The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

Loose dogs

9K views 91 replies 28 participants last post by  bpottorff 
#1 ·
Hey guys I'm in a bit of a odd situation. I own some property in the middle of no where in western Susquehanna county. Dirt road kind of deal. Anyways, I own 16 acres and my next neighbor down originally had one dog he let outside and it would kind of roam but stay close to his house. Keep in mind his house is probably 500 yards from my property so not exactly close. Well now the guy has four dogs and they just roam all over the place including my property and other neighbors. And last bow season sure enough, they were chasing deer that were right near me coming in and then were chased and spooked by this pack of dogs. Now recently my neighbor who doesn't have dogs that lives there year round says these dogs have really been pushing deer out of our area and last year we saw a very minimum amount of deer. Might not be related but still. The guy that owns the dogs knows people are not happy but seems to not care. Bottom line is I will not shoot these dogs or harm them, but what can I do to get this guy to chain them up without him knowing it was me and us becoming not so friendly any more. Thanks for any help, its really concerning me for this season.
 
#77 ·
It most surely is about shooting someone's dog. Read all of the SSS posts. I have a lab at home and take pride in the training that it took to show her the property boundaries and keep her in those boundaries. My worries , as I stated before, is some so called hunter shooting one of our coyote hounds. The amount of time and money spent on training and hunting these hounds is astronomical. If you guys don't think there is going to be a price to pay for shooting or even mentioning shooting one of these hounds you are sadly mistaken.
 
#80 · (Edited)
I tend to agree with you having had coon hounds in the past and now rabbit dogs. However I have noticed a growing trend with the coyote dog crews that property lines don't apply to them. In many cases they get that free pass because they are killing the dreaded coyote. However one must keep in mind the almighty Ate pointer trumps the dreaded coyote.
Policing our own ranks goes a long way.
Besides I don't think you or anyone else that respects the hard work it takes to training these dogs on what to chase and what not to chase would just let your dogs roam 24/7 when not lost. Simply put the OP situation is not the same or even close to hunting hounds. Waugh!
 
#84 ·
"First of all, do not call me a liberal. I am the farthest from it friend. Regardless of what action a person commits, that person is still a human being. You can't just say "well, he tried to torch my house, so he's an animal, and as such I have the right to kill him". You do not have that right and unless you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that you're life was in immediate danger, you're going to jail for murder. Go tell a judge that you came home and found this guy pouring a liquid on your house and he had a zippo in the other hand, and you shot and killed him. See how far that gets you. Any lawyer worth his salt will argue you're life was not in immediate danger if you were outside and could have easily gotten away, so you'd have no legal right to kill that person. But in your eyes he "reduced himself to an animal by his behavior alone so you had the right"....Wrong!"

Bluebird, the law gives you the right to use lethal force to protect property under certain circumstances. It is not up to the defendant to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" anything. Once evidence of a justification is raised and put in evidence, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the justification is inapplicable. Your understanding of the criminal process, criminal law and burden of proof is sadly mistaken. That is the rule in places like Russia and France where the burden is that someone is guilty until they prove innocence. Fortunately our laws evolved from the English common law and not the Napoleonic Code, (except to an extent in Louisiana) And the right to use lethal force arises under the English Common Law and centuries of jurisprudence that held as a matter of policy that human life is sometimes worth less than property. Your statement of the law is not technically correct and is indeed based in the Libtard philosophy that any human life is more valuable than any non-human interests. I agree that normally a human life is considered more valuable than a dog and property in general for that matter. But where a person is committing a felony, there are certain rights that sometimes permit the use of lethal force to stop them, and even in a citizen's arrest for that crime. Your blanket statement that a human life is ALWAYS worth more than property is simply an erroneous statement of the law.

The same as the erroneous statement somewhere above that the law requires a dog must always be confined or leashed.
 
#87 · (Edited by Moderator)
I don't care what the written LAW may say, there is such a thing as morality, and sometimes that transcends what some halfwit politician has gotten passed into law. My morality tells me that human life is more sacred than a Labrador Retriever, or your tool shed, or car, or sneakers, or whatever other living or inanimate object you may hold sacred.

And again, do not call me a liberal. I am a conservative and voted for Donald Trump, and wouldn't give a liberal the time of day.
 
#85 ·
Man, I don't think I could shoot a dog. Maybe if my family was in danger, but Ive never been in that situation. I put my lab down last year and besides my dad passing it was the worst day of my life. I would probably rather just smack a dog in there snoot rather then kill it. I definitely would love to put a handful of humans down!
 
#86 ·
No further comments on this thread except:


Off the leash means you lost control of said animal. You are at fault.
Off your property and again off leash of said animal. You are at fault.
Losing control of said animals in the field while hunting. You are at fault.
Letting your animals run loose including cats. You are at fault.


When trying to blame others for what "MAY" happen to said animals, you need to look
no further than a mirror.


No animals were hurt in the posting of this thread response.
 
#91 ·
Though what you posted is true that still does not give anyone the legal right to kill or injure a dog unless it is attacking a person, another domestic animal or in some cases a big game animal.

There are very specific laws on when a person can kill or injure a dog and very serious penalties when someone is outside those laws. There are law enforcement personnel to deal with dog issues, outside of when the dog poses an emanate threat, so there are very few and rare occasions when anyone would be justified in shooting someone’s dog.

Dick Bodenhorn
 
#92 ·
I run beagles, and would not want someone to shoot one of my dogs if it got on their land and was just running a rabbit or passing thru. But just the same if my dog were to attack an animal belonging to the property owner and he shot it, I would not have bad feelings for the landowner. That said I would not want to see that happen, and would consider it my responsibility for the problem. I myself would not shoot someones dog killing my chickens, unless it was happening all the time and the owner would not do anything to stop the behavior, or pay for the damages. As for Zimmerstutzens comments about shooting people breaking into your house, I agree, they are animals or less, I doub't they should be given more consideration than your own family. They surely did not break in to help you in any way. If they break into an occupied house, they must be willing to harm the people inside.
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top