Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Say My Name.
Joined
·
14,731 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Following up on the recent thread on the poachers who were poaching bear, trespassing, and committing other acts of mayhem, discovered by a deer hunter running trail cameras, I couldn't help but wonder....


...will the escalating growth of increasingly inexpensive trail cameras lead to the demise of hunting bears or coyotes with hounds? Back in the day, the victim mentioned in that thread (singinghills3) may well have had no idea whatsoever of the crimes committed against him. Now, we've probably got well over a million trail cameras set up in this state alone, and the number is certain to increase as these devices get cheaper and (someday;)) more reliable.

I can well imagine there will be more incidents like this one. And more and more as time goes by, the likelihood of their discovery will increase. One day, the criminals will eventually violate a well-connected individual of means who will eagerly go to war to get overdue changes made to either our recreational trespass law, or even to abolish certain aspects of hound hunting. I would regard the latter as unfortunate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
821 Posts
Or maybe, hopefully some of these people will try to do the right thing and contact the owner of the property before violating that persons rights and land, knowing they might be on candid camera.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
As a houndsman (wounded game tracking hounds) I have unique opinions and information on this topic. On one aspect I can completely understand the "rights" of the land owner, certainly as a land owner you have paid a price and have acquired certain rights to do what you like with your land, keep in mind though that the land owner does not own the wildlife, I completely respect other peoples property rights. However In my particular avenue of using hounds I take a completely different angle on my beliefs and wish that more people would adopt these beliefs. In many countries (European) the animals wellbeing is put first ABOVE property rights/lines. When an animal is wounded , dispatching and recovering the wounded animal takes top shelf above and beyond property boundaries, without question, because it is a common understanding of the people that the wounded animal should be dispatched and recovered. However, here in the states we have a hard-nosed "this is my land" mentality. Many times this issue can be solved in advance by , as the previous poster has stated, contacting the land owners, becoming friends and reaching an understanding. In the case of the Houndsman and the bear, i believe if the bear was in fact treed and shot on this particular land owners property than I have to agree the houndsman was in the wrong, the "recreational trespass" law allows for a houndsman to recover his dog which is locked on tree, not finish a hunt on someone else's property. Though I do believe the recreational trespass law should provide protections for the recovery of an already wounded animal. just my 2 cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
As stated above a houndsman is legaly able to access any property to retrieve his hounds even if its private. The only way they are able to carry a firearm on to lands they do not have permision to be on is with a ccw. Its said bear and coyote houndsman get a bad rap. The dogs dont know property boundries they are just doing what they are trained to do.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top