“Dogs can’t read property lines”
That’s been the standard fallback line used by countless hunters using dogs to drive deer when the dogs continually cross onto property they don’t have consent to hunt.
And they’re correct. Dogs can’t read. But that doesn’t free the dog owners from their responsibility to keep those dogs from crossing those property lines.
It’s simple. If you can’t control your dog well enough to keep them off property you’re not allowed to hunt, then you shouldn’t be hunting with dogs. Period.
And with the technology built into modern dog collars, along with good old-fashioned, hard-nosed training, plenty of dog drivers do exactly that – they keep their dogs off property they aren’t allowed to hunt. Those hunters are not the problem. But at some point, unfortunately, they are going to lose their right to hunt with dogs because of the ones too lazy, too cheap, and too entitled to follow in their footsteps. I don’t want to see that happen. Very few landowners want to see that happen.
Keep it legal
I’ve participated in dog drives numerous times, and I hope it stays legal. But as long as dog hunters continue to state “dogs can’t read property lines,” “dogs can’t read no trespassing signs,” or some variation of that, then the governing bodies and lawmakers will continue to see that those dog hunters aren’t willing to make any changes to how they’re doing things. At some point, those governing bodies and lawmakers will take the easy way out and ban it completely.
This next statement I’m going to make will turn a lot of people currently on my side against me. But if they’ll stick around for the statement after that, I think they’ll get back behind me.
If I own a single acre of land, I should be able to turn as many hunting dogs loose on that little parcel as I desire. It’s my land, they’re my dogs, and I should have the right to do whatever I please (within the law) on that land.
Simple solution
Now, the moment any one of my dogs crosses onto adjoining property that I don’t have permission to hunt, then I’m in the wrong, and I need to pay the price for it. That’s currently the law as it stands today in South Carolina. I agree with it. I’m not for minimum acreage requirements to run dogs, although I would rather see that than a complete ban on the practice.
The problem right now is the fine isn’t costly enough to deter repeat offenders, and it also causes a lot of tension between hunters on both sides of the issue, and confrontations with parties when one or both have guns is a recipe for disaster. Game wardens are stretched thin, and get way more calls about this issue than they can reasonably respond to, and even when they are able to show up, it does little to ease the tension. It’s a dangerous situation, all brought about because a group of hunters simply want to shrug their shoulders and say “my dogs can’t read property lines,” only to be back the very next week with the same dogs, the same attitude, and the same situation repeating itself over and over.
If you can’t control your dogs well enough to keep them off other people’s property, then you shouldn’t be dog hunting. It’s really that simple. If you want to see your tradition continue, if you want to see today’s young folks enjoy it their whole lives, then don’t teach them the wrong way to do it. Don’t teach them to simply say “dogs can’t read property lines.” Instead, teach them that it is their responsibility to keep their dogs from crossing those property lines.
Changes likely coming
The SCDNR held three public meetings this summer, and held a public comment period online as well. I attended all three. Those in favor of dog hunting attended heavily, much more heavily than those who oppose it. They did a great job showing their dedication to their sport, and they had numerous speakers offer heartfelt statements of what dog hunting means to them, and why they believe it should remain legal.
Unfortunately, far too few of them called out the bad behavior of the dog hunters that do it the wrong way, and far too few told SCDNR what the agency really needed to hear during this public comment period, and that is what concessions they are willing to make – what changes they would suggest to lawmakers to get the situation under control without harming anyone’s rights or traditions.
Also, numerous speakers repeated the same old line “dogs can’t read property lines,” and spent their time talking about how still hunters are lazy, corn piles should be illegal, and asking why landowners don’t complain about coyotes running through their properties instead of focusing on dogs so much. None of that has anything to do with them controlling their own dogs. They are simply distractions spouted by folks who are too lazy, lack the knowledge to train dogs properly, or are simply too unwilling to learn what it takes to deer hunt with dogs the right way.
You know who doesn’t use those excuses and distractions? True houndsmen. The true houndsmen that properly train their dogs, that invest in the proper equipment and learn how to use it, and who make it a priority to keep their dogs off property they’re not allowed to hunt are rightfully ashamed to be lumped in with the “dogs can’t read no trespassing signs” crowd. If you’re in the “dogs can’t read” crowd, then you better believe the true houndsmen are not your teammates. You think they are, but they see you as the very reason they’re going to lose their favorite way to hunt. True houndsmen see you as an embarrassment.
Some of the pro-dog hunters also spent their time at the microphone stating things like “the dogs don’t scare the deer off your land,” “landowners don’t own the deer,” “it’s not my dog’s fault they can’t kill a trophy buck,” “my dogs might run a big buck to you,” “the dogs will be through in just a few minutes,” “the problem is people from Ohio moving down here and buying land in the middle of dog-hunting country and not understanding our way of life.” They stated all those things as if any of them relieve them of their own duties to control their own dogs. None of those things matter. If you don’t have permission to have your dogs run through their land, then that’s the landowner’s right, and you have absolutely no right to continue to allow your dogs to run through that property. If your answer to that is “well I can’t stop where my dogs go when they’re chasing a deer,” then you don’t need to be hunting with dogs. It’s just that simple.
“Stop ‘em on a dime”
One thing authorities heard loud and clear could be considered either a negative or a positive for dog drivers. Several dog hunters talked about today’s high-tech collars and how using them, along with lots of hard-nosed, time-consuming training, allows the houndsmen to stop their dogs on a dime, even when those dogs are hot on the trail of a deer.
That’s great news for everyone. Everyone who does things the right way, that is. For those unwilling to invest in the right equipment and put in the time and effort to train their dogs properly, it’s bad news indeed. It tells SCDNR and lawmakers that hey, it’s completely possible to continue this way of hunting without dogs continually running through properties off limits to them. We’ve got hunters doing that right now, and if they can do it, why can’t other hunters?
“Well those collars are expensive. We can’t all afford that.” Then don’t hunt deer with dogs. People find a way to pay for things they love. If you’re not willing to, then find another way to train your dogs so they don’t leave your property. If you can’t do it, then you don’t need to be dog hunting.
Of course, technology is going to fail from time to time, and every now and then, a well-trained dog is bound to have an off day, but according to those who do it enough, the number of times it’s caused issues with surrounding landowners is so small that it’s not an issue, and certainly not in the way it is among the crowd who just continues to use that old line “my dogs can’t read.”
So what options do lawmakers and wildlife agencies have moving forward?
What next?
In my opinion, it’s going to play out one of three ways.
- New regulations are put in place that call for minimum acreage requirements, which I’m personally opposed to, and judging from the SCDNR meetings I attended, the majority of dog hunters are opposed to it as well.
- Institute a series of graduated fines that start with a warning, hit hard on the next offense (let’s say $1000), harder on the second offense (maybe $5000), and catastrophically on the third offense. Maybe even a “three-strikes-you’re-out” rule. Every dog hunter out there who does it the right way should be fully in favor of this, because it keeps you in the game, and draws those rogue hunters into compliance or out of the game, which will completely solve the problem in short order.
- A complete ban of deer hunting with dogs. I don’t want to see this happen, and the majority of landowners aren’t calling for this. But it’s the easiest way to solve the problem for lawmakers and wildlife agencies, and it’s the easiest one to enforce.
You dog hunters that do it the right way should be pushing for No. 2. And you dog hunters that do it the wrong way, just keep repeating your favorite saying: “dogs can’t read property lines.” That phrase has gotten us to where we are right now. And it’s what’s going to end dog hunting completely if that’s all you’ve got to offer.
Be the first to comment