Shooting to defend four legged friends

[JWarren]

OK... I did some searching...


According to the articles that I've found, there IS a self-defense provision to the Endangered Species Act.

However... this Act, from what I can see, has been severely abused in that the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries has repeatedly gone after people in SD shootings by saying that it was not a SD shooting.


Ignoring that for a moment-- Theoretically speaking, in a state such as mine where Self-Defense ALSO includes property, and where pets are considered property, it would seem that an endangered species that is destroying your property can be shot under Self-Defense provisions.

Just be prepared to make that case in court, I suspect.



EDIT:

Here is what I found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act

An important provision of this law is that no penalty may be imposed if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself or any other individual from bodily harm, from any endangered species or threatened species.

From what I've read, if there was ANY question over it, I think I'd dig a deep hole and shut my mouth.


-- John

 

[mbt2001]

My hypothetical is this, you live in a suburban area, you came back from running errands and you are still carrying (if you don't already carry in the house) and you see a coyote or other animal attacking your pet X (cat, toy breed, old dog that can't take care of itself anymore, etc...). Can you blast it?

"Officer the Coyote was charging me when my dog tried to defend me. We were both in danger, I shot the coyote. I have never heard of a Coyote attacking someone my size, it must have been rabid! Thank God fluffy protected me, I would have been bit otherwise."

It is all in how you paint the picture.

Regarding shooting an "endangered species" in SD:

Seems that every few weeks there is a posting about what kind of bear gun should they use. They are going hiking in bear country and what to have a gun for SD purposes. I always recommend carrying the Bear Pepper Spray and whatever gun they can pack handy. THE ABSOLUTE LAST THING you want to do is go to Yellowstone and then have to shoot a Grizzly without a dead human body somewhere around you...

 

[EHL]

"Officer the Coyote was charging me when my dog tried to defend me. We were both in danger, I shot the coyote. I have never heard of a Coyote attacking someone my size, it must have been rabid! Thank God fluffy protected me, I would have been bit otherwise."

LOL!!! FluffY????? What if your pet is a cat?? "Yeah, my cat jumped in front to protect me and...." Do you think that would be believable?

 

[Lightninstrike]

Interesting thread. I had wondered what the legalities were.

I had an incident a few weeks ago. I walked out of my house to check the mail. A neighbor two doors down had chained his dog in the front yard but it had gotten lose. I could see the chain dragging behind it. It spotted me and started barking. The lot between my house and the neighbor is still empty and the dog started across it in short dashes. Run a little, stop and bark, run some more, bark and so on until it had crossed into my front yard. It was about 30 feet from me and barking like crazy. I started to reach about the same time the neighbor came out of his house and started calling the dog back. He ran across the empty lot and grabbed the chain and dragged the dog back to his property, all the while apologizing profusely.

I thanked him for tasking care of the problem. I live in a CCW state. My take is that if the neighbor had not showed up and I shot the dog I wold have been justified. What do you think?

 

[JWarren]

Seems that every few weeks there is a posting about what kind of bear gun should they use. They are going hiking in bear country and what to have a gun for SD purposes. I always recommend carrying the Bear Pepper Spray and whatever gun they can pack handy. THE ABSOLUTE LAST THING you want to do is go to Yellowstone and then have to shoot a Grizzly without a dead human body somewhere around you...

Funny....

You got out of that the importance of carrying Bear Pepper Spray on vacation.

I got out of it the need to carry a dead body on vacation.


You just never know...





-- John

 

[solareclipse]

Honestly.... Unless its a person I shoot and bury. Period.

Doesn't matter if its some endangered transatlantic critter or your average rabied racoon. Family is family. Pets included

 

[Mike Sr.]

3 S's: Shoot-shut up-shovel

 

[expvideo]

Must have been some kids with fireworks...


Of course I would defend my dog from a wild animal, but I haven't had to yet. I almost had to shoot some ferel dogs that were after me, but they knew the moment that the tables had turned and stopped chasing me.

 

[DeathByCactus]

This is a no brainer for me, regardless of legality. If someone tries to kill my animal and I can't get him the heck off... I will shoot him. I love my dog, she has been with our family for 12 years. She would try and defend my life, I will do the same.

However, I carry a can of mace also. I like to have options. Especially since if its just some other dog that can be deterred without having to deal with the legal repercussions of dealing with the government (Shots fired within city limits) and potential civil suits (people may try out of stupidity), mace can be a savior in the long run... even against people (especially if they are unarmed).

 

[scythefwd]

ehl,
Pits are other dog agressive but only a poor owner would allow the dog to remain that way. I would worry less about the breed and more about the displayed emotion of the dog. Studies have found that german shepards, chihuahuas, and datchounds (sp?) actually have more reported dog bites than other breeds (in order). That makes me worry more about my chi/datchound than my pit (very mild mannered). The "trashy" neighbors are more the problem than the dogs are. The dogs are just the result (and a waste of a good breed if they are the three you mentioned, pit, rottie, or doberman).

 

[godsdog]

Had a rooster that used to attack my dog... they were both pets!!!

 

[mbt2001]

LOL!!! FluffY????? What if your pet is a cat?? "Yeah, my cat jumped in front to protect me and...." Do you think that would be believable?

"Officer I was holding my cat when the dog / coyote / bear attacked me, I guess I must have dropped the cat to grab my gun, I don't remember... Believe it or not, I was scared and thought that it was rabid / gonna kill me / eat Tokyo..."

Every time a cop an ex cop and ex military person shoots someone, do you know what they say??

"I was in fear of my life and MY TRAINING kicked in and I responded. It is all a blur and it if wasn't for my TRAINING, I would be dead..."

That isn't a testament, that is a lawyer crafted statement.

Live and learn amigo

 

[Zoogster]

You may not shoot a human being to protect your pet in any circumstance that defending property with lethal force is not allowed (which in most states is most circumstances.)

Under the law pets are property.
Some places have laws that enact harsh penalties for harming animals, some even worse than for doing the same thing to a human being, but they are still property.


Now if defending yourself against an intruder that is doing harm to your pet you are not defending the pet, but yourself. If however you are out on a walk, your pet gets loose and is totaly harmless, if someone decides to injure or even kill it then they can be held legaly liable, but you could legaly not defend the animal with lethal force.
In most places you only have legal recourse to deal with destruction or damage to property, which is what your pet is. You must handle it in a court of law afterwards, not stop the crime with the use of lethal force. Legaly it would be little different than shooting someone you see stealing your car, or doing felony vandalism.

An animal is legal property. If you use lethal force against a human being merely to defend property and not another human being, you will go to prison in most states.


Now against other animals is tricky legaly. Many places have laws that allow defense of "livestock", but livestock is usualy defined in ways that does not include pets or dogs. If it is not an animal your livelihood depends on, or that you make some substantial monetary gains from then it is usualy not livestock. The average pet dog or cat is usualy not "livestock" under the law.
So any harm you do to other animals to protect a pet could result in criminal and/or civil charges against you. Especialy if it is an endagered or protected species.

Further in many places there is a leash law. If you are in a place with a leash law, the animal not on a leash (and that includes if the leash breaks, or it is on a leash but gets away) is deemed at fault for most incidents, and therefore the person responsible for it not being on a leash or getting loose is at fault.
It does not matter if it is a harmless dog that goes to innocently visit another animal and is viciously attacked. If it is off a leash then it is at fault, and its owner is at fault, and they certainly do not retain the legal ability to defend the unleashed animal with lethal force, especialy against another pet that is not in violation of a leash law (is on a leash or tied up or on its property.) Even if the other animal is also in violation of a leash law the circumstances could go against you, as you are considered legaly partialy to blame for illegaly having your dog loose, meaning your negligence is the cause of the situation.

So if you illegaly have your dog off a leash and it gets attacked by a bear, coyote, or another person's pet etc, then the circumstances could still have you in legal trouble for using lethal force.
The local officials may choose not to charge you, but if they choose to, or some animal rights activists catch wind they can pressure them to charge you (or even bring an expensive lawsuit against you on the animal's behalf.)
Now a loose animal that attacks an animal you have on a short leash is arguably a threat to you, defensive actions would be taken to protect you if necessary, not the pet.
There is a big legal distinction.

 

[kwelz]

I have kicked a dog a good 15-20 feet that was going after one of my cats. I would have shot the thing if I would have needed to.

I would also be willing to pull a firearm on a person trying to harm one of my animals. The animals in my house are more than just property or pets to me.

 

[EHL]

scythefwd,
I didn't mean that ANYBODY who owns ANY of those types of dogs are immediatly trashy or even bad news. I've owned a Rottweiler myself, but she was trained never to attack anybody or anything. I have seen her fight off a pack of dogs that were running loose and attacked her with my brother in tow. She was a good dog. But it seems that sooo many trashy people own these animals and DON"T do ANY training to make sure these dogs don't do what they were bred to do, attack and kill "intruders". So if I offended any RESPONSIBLE owners of any of these breeds, I apologize all around. Thanks for clarification call scythefwd. No offense intended.

 

[JohnKSa]

And a coon can get to be well over 100 pounds of fighting fury.

If you ever see one that big again you should shoot it. I believe the current record is under 63 lbs.

 

[gdcpony]

Ok. Yes, I have used firearms to defend my animals. Once on another dog attacking mine. It had already killed another dog in the neighbor hood. Another time a cat got shot as it attacked one of our de-clawed cats right outside our door.
No wild animals though. I would though.

 

[JWarren]

King Ghidora wrote:

In most states a coon hunter has every right to come onto your property and retreive his dogs if they follow a coon there and stay there because the coon is there. They certainly should apologize for any damage their dogs have done and they should also pay for any damage. And they should train their dogs not to attack anything except coons. Unfortunately not all hunters are as responsible as they should be. But I know for a fact that coon hunters can go on your property in every state I've ever hunted in. As long as they start hunting on land they have permission to hunt on they can go pretty much anywhere they need to go to get their dogs back including land marked "no trespassing". Trust me I hunted coons for many years. I know this.

No offense, but I'll need more than "trust me" to believe it. Cite please.

I say this because I cannot imagine that coon hunters have greater "rights" than deer hunters who use dogs.

For a short period of time, we had a problem with dog-using deer hunters throwing their dogs out on one side of our land, and going to another area to retrieve them-- effectively hunting MY land. Once a pack of deer dogs ran the deer out of my food plot.

I talked to the Sheriff about it and I was told in no uncertain terms that I was within my rights to SHOOT any dogs let out on our land.

You may want to be aware of that. I can't tell the difference between a coon hound and a deer hound. When they come running through my food plot, they are ALL deer hounds.

3. And you're wrong about snake bites and dogs. Have you ever seen a dog get bitten by a snake? I have many times. And copperheads are pit vipers. Like I said I had a dog that would fight copperheads for long periods and get bit over and over and never show the slightest sign of a problem. I'm sure other venomous snakes could present more of a problem since copperheads have less venom than most but we also have rattlesnakes here and I've never seen a dog have more of a problem than just some swelling and pain for a day or two. According to this web page a rattlesnake bite is worse than a copperhead bite for dogs but this vet says he has never seen a dog die from a copperhead bite. Again I've seen this many times. I'm not saying they have no reaction at all but it isn't nearly as severe of a reaction as humans have. That's what every hunter I ever knew said about snake bites and believe me I've known a lot of hunters.

I've heard all the same things that you have. And I've had dogs get bit by various snakes (we have Rattlesnakes, Cottonmouth Mocassins, Copperheads, and Coral Snakes here.)

Let me be perhaps the first hunter that will give you a differing view.

Even though I've had dogs survive snake bites, I've buried two that died from snake bites.

One was an 80 pound Chow that was struck by a Timber Rattelesnake. The dog was immediately paralyzed in his back legs, and I could see the evidence that the was dragging himself with his front legs trying to get back to me. He made it about 10 feet.

The other was a Rat Terrier that was killed from a Cottonmouth Mocassin bite. It made it back, but was too far gone.


While I agree that dogs are more resistant to snake bites, it isn't absolute.

And that's enough for me.


-- John

 

[76shuvlinoff]

You may want to be aware of that. I can't tell the difference between a coon hound and a deer hound. When they come running through my food plot, they are ALL deer hounds.

Same here, actually as far as I'm concerned all loose running dogs are strays and possibly dangerous. I will generally let them pass but one sign of aggression and they are history.

 

[qwert65]

1. What makes you think I haven't spent time with pit bulls? They can be just as good as any dog but they also have the ability to rip a person to shreds in a matter of seconds.

So can Great danes, Boxers, GSD, Irish wolfhounds, Rotties, and probably a pissed off Lab. Do you reccomend all of them get destroyed?

2 Coyotes are like 50lbs max can you cite any source where coyotes as a species are bigger than that? Most dogs(in fact all I just listed plus like a hundred other breeds) are bigger esp. since 50lbs is a big coyote

3 In my veterinary career I've seen dog snake bites and I can tell you that despite your observations you are wrong. You are right copperheads are pit vipers though. If you look up the stats for human victims you will see that almost all fatalities were children/smaller ppl. but even so most survive, same with dogs. Rattlers are very dangerous(to both spieces) and kill about the same amt. If you really look at the numbers dogs die More often do to not recieving antivenom. Relying on antedotal evidence is poor because snakes inject different amts of venom each bite. you need path reports for actual inference.

Rabid animals are your greatest fear. If you suspect there's any chance of that I'd suggest shooting the wild animal AND the pet. Sorry but pets aren't people. If they're exposed they are dangerous IMO even if they have been vaccinated. It isn't worth the risk no matter what you think of your dog. It shouldn't come up often anyway. Rabies is actually pretty rare in higher predators.

Remember now? shoot your own vaccinated dog if you want to but please do not reccomend this to others.

and for 6 I think you are using the same scale for coyotes.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions and you can "Know" you are right, however, I can "know" I am right as well. In these cases it is better to let the facts decide(except 1 which is still personalk opinion on both our parts)

 

[qwert65]

KG, Wow, I'd like you to reread my posts I meant no offense. If you reread you will notice that, I wrote that dogs were just as susceptible to snake bites then humans thats all. Saying dogs have been bit by copperheads and survived I'm not disputing I was telling you that ppl get bitten by copperheads and survive at about the same rates as dogs correcting for body wieght.

I never disputed anything about bobcats as my expierence is limited. I disputed the portion that I highlighted for you about shooting vaccinated animals

As far as the rest of your post WOW Do you have a prob with educated ppl?or just city ppl? While I'm only 27 I grew up in woods as well. I've hunted and fished since I was a kid.
Also , you ever consider that those coyotes are running off with little dogs and puppies, cause thats what they are killing most of the time. smaller, weaker animals. Now this does not mean coyotes are tougher then dogs, it means coyotes are tougher then yorkies, toy poodles, etc.
As for dogs killing yotes. dosen't it occur to you that if a coyote comes on a dogs property and the dog kills it. The body would stay there. NOT wander into a natl. forest. Thats just common sense. I would assume an animal expert like you would have observed that dogs usually dont get aggressive on another canines territory, but on their own.

 

[akodo]

It seems that the only way it is legal to shoot a dog that attacks an animal in Columbia County, Florida is if it is attacking, or even harassing, a dairy cow. Apparently the dairy farmers have strong influence with the county commissioners.

The moral of that story is; if a domestic animal comes onto your property and you shoot it make sure you do one of two things. Either make darn sure it's dead and bury it where it won't be found, or call the cops and tell them you just shot your neighbor's dog because it was coming at you

...after fully devouring your pet Dairy Cow

 

[JWarren]

King Ghidora wrote:

I guess when the game warden was called on us for doing it and the game warden didn't say anything to us for going after our dogs he must not have know the law either. I guess the Outdoorsman club was wrong when it taught people that law. If you want proof that this is true find it yourself. I know the law. I don't need proof.

I decided to take you up on this.


Here's what I found:


http://bengal.missouri.edu/~matthewss/AgEc3257/hunting_retrieving_dogs_wounded_wildlife.htm

Four states by statute allow hunters to retrieve dogs: Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia.



Four states by statute allow hunters to retrieve wounded animals: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and North Dakota.







Kansas:

K.S.A. 21-3728. Criminal hunting is hunting, shooting, trapping, pursuing any bird or animal, or fishing: (1) upon any land or non-navigable body of water of another, without having first obtained permission of the owner or person in possession of such premises; or (2) upon or from any public road, public right-of-way or railroad right-of-way that adjoins occupied or improved premises, without having first obtained permission of the owner or person in possession of such premises. … A person licensed to hunt and following or pursuing a wounded game bird or animal upon any land of another without permission of the landowner or person in lawful possession thereof shall not be deemed to be in violation of this provision while in such pursuit.

32-1013. Taking wildlife without permission on land posted "by written permission only". (a) Any landowner or person in lawful possession of any land may post such land with signs stating that hunting, trapping or fishing on such land shall be by written permission only. It is unlawful for any person to take wildlife on land which is posted as provided in this subsection, without having in the person’s possession the written permission of the owner or person in lawful possession thereof. … (c) A person licensed to hunt or fur harvest who is following or pursuing a wounded animal on land as provided in this section posted without written permission of the landowner or person in lawful possession thereof shall not be in violation of this section while in such pursuit, except that the provisions of this subsection shall not authorize a person to remain on such land if instructed to leave by the owner or person in lawful possession of the land. Any person who fails to leave such land when instructed is subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 21-3721 and 21-3728, and amendments thereto.

32-1013. (a) Any landowner or person in lawful possession of any land may post such land with signs stating that hunting, trapping or fishing on such land shall be by written permission only. … (b) Instead of posting land as provided in subsection (a), any landowner or person in lawful possession of any land may post such land by placing identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts around the area to be posted. Each paint mark shall be a vertical line of at least eight inches in length and the bottom of the mark shall be no less than three feet nor more than five feet high. Such paint marks shall be readily visible to any person approaching the land. Land posted as provided in this subsection shall be considered to be posted by written permission only as provided in subsection (a).





Iowa:

I.C.A. 716.7. "Trespass" means entering property without the express permission of the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession, with the intent to commit a public offense, to use, remove therefrom, alter, damage, harass, or place anything animate or inanimate, or to hunt, fish or trap on the property. This paragraph does not prohibit the unarmed pursuit of game or fur-bearing animals lawfully injured or killed which come to rest on or escape to the property of another.





Louisiana:

RS 14:63. B. No person shall intentionally enter immovable property owned by another: (1)When he knows his entry is unauthorized, or (2)Under circumstances where he reasonably should know his entry is unauthorized. C.(1)It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution pursuant to Subsection (B)(2) that the person was unarmed and entered immovable property for the sole purpose of retrieving a dog or livestock. (2)It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution pursuant to Subsection (B)(2) to show that property was not adequately posted in accordance with Subsections D, or E, and F of this Section…

RS 14:63. D. In order for forest land to be adequately posted the owner, lessee, or person having the written permission of the owner of lessee shall post the property by any one of the following methods: (1) placing identifying paint marks on trees of posts around the area to be posted. Each paint mark shall be a vertical line of at least eight inches in length, and the bottom of the mark shall be no less than three feet nor more than five feet high. Such paint marks shall be placed no more than one hundred feet apart and shall be readily visible to any person approaching the property. (2) Placing signs around the area to be posted at no more than one hundred feet apart and at normal points of ingress and egress. The signs shall bear the words "Posted", "No Trespassing", or "No" in letters at least three and one-half inches high and shall be so placed as to be readily visible to any person approaching the property.(3) Constructing a fence around the area to be posted of not less than three strand wire, or its equivalent, and placing signs that bear the words "Posted", "No Trespassing", or "No" in letters at least three and one-half inches high at normal points of ingress and egress. The type of color of the paint to be used for posting shall be prescribed by regulation by the Louisiana Forestry Commission, which shall not select a color that is presently being used by the timber industry in this state to mark land line or property lines. The color of paint prescribed shall not be used on trees or posts for any other purpose.





Minnesota:

M.S.A. 97B.001 Subd. 2. Permission required to enter agricultural land for outdoor recreation purposes. Except as provided in subdivisions 5 and 6, a person may not enter agricultural land for outdoor recreation purposes, without first obtaining permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee. Subd. 3. Remaining on land prohibited after notice. Except as provided in subdivision 6, a person may not remain on any land for outdoor recreation purposes after being orally told not to do so by the owner, occupant, or lessee. Subd. 4. Entering posted land prohibited; signs. (a) Except as provided in subdivision 6, a person may not enter, for outdoor recreation purposes, any land that is posted under this subdivision without first obtaining permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee. Subd. 5. Except as provided in subdivision 3, a person on foot may, without permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee, enter land that is not posted under subdivision 4, to retrieve a wounded animal that was lawfully shot. The hunter must leave the land immediately after retrieving the wounded game. Subd. 6. A person on foot may, without permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee, enter private land without a firearm to retrieve a hunting dog. After retrieving the dog, the person must immediately leave the premises.

97B.001 Subd. 4. Entering posted land prohibited; signs. (b) the owner, occupant, or lessee of private land, or an authorized manager of public land may prohibit outdoor recreation on the land by posting signs once each year that: (1) state "no trespassing" or similar terms; (2) display letters at least two inches high; (3) either: (I) are signed by the owner, occupant, lessee, or authorized manager; or (ii) include the legible name and telephone number of the owner, occupant, lessee, or authorized manager; and (4) either: (I) are at intervals of 1,000 feet or less along the boundary of the area, or in a wooded area where boundary lines are not clear, at intervals of 500 feet or less; or (ii) mark the primary corners of each parcel of land and access roads and trails at the point of entrance to each parcel of land except that corners only accessible through agricultural land need not be posted.



North Dakota:

N.D.S.L. 20.1-01-18. Hunting on posted land and trapping on private land without permission unlawful – Penalty. No person may hunt or pursue game, or enter for those purposes, upon legally posted land belonging to another without first obtaining the permission of the person legally entitled to grant the same. No person may enter upon privately owned land for the purpose of trapping protected fur-bearing animals without first gaining the written permission of the owner or operator of that land. 20.1-01-19. When posted land may be entered. Any person may enter upon legally posted land to recover game shot or killed on land where he had a lawful right to hunt.


20.1-01-17. Posting of lands by owner or tenant to prohibit hunting – How posted – Signs defaced. Only the owner or tenant of any land may post it by placing signs alongside the public highway or the land giving notice that no hunting is permitted on the land. The name of the person posting the land must appear on each side in legible characters. The signs must be readable from the outside of the land and must be placed conspicuously not more than eight hundred eighty yards [804.68 meters] apart. As to land entirely enclosed by a fence or other enclosure, posting of signs at or on all gates through the fence or enclosure constitutes a posting of all the enclosed land.





Virginia:

C.V. 18.2-132. Trespass by hunters and fishers. Any person who goes on the lands, waters, ponds, boats or blinds of another to hunt, fish or trap without the consent of the landowner or his agent shall be deemed guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

18.2-133. Refusal of person on land, etc., of another to identify himself. Any person who goes on the lands, waters, ponds, boats or blinds of another to hunt, fish, or trap and willfully refuses to identify himself when requested by the landowner or his agent so to do shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.

18.2-134. Trespass on posted property. Any person who goes on the lands, waters, ponds, boats or blinds of another, which have been posted in accordance with the provisions of § 18.2-134.1, to hunt, fish or trap except with the written consent of or in the presence of the owner or his agent shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

18.2-136. Right of certain hunters to go on lands of another; carrying firearms or bows and arrows prohibited. Fox hunters and coon hunters, when the chase begins on other lands, may follow their dogs on prohibited lands, and hunters of all other game, when the chase begins on others lands, may go upon prohibited lands to retrieve their dogs, but may not carry firearms or bows and arrows on their persons or hunt any game while thereon. The use of vehicles to retrieve dogs on prohibited lands shall be allowed only with the permission of the landowner or his agent.

Section 18.2-134.1. Method of posting land. (A) The owner or lessee of property described in § 18.2-134 may post property by (I) placing signs prohibiting hunting, fishing or trapping where they may reasonably be seen; or (ii) placing identifying paint marks on trees or posts at each road entrance and adjacent to public roadways and public waterways adjoining the property. Each paint mark shall be a vertical line of at least two inches in width and at least eight inches in length and the center of the mark shall be not less than three feet nor more than six feet from the ground or normal water surface. Such paint marks shall be readily visible to any person approaching the property.

(B) The type and color of the paint to be used for posting shall be prescribed by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.



Michigan:

MCL 324.73102. (1) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person shall not enter or remain upon the property of another person, other than farm property or a wooded area connected to farm property, to engage in any recreational activity or trapping on that property without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent, if either of the following circumstances exists: (a) The property is fenced or enclosed and is maintained in such a manner as to exclude intruders. (b) The property is posted in a conspicuous manner against entry.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person shall not enter or remain upon farm property or a wooded area connected to farm property for any recreational activity or trapping without the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent, whether or not the farm property or wooded area connected to farm property is fenced, enclosed, or posted.

(3) On fenced or posted property or farm property, a fisherman wading or floating a navigable public stream may, without written or oral consent, enter upon property within the clearly defined banks of the stream or, without damaging farm products, walk a route as closely proximate to the clearly defined bank as possible when necessary to avoid a natural or artificial hazard or obstruction, including, but not limited to, a dam, deep hole, or a fence or other exercise of ownership by the riparian owner.

(4) A person other than a person possessing a firearm may, unless previously prohibited in writing or orally by the property owner or his or her lessee or agent, enter on foot upon the property of another person for the sole purpose of retrieving a hunting dog. The person shall not remain on the property beyond the reasonable time necessary to retrieve the dog. In an action under section 73109 or 73110, the burden of showing that the property owner or his or her lessee or agent previously prohibited entry under this subsection is on the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney, respectively. (5) Consent to enter or remain upon the property of another person pursuant to this section may be given orally or in writing. The consent may establish conditions for entering or remaining upon that property. Unless prohibited in the written consent, a written consent may be amended or revoked orally. If the owner or his or her lessee or agent requires all persons entering or remaining upon the property to have written consent, the presence of the person on the property without written consent is prima facie evidence of unlawful entry.

MCL 324.73102. (1) (b) The property is posted in a conspicuous manner against entry. The minimum letter height on the posting signs shall be 1 inch. Each posting sign shall be not less than 50 square inches, and the signs shall be spaces to enable a person to observe not less than 1 sign at any point of entry upon the property.

Therefore, I have refuted the claim where you wrote:

In most states a coon hunter has every right to come onto your property and retreive his dogs

"Four States" is not "Most."

I coon hunted for 35 years. I guess all those years we were breaking the law retreiving our hounds on people's property. I guess when the game warden was called on us for doing it and the game warden didn't say anything to us for going after our dogs he must not have know the law either. I guess the Outdoorsman club was wrong when it taught people that law.

Unless the states you have coon hunted in for 35 years is: Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, breaking the law is EXACTLY what you did.

Unless the states in question were Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, that game warden DID NOT know the law.

And unless the Outdoorsman club was in Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, they WERE wrong.

I know the law. I don't need proof.

It seems that I've shed doubt on the former, and clearly you do need the latter.


-- John

 

[MMCSRET]

I have killed marauding dogs that were after my pigs, I have killed dogs after the sheep and I've killed dogs that were raising hell with my horses. Every one of those dogs was a city dog that had no supervision or was a hunting dog that was let run. People don't realize that dogs need exercise and just letting them run is not the way to let them get it.
Some of those doge were very expensive dogs, but their owners "didn't have time", I suspect those people's children get the same treatment.
RANT OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Officers'Wife]

Legal or not, basic politeness and common sense would tell you to contact the owner of the property before crossing the property line. Of my farmer Indiana neighbors, none would refuse to allow a hunter to retrieve either dog or wounded animal. Most would offer help and since they know the property far better than you can that help would save you a lot of time and aggravation.

Selena