Free: Contests & Raffles.
Just for the record for the forum members that want to say private property and all that stuff,The closed season statement was in the article which would indicate to me that where and when this happened the season was indeed closed to the shooter,Making this an attempted poaching incident,Attempted only because the fact remains that it was a dog and not a wolf.Excluding it from the crime of poaching.
What Idahohunter will never admit is the pro-wolf crowd won't change no matter what hunters do, good or bad spewing the same drivel over and over won't it changes anyone's minds
Quote from: stevemiller on May 27, 2015, 06:08:33 PMJust for the record for the forum members that want to say private property and all that stuff,The closed season statement was in the article which would indicate to me that where and when this happened the season was indeed closed to the shooter,Making this an attempted poaching incident,Attempted only because the fact remains that it was a dog and not a wolf.Excluding it from the crime of poaching. I agree. I want to make it clear I'm not trying to defend the actions of the shooter. Just trying to explain why MAYBE they didn't consider this attempted poaching.
Quote from: mfswallace on May 27, 2015, 05:40:56 PMWhat Idahohunter will never admit is the pro-wolf crowd won't change no matter what hunters do, good or bad spewing the same drivel over and over won't it changes anyone's mindsI can't speak for Idahohunter but it seems to me he and I kinda see eye to eye on this matter, so here is my opinion. You are correct we cannot change the opinion of the pro wolf crowd but this is not a black and white issue, there are a lot of people in the middle who don't have an opinion one way or the other about wolves and wolf hunting who may form an opinion upon reading an article about irresponsible and unethical acts committed by those who claim to be "hunters". This is why we need to tone it down with the kill em all, who cares about the law, SSS attitude or we will lose what ground we have and will gain in the future in efforts to restore some semblance of balance to our game populations.
Quote from: AspenBud on May 26, 2015, 06:19:41 PMNot everyone in the woods is hunting, or for that matter training, with a turtle. A vest on a fast moving pointing dog busting through brush is something of a bad joke. Trying to stop it on command when it's 500-1000 yards in front of you is even more problematic. They don't run close, that's not how they are wired or work most effectively.If a person can't tell the difference between a hunting dog and a wolf, let alone a malamute and a wolf, they have no business hunting. Why exactly would they be running 500 to 1000 yards in front of you?In WA.?
Not everyone in the woods is hunting, or for that matter training, with a turtle. A vest on a fast moving pointing dog busting through brush is something of a bad joke. Trying to stop it on command when it's 500-1000 yards in front of you is even more problematic. They don't run close, that's not how they are wired or work most effectively.If a person can't tell the difference between a hunting dog and a wolf, let alone a malamute and a wolf, they have no business hunting.
What good does it do a hunter to be hunting birds if the dog is 500 to 1000 yards ahead?
Is the bird goin to just hover until you get there?
If your dog is out hunting itself and you are 500 to 1000 yards back and the dog is taking game on its own well then there are other legal issues at hand.
In short your dog has no reason in WA. State to be 500 to 1000 yards away from its owner on public property.
Yes once upon a time there were reasons for your hunting dog to be 500 to 1000 yards away,but sadly not anymore.There is no good reason that you can come up with(you dont even like it yourself you posted)to be over 1/4 to over a 1/2 mile away from your hunting dog.