# "Beware of hog hunters'



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

*bashes face off desk*
http://www.examiner.com/article/update-beware-hog-hunters-exposed

EDIT:
Hey did you guys know that they use BAIT DOGS for hog hunting now??
http://www.examiner.com/article/huey-and-hogs-advocate-for-the-welfare-of-both


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Oh please.......


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Wait wait wait.... 

So, people are angry at hog hunters for adopting homeless pit bulls and giving them a job and purpose...?


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Hunting isn't the same as bloodsport, WTH


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

:laugh:

Is about all I can say to that piece of garbage.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

I guess it's better to euthanize those dogs than give them a home and job,or do they honestly believe most pits get adopted.

Also yeah boar hunting at least is typically or should be done with vests and special collars and done to avoid injuries and deaths to the dogs. These dogs don't just fight to the death with these things,only expected to hold them for only about a minute or so before intervention. It also has an actual purpose in population control. So not like dog fighting.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Hey did you guys know that they use BAIT DOGS for hog hunting now??
http://www.examiner.com/article/huey-and-hogs-advocate-for-the-welfare-of-both


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

I just... why? Are people really this ignorant?


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Aren't the hogs an invasive species?? So what's all this about humans pushing them out? lol I don't even


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Hey did you guys know that they use BAIT DOGS for hog hunting now??
> http://www.examiner.com/article/huey-and-hogs-advocate-for-the-welfare-of-both





Adjecyca1 said:


> Hey did you guys know that they use BAIT DOGS for hog hunting now??
> http://www.examiner.com/article/huey-and-hogs-advocate-for-the-welfare-of-both


As some of you may know..... I am a hog hunter.....

I hunt hogs a lot. Have all my life.... People may or may not know but feral hogs are not native wild animals. They are wild invasive exotics. They compete directly with several native species. They are also opportunistic omnivores. They prey on deer fawns, ground nesting birds, dig up turtle nests, their rooting causes environmental damage ( 3-4 hogs can destroy a couple of acres a night. Take years to recover. )

I no longer keep hog dogs...I used to have a NICE pack of bay dogs and several fine catch dogs... These days I run a crew so to speak.... When I was younger, I had the dogs, did the grunt work labor, etc. And hunted with older men that were more experienced, had the contacts and access to land, etc. Now I am the older guy.....I have the experience, contacts, and access. 

This article is ridiculous..... I will explain why.......

You use two kinds of dogs in hog hunting..... Bay dogs (hounds or curs or combinations there of) ..... That trail the hogs by scent until they find them. Then they chase them.... Sooner or later the hog decides to turn and fight. The bay dogs hold the hog where it bays up at by running around barking at it, etc. But they stay out of range of the hog's cutters. Their job is to hold the hog there until the hunters get there.

Then there is the catch dog.... Usually a pit bulls, but Dogos, American Bulldogs, etc. The catch dog does not run with the pack. It stays with the hunters following the bay dogs on leash....It is not turned loose until the hunters arrive to where the hog is bayed. Then it is turned loose, runs in RIGHT PAST the bay dogs and grabs the hog. As soon as the dog catches the hunters come in and either dispatch the hog or tie it up and carry it out of the woods. (Many people take their hogs out alive, grain feed them and butcher them at a later date) 


And here is the ridiculous part.... A game dog.... Of ANY bull breed is going to be dog aggressive naturally...... You have to work with your catch dog when he is young, to re direct that dog aggression and get it to focus only on the hogs. A catch dog that jumps on one of your bay dogs is BAD. And Highly Frowned on..... Most hunters will not allow a catch dog they do not know and have not seen work, ANYWHERE around their bay dogs. Because they do NOT want their bay dogs torn up. 

There is NO WAY..... I mean NO way.... A hog hunter is going to "season" his catch dogs by using a bait dog...... It goes directly against what you are attempting to accomplish.... 

I will not deceive anyone.... Hog dogs, both bay dogs and catch dogs can and do get cut..... These days most hunters use kevlar (same thing as they make bullet proof vests out of) cut vests on their catch dogs.... When I was a kid their was no such thing. A lot of hunters will put kevlar collars on their bay dogs as well.

But this whole notion of using bait dogs to season catch dogs is absurd.



Kayota said:


> Aren't the hogs an invasive species?? So what's all this about humans pushing them out? lol I don't even


Yes.... VERY destructive as well....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

a few hogs can do this in a couple of hours or less...


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Hey did you guys know that they use BAIT DOGS for hog hunting now??
> http://www.examiner.com/article/huey-and-hogs-advocate-for-the-welfare-of-both



That's a new one. Why shouldn't I be surprised,sense these people will resort to anything to make the dogs seem like victims. Plus besides what Johnnybandit said why would you get dogs to purposely let be gored by a boar,what would that accomplish? Plus if the dog was brave enough to fight the boar head on why would it be even be a bait dog. Yeah,makes zero sense.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

Maybe it's a good thing the website was broken for my phone so as to be unreadable after the first paragraph...

Hogs are horrible. They need to be exterminated, and honestly, the way people hunt them IS more humane than how we dispatch other similarly invasive vermin like rats.

Californians despise hogs. Get a few connections and you will have farmers begging for you to go exterminate their hog populations.

And really, I would rather a dog died doing its greatest joy if it's hog hunting, police work, or what have you, than languish in a shelter, going mad from boredom because it can't live a domestic lifestyle.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Foresthund said:


> That's a new one. Why shouldn't I be surprised,sense these people will resort to anything to make the dogs seem like victims. Plus besides what Johnnybandit said why would you get dogs to purposely let be gored by a boar,what would that accomplish? Plus if the dog was brave enough to fight the boar head on why would it be even be a bait dog. Yeah,makes zero sense.


I have NEVER heard of bait dogs being used on hog dogs.... It goes against everything you are trying to accomplish.... You want the catch dog to catch the HOG.... Not your bay dogs.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I have NEVER heard of bait dogs being used on hog dogs.... It goes against everything you are trying to accomplish.... You want the catch dog to catch the HOG.... Not your bay dogs.


 i think the article was saying you used dogs to bait hogs lol


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Here is a video.....

Not too graphic...... But does show actual catches....
Showing what I am talking about..... The Catch dogs (the dogs wearing the vests) running right in past excited worked up bay dogs and going straight for the hogs...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Adjecyca1 said:


> i think the article was saying you used dogs to bait hogs lol


LOL.... The hogs will not come after the dogs.... The hogs will stay away from dogs.... The dogs chase the hogs and the hogs run until they either get ticked off or find a place they want to make the fight at.... Usually, the hog will pick a spot where heavy brush or something will protect his rear....


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> And really, I would rather a dog died doing its greatest joy if it's hog hunting, police work, or what have you, than languish in a shelter, going mad from boredom because it can't live a domestic lifestyle.


I absolutely agree.


----------



## Hankscorpio (May 15, 2012)

I'm assuming some training is required to turn a shelter dog into a hog hunter. Therefore any hunter with half a brain will at least care about the time invested in training and as a result the health of his dogs. In general responsible hog hunting with rescue pits sounds like a win win. Dog gets a job, hunter eliminates an evasive pest and gets some pork.

I do have to say I'm not familiar with hog hunting. Not sure why a dog couldn't track the hog so the hunter could shoot it. Is it actually necessary for dogs to catch and incopasitate the hog? Of course I've also heard of knife hunting hogs. No dogs just a crazy guy and a knife.


----------



## Luxorien (Jun 11, 2014)

What amused me about that article is the way they say hunting is harmful to the hog. Like, the hog could get HURT. Well, no ****. That's the idea!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Just to stick a fork in the socket . . .

Some hunters I know hove the same mindset as dog fighters. They love the death, the blood, the excitement. They. . .well, there was a Cracked article that referred to them as "dramatically overmurdering small furry creatures because people frown when they talk about doing it to humans", and I think that's pretty accurate. When they're waving their guns around and whooping and high-fiving blood all over their buddies and otherwise acting like total psychos, I can't think good things about them. If someone is respectful and humane---and I do know some hunters who are---I don't have a problem with it. But I do think some hunters are in it for the bloodlust and that's no different then the dog fighters. Some hunters have no regard for their dogs too. I don't really know how they could screen for that, but if I were running a pit bull rescue I know I'd be leery of adopting to hunters; they'd really have to prove that they aren't just nutters with guns.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

I have no issues with hog hunting or hunting with dogs in general. 
My dog is being trained for small game and trailing.

However...

I think its reckless and irresponsible to use rescues, particularly adopted as untrained adults, as catch dogs.

A good catch prospect, like any other working dog, should be BRED for it. Breed alone isn't going to determine the dog's potential and suitability to a task. Not every dog of a herding breed can herd, not ever dog of a hunting breed can hunt. And a hog can easily kill an inexperienced, ill-suited dog.

So while I think the author of the articles is an ill-informed foolish AR nut.
I think the hunters referenced in the first, who if I recall the situation correctly (this group was years ago wasn't it?) were going around trying to adopt cheap rescues to stand in for their dead & injured dogs and who had very little idea of what they were doing when hunting hogs... Are also foolish.

Want a rescue to trail or flush game or retrieve? Have at it.

Want a dog to do a serious and risky job? Stack the odds in their favor, get a dog bred for it, raise and train it for it, and equip it properly. Putting a rescue with unknown background and minimal training on a hog, like those hunters ere doing, isn't doing the dog any favors, imo.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Want a dog to do a serious and risky job? Stack the odds in their favor, get a dog bred for it, raise and train it for it, and equip it properly. Putting a rescue with unknown background and minimal training on a hog, like those hunters ere doing, isn't doing the dog any favors, imo.


Well if I know one thing it's that jerks can be found anywhere, I once met a bird hunter who thought his dog had to be bone thin, nothin but ribs/hips stickin out. His thoughts on his bag of bones was that if a dog was hungry he would hunt better. I learned a very long time ago that some jerks are beyond help.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Last night when I read the second article, as soon as I read bait dog I stopped. Assuming they were claiming they used dogs to train the catch dogs. 
but frankly their suggestion that the dogs are used as bait for the hogs is even more ABSURD.


That being said, the thought of getting a catch dog from a shelter is probably just as absurd. Has it ever happened? probably. Is it even remotely common.....I have no clue how many hog hunters I know. Most of the men on both sides of my family, nearly every friend from childhood, a hundred or so members of a hog hunters association..... business associates, friends of friends etc. I was running behind grandaddy and dad as soon as I could keep up. Before that really. They used to put me up in a tree when the dogs had a hog bayed until the dog caught. I am talking 5 years old. So my experience with catching hogs with dogs goes back at least 42 years. 

In all that time, and all the people I have known, I have yet to see a shelter or rescue dog as a catch dog. Never even heard of it until this article. 

Your catch dog is the MOST important part of hog hunting with dogs. If you have a marginal or even crappy bay dog in your pack, the other bay dogs will make up for it. But the catch dog? He HAS to be good. If not... He is going to get hurt, you are going to get hurt and your bay dogs are likely going to get killed. 

Some of the stories of how ferocious wild hogs can be is just that... Stories. I have never had an unmolested hog come after me in the woods. Not even the biggest rankest boar that I surprised. But make no mistake, you harrass them, chase them with dogs, corner them....... They are extremely tenacious and formidiable. They will FIGHT and are GOOD at it. The board can open you up like a can of sardines. You, the dogs, and your buddies can get hurt QUICK with a poor catch dog...

The hunter or hunters have to go in the middle of this as well. You are not sitting back watching. You run in and either tie the hog up or kill it with a knife. A catch dog, that quits on you, lets go, gets scared and runs off, etc is BAD NEWS and extremely dangerous for all involved. IF a catch dog quits on you, someone or something is getting busted up. Best case scenario is someone, person or a dog is getting stitches. And it can get much worse than that...

Who iin their right mind or even semi right mind is going to chance that on a rescue dog of unknown heritage? 

There are some pretty good catch dogs that did not cost an arm and a leg. But some are quite expensive.... They can and do run into the several thousands of dollars. A solid prospect puppy out of a bitch and a dog with 100 plus catches will not be cheap. If those high catch numbers go back generations. The price can be very high.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

Interesting. I'm not into hog hunting, but I've heard of a few shelter finds doing it. My neighbor, in fact, once talked about how he used a jack russel terrier/cattle dog as a catch dog years ago and how it was the best hog dog he ever had. He mentioned the dog never really needed his kevlar vest because he was too small and fast to get cut. And he has been an avid hunter since childhood, raised by serious hunters.

I'd imagine the people who do go with shelter dogs who are looking for quality dogs screen the heck out of them before adopting and during training.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Geeeze, imagine that, nice to read something from somebody with actual hog hunting experience and not wanting dogs hurt with an inferior catch dog sounds like common sense and I've never been near a hog hunt.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Eh, I think the second article is fine. They probably heard "catch dog" and it turned into "bait" because, well, you use bait to catch things . They just don't know the terminology. And look, it's a rescue who ended up with a catch dog (with scars and injuries) who has been thrown away by the hunter because he's no longer useful. I think they have every right to be annoyed and to feel strongly against such behavior.


----------



## Galathiel (Apr 11, 2012)

They really don't have a right to generalize about something they apparently had no real knowledge of. Hogs are pervasive in our area (East Texas). I've actually seen herds of 30-40 run across the road. You bet that someone that will do something about them is needed. They aren't 'small furry creatures' ... even the 'small' ones weigh at least 35 lbs and because of the woods and marshes, we see many that are 200 and up (including domestic, gone feral hogs that can be over 400). They do a LOT of damage. My nephew hunts hogs. He has a lot of dogs and gets asked/begged for help quite often.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> They really don't have a right to generalize about something they apparently had no real *knowledge *of


What's that saying, something about a "Little knowledge is a dangerous thing" 

Everybody's got a right to generalize, but it's up to others to jump in with real live first hand experience. Usually the wheat gets separated from the chaff.


----------



## Pasarella (May 30, 2013)

*JohnnyBandit* thank you for sharing your story!So interesting to know.I had no idea about this hog hunting style. In Latvia hunters use mostly dachshunds and jagdterriers as bay dogs and then shoot the hog.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Eh, I think the second article is fine. They probably heard "catch dog" and it turned into "bait" because, well, you use bait to catch things . They just don't know the terminology. And look, it's a rescue who ended up with a catch dog (with scars and injuries) who has been thrown away by the hunter because he's no longer useful. I think they have every right to be annoyed and to feel strongly against such behavior.


1) That was no accident they turned catch to bait in the story..... It got changed for effect..... Typical......


2) Do you have first hand knowledge of how the ended up in the shelter? Were you there at intake? 

You are making assumptions based on your feelings on the matter....


The fact is.... And a very real possibility is the dog got lost, turned up somewhere and got turned in.
Free running hunting dogs get lost... It happens..... 

They are guestimating the age of that dog at 8-9.... That is not too old to be catching hogs..... That dog regardless of its age appears to be woods ready. Good weight, decent condition. Unless he has a limp or some other issue you cannot see from the photo, (which is possible) he dang sure looks ready to go to..... 

He does have some scars... It happens... If he was a young dog with a lot of scars, the story may have been believable. He was not a good catch dog and someone decided to turn him in. But.... He is obviously NOT a young dog.... So older dog plus a good number of scars..... That dog has likely caught a bunch of hogs.....

Even if he was a dog that was past hunting age.... Does not make him useless to a hunter.... He is a male.... And old dog that was good in his day, can make you good puppies.....That will grow up to be good catch dogs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

This is another good one......

One thing I have found humorous my entire life is how brave the bay dogs get once the catch dog shows up. The catch dog catches and they all tend to pile on..


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Cool vid Johnny  Curious, what breeds are usually used for bay dogs?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Kayota said:


> Cool vid Johnny  Curious, what breeds are usually used for bay dogs?


Hound and Cur breeds mostly..... Lots of Redbones, Walkers, Blueticks Blackmouth Curs, Catahoulas....

I have seen more exotic stuff.... Rhodesian Ridgebacks, etc...

Some folks run them with JRTs and Patterdales...

Some folks will even use small feisty terriers as catch dogs. But one dog cannot hold a hog of any size....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pasarella said:


> *JohnnyBandit* thank you for sharing your story!So interesting to know.I had no idea about this hog hunting style. In Latvia hunters use mostly dachshunds and jagdterriers as bay dogs and then shoot the hog.


Some folks shoot them in front of the bay dogs or after the catch dog has them over here.....

But growing up, we never allowed that....And I still don't.....Plus we hunt at night a good bit..... Cannot discharge a gun at night in the woods in my state....We either catch them live then take them home, pen them up and fatten them. Or we kill them on sight.... With a knife. If you go in under the right front leg, towards the left shoulder you hit the arteries to the heart. It is QUICK. You need about a 12 inch blade though.... In case you are on a BIG hog. A lot of folks use double edged dagger style knife for this.... In the South slang terms are things like, pig sticker, Arkansas Toothpicks, etc


I will allow folks with me, carry a handgun... Just in case... Things can happen fast and it can be pure chaos.... I would not tell someone they could not carry a gun just in case.


----------



## sharpei (Mar 15, 2013)

ther are always going to be extremest articles enraged at stuff like this. I just have to say this is article just reminds me of a quote from some idiot star that said "I don't eat lobster because they are alive when you kill them." I don't remember who said it but it popped into my head while reading through all this. 

My three dogs (as you can tell by my name) are Shar Pei. I'll give you guys a guess what the extra skin is for, so if they get bit by a wild boar they can still turn and bite the boar with minimal risk of exacerbating the wound, the skin also exudes Mucin which help "glue" injuries closed to prevent excessive bleeding. really the only time a shar pei bleeds for more than a couple seconds is if you quick them while trimming their nails. they were bred for 3 things, to look intimidating, owner loyalty, and hunting boar. Just an interesting fact not real constructive to the conversations.

That said, I know a couple hunters, I live in Maine, (we don't have a boar problem up here) but ALL of the hunters I know treat their dogs better than they treat themselves. from the bird hunters to the rabbit dogs. I'm sure there are exceptions just like anything in life there is a vast mix of good bad and in between in everything. All of the rabbit guys I know will let a rabbit get home before risking a shot that puts their dog in the line of fire. So using a bait dog in this situation when your dog needs to be focused on the boar not the other dogs just seems about as far fetched as using a Corgie to herd sharks in the open ocean.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Gee thanks i guess I'm an idiot too since i think it's animal cruelty to stick a live lobster in boiling Water


----------



## sharpei (Mar 15, 2013)

the statement was they are alive when you kill them... everything is alive when you kill it or your not killing it....

"alive when you boil them" would have made sense. "alive when you kill it" is just nonsensical.

I think you missed what made the statement idiotic and preferred to be offended by something that has nothing to do with the idiocy of the statement.


----------



## Finnley (May 20, 2014)

Hog luring is absolutely a thing, although it is DEFINITELY NOT done with pit bulls or any type of close-combat breed. Hunting with dog packs to catch a healthy animal is illegal in my country, so luring is the job of one or two dogs (usually tracking/boar flushing dogs) who will lure an injured boar out of its resting place after the hunter made a non-killing, injuring shot. 

The injured boar will seek shelter among debris or rocks or other things that makes it difficult or outright dangerous for the hunter to get a clean shot at it. This is where the lure dog comes in - it will annoy the angry boar until it lures its out of its nest. It will need to charge, bark, and dodge incomings until the boar is out in the open and stands relatively still.

But pits obviously isn't the dog for that job, you'd want a Laika or an Elkhound or something else that won't just get gored or agitate the boar too much. A pit would just hang on and try to kill it rather than make it stand still and keep a distance, and the shooter would risk hitting his own dog if he tried to shoot. The article doesn't describe hunting, it describes some kinda sicko who thinks it is worthwhile to waste time, money, and dogs to see a display of violence.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Finnley said:


> Hog luring is absolutely a thing, although it is DEFINITELY NOT done with pit bulls or any type of close-combat breed. Hunting with dog packs to catch a healthy animal is illegal in my country, so luring is the job of one or two dogs (usually tracking/boar flushing dogs) who will lure an injured boar out of its resting place after the hunter made a non-killing, injuring shot.
> 
> The injured boar will seek shelter among debris or rocks or other things that makes it difficult or outright dangerous for the hunter to get a clean shot at it. This is where the lure dog comes in - it will annoy the angry boar until it lures its out of its nest. It will need to charge, bark, and dodge incomings until the boar is out in the open and stands relatively still.


You just described what a bay dog does. They track, flush out and irritate the boar without physically engaging it, dodging any attempted attacks from the boar. 

That is not "luring" nor is it using a bait dog. Luring is when you entice an animal out with something it wants: like food or a possible mate. You use deer calls and scents to lure out bucks. You use feed to bait deer. You use prey calls and bait to lure out predator game like coyotes, wolves and wild cats. Bay dogs do not lure or bait animals, they track, flush and hold.




> But pits obviously isn't the dog for that job, you'd want a Laika or an Elkhound or something else that won't just get gored or agitate the boar too much. A pit would just hang on and try to kill it rather than make it stand still and keep a distance, and the shooter would risk hitting his own dog if he tried to shoot. The article doesn't describe hunting, it describes some kinda sicko who thinks it is worthwhile to waste time, money, and dogs to see a display of violence.


You're right. Pits aren't for that task. The APBT is a catch breed, not a bay breed. Their job is to run past the bay dogs and physically engage the animal by grabbing hold of it to keep it engaged until the hunter (not the dogs, despite the ignorant claims and implications of the articles) kill it.

It (the article) reminds me of the idiocy of a local rescue woman that insists all alligator hunters use dogs as bait to hunt alligators.


----------



## momtolabs (May 27, 2012)

Hey JB I was watching a series on Animal Planet about hog hunting (can't remember the nAme) and one group had a few Great Danes. I think they were used as bay dogs. Have you ever hunted with GD's?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Finnley said:


> Hog luring is absolutely a thing, although it is DEFINITELY NOT done with pit bulls or any type of close-combat breed. Hunting with dog packs to catch a healthy animal is illegal in my country, so luring is the job of one or two dogs (usually tracking/boar flushing dogs) who will lure an injured boar out of its resting place after the hunter made a non-killing, injuring shot.
> 
> The injured boar will seek shelter among debris or rocks or other things that makes it difficult or outright dangerous for the hunter to get a clean shot at it. This is where the lure dog comes in - it will annoy the angry boar until it lures its out of its nest. It will need to charge, bark, and dodge incomings until the boar is out in the open and stands relatively still.
> 
> But pits obviously isn't the dog for that job, you'd want a Laika or an Elkhound or something else that won't just get gored or agitate the boar too much. A pit would just hang on and try to kill it rather than make it stand still and keep a distance, and the shooter would risk hitting his own dog if he tried to shoot. The article doesn't describe hunting, it describes some kinda sicko who thinks it is worthwhile to waste time, money, and dogs to see a display of violence.


I am not sure what country you are in.... But I have actively hunted hogs for 42 years. And there are some differences between our typical feral hogs and the Eurasian wild boars. But I have hunted them on several occasions. There are quite a number of populations of genetically pure and nearly genetically pure Eurasian boars in the U.S. There are several coastal islands in Florida, a number of game reserves, etc that have russian boars. The lease I grew up hunting on in Levy County Florida was near what had been a private hunting preserve for a northern steel mill family. In the 1950's the family sold the land to a timber company. The timber company, knocked down the fences. They did nothing with the boars, fallow deer and axis deer that roamed the property. You still can find an occasional Axis or Fallow deer in Levy County. And a bunch of the hogs on the western side of the county look like Russian boars. A family I grew up with owns Brahma Island. It is in Lake Kissimmee in Florida. I believe it is the largest freshwater island in the United States. They have a cattle operation on the island. The pigs on the island are Russian Boars. Brought to the island around 1900. I have hunted out there many times. 

Having hunted both.... A hog in the woods that is wild is about the same... Eurasian boar or feral hog.... They pretty much act the same.....

The hogs in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee.... All act the same....

Granted I have not been to Europe and thus never hunted a hog in Europe......

But I am of the strong opinion that a hog is a hog and going to act like a hog no matter where he is... The hogs in Texas Hill country and down in Mesquite country act like the hogs in Florida Swamps, the Hogs in Georgia peanut country Tennessee mountains are the same as well... The only thing that changes is the scenery....

Here are the three most important things about hog hunting.

1) Hogs are smarter than any other game animal

2) Hogs are extremely tough.... They can take more and give more than just about any critter in the woods. 

3) When a hog has to fight..... The hog is ALWAYS going to decide where the fight happens. The dogs, the hunters, etc have no say in it. Sooner or later the dog will stop running from the dogs... But he decides where.... He wants something behind him. He is weak from behind. He knows it. So if he can find it.... He is going to find a briar patch, Ti Ti, maiden cane, a rock ledge, a high creek bank, huge tree stump, a thick patch of palmettos, etc. Where he can back up to and only has to protect himself 180 degrees. And he likes 90 or even 45 degrees better. 

Even the toughest boar will run from a dog at the start. Even the ones we call dog killers. The most dangerous size are boars about 175 to 250# with exposed tusks. Usually 1.5-2.5 inch ones. Tusks that size will be razor sharp, a hog that size is still very quick and agile but also very strong. People are always afraid of the bruisers. Those 400-500 pound boars look intimidating but they ain't squat. They are slow, have no steam or endurance and they go down easy. A 50# catch dog is in much less danger than a truly large boar. All of the dogs I have seen torn up have been from male hogs in the size described above. That is why we call them dog killers. The sole dog I lost to a hog in hog hunting (She was a bay dog not a catch dog) Was to a 200 pound boar with two inch tusks. That same hog tore up two VERY good Catch dogs that morning before we got him. I would have quit and gone home but you cannot just call the dogs off the hog. They will stay on him until you catch the hog. 

So I do not see your scenario working.... No way a dog is going to lure a wounded hog out. If he is hurt, and holed up in heavy brush or anywhere else he feels safe, you ain't luring him out.... You could put a poodle in a pink dress in front of him tap dancing to Hello my Darling.... He will stay put.... He may charge you... But ONLY after you get into the thick stuff. and he is going to wait until you are close and do not have a good escape route. 

Only two ways to get a holed up hurt hog.... Put the dogs on him and PUSH him out, or go in and get him yourself..... I have spent more time than I have cared to on my hands and knees in hog tunnels... Tunnels in heavy cover made by hogs traveling through it.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

momtolabs said:


> Hey JB I was watching a series on Animal Planet about hog hunting (can't remember the nAme) and one group had a few Great Danes. I think they were used as bay dogs. Have you ever hunted with GD's?


I got invited to hunt with some ole boys in texas a couple of times.... They had a black dane and a mostly white dane....

They were more catch dogs..... This was open country and you could ride around and see the hogs... Once the Danes saw them we would let them go and they would run them down....

I hunted with those dudes twice in Texas and once over here.... They did not bring the Danes to Florida. Both times I went over there one of the Danes got banged up.... Not terrible. But the black dane got a gash on the back thigh. The other one got caught up in some loose barbed wire laying in some high grass. He just got some scratches. But bit two people while we were untangling him.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I have also seen greyhounds used in Texas.... That was fun!


----------



## momtolabs (May 27, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I got invited to hunt with some ole boys in texas a couple of times.... They had a black dane and a mostly white dane....
> 
> They were more catch dogs..... This was open country and you could ride around and see the hogs... Once the Danes saw them we would let them go and they would run them down....
> 
> I hunted with those dudes twice in Texas and once over here.... They did not bring the Danes to Florida. Both times I went over there one of the Danes got banged up.... Not terrible. But the black dane got a gash on the back thigh. The other one got caught up in some loose barbed wire laying in some high grass. He just got some scratches. But bit two people while we were untangling him.


Interesting. I'm guessing these guys would have vests on? I jus don't see GDs being used because there so large and I'm guessing not as quick as say a pit bull or other terrier breed commonly used.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Willowy said:


> Some hunters I know hove the same mindset as dog fighters. They love the death, the blood, the excitement. They. . .well, there was a Cracked article that referred to them as "dramatically overmurdering small furry creatures because people frown when they talk about doing it to humans", and I think that's pretty accurate. When they're waving their guns around and whooping and high-fiving blood all over their buddies and otherwise acting like total psychos, I can't think good things about them. If someone is respectful and humane---and I do know some hunters who are---I don't have a problem with it. But I do think some hunters are in it for the bloodlust and that's no different then the dog fighters.


Eh. Dead is dead. As long as they go for a clean kill, follow hunting regs, and conduct hunts that are sustainable/useful/necessary I don't care if they do backflips over the carcass while shouting about blood for the blood god.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

momtolabs said:


> Interesting. I'm guessing these guys would have vests on? I jus don't see GDs being used because there so large and I'm guessing not as quick as say a pit bull or other terrier breed commonly used.


Yea the Danes had vests....I never saw a vest on the greyhound. 



there are different schools of thought.... Small and QUICK or larger and STRONG.... My family was of the small and quick mindset. We wanted a game dog that was small enough to dodge and avoid the teeth... Mostly boars and barrs( actually barrows. Castrated boars and they are a fair number of those running around. It is not uncommon for people to catch young hogs, castrate them and turn them loose to grow up) have the cutters and whetters. Cutters are the tusks in the bottom jaw. They can be from a half inch to maybe 6 or 7 inches long. The whetters are teeth that poke out to the side from the top jaw... The whetters constantly rub against the tusk at an angle... Constantly sharpening it. And they can be knife, almost razor sharp. And they come to a sharp point. Some sows also have small tusks. Even without them, they can bite. HARD... A sow can break a dog's leg with her bite. 

Back when I started.... There were no such thing as vests. We used to put a thick leather collar on the catch dogs.... But you do not want to restrict movement. Or put something on the dog that a hog tusk gets stuck under. Better take a glancing blow, than get a dog hung on a hog. Much of that was why wanted a smaller fast dog to AVOID getting stuck. When I saw small. I am talking 30 - 50 pound Pits.... Of the ones I had the smallest, Runt, was 39 pounds the largest was Tank at 49.
My great grandaddy liked real small.. He had the Pit bitch that was in the high 20's... She caught a lot of hogs for a lot of years but I used to get this sick feeling in my stomach sometimes.... 

You hear stories about HUGE wild hogs and there are some HUGE ones out there.... Somewhere tonight, somewhere in the south a few hogs that break a thousand pounds are rooting around. They can and do happen. But most adult hogs run 90 to 200 pounds. 250 pounders are around.... anything over 300 is not uncommon..... I caught a 587 pounder with just one 45 pound dog... He ran across the logging road on me. I knew he was big but NOT that big....Spanky was in the cab of the truck with me. I got to where he crossed and jumped out. Spanky right behind me. He was now 50 feet off the logging road. when I realized how big he was, I did not want him. Too late, Spanky was gone and caught instantly... The hog was so big spanky had him by the side of the head, and his back legs were not on the ground. I did not want to keep going but I had no way to get my dog back.. The hog ran around a good while. Tried to rub Spanky off on several trees, etc. He was not letting go...Finally the hog went down on his front knees, and I rushed in and finished him. Took six men and a very ill tempered horse to get that hog about 150 yards back to the logging road. I killed two in the low six hundreds but with a rifle and in spots you could get a jeep or truck to pretty easy.. 

But most are much smaller... IF I had my way, every one I caught would be a 90 pound female... Those are the tastiest. 

Back when I started.... There were no such thing as vests. We used to put a thick leather collar on the catch dogs.... But you do not want to restrict movement. Or put something on the dog that a hog tusk gets stuck under. Better take a glancing blow. 
The first (for several years) vests I saw were home made....My first thought was vest versus keeping the dog cool and that is still an issue. All of the vests I had for my last catch dogs were home made. I got a deal on a PILE of old fire hose. I saw them and do not know why but I thought dog vests. I made six vests and a bunch of collars out of that fire hose, by cutting in shorter lengths then cutting long ways and sewing together. My mom helped make patterns and with the stitching. They actually worked pretty good. 

Now they make a lot of them out of Kevlar...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

parus said:


> Eh. Dead is dead. As long as they go for a clean kill, follow hunting regs, and conduct hunts that are sustainable/useful/necessary I don't care if they do backflips over the carcass while shouting about blood for the blood god.


Hunting regulations? what hunting regulations? LOL 

In most of the south there are no seasons, no limits on private property and they have draws for public land.... They are not native and aside from being good to eat there are few redeeming quality..... 

they eat deer fawns, young turkeys, turtles, turtle eggs, snake eggs, etc etc etc. If you are a rancher, if you momma cows are not tough and bold, or there are enough hogs, they will kill your calves. Without a doubt, in Florida, hogs kill far more calves than coyotes. 

Many folks consider them shoot on sight...


And a lot of folks do not get the catching them live and taking them out of the woods thing....

1) The larger ones are tastier if you feed them a while. 

2) pork spoils quickly.... Take today.... It was 75 by ten am... And this is January..... IF you kill it, you have to deal with it now and get it on ice.... But if you are looking to hunt all days and take a few hogs. Tie them up live and put them in a shady spot until you are done. Not much in the woods will mess with a hog. In all my years, I lost one to a bear and a bobcat killed and fed on one other one. 

3) they have a ton of adrenaline running after dealing with the dogs.... Better to let them calm down a while. You will have better eating...


All sorts of methods are allowed in most of the south. Live trapping... traditional hunting - sitting with a rifle, shotgun, bow. etc. and running them with dogs.... Trapping works good for a bit in a new area. But they get trap smart real quick. If you catch one in a trap you will probably never catch that hog again. Hunt them hard and they go nocturnal. But dogs...... If they are there... the dogs will find them..... And with some good dogs, you can catch a bunch of hogs...


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> You could put a poodle in a pink dress in front of him tap dancing to Hello my Darling


I just put a cup of coffee down, good thing or I would have been wearing it


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

wvasko said:


> I just put a cup of coffee down, good thing or I would have been wearing it


LOL... Isn't that what Tollers sort of do? 

Down here no one uses Tollers for hunting and I have not trained one. There are a bunch down here but I have never seen one on a duck blind in the South...... I did see one in Nebraska with another group hunting pheasants. Grandaddy's Chessie wanted to eat it.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Just to stick a fork in the socket . . .
> 
> Some hunters I know hove the same mindset as dog fighters. They love the death, the blood, the excitement. They. . .well, there was a Cracked article that referred to them as "dramatically overmurdering small furry creatures because people frown when they talk about doing it to humans", and I think that's pretty accurate. When they're waving their guns around and whooping and high-fiving blood all over their buddies and otherwise acting like total psychos, I can't think good things about them. If someone is respectful and humane---and I do know some hunters who are---I don't have a problem with it. But I do think some hunters are in it for the bloodlust and that's no different then the dog fighters. Some hunters have no regard for their dogs too. I don't really know how they could screen for that, but if I were running a pit bull rescue I know I'd be leery of adopting to hunters; they'd really have to prove that they aren't just nutters with guns.


You have obviously never come up on a hig, or had to repair fences after they come through, or had your animals killed by them. I hate feral hogs and I am sorry but I wish them the worst death possible. But death by hunter is much nicer than the poisoning many people used to resort to. Now they realized they hurt other native species because they eat the dead poisoned hog and also die. 

The guy who is renting our front pasture for his cattle comes out and hunts hogs, I hear his gun going off every once and a while (don't know if it's legal to use guns at night or not ... I thought I remembered reading somewhere that it was okay on non native animals like feral hogs but I could be wrong). There are also traditionalists who use a "pig sticker" as its called here, some say they die better that way, I don't know. 

There is no way to out a dent in the population ... but they do steer clear of our property now cause they're afraid ... good. Useless pests.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> You have obviously never come up on a hig, or had to repair fences after they come through, or had your animals killed by them. I hate feral hogs and I am sorry but I wish them the worst death possible. But death by hunter is much nicer than the poisoning many people used to resort to. Now they realized they hurt other native species because they eat the dead poisoned hog and also die.
> 
> The guy who is renting our front pasture for his cattle comes out and hunts hogs, I hear his gun going off every once and a while (don't know if it's legal to use guns at night or not ... I thought I remembered reading somewhere that it was okay on non native animals like feral hogs but I could be wrong). There are also traditionalists who use a "pig sticker" as its called here, some say they die better that way, I don't know.
> 
> There is no way to out a dent in the population ... but they do steer clear of our property now cause they're afraid ... good. Useless pests.



There was a time..... Way back.... I was averaging 10 or more hogs a week between running dogs and traps.... Probable way more... .and there were guys in the association I was in.....That were taking more than double what I was.....I was in an association that had about 60 members.... The top ten were taking a couple hundred hogs a week off of state, federal county and private land...... 


And yet 30 years later and all those hogs... The population estimates from the state are over double what they were back then.

I learned a long time ago, you will never trap or catch them out...... Eventually, most of the lower 48 and Hawaii will have serious hog issues..... In my lifetimes at least 20 states have significant hog populations that did not when I was born.... 

I have zero doubt they will eventually colonize states with harsh winters.... Eurasion boars do fine in extreme cold .


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Feral hogs affect everyone in the United States.... Whether you have hogs in your state or not.....

We all pay for it....... Hog damage to agricultural crops in the southeast and texas is measured in the billions of dollars. 

Those costs trickle down... We ALL pay for hog damage at the grocery store cash register.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Feral hogs affect everyone in the United States.... Whether you have hogs in your state or not.....
> 
> We all pay for it....... Hog damage to agricultural crops in the southeast and texas is measured in the billions of dollars.
> 
> Those costs trickle down... We ALL pay for hog damage at the grocery store cash register.


Yes that is true, I didnt think of that.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I can't condone being cruel to a living creature because there are too many of them or they live where they shouldn't. There are too many humans in some places and the environment is being ruined because of them; I don't wish them cruel deaths because of it. Every individual has as much value as any other individual. If humans can't find a way to be humane than there's no point to our supposedly greater intellect. If an animal HAS to be killed for the greater good, we at least need to make it humane, or we aren't any better than animals.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I can't condone being cruel to a living creature because there are too many of them or they live where they shouldn't. There are too many humans in some places and the environment is being ruined because of them; I don't wish them cruel deaths because of it. If humans can't find a way to be humane than there's no point to our supposedly greater intellect.


No, see, we humans are the ones who set those monsters loose in the first place! So I see killing them as kind of correcting our mistake. Also if you had one of your animals hurt or had to repair your fence every day because of those things then you mjight understand.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I understand having to kill them. There is never a need to be cruel. We lose our humanity when we allow ourselves to be cruel. And if humans are responsible for their existence here, we have even more responsibility to deal with them humanely, not less.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I understand having to kill them. There is never a need to be cruel. We lose our humanity when we allow ourselves to be cruel. And if humans are responsible for their existence here, we have even more responsibility to deal with them humanely, not less.


I never mentioned being cruel, one shot to the head or chest with a deer rifle (what the guy who has the cows uses) and its done, no more hog. I have a 20 gauge but that wont kill them unless the shot is just right ... if I see them, I will shoot at them, if you guve them enough bad experience, they wont come back ... at least not on my property LOL. Then they will go to the larger ranches where the hunters can really have fun with them. Our ranch is only 70 acres so they would run into border fences, not enough room to hunt hogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

You said you wished them the worst death possible. Just going by what you said .

I'm sure it won't be too long before they live here. They've been seen in Iowa. Ugh, more critters for the farm boys to run around shooting at recklessly :/.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

I love that the picture that proves the hunters' evil is them posing around a tied up (maybe dead) hog. In PA, those sorts of pictures go over the fireplace, only it's a deer, not a hog. I also notice the dog in the picture is wearing a kevlar vest. Those things ain't cheap. You don't put a kevlar vest on a dog you don't care about.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> You said you wished them the worst death possible. Just going by what you said .
> 
> I'm sure it won't be too long before they live here. They've been seen in Iowa. Ugh, more critters for the farm boys to run around shooting at recklessly :/.


Yes I said I WISHED them the worst death possible ... I dont inflict it upon them myself, but if someone wants to hunt them for sport or whatever, have at it I say. Geeze I dont know how it is where you are but here, IME Texas is very responsible as a whole (of course there are your bad apples) when it comes to firearms (sans the cities, of course LOL)

Its hard not to hope they burn in hell as you are struggling to fix 20 ft of fence they messed up.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

I don't like the thought of killing a living animal for fun, but after having ONE blue jay eat every single fruit off a BIG tree, one my grandparents gave me, for five years before it was even close to being ripe, even with bird netting, reflectors, etc... and to add insult to injury it goes after the tomatoes as well... you have no idea how gleeful I would be to put a bb right through its little heart. And I would if I wasn't moving to AZ in the spring, so it will be the next homeowners' problem, not mine.

And this is a harmless native wildlife.

Hogs destroy native wildlife, they destroy the landscape, they destroy your stuff, they eat your food, they kill your animals, and then they breed like crazy. People have many good reasons to celebrate when these things are dead.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

It's against federal law to kill native birds. . .I think the blue jays know it . There's actually a guy in the town my parents live in who got in trouble (big fine) for destroying robins' nests, so I guess it's enforced at least sometimes. The feds are a lot more likely to enforce stuff than the state guys here.

Nah, ditch hunting is legal here, and killing "varmints" whenever you want. So it's not unusual for the truck in front of you to pull over suddenly and the guys jump out and run off blasting at some animal they saw. . .the only reason more people don't get hurt is because there aren't enough people in the state to be where the bullets go .


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

BigLittle said:


> I don't like the thought of killing a living animal for fun, but after having ONE blue jay eat every single fruit off a BIG tree, one my grandparents gave me, for five years before it was even close to being ripe, even with bird netting, reflectors, etc... and to add insult to injury it goes after the tomatoes as well... you have no idea how gleeful I would be to put a bb right through its little heart. And I would if I wasn't moving to AZ in the spring, so it will be the next homeowners' problem, not mine.
> 
> And this is a harmless native wildlife.
> 
> Hogs destroy native wildlife, they destroy the landscape, they destroy your stuff, they eat your food, they kill your animals, and then they breed like crazy. People have many good reasons to celebrate when these things are dead.


Yes, its kind of hard not to wish ill on them when you are having to fix the same damn section of fence, and treat a (very cantankerous!) goat after one of those things got ahold of it (we first thought it was coyotes, which are another problem here but not as bad). So yes, I apologize of my hatred for them is strong.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

Willowy said:


> It's against federal law to kill native birds. . .


the state of California says otherwise.

Granted, blue jays aren't on the list, but if it's illegal to shoot nuisance birds, then California and it's massive agricultural economy will be in big trouble.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> It's against federal law to kill native birds. . .I think the blue jays know it . There's actually a guy in the town my parents live in who got in trouble (big fine) for destroying robins' nests, so I guess it's enforced at least sometimes. The feds are a lot more likely to enforce stuff than the state guys here.
> 
> Nah, ditch hunting is legal here, and killing "varmints" whenever you want. So it's not unusual for the truck in front of you to pull over suddenly and the guys jump out and run off blasting at some animal they saw. . .the only reason more people don't get hurt is because there aren't enough people in the state to be where the bullets go .


no, blue jays are the ass hats of the bird world LOL, no kidding. 

The laws vary by state and no, the feds usually will defer to the states to make up their own laws concerning things like wildlife. Here its illegal to kill protected species (hawks, owls, mockingbirds ... which are our state bird) and illegal to kill of course, doves, ducks, turkeys, deer, and geese out of season. Feral hogs are not native nor wild and there is no law against when or how you can hunt them. you can spotlight them, shoot them, trap them etc ... the only thing they dont allow anymore is poison ... because it hurts the native species.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

BigLittle said:


> the state of California says otherwise.
> 
> Granted, blue jays aren't on the list, but if it's illegal to shoot nuisance birds, then California and it's massive agricultural economy will be in big trouble.


It's the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918 if you'd like to look it up, and blue jays are on the list. Yes, agricultural producers may kill birds that are taking their product if they fill out all the paperwork but a normal homeowner may not. State laws may not supercede federal law. Otherwise we wouldn't have any birds left, too many kids with .22s and bb guns :/.

I suppose if hogs take hold here they'll be on the varmint list. No seasons, no restrictions.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> It's the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918 if you'd like to look it up, and blue jays are on the list. Yes, agricultural producers may kill birds that are taking their product if they fill out all the paperwork but a normal homeowner may not. State laws may not supercede federal law. Otherwise we wouldn't have any birds left, too many kids with .22s and bb guns :/.


maybe in your area, perhaps people are like that ... but ... because they do that where you are, than they must do it everywhere, right?


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

Willowy said:


> Yes, agricultural producers may kill birds that are taking their product if they fill out all the paperwork but a normal homeowner may not.


Did you not read the California law I linked to? It said NO permit needed for any property holder if the listed birds are damaging or pose a danger to property. 15-20 lbs of fruit counts, I think...persimmons sell for $1 each around here...


> State laws may not supercede federal law.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._Holland


> Otherwise we wouldn't have any birds left


Let me tell you about red-winged blackbirds. They are under the migratory bird act, but California says they maybe killed without a permit if posing as a nuisance. Now where I live, it is prarie and some flood plain. Perfect conditions for them to swarm. And when they swarm, they create what I call a "bird cloud." Think about that scene with the ravens in Lord of the Rings Two Towers. That's on the large side for one of our swarms.

Kids who work on the rice and wheat farms can go trigger happy on those birds, yet I sometimes will see thousands, possibly approaching 1/2 million, flying over the massive rice paddy under the interstate causeway...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> maybe in your area, perhaps people are like that ... but ... because they do that where you are, than they must do it everywhere, right?


I assume that everyone who hates animal rights types WANTS it to be like it is here. . .lack of regulation is the hunter's dream, yes? The only reason other states have stricter hunting laws is because AR types have taken up the issue.



> Did you not read the California law I linked to? It said NO permit needed for any property holder if the listed birds are damaging or pose a danger to property. 15-20 lbs of fruit counts, I think...persimmons sell for $1 each around here...


I can't cut and paste from a pdf but what I read said that if a bird of those species (and if the species is not specifically named it usually means they're not included) is damaging your crops or livestock or a shade/ornamental tree, you can kill it but you need to submit a report to the wildlife people saying how many of each species you killed and why. I don't know if fruit from a residential tree counts, as its loss is generally a mild inconvenience for the homeowner, not a significant financial loss. If there's a different part you're talking about I guess I didn't see it. 

And. . ._Missouri v Holland_ upheld the federal government's right to supercede conflicting state laws. Not sure what point you're trying to make?

I'm sure nobody thought passenger pigeons would go extinct either. And I'm sure they were destructive and annoying. But if we go around exterminating every animal that annoys us, it's not really going to work out in the long run.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I assume that everyone who hates animal rights types WANTS it to be like it is here. . .lack of regulation is the hunter's dream, yes? The only reason other states have stricter hunting laws is because AR types have taken up the issue.
> 
> 
> I can't cut and paste from a pdf but what I read said that if a bird of those species (and if the species is not specifically named it usually means they're not included) is damaging your crops or livestock or a shade/ornamental tree, you can kill it but you need to submit a report to the wildlife people saying how many of each species you killed and why. I don't know if fruit from a residential tree counts, as its loss is generally a mild inconvenience for the homeowner, not a significant financial loss. If there's a different part you're talking about I guess I didn't see it.
> ...


That is not true, the reason we have hunting restrictions is because most ethical hunters ARE also conservationists! ( weird, right?! ) the reason we have to have hunting at all is our own fault for driving out and the natural predators of deer and other animals. Like I said, sure there are bad apples, but grouping ALL hunters into the group you apparently see on a daily basis, is false. 

I have hunted, my family all hunts, and we all have guns, but we are not trigger happy pull over on the side of the road and shoot something that is going by kind of people. Is there a certain thrill of the hunt? Yes, there is. But there is also respect for the animal you are killing, its not just a trophy ... its going to FEED you and your family, thats an honor. I assume you eat meat? You know animals had to die to make that ground beef, steak, ribs, sausage, bacon etc you eat on a daily basis ... the difference is I know where the meat I killed came from, and how it was processed.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

Willowy said:


> And. . ._Missouri v Holland_ upheld the federal government's right to supercede conflicting state laws. Not sure what point you're trying to make?


Two words: friggin' dyslexia.

My apologies on that one. I read the thing 4 times and I still got the wrong conclusion. Probably shouldn't read legalese after 2 hrs of grocery shopping with a low grade fever...

But as far as I can tell, there is no indication that somehow people on 1/4 acre land are any less qualified to shoot a nuisance bird damaging their property with a bb than a rice farmer with 10,000 acres. It would say so if that was the case.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> It's the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918 if you'd like to look it up, and blue jays are on the list. Yes, agricultural producers may kill birds that are taking their product if they fill out all the paperwork but a normal homeowner may not. State laws may not supercede federal law. Otherwise we wouldn't have any birds left, too many kids with .22s and bb guns :/.
> 
> I suppose if hogs take hold here they'll be on the varmint list. No seasons, no restrictions.


The migratory bird act is not a blanket protection for native birds...

1) It ONLY pertains to Migratory birds... Not all NATIVE birds are migratory. 

2) As usual, you read a sentence or two and make sweeping assumptions..

I Quote directly from US Fish and Wildlife...
"_Establishment of a Federal prohibition, *unless permitted by regulations*, to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of this Convention . . . for the protection of migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird." (16 U.S.C. 703)_

You MISS the main point in the entire act.... So I will Quote it again.....

_*unless permitted by regulations*_

MANY MANY migratory species are hunted legally.....
Ducks
Geese
Coots
Crows
Dove

ONLY duck and geese regulations are under Federal regulation. And only partly so.... The Feds set limits, and hunters are required to buy a Federal Duck Stamp. There are multiple flyways and limits can vary from Flyway to Flyway. 
And the system, though now streamlined a bit, it USED to be based on a point system on a point system.... A hunter is allowed to shoot so many points a day.... Each duck species is assigned a point value based on how rare or common it is.... And how desirable it is as a targeted species.... Some species of ducks are very good to eat...Some are nasty tasting. Common, Nasty species get very low points value..... Species that are very good eating have much higher points values. Species that are uncommon have VERY high value. 

The USFW did a survey every year and as populations rise and fall, points change. And sometimes a species or multiple species were taken off the list all together for a number of years. Their numbers come back up, they go back on. 

A hunter could shoot a single duck and have a limit. Another hunter can shoot 15 ducks and not have their limit. 

It was all on points, and species. You dang near needed and accounting degree to figure your limit.... Drakes and hens of the same species could have different values

Now it is six ducks... Some species you can shoot one of, some you can shoot six of.... Still complicated. But less so than figuring points. 

To my knowledge the states decide the season dates....

Here in the summer..... We have a summer mallard season with no limits or even a licensed required. The reason is.... Mallards exist in both the wild and domestic state. And they LOOK the same. There are NO wild Mallards in Florida after April. So all the Mallards that are here in the summer are feral domestic that are invasive. Well have a non migratory species of duck in Florida. The Florida mottled duck.. It is closely related to the mallard. And feral domestic mallards will interbreed with our native black ducks. They are hybridizing our native species out of existence. We also have a bazzillion Muscovy ducks which are not native to the United States. No season or regulations on those... But no one hunts them because they are nasty to eat. 



Crows, doves, etc require NO Federal stamp, State sets limits and seasons. 

None Migratory native birds..... Are managed by the state. Some have seasons, some have full protection. 


And I will say this...... Even NON game migratory song birds are subject to being shot legally under certain circumstances...

When the Strong Cold Fronts start hitting much of the country, we get millions of Robins down here. This usually coincides with the peak Strawberry season in Central Florida.... The Robins with descend on the strawberry fields by the by the hundreds of thousands.... Strawberries only grow well in Florida in the winter. But a freeze will destroy your crop. How would you like to be a farmer and watch a 100 thousand birds descend on your fields of near ripe fruit. It is bad enough that they eat the fruit... But they have this cool habit of eating one or two bites of a strawberry then move on to the next berry they see...

As a kid, once I got old enough anyone consider me a worker and decent shot, I spent much of my time in December, January and February shooting Robins... All the shot gun shells were provided free. I got paid 10 bucks plus ten cents a bird... On Saturdays and days off school, I got 25 bucks and ten cents a bird..... This was in the late 70's through mid 80's. I could make 200 bucks a weekend at 14 years old.... 

The farmers, Including my grandfather, did not really care how many birds I shot... But the fact that shooters like me would shoot a lot and get some birds, would make the berry fields very unfriendly to the birds.... A day or two working a particular area well, would make the fruit safe until a new batch of birds came in on the next front.

By 15 I was too good at it.... I hit a high percentage of birds. and the going rate per bird in the area went up to 20 cents. I got expensive to hire. I have always been very driven to win... It was more about doing the best of anyone than the money....

All was perfectly legal under the law via agricultural predation permits. The same permits can be obtained for deer in Florida. 

Only a small percentage of birds that came down got shot. But thousands and thousands were shot out of I have no clue how many birds... Robins will get so thick coming into a berry field they black out the sun...

For a while farmers started using dogs... My grandfather had a couple of Springer he trained that were VERY good... But the USDA put a end to that... Heaven forbid a dog take a poop in the field.... 

Side note: It is ridiculous now... I have a friend I grew up with that a few years back it was a warm winter. He had a gator in his irrigation pond. The crop inspector red flagged his fields because the gator was walking out in his berry fields at times. The crop inspector found gator poop in the field. And red flagged him...He asked the inspector what was he supposed to do about the gator. They were not in season and he did not have a permit. The crop inspector said it was not his problem. He called the game warden that works the area of his farm. The game warden said he would have a predation permit dropped by... Just shoot the gator and be done with it. 

As far as Blue Jays.... They MAY migrate in some parts of the country. But they are not built for long distance flying... But down here... They are NOT migratory birds and NOT under Federal Jurisdiction.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I assume that everyone who hates animal rights types WANTS it to be like it is here. . .lack of regulation is the hunter's dream, yes? The only reason other states have stricter hunting laws is because AR types have taken up the issue.
> 
> 
> I can't cut and paste from a pdf but what I read said that if a bird of those species (and if the species is not specifically named it usually means they're not included) is damaging your crops or livestock or a shade/ornamental tree, you can kill it but you need to submit a report to the wildlife people saying how many of each species you killed and why. I don't know if fruit from a residential tree counts, as its loss is generally a mild inconvenience for the homeowner, not a significant financial loss. If there's a different part you're talking about I guess I didn't see it.
> ...



You are still wrong.... I have a few pain in the butt blue jays that rule my bird feeder and bird bath... They chase off all the cardinals, thrushes, nuthatches etc.....


Tomorrow I will got out there and kill them with my pellet rifle.... I will then call the USFLW.... And tell them what I did.... I will NEVER face a charge...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I can't condone being cruel to a living creature because there are too many of them or they live where they shouldn't. There are too many humans in some places and the environment is being ruined because of them; I don't wish them cruel deaths because of it. Every individual has as much value as any other individual. If humans can't find a way to be humane than there's no point to our supposedly greater intellect. If an animal HAS to be killed for the greater good, we at least need to make it humane, or we aren't any better than animals.


What is your definition of cruel? 

Cruelty is a moving target.... 



And some humans MAY have read the book on cruelty..... But animals WROTE it......

It is pretty obvious, you have not experienced wildlife in action.... All those Discovery Channel and Nat Geo programs are cool.... Where the predator kills the prey quickly.... Ah..... Animals even predators have compassion for their prey....


But that is NOT reality.... All predators care about is slowing it down enough that they can eat..... 
To stop an adult moose, deer, elk, etc.. they are probably going to have to either kill it or at least wound it bad enough it is no longer aware of what is going on.....

But young animals... Small animals....

Predators will dine at leisure....

Whack em hard enough to slow them down.... 

Two species that are notorious about this are coyotes and hogs... Hogs may not be predators per say in most peoples books... But wild hogs eat what they find... Plant, animal, etc.... They do not care... 

What people do not realize is that hogs are closely related to bears. or vise versa.... Anything a bear will eat, a hog will eat... 

Ever seen an animal eating from the back end of a deer fawn while it is still very much alive? 

I have seen no less than 5 species of predators do this.... The fawn is in agonizing pain and lets the world know it....

I have watched hogs (and coyotes) eat the belly out of a calf while it is still alive....

You will not buy it... Because you do not know... but there is more cruelty in the woods than in humanity....

You LIKE cats.... A LOT... That is obvious over your posting history.... And nothing wrong with that..... I like cats too...

But cats are VERY VERY cruel killers.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Hunting is not cruelty.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Kayota said:


> Hunting is not cruelty.


It can be. We can't just excuse any behavior from a hunter because hey, he's got a gun, he must be a fine upstanding kinda dude. 

And yes, I know nature is not very nice. I think humans need to act better than animals, so sue me. I also think killing animals for reasons of human convenience is wrong. Gasp! I must be a horrible person!

Note: I am aware of hunting season for migratory birds, etc. I don't think every exception needs to be mentioned every time something is brought up.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> It's the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918 if you'd like to look it up, and blue jays are on the list. Yes, agricultural producers may kill birds that are taking their product if they fill out all the paperwork but a normal homeowner may not. State laws may not supercede federal law. Otherwise we wouldn't have any birds left, too many kids with .22s and bb guns :/.
> 
> I suppose if hogs take hold here they'll be on the varmint list. No seasons, no restrictions.


Kids with BB guns STILL exist and STILL shoot birds.... 

It would be impossible to kids with BB guns to put a major dent in a bird population....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I assume that everyone who hates animal rights types WANTS it to be like it is here. . .lack of regulation is the hunter's dream, yes? The only reason other states have stricter hunting laws is because AR types have taken up the issue.
> 
> 
> I can't cut and paste from a pdf but what I read said that if a bird of those species (and if the species is not specifically named it usually means they're not included) is damaging your crops or livestock or a shade/ornamental tree, you can kill it but you need to submit a report to the wildlife people saying how many of each species you killed and why. I don't know if fruit from a residential tree counts, as its loss is generally a mild inconvenience for the homeowner, not a significant financial loss. If there's a different part you're talking about I guess I didn't see it.
> ...


AR types responsible for hunting regulations? 

That is the MOST absurd thing you have EVER posted.....

Hunting regulations existed LONG before AR was ever dreamed of.....

They exist because wildlife is a renewable resource and regulations are how that resource is managed and guaranteed to never be over harvested. 


IF AR was involved there would be NO hunting regulations.... There would simply be NO hunting.....

Right now we have a hot issue coming up in our state....

Around the late 1980's they closed bear season in our state because data showed numbers low......It was supposed to be a temporary thing.... But every time the state started talking about it.... HSUS and PETA has thrown millions of dollars, attorneys and lobbyists at it.... 

And frankly the powers that be in our state wildlife management did not have the stomach to fight... It was a small issue.. So they left it.....

Fast forward to now..... We have bears running around residential areas... Bears in Downtown Orlando and Tampa..... 

You were in Orlando Recently.... A couple of years back a bear waltzed in to the pool area of the Hard Rock Hotel in the middle of the day, with a bunch of guests enjoying the pool and decided to take a swim.... WITH the hotel guests.... There are neighborhoods in parts of Florida that if you drive through any day, you will see many bears.

Never in the history of Florida have we had a recorded bear attack... Now in the last twelve months.....We have had three serious attacks on humans. All serious and the last one a teenaged girl. 

There are countless close calls. Bear complaints to FWC exceed 4 THOUSAND complaints a year....

A guy last year shot and killed a bear... In his sun room.... After the bear had broken in 3 times, done thousands of dollars of damage to his house and the state had been called in each incident and had tried to catch and relocate the bear.....

When the bear broke in again, he shot and killed it. Then called the law....Our state has a Castle Doctrine... IF that bear had been human, no one would have given it a second thought... And the local Sheriff and FWC did not seem worried about it either. Bear broke into his home, he killed it.... End of story.... But HSUS and PETA hired private investigators, put pressure on elected officials... And this guy suffered over it. 

Me personally... I LIKE the bears... I have been hunting, fishing and running around the woods with them for over 40 years..... I am not worried about me, my dogs etc around bears. But the average suburnanite is NOT equipped mentally or through experience to be up close and personal with bears. And these suburban bears have changed habits. They are keying in on the rich food sources in the suburbs.... In the woods, you encounter a black bear and it sees you it hauls butt... These suburban bears walk right towards you.....They have learned to be dangerous....

Now the state wants to use hunting as part of a three pronged management tool.

For many years the state has relocated problem bears. But is largely fails.... Move them 2 hundred miles they are back right where they were trapped in weeks. This has been documented over and over......

Plus NOW.... There is NO place to relocate them..... All natural usable bear habitat is FULL.... Most considered well above carrying capacity.... One place I hunt, I see three or four bears for every deer I see. It should NOT be that way...

So the state wants to do this.....
Have a bear season.... I have not heard an official goal, but a biologist at a meeting I went to through out a targeted take of 150 animals a year.... Combined deterrent efforts and using proven practices to make suburban areas unfriendly to bears. (Air horns, bear dogs that chase and tree bears, paint ball and bean bag guns, etc.) To re educate the bears. Plus with taking some animals through hunting that would open up natural habitat for relocated bears. 

They want to sell bear tags, record kill data, etc.... To manage the bears. And the sale of tags.....would create additional targeted funding for bear management...... The tags can be expensive and at least in the first ten years there will be waiting lists for tags.... $500 bucks would not be too high...... If they charged a thousand bucks there would be more people that wanted them than they issued. 

And we are in the VERY beginning of discussions.... Yet already HSUS and PETA are throwing around millions down here to fight this...

In the end.... Bear hunting will return to Florida... But more humans will be hurt and HSUS and PETA will cost the taxpayers of this state millions to make it happen.....

And IF Vegas would take the bet.... I would wager that someone dies from a bear attack before it happens...



The FACT is.... Humans, agriculture, and wildlife has to live together.... And it is possible all live together successfully....

But the Animal Rights movement has NO place in that circle. 


AR has NO place in wildlife management... They only cause death, destruction and pain..... NOTHING good has EVER come from AR....


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> It can be. We can't just excuse any behavior from a hunter because hey, he's got a gun, he must be a fine upstanding kinda dude.
> 
> And yes, I know nature is not very nice. I think humans need to act better than animals, so sue me. I also think killing animals for reasons of human convenience is wrong. Gasp! I must be a horrible person!
> 
> Note: I am aware of hunting season for migratory birds, etc. I don't think every exception needs to be mentioned every time something is brought up.


We could make it a positive and say "hey! That person has a gun, but they aren't an irresponsible selfish, trigger happy ass hat! Maybe all hunters AREN'T irresponsible, trigger happy ass hats!" Because no matter how much evidence you find of be bad hunting practices ... there are also just as many, if not more examples of responsible hunting practice.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> We could make it a positive and say "hey! That person has a gun, but they aren't an irresponsible selfish, trigger happy ass hat! Maybe all hunters AREN'T irresponsible, trigger happy ass hats!" Because no matter how much evidence you find of be bad hunting practices ... there are also just as many, if not more examples of responsible hunting practice.


The abusers are a VERY SMALL minority.....

TINY......


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> The abusers are a VERY SMALL minority.....
> 
> TINY......


I know, in my area, I can count on one hand the times I personally ally have seen irresponsible hunting practices. Of course I small not all up in everyone's business, either.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I know, in my area, I can count on one hand the times I personally ally have seen irresponsible hunting practices. Of course I small not all up in everyone's business, either.


I have seen FAR more fishing violations than hunting violations. And most of those are people that do not know the regulations. Not an excuse.....

And frankly... Most of the hunting issues I have seen or personally heard (by way of hearing the gunshot) are people stretching legal shooting hours by a few minutes.....

Most places legal shooting hours are 30 minutes prior to official sunrise and 30 minutes after official sunset. (Changes every day by a few minutes.) At times, you will hear a shot a few minutes early or a few minutes late. 

I have encountered reckless hunters, trespassers, etc... But those people are more of a danger to humans...... Wildlife tends to be good at avoiding reckless people. 
When I still hunt, I always sit with my back against a tree wider than my shoulders.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I have seen FAR more fishing violations than hunting violations. And most of those are people that do not know the regulations. Not an excuse.....
> 
> And frankly... Most of the hunting issues I have seen or personally heard (by way of hearing the gunshot) are people stretching legal shooting hours by a few minutes.....
> 
> ...


It's interesting to me to see the variations in the hunting regulations in each state. Here only seasoned animals (deer, doves, ducks etc ...) have regulated times. I don't think (and I might be wrong) that predator hunting has any daylight or time restrictions here.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> It's interesting to me to see the variations in the hunting regulations in each state. Here only seasoned animals (deer, doves, ducks etc ...) have regulated times. I don't think (and I might be wrong) that predator hunting has any daylight or time restrictions here.



Variations because of game populations, habitat, etc....

People from up north think the limits for deer in Florida Georgia, Alabama south Carolina, and even Texas are abusive.....

they do not realize that is is a constant battle to keep the deer population managed.... In Florida the population of deer has over doubled in my lifetime....

That is why you can legally shoot two deer a day for months at a time...But while we have a ton of deer, hunting conditions are hard and our human populations do not typically ready adapt to our hunting conditions. Our human population is heavily from up north.... I have become a rarity in my own state..... Multi generation native.... And transplants do not regularly take up hunting in Florida unless they befriend and learn from someone that is from here.

Even the folks from up north that do hunt OFTEN return to the north to hunt


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Willowy said:


> It can be. We can't just excuse any behavior from a hunter because hey, he's got a gun, he must be a fine upstanding kinda dude.
> 
> And yes, I know nature is not very nice. I think humans need to act better than animals, so sue me. I also think killing animals for reasons of human convenience is wrong. Gasp! I must be a horrible person!
> 
> Note: I am aware of hunting season for migratory birds, etc. I don't think every exception needs to be mentioned every time something is brought up.


Hogs destroying the ecosystem has nothing to do with human convenince.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I think humans need to act better than animals, so sue me.


Humans are already MUCH kinder and more compassionate than animals......

You NEED to spend some time in the woods....

There is Very little if any compassion or kindness in the woods......


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Note: I am aware of hunting season for migratory birds, etc. I don't think every exception needs to be mentioned every time something is brought up.


The exception are the birds that are actually projected under the act you listed... Which by the way, has been amended many times. 


By the way.... I want you to show me where U.S. Fish and Wildlife considers blue jays migratory....

They are not a migratory species.... Even in sub arctic environments.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> They are not a migratory species.... Even in sub arctic environments.


I was just thinking about that. The evil blue jay (which has destroyed over $200 of produce we would have eaten based on its retail value) lives year round in the neighbor's tree with its mate. I wondered if it even counted as a result.

I remember a restaurant _next door_ to the environmental consulting firm I worked at caught the native mallards in the lake the office was on and smoked them outside in the back. The biologists knew right away that ducks were missing; tracking animals is their job. Boss reported it to FWS and they said they couldn't do anything because... the bird population was no longer protected vecause they stopped migrating a few years prior. They actually had to go at the restaurant through health code, of all things. Thankfully, it's shut down since.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> As usual, you read a sentence or two and make sweeping assumptions..


Nothing changes.

Bandit, what kind of Pellet gun. I'm proud owner of a Diana and a couple Weihrauchs, a Gamo and a couple Crosmans. It started with some pest removal and just kinda balooned on me.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> It's the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918 if you'd like to look it up, and blue jays are on the list. Yes, agricultural producers may kill birds that are taking their product if they fill out all the paperwork but a normal homeowner may not. State laws may not supercede federal law. Otherwise we wouldn't have any birds left, too many kids with .22s and bb guns :/.
> 
> *I suppose if hogs take hold here they'll be on the varmint list. No seasons, no restrictions.*


Thats the way it is here, feral hogs decimate ecosystems, kill local wildlife and drive the price of not only YOUR food, but animal feed as well, why would you be opposed to their control? I have trouble comprehending that.

Also about how humans need to act better than animals .... you know we are essentially, animals too, right?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> why would you be opposed to their control? I have trouble comprehending that.


Comprehending Willowy is also way beyond my pay scale.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> The exception are the birds that are actually projected under the act you listed... Which by the way, has been amended many times.
> 
> 
> By the way.... I want you to show me where U.S. Fish and Wildlife considers blue jays migratory....
> ...


DEFINITELY not migratory, we have them here year round, and it can and does get to -50 Celcius here.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

From what I can find, blue jays may be protected under the category of songbirds (songbirds are protected even if not migratory. So are birds of prey). But whatevs. People who want to kill things don't care anyway. 

I can't comprehend the mindset of people who think taking a life is no big deal. So if people like that can't comprehend me, I guess we're even.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Willowy said:


> From what I can find, blue jays may be protected under the category of songbirds (songbirds are protected even if not migratory. So are birds of prey). But whatevs. People who want to kill things don't care anyway.
> 
> *I can't comprehend the mindset of people who think taking a life is no big deal.* So if people like that can't comprehend me, I guess we're even.


Seriously, where has anyone said that?


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Willowy said:


> From what I can find, blue jays may be protected under the category of songbirds (songbirds are protected even if not migratory. So are birds of prey). But whatevs. People who want to kill things don't care anyway.
> 
> I can't comprehend the mindset of people who think taking a life is no big deal. So if people like that can't comprehend me, I guess we're even.


LOL, Bluejays are NOT songbirds! They belong to the same family as crows and ravens, they're Corvids.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> From what I can find, blue jays may be protected under the category of songbirds (songbirds are protected even if not migratory. So are birds of prey). But whatevs. People who want to kill things don't care anyway.
> 
> I can't comprehend the mindset of people who think taking a life is no big deal. So if people like that can't comprehend me, I guess we're even.


*SIGH*

We are talking about eradicating an INVASIVE species, a species that KILLS native and PROTECTED species!!! I cant understand the mindset of someone who doesnt support the eradication of a invasive animal who WIPES OUT the animals they claim to want to protect.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Kuma'sMom said:


> LOL, Bluejays are NOT songbirds! They belong to the same family as crows and ravens, they're Corvids.


I know that but government categories may not make any sense . 



> We are talking about eradicating an INVASIVE species, a species that KILLS native and PROTECTED species!!!


I think at this point we were talking about whether it's OK to kill a blue jay you find annoying, not hogs. I already said I understand the need to kill hogs, as long as it's done humanely. And I would say that someone who kills for reasons of their inconvenience/annoyance thinks it's no big deal to take a life.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> *SIGH*
> 
> We are talking about eradicating an INVASIVE species, a species that KILLS native and PROTECTED species!!! I cant understand the mindset of someone who doesnt support the eradication of a invasive animal who WIPES OUT the animals they claim to want to protect.


Even regardless of that... you can hunt and still be respectful of the animal and acknowledge you are taking a life and not do it lightly or without reason, and not cause it unnecessary suffering.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> From what I can find, blue jays may be protected under the category of songbirds (songbirds are protected even if not migratory. So are birds of prey). But whatevs. People who want to kill things don't care anyway.
> 
> I can't comprehend the mindset of people who think taking a life is no big deal. So if people like that can't comprehend me, I guess we're even.


 Taking life is always a big deal. But we all do it. Unless a person is 100% vegan, does not ever travel by any method other than walking, does not own carnivorous pets, etc they kill animals. Even you willowy. In your life thousans s of animals have been killed by you. You may not have pulled the trigger, may not have got you hands bloody. But still it is because of you.. 

Yet you go around and trash the human race for killing animals and you are equally as responsible as any human. Except you like to pretend that you are not. Quite hypocritical.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> I know that but government categories may not make any sense .


I would very much like to see the legislation claiming that blue jays are song birds. Link please?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

They're on this list: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/mbta/MBTANDX.HTML

I'm just saying that even if they don't migrate I think they still count under some category or another.

And, yeah, I know I'm responsible for the death of animals. All I can say is that I've never deliberately killed any animal (are bugs animals? OK, I've killed bugs knowingly) myself, and try to avoid situations that would result in someone killing an animal for my convenience. I do have carnivorous pets so I can't say anything about eating meat, but the killing is not frivolous if the meat is eaten. I do not believe that everyone who kills animals does so with respect and the weight of taking a life, because I've seen way too much to the contrary to believe that.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Kuma'sMom said:


> I would very much like to see the legislation claiming that blue jays are song birds. Link please?


I will admit to pegging a few at our place with a BB gun, because they bully the other birds away from the feeders and I have even seen them kill sparrows and cardinals  . They dont even eat! they just sit up there and guard the dang feeders! So yeah ... I have even had them attack my dogs out in the yard! So yeah ... this is a no blue jay zone here LOL


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> From what I can find, blue jays may be protected under the category of songbirds (songbirds are protected even if not migratory. So are birds of prey). But whatevs. People who want to kill things don't care anyway.
> 
> I can't comprehend the mindset of people who think taking a life is no big deal. So if people like that can't comprehend me, I guess we're even.


You are still wrong. Blue jays and other birds receive protection in some areas. Cities towns etc. But there is no federal law that protects them. I cannot speak for every state. But in Florida they have zero protection under any state laws. Yet there are zillions of them. Because largely there is no reason to kill them. I have eaten one. Because the rule growing up was you kill it, you eat it. ( unless you were protecting crops or livestock. And I killed on once. I had to clean it and that is what I got for su0per. It tasted like crap. And I had to eat it all. 


The most humorous thing about you choosing blue jays. Is either you know nothing about them or you conveniently dismiss it by choice blue jays ate among the most ruthless opportunists out there they find a cardinal nest thrush etc. They just start eating. They do not even bother to kill the nestlings before dinner is served. 


Even more humorous. Is you choose blue jays. Yet you have repeatedly not only condoned but actually defended the fact that feral cats killing song birds. Feral cats are invasive exotics. They should not even be running around. You want to bash humans, hunters and kids with bb guns. Yet your precious feral cats kill millions of song birds each year in the united States


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> They're on this list: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/mbta/MBTANDX.HTML
> 
> I'm just saying that even if they don't migrate I think they still count under some category or another.
> 
> And, yeah, I know I'm responsible for the death of animals. All I can say is that I've never deliberately killed any animal (are bugs animals? OK, I've killed bugs knowingly) myself, and try to avoid situations that would result in someone killing an animal for my convenience. I do have carnivorous pets so I can't say anything about eating meat, but the killing is not frivolous if the meat is eaten. I do not believe that everyone who kills animals does so with respect and the weight of taking a life, because I've seen way too much to the contrary to believe that.


You think wrong. They are not protected. And that list you posted means nothing. I counted no less than tens invasive exotic species on that list. None of those exotics are protected. Heck european starlings are on there as well no protection


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I only mentioned blue jays because someone mentioned wanting to kill one. I don't know what they're doing on a federal wildlife service protected species list if they're not protected. But you'll argue with anything I say so hey, have fun with that.

ETA: the starlings mentioned are different varieties. The European starling is not protected.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> They're on this list: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/mbta/MBTANDX.HTML
> 
> I'm just saying that even if they don't migrate I think they still count under some category or another.
> 
> And, yeah, I know I'm responsible for the death of animals. All I can say is that I've never deliberately killed any animal (are bugs animals? OK, I've killed bugs knowingly) myself, and try to avoid situations that would result in someone killing an animal for my convenience. I do have carnivorous pets so I can't say anything about eating meat, but the killing is not frivolous if the meat is eaten. I do not believe that everyone who kills animals does so with respect and the weight of taking a life, because I've seen way too much to the contrary to believe that.


Wrong again. Every time you buy pet food you deliberately kill animals


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Wrong again. Every time you buy pet food you deliberately kill animals


OK then. I haven't deliberately killed animals for reasons other than food.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I only mentioned blue jays because someone mentioned wanting to kill one. I don't know what they're doing on a federal wildlife service protected species list if they're not protected. But you'll argue with anything I say so hey, have fun with that.


 Show some documentation that they have federal protection. There is nothing. 
You argued they were migratory. They are not. You said they receive protection as song birds they do not. You posted a list of birds that include invasive exotics. Some of those exotic species have active ongoing state and federal eradication programs in place


It is not me that will argue with anything. You are describing your self. You were proven wrong on the blue jay thing two pages back. Yet you have continued to argue changing and making up reasons that do not exist. Just to prove you are correct. You were not on the first post and have not been since. It is you that is arguing.



Willowy said:


> OK then. I haven't deliberately killed animals for reasons other than food.


Yes you have


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Willowy said:


> They're on this list: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/mbta/MBTANDX.HTML
> 
> I'm just saying that even if they don't migrate I think they still count under some category or another.
> 
> And, yeah, I know I'm responsible for the death of animals. All I can say is that I've never deliberately killed any animal (are bugs animals? OK, I've killed bugs knowingly) myself, and try to avoid situations that would result in someone killing an animal for my convenience. I do have carnivorous pets so I can't say anything about eating meat, but the killing is not frivolous if the meat is eaten. I do not believe that everyone who kills animals does so with respect and the weight of taking a life, because I've seen way too much to the contrary to believe that.


Willowy, you really do need to read more thoroughly before posting these things as "proof", either that or you really are grasping at straws here. That treaty does NOT protect any of those birds from hunting, it does, however, "make it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations."
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BirdManagement.html


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Sigh. I didn't say you couldn't get a a permit or license to hunt some of those birds. You totally can. And a permit to kill them for other reasons under certain circumstances. But all native birds are federally protected against frivolous killing, and if a federal wildlife website isn't proof of that I don't know what is. 

("take" means kill)


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Sigh. I didn't say you couldn't get a a permit or license to hunt some of those birds. You totally can. And a permit to kill them for other reasons under certain circumstances. But all native birds are federally protected against frivolous killing, and if a federal wildlife website isn't proof of that I don't know what is.
> 
> ("take" means kill)


No, take means to take from the wild, as in capture. That law has NOTHING to do with hunting or killing, it prohibits the capture and sale of those birds, that is it. So you would need a special permit to say, keep one as a pet, but there is no law against killing one. None. At. All.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I only mentioned blue jays because someone mentioned wanting to kill one. I don't know what they're doing on a federal wildlife service protected species list if they're not protected. But you'll argue with anything I say so hey, have fun with that.
> 
> ETA: the starlings mentioned are different varieties. The European starling is not protected.


Yet both European starling and Muscovy ducks are on that list. In any case it does not matter which species of starling is on the list. NONE are native to north America. Starlings are an old old world species is. 

By the way. You still have not figured out what that list you posted/is have you? It is not what you think it is. You really should?d thoroughly read your "proof". Before you post it. It is reealy funny that you posted that list.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

Willowy said:


> And I would say that someone who kills for reasons of their inconvenience/annoyance thinks it's no big deal to take a life.


When it's the harvest season, we buy almost no produce, and we eat a lot of fruits and veggies...

Also, you don't know what income bracket we're in. If we were below the poverty line, over $200 in damage to the food meant for our susteneance WOULD be more than just "inconvenience".

To top it off, the only other animal that has done more damage than that blue jay to our property is Clyde. The doves, the sparrows, the robins, even the feral housecats, and such have not even exceeded $200 in damage to our property combined...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Sigh. I didn't say you couldn't get a a permit or license to hunt some of those birds. You totally can. And a permit to kill them for other reasons under certain circumstances. But all native birds are federally protected against frivolous killing, and if a federal wildlife website isn't proof of that I don't know what is.
> 
> ("take" means kill)



Wrong again. I knew what that was when. You posted it. I have just been having fun with it. That is a list of birds that it is illegal to capture and put into captivity. Take means take. Kill means kill. There is not local state or federal law protecting a great many birds from being killed at will.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OK. . .that's so generally understood that I don't know what to say. The "d" definition seems to be the relevant one: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/take
There would be very little use in a protection law that doesn't actually protect anything.

Also: from the list: 
STARLING, Chestnut-cheeked, Sturnus philippensis
White-cheeked, Sturnus cineraceus

NOT European starling, sternus vulgaris


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

@ willowy

Yeah, dont be all like "you cant do that because its illegal where I live and therefore that makes it illegal everywhere." If you dont mind feral hogs rooting up your property and killing your native and farm animals and ruining your fences (when they get to your area, and they will) then thats fine, but I MIND and I dont WANT them to kill my animals or ruin my land.

Also, you said you dont have hogs there yet, so you DONT know what its like to deal with them, so I'm sorry to say, but IMO you dont have a "dog in this fight" as we say.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Willowy said:


> OK. . .that's so generally understood that I don't know what to say. The "d" definition seems to be the relevant one: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/take


Lol, only by you. Even that definition you posted, 99% of the definitions of the word take have nothing to do with killing. It actually supports what Johnny and I have been saying. You took ONE possible definition out of a very long list and claim that's the common usage? Not even close. There may be some people who use the word take to mean to kill, but they are very few and far between. That is not the common usage of the word at all, and certainly not by the government, lol.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> OK. . .that's so generally understood that I don't know what to say. The "d" definition seems to be the relevant one: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/take
> There would be very little use in a protection law that doesn't actually protect anything.
> 
> Also: from the list:
> ...


Still invasive exotics in north america


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Kuma'sMom said:


> Lol, only by you. Even that definition you posted, 99% of the definitions of the word take have nothing to do with killing. It actually supports what Johnny and I have been saying. You took ONE possible definition out of a very long list and claim that's the common usage? Not even close. There may be some people who use the word take to mean to kill, but they are very few and far between. That is not the common usage of the word at all, and certainly not by the government, lol.


I have heard hunters use the term "take em'!" But you are right, kuma's mom, that meaning/use of "take" is way down the list. the way the fish and game article is using "take" is to "capture".


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

You can contact the wildlife people if you want to prove me wrong so much . I know I'm right on this one. No point in a protection law that doesn't actually protect the life of those it is intended to protect.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> OK. . .that's so generally understood that I don't know what to say. The "d" definition seems to be the relevant one: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/take
> There would be very little use in a protection law that doesn't actually protect anything.
> 
> Also: from the list:
> ...


You do realize the definition you just posted contradicts your assertion of your definition of take


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> You can contact the wildlife people if you want to prove me wrong so much . I know I'm right on this one. No point in a protection law that doesn't actually protect the life of those it is intended to protect.


LOL.

Tigers
elephants
black and white rhinos
wolves
gorillas
whales
sharks

Are just a FEW of the species that are "protected" under federal and international laws, and *gasp* they are still endangered, many of those animals are on the critical list. So, yeah ... "protection" in many instances doesnt mean squat.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> You can contact the wildlife people if you want to prove me wrong so much . I know I'm right on this one. No point in a protection law that doesn't actually protect the life of those it is intended to protect.


 Multiple people have already proved you wrong. I know and understand how to read wildlife regulations. Been doing it all my life. You need some help understanding them though. Because you have been wrong and proven so on every account. So give thr!m a call. They will straighten you out. But chances are you will still argue with them.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

rattlesnakes are protected here but you bet your bones I wont hesitate to blow the head off one of them if its in my yard.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Willowy said:


> You can contact the wildlife people if you want to prove me wrong so much . I know I'm right on this one. No point in a protection law that doesn't actually protect the life of those it is intended to protect.


Except that that law isn't intended to protect the birds from being killed, merely from being kept in captivity, LOL!!! There is a BIG difference between laws prohibiting keeping wildlife as pets and laws prohibiting killing them, even if you are unable/unwilling to understand that.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I have talked to wildlife guys and they said that it's illegal to kill native species without a permit or license. And I personally know people who have been fined for destroying nests and killing birds. Not possessing those birds/nests. Killing/destroying them. I wonder why they got fined. By the feds, not the state. And I wonder why people are cranky about the Migratory Bird Treaty if it only means they can't have a pet cardinal. . .

Oh look, it appears this is how a lot of people understand the law, including state wildlife agencies: 
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Plants_Wildlife/MBirdTreatyAct.asp"
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is the primary legislation protecting native birds in the United States and one of this country's earliest environmental laws. It prohibits the "taking" any native birds; "taking" can mean killing a wild bird or possessing parts of a wild bird, including feathers, nests, or eggs. "
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/living_with/birds.asp
"All native migratory birds are protected by federal law. It is illegal to injure, kill or possess a native bird or to interfere with an active nest."
http://www.pressherald.com/2011/05/15/killing-spring-birdsis-prohibited-by-law-2011-05-15/


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I know is you have to report if you hit an owl, deer, or a hawk ... but I have never heard of someone being fined because they hit a blue jay or a dove with their car and didnt report it LOL


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I have talked to wildlife guys and they said that it's illegal to kill native species without a permit or license. And I personally know people who have been fined for destroying nests and killing birds. Not possessing those birds/nests. Killing/destroying them. I wonder why they got fined. By the feds, not the state. And I wonder why people are cranky about the Migratory Bird Treaty if it only means they can't have a pet cardinal. . .
> 
> Oh look, it appears this is how a lot of people understand the law, including state wildlife agencies:
> http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Plants_Wildlife/MBirdTreatyAct.asp"
> ...


First site is a states interpretation and their own add lib. Not what the treaty act actually says

The second site is us fish and wildlife. Same list that has all those same invasive exotics on there that you do not understand what that list is for. If you actually read the treaty. The only species that have full protection. Are woodpeckers seabirds and birds of prey. Game birds and waterfowl are regulated. 

As for resident non game non pbirds of prey and non seabirds and woodpeckers the treaty does not specifically protect them. That is left up to local and state law. You cannot keep native birds as pets in most cases but that does not mean you cannot kill them 

Hence when. I go shoot the blue jays in my yard. I am breaking know laws. I have lived 47 years without a single violation. Not so much as a warning. And I have a lot to lose over a minor violation. A civil infraction of the most/minor wildlife law will revoke my commercial trapping license. I will no longer be able to charge to remove any wildlife. Including feral hogs I will lose access to restricted/government land for the purpose of hog removal etc. 

The fact is. The treaty you have so strongly hung your hat on was never intended to protect birds from being shot or killed here. If you read it and the history behind it, you would know that first it is a treaty not a law. If it was a law it would be title as an act. But...... It is titled as a treaty. Because that is exactly what it is. An international treaty to protect our native birds from commercial international trade. Our native birds can be prized exotic pets in other parts of the world. Jays cardinals etc are highly prized. Like we like parrots finches canaries etc here. Starlings were once a very common aviary bird in the us. 

And that is why all those exotic species are on that list. The starlings ducks etc. The ones that are wild here are invasive exotics. But trade in those exotic species is illegal. To protect them in their native habitats. 

And that is what is so hilarious about all of this. For two days you have been twisting and turning and unwittingly been trying to back your statements on domestic law on an international treaty on commercial trade.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> First site is a states interpretation and their own add lib. Not what the treaty act actually says
> 
> The second site is us fish and wildlife. Same list that has all those same invasive exotics on there that you do not understand what that list is for. If you actually read the treaty. The only species that have full protection. Are woodpeckers seabirds and birds of prey. Game birds and waterfowl are regulated.
> 
> ...


thats what I thought too, that the feds kind of allowed the states to make their own laws regarding animal conservation and enforce them.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I've read as much as I could on the subject, reading everything several times over to make sure I understand it. And it is an Act ("Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act"). LOL, I'm not "hanging my hat" on anything and I don't really care what you do. But it's blizzarding out and I'm bored with nothing better to do than argue with strangers on the internet ("someone is WRONG on the internet!!!" ). So, from the Cornell law library, a federal law book:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/703
It seems clear on the subject. 

And, well, I kinda hope FSA would have a decent handle on the issue: 
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=ecrc&topic=waf-ma
And they link to the FWS list I linked to. 

So I don't see any other way to interpret that.

And isn't that the whole point of _Missouri v Holland_? Some dudes were killing some birds the state said were OK but the feds said no. Legal case ensued. Feds won.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Right from the Federal site willowy shared. 
MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations. The migratory bird species protected by the Act are listed in 50 CFR 10.13. For the current rule and more information click here
For an alphabetical list of MBTA protected birds click here.

This is pertaining to the commercial trade in native birds. Not someone shooting a blue jay in their yard


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

And from the direct wording of US Code 703 from the Cornell law library:

"Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof, included in the terms of the conventions. . ."

There is a very important "or" in the FWS quote.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> And from the direct wording of US Code 703 from the Cornell law library:
> 
> "Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof, included in the terms of the conventions. . ."
> 
> There is a very important "or" in the FWS quote.


but this thread is about feral hogs, and eradicating them, not killing native species for fun.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I've read as much as I could on the subject, reading everything several times over to make sure I understand it. And it is an Act ("Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act"). LOL, I'm not "hanging my hat" on anything and I don't really care what you do. But it's blizzarding out and I'm bored with nothing better to do than argue with strangers on the internet ("someone is WRONG on the internet!!!" ). So, from the Cornell law library, a federal law book:
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/703
> It seems clear on the subject.
> 
> ...


LOL this gets more entertaining with EACH of your posts.....

And yes you are hanging your hat on it....

You post things that contradict your argument with EACH post....

You are NOT interpreting it at all. You are making your own assumptions. IF you were interpreting it, you would see that your assumptions are quite wrong...

Missouri vs Holland. You are beyond clueless here as well. 

The state of Missouri filed suit on a Federal game warden for attempting to enforce Federal Waterfowl regulations in the State of Missouri. The state felt that it was their right to set their own limits when it comes to taking game within their state. 

And the fact is..... States DO HAVE the right to set, enforce, and regulate their own game laws. 

Except for ONE single caveat..... The United States Congress passed a law regulating migratory game birds.... Immediately several states challenged that law in federal court as unconstitutional..... So the law was struck down.... That ticked off some ranking members of congress..... They were mad that the States had got their law knocked down....

So they found a loophole.....Many species of migratory birds, cross international borders with both Canada and Mexico.... So congress put pressure on the State Department to draft a Treaty with a foreign government. 

So the state department worked with Great Britain, which had a greater voice in Canada at the time and Drafted the Migratory bird treaty act..... It was easy as the State Department and some Foreign countries were working on measures to protect native birds from exploitation....... 
Thus they threw in waterfowl, European species and even some Asian Species. The U.S. and Great Britain signed the treaty.... Thus it became the Migratory Bird Protection Act of 1918... And Great Britain's stake in this was that Canadians worried that all their tasty ducks and geese would get shot when they flew into the U.S. 

Upon Signing of the Treaty.... The feds set limits on waterfowl. Mr Holland a Federal Game Warden assigned to Missouri attempted to enforce those regulations. The State of Missouri said NOPE... Game regulation is a state right.... Mr. Holland continued to attempt enforcement. So the State of Missouri took Mr. Holland to court. 

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In the end the Treaty was upheld..... Because international Treaty by the Federal Government supercedes State Law. Treaties have to be ratified by congress. But this treaty was what congress wanted. 

IF you actually read the briefs and the Justice's writing on the decision, The Supreme Court actually agreed with Missouri. But the Constitution is clear when it comes to international treaties. So the Supreme Court had no choice but to uphold the treaty and find against the State of Missouri. But they clearly stated that the entire issue was congress using a loophole to navigate around a matter that the legislative branch had the power to act on. 

So..... In Short..... Missouri vs Holland has NOTHING to do with your argument. It about a State's challenge to set their own season limits......

And you are still wrong..... You are attempting.... And have been attempting for two days, to use an international treaty and twist it into supporting your point of view and statements..... The FACT is, it does not.....

Nothing in the Migratory bird protection treaty of 1918 supports your position...... So yes you have hung your hat on it. 

So again......



> *The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations. The migratory bird species protected by the Act are listed in 50 CFR 10.13. For the current rule and more information click here*


Straight from the Treaty itself.... It is about commercial exploitation and trade in birds and bird parts... 
Remember.... At the time, Bird Plumes (Tail feathers) were all the rage for hat and clothing accents in Europe. 
Also.... Commercial Market hunting of waterfowl existed in this country until the 1918 Treaty..... There was a time, when you could go to the local butcher shop and buy a wild duck or goose that had been harvested by Hunters....

Nothing about the Treaty prevents John Smith in Alabama from Shooting blue jays that are getting into his blueberry patch......



Willowy said:


> And from the direct wording of US Code 703 from the Cornell law library:
> 
> "Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof, included in the terms of the conventions. . ."
> 
> There is a very important "or" in the FWS quote.


the "OR" is only important to you.... Because you want the "or" to support your position.... But it does not...


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I am not one that sits on my front porch and pops off at every animal I see, but if I have a nuisance animal that is causing me trouble, you betcha I will deal with it. Now that might not mean killing. I have chased hawks away from my yard that were looking at my little JRT like they might want to try to eat him, I "took care" of them but I didn't kill them.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

How did this go from talking about killing an invasive and damaging species to arguing about whether or not you can shoot a native bird???


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Kayota said:


> How did this go from talking about killing an invasive and damaging species to arguing about whether or not you can shoot a native bird???


By someone bringing up that they would like to kill a native bird that was eating fruit from their fruit tree.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

LOL, it is getting funny, isn't it? I have no idea how someone can look right at a law in a law book that says "it shall be unlawful to. . .kill. . .etc." and not think that's exactly what it means. Because it does. But, hey, knock yerself out. Not my problem. 

So, any guesses about why a landlord would get in trouble for knocking robin's nests down and drowning the babies? Because that's what that guy did and they fined him. . .I found it on the internet once, I'll look around and see if I can find it again.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> LOL, it is getting funny, isn't it? I have no idea how someone can look right at a law in a law book that says "it shall be unlawful to. . .kill. . .etc." and not think that's exactly what it means. Because it does. But, hey, knock yerself out. Not my problem.
> 
> So, any guesses about why a landlord would get in trouble for knocking robin's nests down and drowning the babies? Because that's what that guy did and they fined him. . .I found it on the internet once, I'll look around and see if I can find it again.


But this thread is about invasive, destructive species, not people going around, destroying native species for fun. Anyway I dont have to use my gun, because to eliviate the problem of blue jays and other bigger "bully birds", we just have feeders that are designed for smaller birds only. The "bully birds" just give up and eat from the ground.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> LOL, it is getting funny, isn't it? I have no idea how someone can look right at a law in a law book that says "it shall be unlawful to. . .kill. . .etc." and not think that's exactly what it means. Because it does. But, hey, knock yerself out. Not my problem.
> 
> So, any guesses about why a landlord would get in trouble for knocking robin's nests down and drowning the babies? Because that's what that guy did and they fined him. . .I found it on the internet once, I'll look around and see if I can find it again.


It is funny ever since you posted and tried to bend the interpretation of an international treaty. 

As for the robin nest situation. That is easy and very clear. Molestation of nests eggs and hatchlings is specially prohibited.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> It is funny ever since you posted and tried to bend the interpretation of an international treaty.
> 
> As for the robin nest situation. That is easy and very clear. Molestation of nests eggs and hatchlings is specially prohibited.


I think that goes for all birds, doesnt it?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

So why would it be illegal to kill baby birds but not their mother? That makes no sense. Can you explain the wording in the law talking about killing?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

It's also just amazing that every state wildlife agency must understand the law wrongly because every one of their websites I've looked at has an explanation of the MBTA that says you may not kill birds without a permit/license. I think I'll take their word for it .


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

California has laws explicitly protecting nests.

I was reading our DFG codes and it interpreted your Migratory Bird Treaty as possessing any part of the native animal. It used "take" not "hunt." It even gives exemptions to recognized tribes for religious purposes if they salvaged the "parts".

In the end, I do not see why we are still arguing, as the blue jay in question, the one I would have liked to shoot for destroying our property, will not be shot anyway because I will be moving before our fruit trees have anything on them...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> So why would it be illegal to kill baby birds but not their mother? That makes no sense. Can you explain the wording in the law talking about killing?


Because it is prohibited and the wording is clear.....The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any *migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird *



BigLittle said:


> In the end, I do not see why we are still arguing, as the blue jay in question, the one I would have liked to shoot for destroying our property, will not be shot anyway because I will be moving before our fruit trees have anything on them...



Because Willowy like to argue.....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I do like to argue. . .I can think of someone else who likes it too . I just said, hey, it's illegal to kill most birds without a permit, and enough people piled on that it had to be addressed.

Anyway, the full wording of THE ACTUAL LAW (not a summary, not a paraphrase) is:
"Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, *kill*, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof, included in the terms of the conventions. . ."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/703

I bolded it for you. I really don't think that's difficult to understand. So, yeah, if you really believe it means something else, somehow, well, cool. 

If you were allowed to kill non-game birds at any time, it would render any law forbidding the destruction of active nests null and void. If there was an active nest you didn't want around, wait until the mother bird leaves the nest, kill her, and the babies will starve or die of exposure. It's just another way to destroy a nest. 

I'm trying to find examples of the term "take" to mean kill, in a wildlife context. There's a lot. I didn't know so many people took deer home as pets . I have always understood this meaning and I didn't really know it wasn't widely understood.
"During a license year, it shall be unlawful to take a second antlered deer. . ."
"A person may take no more than one (1) deer with visible antlers. . ."
"entitles a hunter to take one deer during the archery season. . ."
Yeah, a lot.
(I Googled "take a deer" if anyone cares)


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I'm kind of with willowy here, you can't really argue with that last post :\


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Kayota said:


> I'm kind of with willowy here, you can't really argue with that last post :\


Yes, you can. It has nothing to do with the specific treaty she quoted originally, which had nothing to do with the point she was trying to make. She does this all the time, turning threads into the Willowy Argues Something She Knows Nothing About Show and another interesting topic gets tossed to the side.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I do like to argue. . .I can think of someone else who likes it too . I just said, hey, it's illegal to kill most birds without a permit, and enough people piled on that it had to be addressed.
> 
> Anyway, the full wording of THE ACTUAL LAW (not a summary, not a paraphrase) is:
> "Unless and except as permitted by regulations made as hereinafter provided in this subchapter, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, *kill*, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof, included in the terms of the conventions. . ."
> ...



Again what you are twisting is this international treaty into domestic law. 

I have explained it to you and documented in the simplest manner possible - the migratory bird protection treaty is an international treaty stopping the commercial exploitation of migratory and native birds of North America. 


It is not a stand alone law that affected individual states and states rights. 

The united States also has a separate treaty on birds with Mexico. That treaty was signed in 1936. 
We also have bird treaties with Russia, Japan and a couple other countries. 

And all of them are about commercial exploitation. 

You continue to take a crumb and try to say it is a loaf of bread. 

And it makes perfect sense for it to be illegal to molest and destroy nests eggs and babies but it be legal to kill adult birds. Because it is exploitation


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Whoaa this blew up and is WAAYYYY off topic


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

So uh, how 'bout them feral hogs...? I'm glad we don't have them where I live.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Little Wise Owl said:


> So uh, how 'bout them feral hogs...? I'm glad we don't have them where I live.


Come down here.... I will carry you hog hunting......


A bunch could come down and we could have a forum hog hunt....

Ya'll are not afraid of gators? Cottonmouths? 

How does everyone feel about Banana spiders?


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Come down here.... I will carry you hog hunting......
> 
> 
> A bunch could come down and we could have a forum hog hunt....
> ...


Gators? Awesome. Venomous snakes and giant spiders? NOPE. lol I'm glad we only have one venomous snake in Ontario.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Come down here.... I will carry you hog hunting......
> 
> 
> A bunch could come down and we could have a forum hog hunt....
> ...


Can we bring our dogs? Can they go hog hunting too? I bet Lo or Kylie could take down a hog...


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Unfortunately we have hogs here, and Banana Spiders, and plenty of snakes. I hear there are Alligators in our lake now (they should not be there but apparently they are....). Nope, don't like it.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Canyx said:


> Can we bring our dogs? Can they go hog hunting too? I bet Lo or Kylie could take down a hog...


Charlie would most definitely growl at a hog. From a distance. On a roof.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I think Luna could be a decent hunting dog if that was ever something we were interested in... on many occasions on hikes she's found and flushed game (deer, pheasants, etc) that we didn't know were there until she did so.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Little Wise Owl said:


> Gators? Awesome. Venomous snakes and giant spiders? NOPE. lol I'm glad we only have one venomous snake in Ontario.


Just for you...... They are especially fun when you are sitting on the hood of a jeep or buggy before daylight, easing down a logging road or firebreak.... You get a face full of web...... About the time you get it wiped off you feel the spider crawling on your head...


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Little Wise Owl said:


> Gators? Awesome. Venomous snakes and giant spiders? NOPE. lol I'm glad we only have one venomous snake in Ontario.


I killed a snake in my bedroom a few months ago, back when it was first getting cold lol. Same with a few tarantulas, and many, many scorpions, too many to count.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Just for you...... They are especially fun when you are sitting on the hood of a jeep or buggy before daylight, easing down a logging road or firebreak.... You get a face full of web...... About the time you get it wiped off you feel the spider crawling on your head...


Those gals are gorgeous!

If JRTs can be catch dogs I bet Roxie could do it with the right training.. she has the drive. At the very least she could be a good bay dog.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Kayota said:


> Those gals are gorgeous!
> 
> If JRTs can be catch dogs I bet Roxie could do it with the right training.. she has the drive. At the very least she could be a good bay dog.


I don't know ... a big boar is a force to reckoned with. I have seen some that were as tall as our anatolia shepherd at the withers. There is a reason why they wear Kevlar body armor I have even seen some people put armor on the bay dogs, even though they should never have contact with the hog, I don't know why someone would do this, maybe JohnnyBandit can explain more about it.


----------



## sharpei (Mar 15, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Come down here.... I will carry you hog hunting......
> 
> 
> A bunch could come down and we could have a forum hog hunt....
> ...


 I'd be game for that as long as I got to keep some of the meat (I don't kill it if I am not going to eat it). maybe you could come up here and we could go Black bear hunting. Black bear meat is delicious.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

If this "DF hog hunt" takes place, I would like to see pictures of it


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

LOl i would love to see how Loki would react to a hog


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Adjecyca1 said:


> LOl i would love to see how Loki would react to a hog



No one needs to take this offensively.....

But unless it could be done in a pretty controlled situation......

I would be very leary about allowing an adult dog with no exposure to hogs, loose on a hog......

I have seen some nice photos of Loki.... He is BEAUTIFUL......

And he has the look.... And looks like he could do the job.... But I would hate to see him hurt....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Kayota said:


> Those gals are gorgeous!
> 
> If JRTs can be catch dogs I bet Roxie could do it with the right training.. she has the drive. At the very least she could be a good bay dog.


Yes..... JRTs hunt hogs... And some of them are very good... They are not exactly catch dogs but more they SORT OF catch and bay at the same time..... You set a pack of them out and the sort of mug the hog.... It is quite entertaining and can be funny...

Frankly I think Patterdales and the German Jagdterriers are better than JRTs.... But JRTs can be good....

One of the guys that hunts with me has a GREAT Patterdale Bitch.... We call her Ms. Mayhem..... We kind of use her for specific purposes.... She is small so when a hog bays up and gets in some superthick cover.... Where the catch dog has no room to work, we will send her in to push the hog out.... She is so small she can move around in tight spaces....

We also use her to run hogs we find in cow pastures open ground... She is so dang quick if we slip up on a hog, she might bay and quasi catch them by herself..... We have caught a bunch of hogs with just her and a catch dog... Never turning the bay dogs loose.... She has caught some shoats (young females, never bred) by herself..

She also killed an adult male coyote that jumped her.... She had him down and her mouth around his throat in under 30 seconds.....


And I am NOT disrespecting Roxie.....
But good hog dogs start training and being exposed to hogs very young....... 8-12 weeks.... At 8-12 months they are in the field learning from older dogs.......

It is my belief, you cannot replace that early learning... I have yet to see a good solid hog dog that was not raised in it from a puppy....

And here is the thing....The guys that hunt with the JRTs, Patterdales..... etc.... Have far more dogs killed.....Than those that use larger hounds, curs, pits etc....

Here is the thing.... And it is hard to separate.... Hunting dogs are not pets. When you put a dog in the field...... It might die...... It hurts the heart........


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> No one needs to take this offensively.....
> 
> But unless it could be done in a pretty controlled situation......
> 
> ...


I would be WAYYY to afraid to let him do it anyway haha because I am a giant wimp and would be far too afraid he would get hurt


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I would be WAYYY to afraid to let him do it anyway haha because I am a giant wimp and would be far too afraid he would get hurt


I hear ya!!!!

Merlin is around hogs.... Sees them.... And WANTS to have a go with one in the worst way..... I am confident, while it would not be a traditional bay/catch he would do a good job..... But the what if..... Hits me..... Merlin is my best good bud and my pet.... Hence he does not go after hogs.... He does not go hog hunting with me.... 

Wild arsed woods cows yes... Because he has worked cows since puppyhood. 

It would be dire straights.... Like life or death for a human or maybe my wife or a friends dog before I would set him on a hog...


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I hear ya!!!!
> 
> Merlin is around hogs.... Sees them.... And WANTS to have a go with one in the worst way..... I am confident, while it would not be a traditional bay/catch he would do a good job..... But the what if..... Hits me..... Merlin is my best good bud and my pet.... Hence he does not go after hogs.... He does not go hog hunting with me....
> 
> ...


All of this is why I don't do live hunts with Bear anymore ... I had friends lose their dogs in holes ... if that had happened to bear, we all would be devastated.


----------

