is no-ones fault but your own. You took the risk, You set it loose, you made the decisions that cost your dog its life...good job.
What you aren't aware dogs.......
please

And also think the more important and more realistic concern/falliut

No wonder landowners are turning hunters away....
Its always the few that ruin it for the many.

Sounds like a lot of hate on this forum against houndsmen and all this talk of shooting hunting dogs is pretty sick IMO.

I guess you guys think hounds should only be run in fenced in operations or not used at all. Since there is always a risk the animal is going to go where we don't want it to and the hounds will follow. This is a problem with running any game from rabbits to bears.

Guess it's different where I live, deer and small gamehunters welcome us, between the 4 hound gangs in this county last winter, over 175 coyotes killed that I know about. Imagine how many deer that saved.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Whats your address Songdog. Im sure you won't mind me invading your property without your permission.

Do unto others....

Do agree that "yes" it's a bit much, but perhaps it's important to ask yourself why that "hate" exist in the first place.
Im guessing its because way tooooooooooooooo many people out there, don't respect other people, or their property, their privacy.....