# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Hunting with the use of hounds

## Unregistered

In Virginia, and several other southern states, hunters are allowed to pursue wildlife with the use of hounds. Hounds are used to discover the wildlife's scent and track to the wildlife's location so that the hunter can harvest the game. Hounds are most commonly used to pursue deer. However, hounds and individuals that hunt with hounds are becoming increasingly unpopular among "still-hunters," who do not hunt with hounds, because they harvest "their" deer that the dogs tracked on "their" land. On the other hand, hunting with hounds is an American heritage that precedes the founding of the United States and is an effective means for controlling wildlife populations. Whereas certain still-hunters want to prohibit the practice of hunting with hounds and make it a criminal offense if your hound is unwelcome on their land. Their claim is based in property rights, but I can turn loose my hounds on my farm with the intention of pursuing wildlife on my property but I cannot control if the wildlife and my hounds drift onto unwelcome property.

I'm looking for some insight and guidance on this issue.

----------


## tod evans

Here in the Ozarks hounds are used to hunt coons-n-cats, not deer.

What specifically are you asking about?

The premise that hounds are used on deer is a fallacy, if the game can't be treed or cornered hounds are of little value.

----------


## Suzanimal

> In Virginia, and several other southern states, hunters are allowed to pursue wildlife with the use of hounds. Hounds are used to discover the wildlife's scent and track to the wildlife's location so that the hunter can harvest the game. Hounds are most commonly used to pursue deer. However, hounds and individuals that hunt with hounds are becoming increasingly unpopular among "still-hunters," who do not hunt with hounds, because they harvest "their" deer that the dogs tracked on "their" land. On the other hand, hunting with hounds is an American heritage that precedes the founding of the United States and is an effective means for controlling wildlife populations. Whereas certain still-hunters want to prohibit the practice of hunting with hounds and make it a criminal offense if your hound is unwelcome on their land. Their claim is based in property rights, but I can turn loose my hounds on my farm with the intention of pursuing wildlife on my property but I cannot control if the wildlife and my hounds drift onto unwelcome property.
> 
> I'm looking for some insight and guidance on this issue.


And they would be correct. Either find a way to keep your dogs off their land (a fence?) or perhaps work out an agreement with your neighbor - hunt on different days, maybe. I understand it's not easy to contain hunting dogs (my dad ran rabbits) but they're an investment (and a pet) and it would be terrible if they got hurt.

I've also never heard of dogs used to hunt deer.

----------


## Unregistered

> And they would be correct. Either find a way to keep your dogs off their land (a fence?) or perhaps work out an agreement with your neighbor - hunt on different days, maybe. I understand it's not easy to contain hunting dogs (my dad ran rabbits) but they're an investment (and a pet) and it would be terrible if they got hurt.
> 
> I've also never heard of dogs used to hunt deer.


A little background on deer hunting with hounds...as I mentioned, hunting with hounds is an American heritage that precedes the founding of the United States, including using hounds to pursue deer. The value of using hounds to harvest deer is that the hounds track the deer and push it out of its bed. It is then the task of the hunter to get in the deers path as the hounds chase. Please note that it is illegal to bait deer and incredibly difficult to lure the deer to a specific location, thus hunting with hounds is a much more effective means of controlling the population. I understand that this conception may be difficult to understand if you've never experienced it. However, deer, unlike other game such as fox and rabbit, roam a much greater radius and it is almost impossible to control where the hounds may go in pursuit of a deer. 

The issue between hound hunters and anti-hound hunters persists primarily as a product of urbanization. The tradition of hunting deer with hounds is widely accepted among individuals familiar with the concept, but is typically troublesome to those foreign to the experience. For example, I lease the hunting rights and have permission to hunt several thousand acres of land, which I use to pursue deer with my hounds, but, as the land becomes more populated, individuals move to the land foreign to the experience of hunting with hounds and may be unwelcoming. 

Should I be responsible for keeping my hounds off unwelcome land, despite the fact that they bought a piece of property(let's say 20 acres) adjacent to a much larger tract that is used for hunting with hounds and has been that way for decades? Or should the landowner that doesn't want the hounds drifting on their property be responsible for preventing it, such as putting up a fence? The latter is much more practical, but who is right? 

Also, please consider that wildlife and animals naturally roam across different properties with protections. Should it be different for hound dogs?

----------


## Intoxiklown

I've had plenty of problems with deer hunters running dogs. I'll also say that most likely if dogs are running deer on a decent size property (at least 100 acres) that is private, than the hunters using the dogs are at fault. Meaning, I've seen LOTS of dog hunters that will put gunners on one side of your plot, while the handlers will turn the dogs loose on the opposte side. In other words, they intentionally use the dogs to run deer off your property using the dogs, because technically it's illegal to killa dog because they don't know property lines.

We handled this two ways. One was we'd catch the dogs, take them home, wait a month, and then call the owner to get them, after he paid us a kennel fee for taking care of his lost dogs. We'd take the collars off, and explain it took us some time to find the owner. A couple of hunting clubs were very bad about this, and after warnings and lost dogs, kept on. We shot those dogs. That was the second way.

----------


## pcosmar

I'm a Yooper. 

No one hunts deer with dogs.

A dog that does chase deer will be disciplined of destroyed.

----------


## oyarde

We do not use dogs on deer , as far as I know it is a Southern thing, 150 yr.'s ago it was commonplace to use hounds for bear , lion and deer , 30 yrs ago it was common for coons , people use dogs for squirrels too and still do . I really would not want the deer on my properties bothered by dogs . I have used dogs most of my life to hunt quail etc

----------


## phill4paul

> However, hounds and individuals that hunt with hounds are becoming increasingly unpopular among "still-hunters," who do not hunt with hounds, because they harvest "their" deer that the dogs tracked on "their" land.


Know thy laws...

Virginia law:





> Section 18.2-136 of the Code of Virginia decriminalizes trespass in certain instances related to dog retrieval. That section provides: "*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 other lands, may go upon prohibited lands to retrieve their dogs, falcons, hawks, or owls, but may not carry firearms or bow and arrows on their person or hunt any game while thereon.* The use of vehicles to retrieve dogs, falcons, hawks, or owls on prohibited lands shall be allowed only with the permission of the landowner or his agent. Any person who goes on prohibited lands to retrieve his dogs, falcons, hawks, or owls pursuant to this section and who willfully refuses to identify himself when requested by the landowner or his agent to do so is guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor."


http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting...ting-with-dogs

----------


## Unregistered

> I've had plenty of problems with deer hunters running dogs. I'll also say that most likely if dogs are running deer on a decent size property (at least 100 acres) that is private, than the hunters using the dogs are at fault. Meaning, I've seen LOTS of dog hunters that will put gunners on one side of your plot, while the handlers will turn the dogs loose on the opposte side. In other words, they intentionally use the dogs to run deer off your property using the dogs, because technically it's illegal to killa dog because they don't know property lines.
> 
> We handled this two ways. One was we'd catch the dogs, take them home, wait a month, and then call the owner to get them, after he paid us a kennel fee for taking care of his lost dogs. We'd take the collars off, and explain it took us some time to find the owner. A couple of hunting clubs were very bad about this, and after warnings and lost dogs, kept on. We shot those dogs. That was the second way.


The scenario in which you describe is illegal and should be handled by law enforcement. Also, you're handling of the situation is highly illegal on multiple offenses including felony. You are in NO WAY right on this issue and you should be thrown under the jail!!!

----------


## Unregistered

[QUOTE=phill4paul;6239020]Know thy laws...

Virginia law:




This is Virginia's Right to Retrieve Law, which I highly support. Hunting dogs are property and individuals should be able to APPROPRIATELY retrieve his/her property.

----------


## angelatc

> Also, please consider that wildlife and animals naturally roam across different properties with protections. Should it be different for hound dogs?


It should be different, but not for the dogs....

----------


## specsaregood

> Should I be responsible for keeping my hounds off unwelcome land, despite the fact that they bought a piece of property(let's say 20 acres) adjacent to a much larger tract that is used for hunting with hounds and has been that way for decades?


How the property was used for decades prior to them purchasing it is irrelevant.  If you wanted to use the property, then you should have purchased it yourself.

----------


## tod evans

> A little background on deer hunting with hounds...as I mentioned, hunting with hounds is an American heritage that precedes the founding of the United States, including using hounds to pursue deer. The value of using hounds to harvest deer is that the hounds track the deer and push it out of its bed. It is then the task of the hunter to get in the deers path as the hounds chase. Please note that it is illegal to bait deer and incredibly difficult to lure the deer to a specific location, thus hunting with hounds is a much more effective means of controlling the population. I understand that this conception may be difficult to understand if you've never experienced it. However, deer, unlike other game such as fox and rabbit, roam a much greater radius and it is almost impossible to control where the hounds may go in pursuit of a deer. 
> 
> The issue between hound hunters and anti-hound hunters persists primarily as a product of urbanization. The tradition of hunting deer with hounds is widely accepted among individuals familiar with the concept, but is typically troublesome to those foreign to the experience. For example, I lease the hunting rights and have permission to hunt several thousand acres of land, which I use to pursue deer with my hounds, but, as the land becomes more populated, individuals move to the land foreign to the experience of hunting with hounds and may be unwelcoming. 
> 
> Should I be responsible for keeping my hounds off unwelcome land, despite the fact that they bought a piece of property(let's say 20 acres) adjacent to a much larger tract that is used for hunting with hounds and has been that way for decades? Or should the landowner that doesn't want the hounds drifting on their property be responsible for preventing it, such as putting up a fence? The latter is much more practical, but who is right? 
> 
> Also, please consider that wildlife and animals naturally roam across different properties with protections. Should it be different for hound dogs?


Here a 'foreigner' who leases land has less undocumented rights than a stray hound.

There are city folk who lease land but I've never, not once, heard of any of them trying to run dogs, that behavior seems to center around the flat-lands...

As far as dogs (stray or not) on private property.............The dog owner is at the property owners mercy, if he wants to shoot or trap your dogs on his property there isn't any recourse.

----------


## pcosmar

> Also, please consider that wildlife and animals naturally roam across different properties with protections. Should it be different for hound dogs?


That will depend on your relationship with your neighbors.

Your land is yours. But that ends at the property line.

----------


## Intoxiklown

> A little background on deer hunting with hounds...as I mentioned, hunting with hounds is an American heritage that precedes the founding of the United States, including using hounds to pursue deer. The value of using hounds to harvest deer is that the hounds track the deer and push it out of its bed. It is then the task of the hunter to get in the deers path as the hounds chase. Please note that it is illegal to bait deer and incredibly difficult to lure the deer to a specific location, thus hunting with hounds is a much more effective means of controlling the population. I understand that this conception may be difficult to understand if you've never experienced it. However, deer, unlike other game such as fox and rabbit, roam a much greater radius and it is almost impossible to control where the hounds may go in pursuit of a deer. 
> 
> The issue between hound hunters and anti-hound hunters persists primarily as a product of urbanization. The tradition of hunting deer with hounds is widely accepted among individuals familiar with the concept, but is typically troublesome to those foreign to the experience. For example, I lease the hunting rights and have permission to hunt several thousand acres of land, which I use to pursue deer with my hounds, but, as the land becomes more populated, individuals move to the land foreign to the experience of hunting with hounds and may be unwelcoming. 
> 
> Should I be responsible for keeping my hounds off unwelcome land, despite the fact that they bought a piece of property(let's say 20 acres) adjacent to a much larger tract that is used for hunting with hounds and has been that way for decades? Or should the landowner that doesn't want the hounds drifting on their property be responsible for preventing it, such as putting up a fence? The latter is much more practical, but who is right? 
> 
> Also, please consider that wildlife and animals naturally roam across different properties with protections. Should it be different for hound dogs?


A fence won't keep a dog out forever. Are you willing to pay fees to fix the fence if your dogs destroy something related to it? If your group (I say group because noway is one man running dogs over several thousand acres by himself). Another problem with fences is (at least in my experience) that it is shocking how casually hunting clubs will cut your fence to access the property. 

An easy solution is turn your dogs loose farther away from the disputed land, and put a couple of guns along the property lines on YOUR side. If that is not acceptable, then you are not telling the whole truth. Because deer are smart, and learn real fast where they are safe from dogs. Which means you are pushing your population onto those other tracts. Which goes back to my original issue....hunters turning their dogs loose close to said property, to run the deer off of there.

----------


## Unregistered

> A fence won't keep a dog out forever. Are you willing to pay fees to fix the fence if your dogs destroy something related to it? If your group (I say group because noway is one man running dogs over several thousand acres by himself). Another problem with fences is (at least in my experience) that it is shocking how casually hunting clubs will cut your fence to access the property. 
> 
> An easy solution is turn your dogs loose farther away from the disputed land, and put a couple of guns along the property lines on YOUR side. If that is not acceptable, then you are not telling the whole truth. Because deer are smart, and learn real fast where they are safe from dogs. Which means you are pushing your population onto those other tracts. Which goes back to my original issue....hunters turning their dogs loose close to said property, to run the deer off of there.




I'm more than willing to pay for any damages, if there are any, caused by my hounds. I practice and advocate for legal and ethical hunting. I hoped for a sober and well thought out discussion on this thread, but it is quite absent. 

To quote a recent article in The Tidewater News, "It is foolish to assume, and is unreasonable for practical purposes even to wish, that land ownership would guarantee the owner unlimited rights and protections. It does not. And should not.

The first amendment of the Virginia constitution, however, does guarantee the right to not only own but to enjoy ones property:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

So herein lies the question; if one has the right to own and enjoy land, and another has the right to own and enjoy their dogs, does one property owners right trump that of another? It certainly should not. Does the fact that one mans dog traverses another mans land mean that the landowner is unable to enjoy his property?"

----------


## Unregistered

I advocate and practice ethical and legal hunting. And yes, I am more than willing to pay for any damages caused by my hounds if they so happen to do real harm.I hoped for a sober and smart discussion but it appears to be absent.

It is foolish to assume, and is unreasonable for practical purposes even to wish, that land ownership would guarantee the owner unlimited rights and protections. It does not. And should not.

The first amendment of the Virginia constitution, however, does guarantee the right to not only own but to enjoy ones property:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

So herein lies the question; if one has the right to own and enjoy land, and another has the right to own and enjoy their dogs, does one property owners right trump that of another? It certainly should not. Does the fact that one mans dog traverses another mans land mean that the landowner is unable to enjoy his property?1

----------


## Suzanimal

> I'm more than willing to pay for any damages, if there are any, caused by my hounds. I practice and advocate for legal and ethical hunting. I hoped for a sober and well thought out discussion on this thread, but it is quite absent. 
> 
> To quote a recent article in The Tidewater News, "It is foolish to assume, and is unreasonable for practical purposes even to wish, that land ownership would guarantee the owner unlimited rights and protections. It does not. And should not.
> 
> The first amendment of the Virginia constitution, however, does guarantee the right to not only own but to enjoy one’s property:
> 
> “That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
> 
> So herein lies the question;* if one has the right to own and enjoy land, and another has the right to own and enjoy their dogs, does one property owner’s right trump that of another? "*


If you're on THEIR property. 





> It certainly should not.


O_o




> Does the fact that one man’s dog traverses another man’s land mean that the landowner is unable to enjoy his property?


You are perfectly free to enjoy your dogs on *your* property - not on someone elses. Would you be cool with them letting their dogs loose on your property when you're hunting?

----------


## staerker

> So herein lies the question; if one has the right to own and enjoy land, and another has the right to own and enjoy their dogs, does one property owner’s right trump that of another? It certainly should not. Does the fact that one man’s dog traverses another man’s land mean that the landowner is unable to enjoy his property?"


You misunderstand the definition of ownership.

A land owner has authority over everything constituting and contained within his land.
A dog owner has authority over everything constituting and contained within his dog.

(Barring any foul play or previous consent.)

These "rights" can trump one another. The dog is contained within the land, not the other way around.

----------


## tod evans

> I'm more than willing to pay for any damages, if there are any, caused by my hounds. I practice and advocate for legal and ethical hunting. *I hoped for a sober and well thought out discussion on this thread, but it is quite absent.* 
> 
> To quote a recent article in The Tidewater News, "It is foolish to assume, and is unreasonable for practical purposes even to wish, that land ownership would guarantee the owner unlimited rights and protections. It does not. And should not.
> 
> The first amendment of the Virginia constitution, however, does guarantee the right to not only own but to enjoy ones property:
> 
> That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
> 
> So herein lies the question; if one has the right to own and enjoy land, and another has the right to own and enjoy their dogs, does one property owners right trump that of another? It certainly should not.* Does the fact that one mans dog traverses another mans land mean that the landowner is unable to enjoy his property?"*


At this hour you're quite likely to have sober commentators, whether you like or appreciate the comments as "well thought out" is up to you but from here it seems that if comments don't agree with your opinion they don't fit your idea of well thought out.

On to your query......

If your livestock sets foot on another mans dirt he has been violated. Period.

The land owner, not the livestock owner, is the only person who can say if his right to "enjoy his property" has been violated.

You are asking people to encourage your violation of private property rights and it's pretty unlikely you're going to find support for your endeavor.

Have you tried talking to, and making friends with the property owner(s) who object to your dogs? Or do you come across as antagonistic to them also?

I'll tell you this; If some slick talking city boy tried telling me what he was going to do on my land with his dogs he'd be carrying his dogs out in tote-sacks.

If the same slick talking city boy *asked* if his dogs could run on my dirt before hand I'd be inclined to give them free run..

Which type of city boy are you?

----------


## fisharmor

> The scenario in which you describe is illegal and should be handled by law enforcement. Also, you're handling of the situation is highly illegal on multiple offenses including felony. You are in NO WAY right on this issue and you should be thrown under the jail!!!


Welcome to the site.

The job of Law Enforcement Officers is to ruin lives.  Not to enforce the law.
Nobody has any guarantee that calling a LEO to handle a clear violation of the law will have the intended effect.  It is entirely possible that the dog hunters may be kin with someone in law enforcement, and then suddenly it's Intoxiklown under scrutiny.
Most of us here (including Intoxiclown, apparently) know better than to involve law enforcement.  They're not there to help you.  They're not there to watch you or protect you or even to enforce the law which is there (presumably) to help you.  They're there to ruin lives.

----------


## fisharmor

> So herein lies the question; if one has the right to own and enjoy land, and another has the right to own and enjoy their dogs, does one property owner’s right trump that of another? It certainly should not. Does the fact that one man’s dog traverses another man’s land mean that the landowner is unable to enjoy his property?"


You do not own property in Virginia.
Neither do I.
No individual does.




> Article X. Taxation and FinanceSection 1. Taxable property; uniformity; classification and segregation
> All property, except as hereinafter provided, shall be taxed. All taxes shall be levied and collected under general laws and shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, except that the General Assembly may provide for differences in the rate of taxation to be imposed upon real estate by a city or town within all or parts of areas added to its territorial limits, or by a new unit of general government, within its area, created by or encompassing two or more, or parts of two or more, existing units of general government. Such differences in the rate of taxation shall bear a reasonable relationship to differences between nonrevenue-producing governmental services giving land urban character which are furnished in one or several areas in contrast to the services furnished in other areas of such unit of government.
> 
> 
> The General Assembly may by general law and within such restrictions and upon such conditions as may be prescribed authorize the governing body of any county, city, town or regional government to provide for differences in the rate of taxation imposed upon tangible personal property owned by persons not less than sixty-five years of age or persons permanently and totally disabled as established by general law who are deemed by the General Assembly to be bearing an extraordinary tax burden on said tangible personal property in relation to their income and financial worth.
> 
> 
> The General Assembly may define and classify taxable subjects. Except as to classes of property herein expressly segregated for either State or local taxation, the General Assembly may segregate the several classes of property so as to specify and determine upon what subjects State taxes, and upon what subjects local taxes, may be levied.

----------


## phill4paul

> You do not own property in Virginia.
> Neither do I.
> No individual does.


  Boom, goes the head shot! Unless you have Allodial title then it is the King's property.




> In the United States, land is subject to eminent domain by federal, state and local government, and subject to the imposition of taxes by state and/or local governments, and there is thus no true allodial land.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

----------


## Suzanimal

> At this hour you're quite likely to have sober commentators

----------


## oyarde

If I wanted that 20 acres that bad I would have got a loan and bought it . I view the deer on my property as mine. I would not allow someone to run them with dogs . This is an easy call , since it is my land .

----------


## tod evans

> 


_



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Suzanimal again.


_

----------


## Intoxiklown

> The scenario in which you describe is illegal and should be handled by law enforcement. Also, you're handling of the situation is highly illegal on multiple offenses including felony. You are in NO WAY right on this issue and you should be thrown under the jail!!!


And you need to get your head out of your ass.

In Mississippi, it is PERFECTLY legal to require kenneling and food fees if you wish for keeping someone's dog. And when a hunting club CONTINUES to put dogs out on one side of your property, with the express intent to run across it, after several warnings, don't cry foul when those dogs are victims of a "hunting accident".

----------


## Intoxiklown

> I advocate and practice ethical and legal hunting. And yes, I am more than willing to pay for any damages caused by my hounds if they so happen to do real harm.I hoped for a sober and smart discussion but it appears to be absent.
> 
> It is foolish to assume, and is unreasonable for practical purposes even to wish, that land ownership would guarantee the owner unlimited rights and protections. It does not. And should not.
> 
> The first amendment of the Virginia constitution, however, does guarantee the right to not only own but to enjoy one’s property:
> 
> “That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
> 
> So herein lies the question; if one has the right to own and enjoy land, and another has the right to own and enjoy their dogs, does one property owner’s right trump that of another? It certainly should not. Does the fact that one man’s dog traverses another man’s land mean that the landowner is unable to enjoy his property?1


So in other words, you're turning your dogs loose to run deer off his property, back onto your hunting club land.

Be glad your not down in the south. These rednecks would shoot your dogs in front of you for that, and then you if you even twitched funny.

----------


## Intoxiklown

> 


No worries, I covered it. I had to.....that $#@! made me laugh.

----------


## tod evans

> So in other words, you're turning your dogs loose to run deer off his property, back onto your hunting club land.
> 
> Be glad your not down in the south. These rednecks would shoot your dogs in front of you for that, and then you if you even twitched funny.


Up Nawth here in the Ozarks too........

Being nice to neighbors goes a long way toward trophies or backstrap...

----------


## Intoxiklown

> Up Nawth here in the Ozarks too........
> 
> Being nice to neighbors goes a long way toward trophies or backstrap...


LOL....the Ozarks ain't north....that's hillbilly. They make redneck seem like yuppies.

----------


## tod evans

> LOL....the Ozarks ain't north....that's hillbilly. *They make redneck seem like yuppies*.


Aren't they?

----------


## Intoxiklown

> Aren't they?


LOL

You know, I am half redneck and half coon ass. Hence, I am one country MF'er. And to be honest.....yeah....hillbillys make me feel uptown.

----------


## specsaregood

> LOL....the Ozarks ain't north....that's hillbilly. They make redneck seem like yuppies.


In my experience, rednecks would be more likely to try talking about it or calling the cops about the dogs, the first couple times.  The hillbillies, not so much.

----------


## tod evans

> In my experience, rednecks would be more likely to try talking about it or calling the cops about the dogs, the first couple times.  The hillbillies, not so much.


Slick talkin' city boys don't get far in these hills by telling.

Asking seems to work well most places though.

----------


## Intoxiklown

> In my experience, rednecks would be more likely to try talking about it or calling the cops about the dogs, the first couple times.  The hillbillies, not so much.


We'll try to talk at first. First time politely. Second time pissed off. Third time, dead dogs. Not many rednecks are keen on cops. Hell, game wardens  would not come on our land. 

Hillbillys.....they just assume right off the bat that you had a "$#@! your family" attitude the first time, and react accordingly.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Meh. I don't know. I've never heard of people using dogs to hunt deer. I've seen them tree bear with dogs, though. I don't really like that, though. It just seems so unfair to the bear to chase him up a tree and, then, shoot him. And I grew up in the Blue Ridge mountains hunting. We used to just sneak up on deer. It's funny now that I think about it. When I was maybe 4, I started following behind my dad when he hunted. He'd turn around whenever he came up on some deer and put his finger over his lips with the shhhhh signal. Once, when he did that, I stepped on some sticks. The deer bolted and he just looked down and shook his head. We ended up going fishing instead.

----------

