# Gentle German Shepherds killed; owners say they were shot by hunters



## Kittilicious

They were going to be Therapy Dogs - Mesabi Daily News: News: therapy dogs, sheriff s department, hunters,

Makes me sick. 



> IRON - Devaki and Makita had already provided a lot of caring and joy in their first 1 1/2 years. They were "gentle dogs" adored by their human family members.
> 
> And they had a lot more love to give. They were being trained as therapy dogs to help comfort the afflicted.
> 
> But on Saturday the sister German Shepherds were shot and killed in a deliberate and cruel way in an open field in Iron by deer hunters, believe their owners.
> 
> "The dogs were so amazingly beautiful. They had a huge future ahead of them ... of giving to people and helping people. Now they're gone," said Shannon Hautala, one of the dogs' owners.
> 
> As daylight gave way to dusk Saturday afternoon, Hautala and her friend, Gary Kuoppala, were outside at his Iron residence, which is rural but not remote or desolate, about one-eighth mile from Highway 7 and bordering Keenan Road. It is where therapy horses call home.
> 
> Devaki and Makita were playing in the yard when they decided to explore. Hautala and Kuoppala followed, hollering their names. Then they heard at least five ominous sounds.
> 
> "Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang ... there were at least five shots," Hautala recalled. They were only about 150 yards from Kuoppala's property.
> 
> They kept looking for the dogs and calling their names, hoping for the best. They ran into the hunters who owned the land where the dogs had ran toward.
> 
> "They said they hadn't seen any dogs," Hautala said.
> 
> After an uneasy night, Hautala, with her 16-year-old daughter Alexis, and Kuoppala resumed their search for Devaki and Makita. They met the hunters before finding the dogs.
> 
> One of them asked what she was doing there. "I'm looking for my dogs," I said. "A hunter said he hadn't seen any."
> 
> Within a minute Hautala and Alexis found Makita, lying next to a deer stand in the bushes. They pulled Makita out.
> 
> "Didn't see my dog, right?" Hautala said to the hunters. "They walked away and all three were smiling. Me and my daughter were pretty hysterical. They walked around us and called us hillbillies."
> 
> Devaki was found about 30 minutes later.
> 
> "There was a huge pile of blood from the trail. She had tried to crawl back home. She may have suffered all night," Hautala said. "My daughter was bawling and dragging Devaki. They just laughed and said, ‘You found your dogs, now get the f___ off our property.'"
> 
> Kuoppala soon showed up. He had been looking for the dogs elsewhere.
> 
> "They just looked down at the ground. Big men with two women, but not when a man was around," he said.
> 
> Hautala and Kuoppala have contacted the Sheriff's Department and Department of Natural Resources to provide a report of what had happened. They have photos of the German Shepherds with their deadly gunshot wounds. Devaki's chest was pulverized, with at least three shots. Makita was shot in the leg and chest.
> 
> Kouppala has a 5-year-old son, Tristin, who often slept with the dogs. On Monday he would have to tell the youngster why the two dogs won't be coming home.
> 
> "It all was so uncaring and callous," Kouppala said.
> 
> "I told them (the hunters) that these are family dogs and what am I going to say to the kids? One of them said, ‘That's not my problem.' Don't they have a soul?" Hautala said.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

Very sad and these people must be devastated!! 

But I must ask, why were the dogs off thier property in hunting season?


----------



## crackem

probably best not to let your dogs run loose on other people's property while there is a hunting season going on.

That said, I would never shoot someone else's dog unless someone other than myself was getting mauled, but some people just need a target, and will shoot when one is available. Best not to trust people like that to do the right thing


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

I agree that the dogs should never have been allowed to wander onto someone else's property. That said - what kind of heartless people are these hunters? They sound like real low-lives. What a shame. Best not to let any kids wander over there either. Doesn't seem those guys are playing with a full deck.


----------



## Kittilicious

Usually around here (this happened in MN, where I live) during this time of year (hunting season) people in the country will have their dogs wear orange vests/sweaters or I've heard of people spray painting orange on their dogs. 

I do agree that the dogs shouldn't have been wandering... especially during deer season (it's common sense!), but these hunters - I just want to beat them for being buttheads about it.


----------



## selzer

Hunters will shoot dogs running deer. Dog owners need to protect their dogs. The dogs were loose and off their property. It is sad that this happened. But your dog should not be off your property, out of your sight, and out of your control. 

That said, most hunters own dogs and really need a reason to shoot one, and do not do it happily. 

What I find hard to understand is why the deer stand would be 150 feet from the dog-owner's property. That sounds like they are setting up deer stands really close to dwellings. Does not make a lot of sense. But whatever. If this happened the way they said, then these people wouldn't be very likely to care how near someone's house they were. 

However the story really sounds writtten to jerk the tears out of people. They were being trained to be therapy dogs -- they had so much more to give. My son usually sleeps with them, my daughter was dragging the dog and crying. They called us hillbillies, get the **** off my property. She and her husband were there, two dogs, how come the daughter had to drag the dog away?

I know I am pretty callous. But people should not let their dogs roam over other people's property at any time, and particularly when there are a lot of city people running around with guns in the woods, looking for anything to shoot at. 

When owners are ignorant, dogs suffer, and it is sad. These people failed their dogs.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Kittilicious said:


> Usually around here (this happened in MN, where I live) during this time of year (hunting season) people in the country will have their dogs wear orange vests/sweaters or I've heard of people spray painting orange on their dogs.
> 
> I do agree that the dogs shouldn't have been wandering... especially during deer season (it's common sense!), but these hunters - I just want to beat them for being buttheads about it.


Agreed! I would feel horrible if I killed someone's pet - even if it was an accident. Somehow, this doesn't sound like an accident. I am so sorry for this family.


----------



## ChristenHolden

I would soooo be in. Jail if that happend to me. More and likely with out bond BC I would make those (censored)suffer!!!!!:angryfire:


----------



## Kittilicious

selzer said:


> What I find hard to understand is why the deer stand would be 150 feet from the dog-owner's property. That sounds like they are setting up deer stands really close to dwellings. Does not make a lot of sense. But whatever. If this happened the way they said, then these people wouldn't be very likely to care how near someone's house they were.


Where this is located it is very isolated. Your nearest neighbor is maybe probably, at the very least, a mile away. So to say the stand was near the property line doesn't say a whole lot. Any sort of house or shed could still be 1/2 mile away from the stand. People in that area usually own 40-100 acres of property or more.


----------



## LARHAGE

I know dogs shouldn't roam loose, but they were near their house and just explored, they are dogs and dogs do that, the point is MOST decent people don't shoot a dog for being on their property, I always try to find a dogs owner that wanders on my property and I have livestock, it is just the ugly, cruel nature of these a-holes, I hope to God a deer jams their antlers through their black hearts or a car accident leaves them mangled and suffering, filth like these men don't deserve to breath the air we share as decent, copmpassionate people, I can't wait till the day their hideous souls rot in ****!!!!


----------



## Kittilicious

LARHAGE said:


> I know dogs shouldn't roam loose, but they were near their house and just explored, they are dogs and dogs do that, the point is MOST decent people don't shoot a dog for being on their property, I always try to find a dogs owner that wanders on my property and I have livestock, it is just the ugly, cruel nature of these a-holes, I hope to God a deer jams their antlers through their black hearts or a car accident leaves them mangled and suffering, filth like these men don't deserve to breath the air we share as decent, copmpassionate people, I can't wait till the day their hideous souls rot in ****!!!!


Tell us how you really feel!


----------



## AbbyK9

I can only agree with what everyone else has said already. 

Yes, it's an awful thing that these hunters shot the dogs - but we have no idea in what circumstances they were shot. If they were running deer, which is illegal in most places, the hunters would have been well within their rights to shoot them. 

I think it's awful also that the owners are placing the blame only on the hunters and not on themselves at all. It was their dogs who were running loose on someone else's property - these hunters didn't come onto their property to shoot the dogs. And the dogs were under nobody's control.

Actually, the article says the dogs "were playing in the yard when they decided to explore. Hautala and Kuoppala followed, hollering their names." So, basically, the dogs were in an unfenced yard and suddenly took off. Maybe after deer. Maybe "to explore". But, at any rate, they were loose in an unfenced area and clearly didn't respond to being called which is a pretty basic obedience skill. Then they ran onto someone else's property and wound up dead.

I think this is an owner's failure to keep the dogs safe. They should have either been in a fenced yard or had sufficient training to stop them if they decided to take off. It doesn't excuse the fact that these dogs were shot, BUT the dogs would have never been shot were it not for those circumstances.


----------



## selzer

Two dogs running off and not listening for the calls of their owners do not sound like they were just exploring, it sounds like they heard or saw something and were going after it. That is a guess, but when my dogs are just exploring, and I call them, they make a bee-line for me. The reason most dogs do not recall is if whatever they are interested in, is more exciting then their owner, ie prey drive. 

But the fact is, we can do NOTHING about the actions of our neighbors and their friends. We CAN keep our dogs on our property. We cannot FORCE the whole world to be animal lovers, to have morals and ethics, to be considerate, but we CAN protect our dogs. I will save my livid outrage for the people who have someone come on to their property and shoot or poison or otherwise kill or try to kill their dogs. I feel bad for the dogs and the kids, but I think the dog-owners should shoulder their responsibility.


----------



## Franksmom

AbbyK9 said:


> I can only agree with what everyone else has said already.
> 
> Yes, it's an awful thing that these hunters shot the dogs - but we have no idea in what circumstances they were shot. If they were running deer, which is illegal in most places, the hunters would have been well within their rights to shoot them.
> 
> I think it's awful also that the owners are placing the blame only on the hunters and not on themselves at all. It was their dogs who were running loose on someone else's property - these hunters didn't come onto their property to shoot the dogs. And the dogs were under nobody's control.
> 
> Actually, the article says the dogs "were playing in the yard when they decided to explore. Hautala and Kuoppala followed, hollering their names." So, basically, the dogs were in an unfenced yard and suddenly took off. Maybe after deer. Maybe "to explore". But, at any rate, they were loose in an unfenced area and clearly didn't respond to being called which is a pretty basic obedience skill. Then they ran onto someone else's property and wound up dead.
> 
> I think this is an owner's failure to keep the dogs safe. They should have either been in a fenced yard or had sufficient training to stop them if they decided to take off. It doesn't excuse the fact that these dogs were shot, BUT the dogs would have never been shot were it not for those circumstances.


 
Agree!
I think it's very sad that the dogs were killed in this way, but I also wonder from what was stated in the article if this was a first time the dogs had been on the neighbors property or if it had happened numerous times with a neighbor type fued going on and the dogs got caught in the middle of it.


----------



## crackem

why is everyone so quick to want to hang the hunters? you have a story from a person who's dogs were shot because they let them wander onto private property during a major hunting season. Dogs that were "going to be therapy" dogs that couldn't even follow a recall command. I'm going to take a wild guess and say the story portrayed isn't the story that really played out.


----------



## selzer

Everyone?


----------



## PaddyD

selzer said:


> Hunters will shoot dogs running deer. Dog owners need to protect their dogs. The dogs were loose and off their property. It is sad that this happened. But your dog should not be off your property, out of your sight, and out of your control.
> 
> That said, most hunters own dogs and really need a reason to shoot one, and do not do it happily.
> 
> What I find hard to understand is why the deer stand would be 150 feet from the dog-owner's property. That sounds like they are setting up deer stands really close to dwellings. Does not make a lot of sense. But whatever. If this happened the way they said, then these people wouldn't be very likely to care how near someone's house they were.
> 
> However the story really sounds writtten to jerk the tears out of people. They were being trained to be therapy dogs -- they had so much more to give. My son usually sleeps with them, my daughter was dragging the dog and crying. They called us hillbillies, get the **** off my property. She and her husband were there, two dogs, how come the daughter had to drag the dog away?
> 
> I know I am pretty callous. But people should not let their dogs roam over other people's property at any time, and particularly when there are a lot of city people running around with guns in the woods, looking for anything to shoot at.
> 
> When owners are ignorant, dogs suffer, and it is sad. These people failed their dogs.


Yup, you are pretty callous. And the word is spelled IGNORANT. But I guess you are igorant of that.
There is no reason these dogs should have been shot even if they were in the wrong place. If these ***** are such good shots they could have chosen to make the RIGHT decision.


----------



## Dainerra

if that was really the hunters' attitude (hard to guess because the tone of the article is obviously slanted) then they are losers. But, shoot/shovel/shut up is a a pretty old farmer code.

The dogs were off the property. The dogs didn't come when called. The dogs' bodies were on the neighbor's property.

I put 1000% of the blame on the owners and less than 1% of the hunters. The only reason they get any blame at all is that I think they likely heard the people calling for the dogs, so knew that they were trying to round them up. If, however, the people were actually farther behind and they weren't heard, then all the blame is on the owners


----------



## Dainerra

PaddyD said:


> Yup, you are pretty callous. And the word is spelled IGNORANT. But I guess you are igorant of that.
> There is no reason these dogs should have been shot even if they were in the wrong place. If these A$$holes are such good shots they could have chosen to make the RIGHT decision.


I wouldn't call it callus. and if anyone was ignorant, it was the owners of the dogs. It's the middle of deer season. The dogs obviously don't have a good recall and were off-leash and outside a fenced area.


----------



## PaddyD

Who pulled the trigger?
It's OK to shoot a dog when it is in the 'wrong' place?
Does the word 'humane' come into mind? Does the word 'judicious' come into mind? Does the word 'considerate' come into mind?
You people astound me.
And the word is spelled callous, not callus.
Yup, you people astound me.


----------



## Dainerra

The Death Penalty For Dogs That Chase Deer CBS Minnesota

anyone can shoot a dog that is chasing deer in MN.

In WVA, the DNR can shoot any dog suspected of chasing deer.

Table of Dogs Chasing Wildlife Statutes (ALDF)
VA only says "illegal to bring a dog into a game refuge" but, again, it is pretty standard practice in most rural areas that a dog chasing deer will be shot on sight, either by hunters or Game Wardens.


----------



## Dainerra

PaddyD said:


> Who pulled the trigger?
> It's OK to shoot a dog when it is in the 'wrong' place?
> You people astound me.
> And the word is spelled callous, not callus.
> Yup, you people astound me.


please forgive the typo. My keyboard tends to stick sometimes.

It's not just ok, it's actually the law in many areas that a homeowner has the right to shoot a dog that is on their property, depending on the circumstances. It's is also legal in many states to shoot a dog on sight if it is chasing deer.

I would say that it is ignorant for dog owners not knowing about a law that could result in their dog's death.

I don't like to shoot dogs, but I've killed more than one for attacking livestock.


----------



## msvette2u

> I know I am pretty callous. But people should not let their dogs roam over other people's property at any time, and particularly when there are a lot of city people running around with guns in the woods, looking for anything to shoot at.


*Devaki and Makita were playing in the yard when they decided to explore. *

I agree with selzer. So many people freak out when bad things happen to their dogs (naturally) but with a little forethought, and TLC, and proper care, nothing like this ever would have happened.
"Decided to explore"? Sure, dogs do that.
It's up to the owners to make sure the dogs _don't_ do that, and remain on their property. Fences are made for situations like this, and are an awesome device used to keep dogs on their own property. It's amazing how many accidents could be avoided if more people used them.


----------



## PaddyD

Hopefully none of you or your dogs ever make such a mistake.
As for deer hunters, most of them have an average IQ of about 75 on a good day.


----------



## Franksmom

I would love to hear the Hunters' side of this story. 
I dont' agree with just shooting the dogs "if" the article is truthfull and not slanted, and shooting a dog would be the last thing I would want to do, but given the right set of circumstances I could see it being done. 
I also know if I didn't keep my border collies home and undercontrol and they got into the guys field next door chasing his cattle. I dont' care if it was the first time they'd done it, around here the dog would be shot and it would be my fault for not keeping contol of my dogs.


----------



## msvette2u

> around here the dog would be shot and it would be my fault for not keeping contol of my dogs.


Said a responsible owner 
Why is it the irresponsible ones are always the loudest?

And Paddy - no, the deer hunters aren't idiots, they are smart for being able to put meat on the table.
If my husband was not so busy all the time already, I'd make him go out (or drag him out) and get some game. We could sure use it with today's grocery prices.


----------



## PaddyD

msvette2u said:


> Said a responsible owner
> Why is it the irresponsible ones are always the loudest?
> 
> And Paddy - no, the deer hunters aren't idiots, they are smart for being able to put meat on the table.
> If my husband was not so busy all the time already, I'd make him go out (or drag him out) and get some game. We could sure use it with today's grocery prices.


That's why I said 'most' instead of 'all'. I repeat, if the hunters are good enough shots to hit a GSD why aren't they HUMANE enough to decide NOT to.
Just because they CAN doesn't mean they have to. It ain't the neighborly thing to shoot someone's dog.
I hate righteousness as an excuse to do the wrong thing. But that is just one man's opinion.


----------



## Dainerra

Franksmom said:


> I also know if I didn't keep my border collies home and undercontrol and they got into the guys field next door chasing his cattle. I dont' care if it was the first time they'd done it, around here the dog would be shot and it would be my fault for not keeping contol of my dogs.


very true. and the dog owner would also be responsible for paying the market price of any livestock destroyed. For instance, the replacement cost of my laying hens is $15 each. Plus the cost of any destroyed fencing and, if I'm feeling angry, the cost for disposing of the body. 

Here, there is no leash law so people can let their dogs wander at will. BUT any dog caught, or even suspected, of harming livestock can be shot on sight.

In VA, the law is any dog chasing livestock can be shot, even if they haven't physically touched the animals.


----------



## msvette2u

On that we agree, some people are idiots, but the fault still remains with the owner, who, just because they are rural, shouldn't let their dogs run loose.

It's always the dogs who pay for owner's irresponsibility. As others pointed out, if the dogs are running deer, they are "fair game" unfortunately


----------



## Dainerra

PaddyD said:


> That's why I said 'most' instead of 'all'. I repeat, if the hunters are good enough shots to hit a GSD why aren't they HUMANE enough to decide NOT to.


because not everyone is "humane." not everyone likes dogs.
Not everyone likes the neighbor's noisy barking dogs running all over their property. etc etc etc.

Again, though, it is the dog owner's responsibility to keep their dogs safe.


----------



## PaddyD

Dainerra said:


> because not everyone is "humane." not everyone likes dogs.
> Not everyone likes the neighbor's noisy barking dogs running all over their property. etc etc etc.
> 
> Again, though, it is the dog owner's responsibility to keep their dogs safe.


I suppose they couldn't pick up the phone. It was my understanding that these were 'gentle' dogs and this was not a common offense. Apparently, neighbor's mistakes are capital offenses in certain places. Ya gotta love America and all of the hayseeds therein. There just ain't no compromisin or thinkin about yore naybor. Screw em.


----------



## Jelpy

I gotta say, being a spiteful and mean spirited person myself, I think I would find a spot just on my side of the border near their hunting stand, and set up an air horn with a timer set to go off periodically on saturdays and sundays during hunting season. Might ruin their hunting, which would be a shame, now. 

But as I said, I'm spiteful and Means spirited. 

Jelpy


----------



## Dainerra

they were in the middle of the woods. no, there generally isn't a phone and very few hunters bring their cells with them.

How would they know who to call? Do we even know if they knew these were neighbor dogs and not just strays?
We only have the owners word that this had never happened before. How many times do we hear "oh he never did that before"
Or, god forbid, those magic words "Don't worry! He wants to play!"

That is like saying it is the driver's fault if your dog runs out in the street. After all, if he was driving slower he would have had time to stop...


----------



## Franksmom

PaddyD said:


> I suppose they couldn't pick up the phone. It was my understanding that these were 'gentle' dogs and this was not a common offense. Apparently, neighbor's mistakes are capital offenses in certain places. Ya gotta love America and all of the hayseeds therein. There just ain't no compromisin or thinkin about yore naybor. Screw em.


 
But we don't know the Hunters' side of the story so we can't judge why they just didnt' pick up a phone and call. We only know the dog owners side of the story


----------



## PaddyD

Franksmom said:


> But we don't know the Hunters' side of the story so we can't judge why they just didnt' pick up a phone and call. We only know the dog owners side of the story


Point taken. Rant discontinued. Bedtime for Bonzo.


----------



## selzer

PaddyD said:


> Yup, you are pretty callous. And the word is spelled IGNORANT. But I guess you are igorant of that.
> There is no reason these dogs should have been shot even if they were in the wrong place. If these A$$holes are such good shots they could have chosen to make the RIGHT decision.


I think I spelled ignorant correctly. I am not sure where the misspelling is except in your post. I think if you want to correct people, then you should maybe make sure that they were incorrect in the first place.

Whatever. 

I am sorry, but I live in the country. There is nothing more annoying than having city transplants moving my way and then leaving their dog run free. This is a tragic event that did not have to happen if the owners took care of their dogs. 

I had a neighbor whose dog charged at me every time I tried to take my dogs to my car. It was something between a Rhodesian Ridgeback and a pitt. It was actually a large dog. I made numerous complaints to no avail. I did not complain about their husky getting into my trash. And I told them to keep her out of my shed (I found out she was looking for a place to whelp). But I called the dog warden, and the sheriff numerous times about the dog because it was going after my dogs. They (the sheriff's department TOLD me to shoot it. 

Now this went on for months. I did not shoot their dog. BUT, if I DID shoot their dog, THEN they would have run to the papers and tell them about the nasty neighbor who killed their dog in front of their poor children and now the kids have nightmares, etc, etc, etc. 

Even though we have a leash law in the state of Ohio, nobody cares about it until the dog bites a human. Than suddenly they trot out that law. But you can do everything short of standing on your head and spitting nickels, and no one is going to lift a finger to remove a threatening dog from your property until that happens. BTW, the sheriff's department did coach me to say that the dog was attacking me and not my dog, because if I shot their dog on MY property for going after MY dog, I would be in trouble. But anyone here can shoot a dog for running deer. That is perfectly ok. Shoot, shovel, and shut up -- the three S's for dogs running deer. 

So people have to protect their dogs. I am sick and tired of irresponsible people whining about their dogs getting hurt when they put them in that position themselves.


----------



## sparra

PaddyD said:


> Who pulled the trigger?
> It's OK to shoot a dog when it is in the 'wrong' place?
> Does the word 'humane' come into mind? Does the word 'judicious' come into mind? Does the word 'considerate' come into mind?
> You people astound me.
> And the word is spelled callous, not callus.
> Yup, you people astound me.


Have you ever witnessed the damage done to livestock after being attacked by dogs? One dog on its own can maim (and I apologise now if this is spelt incorrectly) between 25-50 sheep in a matter of hours. It doesn't usually kill the sheep just injures them enough that they take the next few hours to die.
Now double that with two dogs and you kind of get the picture.
I am speaking form experience here. Walking out to find 60 sheep killed or so badly mauled that you have to shoot them because your neighbours two dogs...;.how did you put it "when it is in the 'wrong' place?" is absolutely heartbreaking......and no we didn't shoot them but only cause I was there to stop my DH from doing so (who was in tears at what he saw).....So to answer your question
"It's OK to shoot a dog when it is in the 'wrong' place? 
A B S O B L O O D Y L U T E L Y and yes I just made that word up.


----------



## msvette2u

As an ACO I went out on many livestock maulings, one of the most disturbing was a couple dogs in a goat pen, I think 10-12 goats out of the 15 or so were dead or dying.
It was a mess. Some of the goats had been partly eaten, others, just killed and left, at least one was dying and I had to help it along.
It's just awful and I know for a fact if a dog got in our livestock pens or began killing our animals, I'd shoot it. 

I'd like to also re-emphasize, there are no bad dogs. There's bad owners who fail to keep their dogs safe. Dogs just do what dogs do, whether it's kill, destroy, bite (people or other animals) whatever, it's not a _bad dog_, it's just a product of an irresponsible owner. 
And I had to put to sleep more than my share of the dogs (once declared dangerous or potentially dangerous), while the owners skipped off scott-free.
If the owners of the dogs in this story felt their dogs had "so much more to give" and were "gentle" dogs with so much potential they should have treated the dogs like that instead of letting them wander all over creation to go "explore", during deer season, no less


----------



## selzer

msvette2u said:


> As an ACO I went out on many livestock maulings, one of the most disturbing was a couple dogs in a goat pen, I think 10-12 goats out of the 15 or so were dead or dying.
> It was a mess. Some of the goats had been partly eaten, others, just killed and left, at least one was dying and I had to help it along.
> It's just awful and I know for a fact if a dog got in our livestock pens or began killing our animals, I'd shoot it.
> 
> I'd like to also re-emphasize, there are no bad dogs. There's bad owners who fail to keep their dogs safe. Dogs just do what dogs do, whether it's kill, destroy, bite (people or other animals) whatever, it's not a _bad dog_, it's just a product of an irresponsible owner.
> And I had to put to sleep more than my share of the dogs (once declared dangerous or potentially dangerous), while the owners skipped off scott-free.
> If the owners of the dogs in this story felt their dogs had "so much more to give" and were "gentle" dogs with so much potential they should have treated the dogs like that instead of letting them wander all over creation to go "explore", during deer season, no less


And MSVETTE2U becomes the serial avenger of all the dogs she had to put down. How long do you think it would take Hawaii 5-0 and CSI to figure out that the common link was that all the victims dropped their dogs off at a shelter and were euthanized? 

Sorry, I have a warped sense of humor sometimes. 

They emphasized the word Gentle. But if they ain't your dogs, two GSDs bolting toward you in the woods do not look gentle. My contractor is terrified of Babs. BABSY, the sweetest, nicest little girl GSD that ever breathed. A huge baby, Baby Babsy. Our dogs do NOT look gentle to non-believers.


----------



## msvette2u

LOL Selzer, I like your sense of humor!

But naw, I just rescue now, because it's so much more satisfying than having to PTS the dogs I could do nothing about.


----------



## BowWowMeow

This is a very sad situation but way too common. I lived many years out in the country and I was very careful where my dog(s) and I walked during hunting season. It is absolutely not safe anywhere near the woods during deer rifle season. Dogs get shot all of the time. I remember one year someone's great dane got shot when the dog was in the owner's back yard. 

I remember another year when a woman waving a white mitten to signal to the hunters to get off of her property was shot in her own yard. It goes on and on and on. While there are many responsible hunters who hunt for food, there are others who have a very cavalier attitude (and are often drunk while hunting). 

The moral of this story is if you live near legal hunting areas, be sure to wear brightly colored clothing and put a vest on your dog and keep her/him on a leash at all times. I would avoid the woods altogether. 

Here are two recent cases where gsds were mistaken for coyotes and killed by hunters. In one case the gsd had orange flagging on his collar. 
Dixfield hunter charged with shooting dog | Sun Journal

And here's a case where a guy mistook his hunting buddy for a deer and shot and critically wounded him. Hunter Mistakes Friend For Deer In Shooting - Baltimore News Story - WBAL Baltimore

And here's one where a hunter mistook a labrador retriever for a deer and shot the dog's owner. The Argus-Press - Google News Archive Search


----------



## x0emiroxy0x

Paddy D--

I have a 3.9 GPA, scored a 2090 on the SAT, am in the honors association of my college, and *I HUNT!*

I can out shoot you (bow/rifle/or pistol), and out think you as well! So much for your IGNORANT assumption about hunters...


----------



## x0emiroxy0x

And please....*double check my spelling*. Because on a dog forum, the world might END if I spelled a word wrong in my post!


----------



## Dainerra

BowWow, all those are very good points, but still pretty far from the situation admitted by the owners of these dogs. These dogs were on the hunters property, no owners or leashes, "exploring". Some hunters are idiots and some are jerks, just like every walk of life. Most of them are good conscientious people who are doing something they enjoy or trying to provide food for their families. 
How many times do you hear (at least every state I've lived in) announcements and reminders that hunting season is upon us? To be safe and always wear orange in the woods. Leaving your dogs out to roam at this time of year borders on criminal. It's just pure common sense, like playing on thin ice. Sure, you might be ok, but why take extra chances? 

There are two options, once you read between the lines of the story, 1 - the dogs saw something exciting and sped off into the woods or 2 - the dogs were left outside alone (or not a close watch) and wandered off exploring far enough that the owners had to hunt for them when they realized they were gone.

Dogs just don't "wander" off and explore while ignoring their owners. Especially dogs that are "going to be therapy" dogs. At that age, they should be pretty solid in at least the basics, including a good recall. Of course, "gentle dogs that are going to do therapy work" gets a lot more sympathy from the public than "out of control untrained dogs racing through the woods barking and causing a ruckus." 

Remember, there are 2 sides to every story, his, hers, and the truth. In this case, there is only the owners, who have an obvious bias since they know and love their dogs.


----------



## Caitydid255

When I read the article my first thought was "did the dogs get confused with coyotes?" Freyja has been called a coyote several times, and even Angus, our black & tan, has been called a coyote. Further, at even 100 yards it can be difficult to differentiate a GSD from a coyote. This is why we put their orange capes on when we let them out from October through March. My husband's family has a farm not too far away, and even though the property is fenced in, we don't let the dogs wander more than 15 feet from us, as you never know whether they will spook up a deer or we may come upon a poacher. 

Last year the coyotes in our area decimated the spring fawn population, which in turn drove the deer from the area. As a result people were shooting coyotes on sight. I can easily see someone thinking that two large coyotes have walked in front of them, and are more than willing to #1 reduce the coyote population and #2 get a nice set of pelts. It would only be after they went up to the animal that they would have discovered that they made a mistake. Additionally, Connecticut has a law in which hunters are to shoot a dog on sight if it is "worrying a deer", and people have full rights to shoot a dog or any other animal that is "worrying livestock". With this article we only have the story of the owners, not the hunters. Judging from my own experience and from reading the article, I would say that the blame lies solely upon the owners of the dogs.


----------



## Caledon

I understand that a dog can be shot for chacing a deer because that is the law in many areas. I just can't figure out the original reason behind the law. 

Many references has been that hunters can shoot a dog for chacing and now "worriying a deer". Is the law there for the hunters? I originally thought it was to protect wildlife, but there is not a law that says a dog can be shot for chacing a squirerrel/fox/rabbit/racoon/etc. But there is a death sentence for doing so to a deer.


----------



## krystyne73

See this is the concern I have with the new house we just bought. We have property in back that goes down a bluff to land owned by some one else. I want to fence off the area that is actually ours because I have found other people on the land hunting, I am not sure exactly what part of the woods we own.
My neighbor was complaining about me saying I would fence it off, but I said I hike down there with my dogs so I don't want any of us to get shot. No one around here seems to fence their land off but I am not so inviting lol
We hear gun shots night and day, plus the deer are coming up the bluff now.


----------



## GSDElsa

I find it intersting that most people are believing the one-sided sob story of the dogs' owner.


----------



## Caitydid255

Caledon said:


> I understand that a dog can be shot for chacing a deer because that is the law in many areas. I just can't figure out the original reason behind the law.


I know in New England, whitetail deer were on the endangered species list for quite a while due to the deforestation and farming across the region. Their numbers started growing in the 70's with the loss of farmlands to residential development and their population has exploded until they are the "rats with hooves" that are overly abundant everywhere.


----------



## Jax08

You do NOT let your dogs leave the yard or leave them unattended during deer season. It's a horrible loss, and a horribly learned lesson. If this story is factual, then the hunters are low class scum. ANY dog running deer at any time will be shot. But any dogs running are fair game during hunting season.


----------



## NancyJ

Actually I am picking up some orange vests for always in the woods.

Coyote season is year round and with sable GSDs they could easily be mistaken for coydogs.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs

I do agree that the dogs' owners are partially at fault because they did not contain their dogs. Just wanted to discuss the following:



AbbyK9 said:


> If they were running deer, which is illegal in most places, the hunters would have been well within their rights to shoot them.


Actually, that is not completely accurate. It is legal to shoot dogs running deer *between Jan. 1 and July 14*. It is NOT, therefore, legal to shoot a dog during hunting season. 

Here is a link to a photo of the law:https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...47683999716.152849.322165819716&type=1&ref=nf

Pay attention to the words in the green box... dogs may not be shot during any hunting season, even if they are running large game, except by a conservation or peace officer.



jocoyn said:


> Coyote season is year round and with sable GSDs they could easily be mistaken for coydogs.


These were black GSDs, but I agree: easily mistaken and some hunters shoot twice (or three times, or four our five) and look later.



Jax08 said:


> You do NOT let your dogs leave the yard or leave them unattended during deer season.


Great advice. I am BEYOND paranoid during hunting season, because there are inexperienced and irresponsible hunters out there (though I would not say this is the majority). I have always been extremely careful with my horses and my dogs during the gun hunting season.



PaddyD said:


> As for deer hunters, most of them have an average IQ of about 75 on a good day.


I object to the use of the word "most." I would say SOME, but not most. My family hunts and is very responsible... most of the hunters in my area are very responsible. It's just a select few that shoot without thinking or looking at what they're shooting at. They hear a rustle in the brush and the adrenaline rush comes... and they pull the trigger.

A big rule in gun safety is KNOW YOUR TARGET AND BEYOND. 

The issue is, we hear about all of the dumb things hunters do on the news, but don't often hear stories of good, responsible hunters, which, IMO, are actually the majority. If they weren't, how long do you think hunting seasons would continue?


----------



## msvette2u

I guess I see it slightly different - the owners were 100% at fault, the only way they would not be at fault is if the hunters snuck up to their fenced yard, aimed the guns over the fence and shot the dogs while the dogs were_ on their own property._

Once a dog leaves it's own property, all bets are off and they can be subjected to any sort of harm or torture people can think up. Pretty sad but that's the way it is, and owners need to fence their property and keep the dogs on it.


----------



## LARHAGE

Wow, thank God I live in California, my little terrier slipped her collar when my dog walker came yesterday to walk her for me and ran out the front gates after a rabbit, imagine this, my neighbors who I don't even know pulled over in cars to help the lady catch her, they actually didn't blow her head off.!!!!


----------



## Emoore

Caledon said:


> I understand that a dog can be shot for chacing a deer because that is the law in many areas. I just can't figure out the original reason behind the law.
> 
> Many references has been that hunters can shoot a dog for chacing and now "worriying a deer". Is the law there for the hunters? I originally thought it was to protect wildlife, but there is not a law that says a dog can be shot for chacing a squirerrel/fox/rabbit/racoon/etc. But there is a death sentence for doing so to a deer.


Deer hunting is a huge revenue generator in many states.


----------



## GermanShepherds6800

Hunters will shoot their own dogs for not hunting right time after time and will not loose a moments peace over shooting a pet dog. I feel sorry they learned about keeping their dogs safe this way. The dog owners by law were at fault for not keeping their dogs off anothers property in this. Would they have gone after someone for hitting them with their car because she allowed the dogs to go in the road? It is tragic these dogs paid the price.


----------



## 65Champagne

*These are not hunters, they are criminals.*

I am new to this forum, and may not last long. "hunters will shoot dogs running deer", "hunters will shoot their own dogs?" Really??? I am a hunter, I have hunted my entire life. I have never seen, nor heard of anyone shooting a dog (intentionally), I suppose I have heard of accidents involving inexperienced shooters taking birds over dogs. These people are not hunters, they are common criminals dressed in hunter's clothing. The dog owners made a mistake, but I think these clowns should be charged, and at the very least, lose their ability to purchase hunting licenses for a lifetime unless they can prove their lives were threatened (which I doubt, as I have yet to see a GSD climb into a tree stand and attack anyone in my group). I am not calling anyone a lier, but the above statements are way too broad.


----------



## msvette2u

There's just a huge epidemic of "sue everyone, no matter whose fault it is", and "take no responsibility ever, no matter what, for my own actions, but blame everyone around me".


----------



## JakodaCD OA

welcome champagne, and I AGREE with you

Here in CT, you can NOT hunt with dogs, you CAN shoot dogs that are endangering your lifestock or are chasing deer/even when it's hunting season. 

Tho I haven't really heard of hunters doing this, (shooting dogs),,my husband was a hunter and he once came upon the carcass of a golden retriever who had been shot during hunting season,,he was pretty po'd, who cares if a dog is chasing wildlife, there is no need to 'shoot' it and I don't think the majority of hunters would..


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

65Champagne said:


> I am new to this forum, and may not last long. "hunters will shoot dogs running deer", "hunters will shoot their own dogs?" Really??? I am a hunter, I have hunted my entire life. I have never seen, nor heard of anyone shooting a dog (intentionally), I suppose I have heard of accidents involving inexperienced shooters taking birds over dogs. These people are not hunters, they are common criminals dressed in hunter's clothing. The dog owners made a mistake, but I think these clowns should be charged, and at the very least, lose their ability to purchase hunting licenses for a lifetime unless they can prove their lives were threatened (which I doubt, as I have yet to see a GSD climb into a tree stand and attack anyone in my group). I am not calling anyone a lier, but the above statements are way too broad.


Oh no - You MUST stick around. LOL! I have to agree with you. I understand the dogs should not have been off their property. For me, it is not even so much the dogs were shot. It could have been accidental. (Wrong place. Wrong time.) But - the entire attitude of the "hunters" afterward. says otherwise. There was no reason for them to behave so badly after the fact.

I agree there are many responsible hunters out there. I just don't think these clowns can be counted in that number. Just because you "can" kill somebody's dog doesn't mean you should.


----------



## Kittilicious

JakodaCD OA said:


> Tho I haven't really heard of hunters doing this, (shooting dogs),,my husband was a hunter and he once came upon the carcass of a golden retriever who had been shot during hunting season,,he was pretty po'd, who cares if a dog is chasing wildlife, there is no need to 'shoot' it and I don't think the majority of hunters would..


That sums it up for me. There are many other ways to get the dogs to stop chasing (if thats what they were doing) other than to shoot at them. And I don't care if the dogs are on someone else's property... it might be some sort of law, but to me it doesn't leave it open for a person to kill someone's pet. 

And then smile about it.


----------



## msvette2u

Well again, we're only hearing one side of it, of course they are going to blow it up into a huge deal, that's how the news works.

I don't condone what the hunters did by any means, but I can see it happening and that's the risk of having dogs you can't contain.


----------



## LARHAGE

Stevenzachsmom said:


> Oh no - You MUST stick around. LOL! I have to agree with you. I understand the dogs should not have been off their property. For me, it is not even so much the dogs were shot. It could have been accidental. (Wrong place. Wrong time.) But - the entire attitude of the "hunters" afterward. says otherwise. There was no reason for them to behave so badly after the fact.
> 
> I agree there are many responsible hunters out there. I just don't think these clowns can be counted in that number. Just because you "can" kill somebody's dog doesn't mean you should.


 
I'm a 100% with you, there was no mention of these dogs killing livestock, I have horses and if I saw dogs attacking my horses I would take action, but there is a basic decency in a "normal" person that would not cause them to shoot young dogs just because they were being dogs, shoo them away, hollar at the owners even shoot the gun to scare them, but only black hearted filth kills these dogs for just simply running loose and playing, I don't give a s&^t what anyone says, a normal, decent person simply doesn't react like this. I reiterate again... I hope they get gored by a deer and made to suffer, that would be poetic justice, God let the deers win this round.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

agree, dogs will be dogs, unless they are down right trying to kill say, my livestock, there is no need to SHOOT them. I agree with Larhage, decent animal caring people would not just shoot a dog for no reason, if they do, they are sick individuals


----------



## BowWowMeow

Dainerra said:


> BowWow, all those are very good points, but still pretty far from the situation admitted by the owners of these dogs.


Perhaps you should re-read my post, paying particular attention to the part that says, "The moral of this story is if you live near legal hunting areas, be sure to wear brightly colored clothing and put a vest on your dog and keep her/him on a leash at all times. I would avoid the woods altogether."

However, I think the act of shooting a dog is heinous. Accidents do happen and the dogs should not have had to pay with their lives. My dogs did get away from me once during hunting season and I was scared to death. Luckily they recalled and did not get shot while in the woods.


----------



## GermanShepherds6800

I live on the va nc line towards the coast. Here hunt clubs use dogs to move the deer. If a dog is a problem dog, they shoot it and replace it. Here hunters that use dogs do not value dogs as anything other than a tool. They do not properly feed or care for them. Most die crossing roads while chasing the deer. It is a hard life for the dogs.

I am a hunter. I am not blind to the hundreds of idiots that hunt and do not have morals or values when it comes to the lives of animals or humans. On the whole in this area most hunters are not hunters for the right reason, nor do they have what it takes to be a person of integrity or character. I am glad you have all upstanding hunters where you live and it gives me hope all is not lost with living among all the "bubbas" of the hunting world.


----------



## sparra

LARHAGE said:


> but only black hearted filth kills these dogs for just simply running loose and playing, I don't give a s&^t what anyone says, a normal, decent person simply doesn't react like this. I reiterate again... I hope they get gored by a deer and made to suffer, that would be poetic justice, God let the deers win this round.


That's a pretty bold statement considering the article was so deliberately one sided. How you can draw conclusions like that from that article is very


----------



## 65Champagne

Stevenzachsmom said:


> Oh no - You MUST stick around. LOL! I have to agree with you. I understand the dogs should not have been off their property. For me, it is not even so much the dogs were shot. It could have been accidental. (Wrong place. Wrong time.) But - the entire attitude of the "hunters" afterward. says otherwise. There was no reason for them to behave so badly after the fact.
> 
> I agree there are many responsible hunters out there. I just don't think these clowns can be counted in that number. Just because you "can" kill somebody's dog doesn't mean you should.


Thank you for the comment...I have settled down now. I hear reports of moose being mistaken for elk, elk mistaken for deer, and every year the division of wildlife reports on the annual fines. I must say though, two dogs shot multiple times can't possibly fall into the accident category. I will admit I shot a robin when I was 7 while hunting doves with my father. I cried, said I was sorry. He said he would forgive me, but the rule stands....and he made a special plate for me. My brothers and sisters knew what was on the plate, and so did I.


----------



## Dainerra

A lot of people shoot dogs on sight, just because they are tired of constantly dealing with stray dogs. My neighbor has probably killed 20 in the last 6 years, that I know of. Every dog that disappears is replaced within a day or so. The owners don't care, so why should he? In many ways, he is doing the dogs a favor since they have pretty crappy lives anyway.

Here, my neighbors know my dogs and that is part of the reason. They know that my dogs are friendly if they leave the yard.

BowWow, sorry, was posting from my phone and always manage to do a crappy posting job.


----------



## 65Champagne

GermanShepherds6800 said:


> I live on the va nc line towards the coast. Here hunt clubs use dogs to move the deer. If a dog is a problem dog, they shoot it and replace it. Here hunters that use dogs do not value dogs as anything other than a tool. They do not properly feed or care for them. Most die crossing roads while chasing the deer. It is a hard life for the dogs.
> 
> I am a hunter. I am not blind to the hundreds of idiots that hunt and do not have morals or values when it comes to the lives of animals or humans. On the whole in this area most hunters are not hunters for the right reason, nor do they have what it takes to be a person of integrity or character. I am glad you have all upstanding hunters where you live and it gives me hope all is not lost with living among all the "bubbas" of the hunting world.


Wow, I have never heard of such a thing. That practice is against the law here, so is baiting or planting food plots... and hunters here would turn someone in a heartbeat if they ever saw it happen. I am not saying we don't have our share of...well...idiots. Guess I need to get out of the State of Colorado more before I post my opinion for the world to see. Here is a pic of my non-hunting dog. For the life of me I can't get the profile pic to work.


----------



## GermanShepherds6800

NP many do not know the differences other regions of such a large country as ours contain. That is the good of forums as long as someone listens to what is said as you have. I wish we had more hunters here that would turn in the bad apples. I do not use dogs for deer. To me if I get a deer that day, there are enough that need thinning. If I did not then they are not an overpopulation problem in that area. I am not going to shoot at just anything to get a kill. Unfortunately most here just hunt for kills and they even waste the meat. They would rather the meat lay and rot than to take it home cut it up and feed themselves or those poor dogs that live on free stale bread from stores.


----------



## Emoore

GermanShepherds6800 said:


> NP many do not know the differences other regions of such a large country as ours contain. That is the good of forums as long as someone listens to what is said as you have. I wish we had more hunters here that would turn in the bad apples. I do not use dogs for deer. To me if I get a deer that day, there are enough that need thinning. If I did not then they are not an overpopulation problem in that area. I am not going to shoot at just anything to get a kill. Unfortunately most here just hunt for kills and they even waste the meat. They would rather the meat lay and rot than to take it home cut it up and feed themselves or those poor dogs that live on free stale bread from stores.


Agreed. I grew up in a family of hunters but we were always taught to take only what we needed and respect the animal. I've shot deer for eating, hogs that were tearing up our grazing land, and coyotes whose only crime was living in a neighborhood and getting too used to people. But I was taught that you never kill an animal just to kill it, and you never let the animal suffer. Once when I was a teenager I shot a deer but it didn't die right away. My dad made me track it for four hours to make sure it was dead and not suffering. Coincidentally, that was the last time I went deer hunting.


----------



## LARHAGE

sparra said:


> That's a pretty bold statement considering the article was so deliberately one sided. How you can draw conclusions like that from that article is very


 
Its kind of the same way some people drew conclusions they were harassing livestock and chasing deer, they were two dogs who were playing and having a good time and didn't have the capacity to know they were trespassing, they didn't deserve to be shot and killed for it, that is my opinion, and yes, a person who would shoot them for that is black hearted unconcionable filth.


----------



## Dainerra

I don't know if they were chasing deer or not. I do know that, in WV, it is legal to shoot a dog who looks like it is chasing deer. That includes a deer runs by and a dog comes through a short time later going in the same direction. Or a dog that looks like it is running toward a deer. 

For the livestock, many farmers prefer to take a preemptive stance against any dog on their property. It isn't entirely legal, though that varies by state. here, all I need is a good reason to believe the dog is going to kill livestock. If I see a black dog kill a bird and the next day I see a black dog in my yard, it is legal to shoot it on sight, even if it isn't harming a bird at that time. 

I won't fault the hunters just because they shot the dog. I don't know what the hunters might have been thinking, but I do know that if minor precautions had been taken the whole thing would have been avoided...

ETA: as I posted earlier, my neighbor has killed about 20 dogs, that I know of, in the last 5 or 6 years. The trailer park across the street is infested with them. Litter after litter, dog after dog, allowed to roam free, never fed except some scraps dumped on the ground and no where to sleep except under the parked cars. He's lost cats; I've lost rabbits and chickens. They raid garbage, growl at people, poop everywhere.
All in all, I don't blame him for shooting them. He has even had to replace window screens because of the dogs trying to jump through to get at cats inside. 

Legally, it is fine to let the dogs run free as there is no leash law. However, it IS legal to shoot any dog that is a threat to livestock. Is it a good system? No, but there is nothing else in place here.


----------



## AbbyK9

I have not read any of the responses that were posted since I last posted to this thread. However, I have been thinking about the article.

First, I think that this article is an extremely poor excuse for "journalism". Back when I took journalism classes (I did English/journalism in college years back ... not sure why I thought that would be a good field to get into), we were taught to report the facts and try not to use colorful language or let our personal opinions taint the writing. If the facts were scant, like in a he-said/she-said situation like this article (where most of the "facts" are what the dog owners said), we were told to investigate both sides and report accordingly.

Reading this article (and many others these days, especially in the smaller papers), this is more of an opinion piece, geared specifically at swaying people to believe these owners have done nothing wrong and that these hunters are awful lowlife who'd shoot any dog that would simply wander onto their property.

Even with the bad reporting, I think one very important fact stands out from the article - the fact that the owner stated they were calling after the dogs when the dogs decided "to explore". Glancing over the thread, I saw Selzer mentioned this as well and I agree with her. There is a big difference in a dog that is exploring and a dog that is taking off after something. 

My dog explores ... she'll trot along, nose to the ground, checking things out. To me, that is exploring. I have never had any trouble calling my dog back while she was exploring because she's not focused on prey or darting into the woods when she explores ... she's simply sniffing the ground as she moves around, sometimes off the trail or into the woodline but certainly within my sight and calling distance.

It sounds to me like these two dogs took off after something if the family states that they were running after them yelling their names, which is what the article says, and the dogs didn't come back because they were so focused on their "prey" (whatever that was). 

It is well possible that the dogs were chasing after deer. A lot of things are possible. It's possible these hunters were sitting in a tree stand, waiting all morning for the perfect deer to come along, and had their hunt ruined by these dogs and that they were angry and shot them. It's possible they shot them because the dogs have previously run loose on their property. It's possible they shot them because they have a feud with their neighbor. It's possible they just shot them for the sake of shooting them. But, the point is, we don't know any of this.

We do know that the dogs were in an un-fenced yard and that the dogs ran away onto the neighbors' property, even though the owners were trying to call them back. And we know the dogs are dead.

I still think that the blame here does not lie just with the people who shot them and that the article goes out of its way to attempt to portray it as such. The article tries to make the hunters out to be a bunch of rude, callus hicks who got a kick out of shooting two sweet, innocent therapy-dogs-in-training.


----------



## msvette2u

Wow. 
These accounts differ WILDLY.

Authorities investigating shooting death of two dogs on Iron Range | Duluth News Tribune | Duluth, Minnesota




> According to the sheriff’s office in Virginia, Shannon Hautala called 911 Sunday morning and reported that her two German shepherd dogs were shot sometime overnight near her farm in Clinton Township, near Iron, southwest of Eveleth.
> 
> Hautala said she was taking care of her horses around 5 p.m. Saturday and the dogs leapt out of her truck and zipped off. “They usually stand there while I do the chores,” she said.





> It was too dark to search for them Saturday. She said she called their names, Makita and Devaki, and heard gunshots shortly after the dogs ran. After getting a tip from a neighbor who also heard gunshots, and whimpering, she found the dogs dead the next morning near a hunting stand on the adjoining property.



Hunters Allegedly Kill Two German Shepherds on Iron Range | Northland's NewsCenter: News, Weather, Sports | NBC, CBS, MyNetworkTV, and The CW for Duluth MN / Superior WI | Local News



> The dog owners say they were doing chores outside on Saturday afternoon when their two pure bred German Shepherds ran off playfully into the woods, not far from a hunting stand on nearby property.
> "They would have ran maybe 30 seconds before they were shot," dog owner, Shannon Hautala said.



And yet a third account...same owners...same dogs...

http://www.wdio.com/article/stories/S2374364.shtml?cat=10335



> "We had parked the truck here and they were running around here and then they just ducked under the fence here and ran into the woods."
> 
> That was Saturday night, and it was the last time Gary Kuoppala and Shannon Hautala of Virginia saw their two dogs alive. They began calling for Devaki and Makita, year-and-a-half old german shepherds being trained for therapy, as soon as they went out of sight. But it was too late.
> 
> "It was within 5 minutes after the dogs slipped under there that we heard the gunshots," Kuoppala said.


----------



## AbbyK9

Wow, there sure are a lot of different accounts of this.

So ... were the dogs let outside to play and went "off exploring", then didn't come when the owners ran after them and called them? Or did they "zip off" from the truck while the owner was doing chores and they called them but never went looking for them until the next day? Or did they run off into the woods and they heard shots within 30 seconds? Or did they duck under the fence and take off and they heard shots within 5 minutes?

You'd think that the owners' accounts would, you know, kinda match.

If we had to piece together what really happened, I think the owners probably paid no attention to what the dogs were doing and, at some point, just noticed they were gone and figured they'd taken off into the woods. They called them but when the dogs didn't come, they didn't really go looking for them until the next morning and, at that point, found them dead. Who knows what the dogs were doing when they were shot.


----------



## DTS

this is news to me, i did not know it was against the law in some states for dogs to chase deer. in florida, we hunt deer with dogs.. its legal.. packs of beagles, walkers, coonhounds, blue ticks.. and your occasional wierd guy with a pack of weiner dogs. the only bad thing that came with the territory of hunting deer with dogs is if another hunter came along and scooped up one of yours and took off the tracking collar. they had pens to put stays. no one shot a dog for chasing a deer.
on a different note, i agree that the dogs should have been under better control. i live in the country and my yard isnt fenced in so my dogs is always on leash.. would se go anywhere, i dont think so but i dont want to take that chance. so i dont...


----------



## Jax08

I don't know if it's against the law for dogs to chase deer. I do know that people get away with shooting the dogs that chase deer.


----------



## NewbieShepherdGirl

I haven't read this whole thing, but I have to agree with the people that were saying the owners were at fault. Anything that happens to Sasha due to my negligence is 100% my fault, and while I would be very upset if she got shot because she wouldn't recall, I'd be primarily upset with myself for putting her in a situation that made that possible. The hunters, if they did it on purpose, shouldn't have done it, but the life of the dog is not their responsibility it is that of the dog's owners.


----------



## AbbyK9

> I don't know if it's against the law for dogs to chase deer.


Allowing dogs to run deer (or harass any other kind of big game) is illegal in the majority of states. In most places, a peace officer or game warden can shoot a dog that is being seen chasing or harassing game. In some places, there can also be misdemeanor charges against the dogs' owner - I believe in Minnesota it's $100 for each instance of a dog chasing wildlife and $500 for each instance of a dog killing wildlife.

I also know that it is legal in Minnesota for ANY person, not just a peace officer or game warden, to shoot dogs chasing deer between 1 January and 14 July. (As per The Death Penalty For Dogs That Chase Deer CBS Minnesota)

Incidentally, Minnesota law also allows for ANY person to kill a dog that is running at large unmuzzled within the limits of any city or town. Minnesota Dangerous Dog Laws


----------



## DharmasMom

God Bless. I am so sick of reading stories like this and I am even more sick of seeing the hunters get defended. The owners made a mistake, A horrible, terrible mistake. I doubt they decided to let the dogs run loose with the intention of wrecking the hunter's day or terrorizing the neighbors. The hunters, for whatever completely malicious reason, decided to pump 5 bullets into 2 dogs without even giving the owners a CHANCE to find and collect their dogs. It's disgusting.

Then the hunters decided to laugh about it, that makes them even lower life forms that don't deserve the right to call themselves human, as far as I am concerned. I hope the next time they are hanging out in a deer stand waiting for an unsuspecting deer to come by that one of them falls out and breaks his neck. Preferably high enough up to leave him a quadriplegic for the rest of his life so not only can he never hunt again but he can't even control his bowels and wipe his own butt. Then on the way down, I hope his gun discharges and shoots the other guy in the face. But I hope it doesn't kill him, just leaves him seriously disfigured and blind. That to me would be just punishment for brutally and maliciously killing to gorgeous, young, healthy dogs for no other reason then the fact that they enjoyed killing. 

They had no right to kill those dogs unless they were in imminent danger and since they didn't own up to the killing immediately and say that the dogs were attacking them, I am betting they weren't. They killed the dogs out of pure meanness. Well, I hope karma eventually gets them and they suffer for it. It probably won't happen like my fantasy but hopefully they will suffer in another way.

As for the owner's- yes, it is an owner's responsibility to watch their dog at all times, to be in control. But accidents DO happen. Sometimes dogs DO get away from us. They didn't deserve to have their dogs killed for it and the dogs CERTAINLY didn't deserve to be brutally murdered because they took off after something that morning.


----------



## Syaoransbear

The owners are at fault, but those hunters are seriously disgusting people. Even if they were running deer, it's heartless to kill someone's family pets over it. Worse to lie about it. Way, way worse to laugh about it.


----------



## LARHAGE

Remind me to never move to Minnesota, any state that allows someone to just shoot and kill a dog for simply running down a street is a ****hole state, it belongs in a third world country.


----------



## Dainerra

we only have the owners' word on how the hunters acted. And, seeing the different versions that are now coming out, I'm not sure how reliable that is. Now there are implications, from the owners' mouth, that they didn't even look for the dogs until the next morning. 

Is it likely that the hunters just shrugged it off? very, because what happened is a fact of country life.

Not all, but many hunters do so to provide food for their families, esp in today's economy. Plus, the dogs were roaming someone else's property.

In some states, in certain hunting seasons, it is legal to use dogs. However, it is very different than just dogs running through the woods randomly chasing deer.

Here, it is the law and a farmer's only legal recourse to shoot the dogs. So, it's a fact that I've grown up with my entire life. It's something that everyone knows and, if it happens to your dogs, you smack yourself for being and idiot and APOLOGIZE to the person forced to kill your dog. Why? because it was your fault and no one likes to kill someone's dog. They are just protecting what is theirs, be it livestock or a deer stand that they use to provide food for their family.


----------



## Dainerra

LARHAGE said:


> Remind me to never move to Minnesota, any state that allows someone to just shoot and kill a dog for simply running down a street is a ****hole state, it belongs in a third world country.


but the dogs aren't "simply running down the street" They are actively chasing deer, which is a multi-million dollar industry - tourism, hunting licenses, fees, etc

It comes down to irresponsible owners. Only extremely rarely does a dog get shot because, for 5 minutes, it slipped it's leash and the owner was desperately looking for it. Of course, you would already know that your neighbor is a  , so would already be super vigilant. Instead, there is a pattern. The dog is loose every day, or at least several times a week. You talk to the owner. You have the police talk to the owner. They are warned and warned and still you see the dog every day. You ask the police "what can I do" and they tell you "shoot the dog". So, you shoot the dog. And then you are in the paper as a heartless  for killing Lassie. Because every dog in the owner's mind is going to be a therapy dog. Or always friendly. Or never ever left the yard before. 

How many rants are in the story section about THAT? The clueless owners who say "he's friendly!" while their snarling dog tries to eat your puppy?


----------



## NancyJ

msvette2u said:


> Well again, we're only hearing one side of it, of course they are going to blow it up into a huge deal, that's how the news works.
> 
> I don't condone what the hunters did by any means, but I can see it happening and that's the risk of having dogs you can't contain.


I think that is the fundamental point. All of this is coming from the owner of the dogs. Is there similar discussion from the hunters ?(probably lawyered up I would guess and being silent)

For all we know those dogs could have been regularly visting the site and the fact that the dogs and kids were near a deer stand at dusk.....You know worse things could have happened. You live in the country you have to know how things work.

My friend had a farm and shot dogs who were worrying her horses because a panicked horse can easily get so hurt it will have to be put down.

When we go out on a search for a missing person during hunting season we ask the police to clear the woods of hunters for our own and our dogs safety. It is just common sense.....dusk to dawn keep your dogs out of the woods.


----------



## Kittilicious

I have to say I'm pretty shocked at how this thread has gone. I can't believe how many of you are assuming that the news story is one sided... the side of the dog owners. You are assuming they were chasing deer. Maybe that is the truth, but what if it's not? 
And each time someone says the dogs should have been in a fenced in yard, I cringe. Around here... out in the country... nobody has fences for their dogs. The dogs run if they live in the country. I'm sure it's even more so where this story is out of because it's a lot farther north than I am. But the big difference is... NOBODY SHOOTS THEIR NEIGHBORS DOG. Which is probably why this story is even a story at all. Even while deer hunting. Legal or not, it's just not done. And 5 shots wasn't a "oops I thought it was a deer" mistake. That was a deliberate "I'm going to be a jerk" shot.


----------



## NancyJ

I really don't see too many people *siding* with the hunters --- just that theres always two sides to a story and the owners cannot escape some of their own responsibility for keeping their dogs safe especially during hunting season.


----------



## Mrs.K

yeah, but she's right. Five shots is not an accident. That's going for the kill.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Kittilicious said:


> I have to say I'm pretty shocked at how this thread has gone. I can't believe how many of you are assuming that the news story is one sided... the side of the dog owners. You are assuming they were chasing deer. Maybe that is the truth, but what if it's not?
> And each time someone says the dogs should have been in a fenced in yard, I cringe. Around here... out in the country... nobody has fences for their dogs. The dogs run if they live in the country. I'm sure it's even more so where this story is out of because it's a lot farther north than I am. But the big difference is... NOBODY SHOOTS THEIR NEIGHBORS DOG. Which is probably why this story is even a story at all. Even while deer hunting. Legal or not, it's just not done. And 5 shots wasn't a "oops I thought it was a deer" mistake. That was a deliberate "I'm going to be a jerk" shot.


Totally agree!


----------



## Franksmom

Kittilicious said:


> I have to say I'm pretty shocked at how this thread has gone. I can't believe how many of you are assuming that the news story is one sided... the side of the dog owners. You are assuming they were chasing deer. Maybe that is the truth, but what if it's not?
> And each time someone says the dogs should have been in a fenced in yard, I cringe. Around here... out in the country... nobody has fences for their dogs. The dogs run if they live in the country. I'm sure it's even more so where this story is out of because it's a lot farther north than I am. But the big difference is... NOBODY SHOOTS THEIR NEIGHBORS DOG. Which is probably why this story is even a story at all. Even while deer hunting. Legal or not, it's just not done. And 5 shots wasn't a "oops I thought it was a deer" mistake. That was a deliberate "I'm going to be a jerk" shot.


 
We'll probably never know the whole story, the hunters side, the owners side and the truth's side. 
Living in the country where there are no fences is still not a reason to let your dogs run, I'm in the country too with no fences, my dogs are not allowed to "run" and my neighbors are really good with their dogs too. I dont' want my dogs on others' property and while I love animals and would go out of my way to not hurt one, a dog having a little "fun &playing" could do a lot of harm real fast to one of my horses.


----------



## Kittilicious

> Devaki and Makita were playing in the yard when they decided to explore. Hautala and Kuoppala followed, hollering their names. Then they heard at least five ominous sounds.
> 
> "Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang ... there were at least five shots," Hautala recalled. They were only about 150 yards from Kuoppala's property.


I've seen people mention them just running & exploring... I just wanted to bring this part of the story to light again. It sounds like they went after the dogs right away... _were calling their names when they heard the shots_. Ok, so the dogs didn't listen, but the owners/friends were still trying to get their dogs. 150 yards isn't that far off of the property.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs

LARHAGE said:


> Remind me to never move to Minnesota, any state that allows someone to just shoot and kill a dog for simply running down a street is a ****hole state, it belongs in a third world country.





Dainerra said:


> but the dogs aren't "simply running down the street" They are actively chasing deer, which is a multi-million dollar industry - tourism, hunting licenses, fees, etc


Awhile back on this thread I posted the Minnesota law regarding dogs running large game (including deer). *The hunters were acting ILLEGALLY when they shot these dogs*. It is only legal to shoot dogs running large game between January and July. It is now November.



Kittilicious said:


> I have to say I'm pretty shocked at how this thread has gone. I can't believe how many of you are assuming that the news story is one sided...


See, but here's the thing... no matter how hard they try to be neutral, the news is SKEWED. Humans write these stores, not robots. They are going to print the best story. They're going to pick their angle, and sell it for all it's worth. 

I'm not "taking the side" of the hunters, but I do agree that there is only one side of the story out there. I am inclined to believe that the current story being printed is close to the truth, with some embellishment. I do not believe the hunters had the right (legally or ethically) to shoot those dogs.


----------



## GermanShepherds6800

Newspapers report to sway readers to their goals all the time. They also do not report things correctly. Have you ever seen "pit bulls kills" headliner then see picture of the dog who was not a pit? 

I maintain the opinion the hunter killed because they could and were probably bored or angry no deer were coming through and they took the blame out on the dogs. I also maintain the owners were at fault for not having dogs under control by voice, leash, or confinement.


----------



## LARHAGE

Dainerra said:


> but the dogs aren't "simply running down the street" They are actively chasing deer, which is a multi-million dollar industry - tourism, hunting licenses, fees, etc
> 
> It comes down to irresponsible owners. Only extremely rarely does a dog get shot because, for 5 minutes, it slipped it's leash and the owner was desperately looking for it. Of course, you would already know that your neighbor is a  , so would already be super vigilant. Instead, there is a pattern. The dog is loose every day, or at least several times a week. You talk to the owner. You have the police talk to the owner. They are warned and warned and still you see the dog every day. You ask the police "what can I do" and they tell you "shoot the dog". So, you shoot the dog. And then you are in the paper as a heartless  for killing Lassie. Because every dog in the owner's mind is going to be a therapy dog. Or always friendly. Or never ever left the yard before.
> 
> How many rants are in the story section about THAT? The clueless owners who say "he's friendly!" while their snarling dog tries to eat your puppy?


 
No, AbbyK9 said it is legal in Minnesota to kill a dog simply running down the street in city limits unmuzzled, that is plain ludicrous and pathetic. There also is no proof they were chasing deer.


----------



## Kittilicious

LARHAGE said:


> No, AbbyK9 said it is legal in Minnesota to kill a dog simply running down the street in city limits unmuzzled, that is plain ludicrous and pathetic. There also is no proof they were chasing deer.


Not sure how that can be possible considering it's illegal to shoot a gun in city limits.


----------



## Kittilicious

Maybe the law is actually supposed to read that it's legal to kill a dog running down the street.... meaning, the person has to be running down the street while in the act of killing a dog (without a firearm, because you can't fire one within city limits).


----------



## Dainerra

Kittilicious said:


> I've seen people mention them just running & exploring... I just wanted to bring this part of the story to light again. It sounds like they went after the dogs right away... _were calling their names when they heard the shots_. Ok, so the dogs didn't listen, but the owners/friends were still trying to get their dogs. 150 yards isn't that far off of the property.


Other stories have since been posted. There is some discrepancy in the owners story and when they went looking for the dogs. It might not have been till the next morning... one quote says they were doing chores and saw that the dogs were no longer in the truck where they left them.

My main problem is with the defense that the dogs were "only" 150 feet across the property line.
1) 150 feet is 50 yards, almost 1/2 a football field. That isn't a short distance.

2) using my mom's house in WV as an example. She let's Lady out the backdoor. By the time Lady reaches the property line, she is over a MILE from home. 1 mile of heavy wodds and brambles and then 50 yards past that??


----------



## Vinnie

:laugh: I live in the country – in rural MN (farm country). All of our neighbors own dogs as do we. None of our yards are fenced. (Well a small portion of our yard is fence - the rest is not.) We do NOT let our dogs run freely in each others yards unattended for any reason! That’s disrespectful to our neighbors and irresponsible to our dogs.

It’s deer hunting season in MN! That means many people (men, women and children) are out there with guns ready to shoot. It's just dumb to let your dogs run freely around here - even in the country. 

In all the different versions of this story (who knows what to believe) there are a few things that remain unchanged. These dogs were out of the owners sight and maybe even out of range to hear their owners call for them. Out of the owners’ yard and unsupervised. IMO - The OWNERS are 100% at fault for the death of their own dogs. And how sad is that. They were blatantly irresponsible and now they want someone else to pay for their mistake? Seriously, they want money/donations. They've even set up a special website to receive those donations 

Maybe that’s because they might be facing charges? Yep, at ANYTIME of the year it is illegal to allow your dog to “pursue” a deer. Petty Misdemeanor and subject to a $500 fine for each violation. In MN. Even though only a peace or conservation officer is the only one allowed (by law) to shoot a dog chasing a deer from July 15- Dec. 31 – it is NEVER legal to allow the dogs to “pursue” deer or livestock. There is NO liability to the person who accidentally shoots the dog for pursuing a deer.



Rott-n-GSDs said:


> Awhile back on this thread I posted the Minnesota law regarding dogs running large game (including deer). *The hunters were acting ILLEGALLY when they shot these dogs*. It is only legal to shoot dogs running large game between January and July. It is now November.


PS. Check the MN Law on killing a strange dog on your property. Doesn’t even have to be chasing a deer. Just perceived as dangerous. *These deer hunters did NOTHING illegal.* 



LARHAGE said:


> No, AbbyK9 said it is legal in Minnesota to kill a dog simply running down the street in city limits unmuzzled, that is plain ludicrous and pathetic. There also is no proof they were chasing deer.


Yes, AbbyK9 is right, it is legal in MN to kill a strange large unmuzzled dog running at large, if the dog is perceived as dangerous. This does not necessarily mean "shoot".

Some years ago I shot a strange dog on my property who was showing his teeth to me with a paint ball gun to give the owner a warning. Painted his hinny blue. Never seen the dog again.


----------



## Jax08

Kittilicious said:


> I have to say I'm pretty shocked at how this thread has gone. I can't believe how many of you are assuming that the news story is one sided... the side of the dog owners. You are assuming they were chasing deer.


I don't think anyone is siding with the hunters. What was said was IF a dog were running deer he would most likely be shot (legally or not is not an issue for me since I know people shoot dogs and the owner never knows). Nobody assumed that they were actually chasing the deer...at least that I saw.

My point, given that I have slug buried in the baseboard of my house by some moron shooting many years ago, is that you DO NOT leave your dog unattended and lose during hunting season. It's a safety thing. Maybe a little paranoid. But I don't even let my fawn colored Boxer outside to pee unless I'm right there to take her back in.

No where in this story is the other side. Were the people that owned the shepherds warned to keep them contained? Were they chasing deer? Was there bad blood between the neighbors for the men that shot the dogs to be so cruel? However, I find it hard to believe these guys shot these dogs and left them right below their deer stand unless they were incredibly stupid. The deer would smell the blood of a PREDATOR and never come close.


----------



## AbbyK9

> I live in the country – in rural MN (farm country). All of our neighbors own dogs as do we. None of our yards are fenced. (Well a small portion of our yard is fence - the rest is not.) We do NOT let our dogs run freely in each others yards unattended for any reason! That’s disrespectful to our neighbors and irresponsible to our dogs.


^ This.

When we lived in Gouverneur, we lived on 174 acres with access to about 200 more across the street. We had two dogs for most of our time there. Our neighbor next to us, who had a sheep farm, had a dog. Our neighbor on the other side who lived in a trailer also had a dog. The neighbor next to him, also a farm, also had dogs.

None of us had fenced yards for our dogs but the majority of people still didn't think it was right to just let their dogs run. The only idiot on the road who thought that was okay was the one living in the trailer. He had a Great Dane mix who was forever coming onto our property, charging MY dogs when we were walking down to the mailbox, getting into the horse pasture and annoying the horses, getting into the sheep pasture and annoying the sheep.

It is ILLEGAL for him to let his dog run loose if his dog is not on his own property. (As per the dog warden, whom I called after his stupid dog charged my dogs, yet again, at the mailbox.) The dog warden recommended SHOOTING his dog if he came onto our property again or if I saw him chasing the horses or if the neighbor saw him chasing his sheep.

I think letting your dogs outside to roam the neighborhood is as rude to your neighbors in the country as it is in town, and it's certainly no more legal in the country than it is in town. It's also being a pretty darn poor neighbor.



> In all the different versions of this story (who knows what to believe) there are a few things that remain unchanged. These dogs were out of the owners sight and maybe even out of range to hear their owners call for them. Out of the owners’ yard and unsupervised.


^ This, also.

There are now FOUR different versions of this story posted to this thread, by four different news agencies. ALL of them ONLY tell the story of the dog owners. Not one of those reporters has spoken to the hunters or even indicated they attempted to speak to the hunters. Even so, all FOUR accounts from the SAME owners about the SAME incident are DIFFERENT. They differ in what the owners were doing, whether the dogs were "playing" or "taking off" after something, how long it was before they heard shots, how long it was before they went looking for their dogs.

Taking into consideration how the owners account varies and how the first article is an extremely poor excuse for journalism, who the heck knows whether the hunters EVER said a thing to these dog owners or ACTUALLY EVER laughed about shooting the dogs. All we have is the dog owners SAYING that this is what happened. Remember, these are the same owners who have given four different accounts of what happened.


----------



## Kittilicious

I found another article on it and this was included;


> Authorities continue to investigate the case and say* the hunters could face charges of damage to private property.*
> *Under Minnesota law, conservation officers are the only people who may shoot a dog* if they are witnessed wounding or killing big game at any time of year.
> Any person may kill a dog if they witness it wounding or killing big game between January 1st and July 14th if firearms are allowed to be shot in the area.
> http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Pets-Gunned-Down-134006183.html


and another


> Lieutenant Ed Kippley with the Virginia Sheriff's Office said that between January 1st and July 24th, anybody could shoot a dog that was chasing a deer. But not right now. "The only way they could legally shoot them is if they were a law enforcement officer. During the hunting season, that's the only person who can shoot a dog who is chasing wild game, big game," Kippley said.
> Trespassing and criminal damage to property laws also come into question, but right now Kippley said they're still trying to piece together what happened, "Until we talk to everybody involved and find someone that actually saw the dogs out and about, we have no way of knowing."
> WDIO.com - Dogs Shot On Range: Owners React​


So regardless, the hunters were in the wrong.


----------



## Vinnie

AbbyK9 said:


> There are now *FOUR different versions of this story* posted to this thread, by four different news agencies. ALL of them ONLY tell the story of the dog owners. Not one of those reporters has spoken to the hunters or even indicated they attempted to speak to the hunters. Even so, all FOUR accounts from the SAME owners about the SAME incident are DIFFERENT. They differ in what the owners were doing, whether the dogs were "playing" or "taking off" after something, how long it was before they heard shots, how long it was before they went looking for their dogs.
> 
> Taking into consideration how the owners account varies and how the first article is an extremely poor excuse for journalism, who the heck knows whether the hunters EVER said a thing to these dog owners or ACTUALLY EVER laughed about shooting the dogs. All we have is the dog owners SAYING that this is what happened. Remember, these are the same owners who have given four different accounts of what happened.


Yep that sure does discredit their own story doesn't it? Just makes them look all the more guilty in my book.  I guess that just says to me that you can spin a story anyway you want but when you’re wrong – you’re still wrong.

On top of that the seeking and acceptance of donations in this situation by the dogs owners just further discredits them – in my book. Just greed at the cost of their dogs. WOW. 


Kitti - those articles have already been posted.  But great if you want to repeat them - I'll also repeat some things.......



Vinnie said:


> Maybe that’s because they might be facing charges? Yep, at ANYTIME of the year it is illegal to allow your dog to “pursue” a deer. Petty Misdemeanor and subject to a $500 fine for each violation. In MN. Even though only a peace or conservation officer is the only one allowed (by law) to shoot a dog chasing a deer from July 15- Dec. 31 – it is NEVER legal to allow the dogs to “pursue” deer or livestock. *There is NO liability to the person who accidentally shoots the dog for pursuing a deer.*
> 
> *PS. Check the MN Law on killing a strange dog on your property. Doesn’t even have to be chasing a deer. Just perceived as dangerous. **These deer hunters did NOTHING illegal.*


Regardless of what these online articles say, I highly doubt any sheriff or police or law enforcement agency will bother filing ANY charges against the land owner or deer hunters in this case. It would be easily dismissed and a waste of tax payer's money. The deer hunters acted well within legal limits in this case. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble there.

It's actually the dogs' owners who could possibly face some REAL and valid charges in this case for their negligence. The trespassing laws will apply to the dogs being on someone else's property. The dogs were trespassing (which the article doesn't say) and the owners could be legally held responsible.

From the accounts I've read, it doesn't seem like the hunters were in the wrong - the dogs' owners were. (But God only knows the full story - haven't heard the hunter's side yet.) You need to read the actual laws instead of online articles and apply a little logic.


----------



## Vinnie

Vinnie said:


> Yes, AbbyK9 is right, it is legal in MN to kill a strange large unmuzzled dog running at large, if the dog is perceived as dangerous. This does not necessarily mean "shoot".


BTW: this law applies *YEAR-ROUND* not just a portion of the year. If the dog is in your yard, it does NOT have to be chasing wildlife or livestock. It is a different law then the one stated in the hunter's handbook. 

The dog has to be large - check
The dog has to be unmuzzled - check
The dog has to be running at large - check
The dog has to be perceived as dangerous - VERY possible. Many people perceive GSDs as dangerous dogs just looking at them. Solid black - sometimes even more. It could be a wolf!


----------



## Dainerra

Kittilicious said:


> I found another article on it and this was included;
> 
> 
> and another
> 
> So regardless, the hunters were in the wrong.


don't know why it won't copy everything else, but the last line is the important part. 

Even if the hunters were in the wrong, the fault of the situation still lies with the owner. It's like letting your toddler play in the street. Sure, the guy who ran her over might get a ticket, but that doesn't change the fact that an irresponsible parent let a baby die on their watch. 

Everyone knows that it is deer season. Everyone knows that sometimes careless people are in the woods that will shoot anything that moves. Therefore, everyone should know that it isn't a good idea to let your dogs roam around, at least at this time of year. That isn't even taking into account the fact that all 50 states have "livestock protection" laws allowing a dog to be shot. How strict depends on the state, here all I need to do is THINK the dog is going to cause a problem. That could be as simple as the fact that I have filed 4 police reports in the last year about dog problems. In other states, the dog has to be physically harming the animals at the moment that it is shot. (Of course, there is only 1 side to the story so.....)

Everyone who owns a dog, no matter where they live, should be aware of the potential consequences of allowing their dog to roam. Just because Fluffy is an angel at home doesn't mean she isn't using the neighbor's sheep as a chew toy.

Everyone thinks the law is so cruel, stating that someone can shoot a dog for trespassing. Where did those laws come from? Irresponsible owners who let their dogs roam the countryside, often in packs, causing thousands and thousands of $$ in damages to property and livestock.


----------



## sparra

Franksmom said:


> We'll probably never know the whole story, the hunters side, the owners side and the truth's side.
> Living in the country where there are no fences is still not a reason to let your dogs run, I'm in the country too with no fences, my dogs are not allowed to "run" and my neighbors are really good with their dogs too. I dont' want my dogs on others' property and while I love animals and would go out of my way to not hurt one, a dog having a little "fun &playing" could do a lot of harm real fast to one of my horses.


Agreed!!
We live on a remote farm. Our farm (ranch) is 10,000 acres and we still have fences to keep our dogs in. Just because you live in the counrty doesn't mean you don't control your dogs.
We have a child proof fence then an e-fence that runs along it to stop the dogs roaming. We own a GSD and in this neck of the woods this means a "sheep killer" to our neighbors so there is no way he is getting out to be potentially shot by the neighbors.

As in my other post where I said we had actually had big losses of livestock due to neighbors dogs NOT being contained, I am fully aware that if my dogs are found on someone else's property killing their sheep they will be shot and i am fine with that and that is why it will never happen.

I don't really give two hoots about the article. It is totally one sided and not enough info is given about either side but this thread is not just about the article it has also been about people calling others "filth" because they shoot dogs on their property full stop and that you should never shoot a neighbors dog. There are times when this is necessary and if you have never been in that situation then it is hard to comprehend.


----------



## KentuckyGSDLover

I've owned German Shepherds, I also own property. My dog isn't even allowed in the woods without me, and he also wears an orange vest in the fall when he walks in the woods with me from bow season, through muzzleloader season and modern gun season. Dogs left running will run deer until their hearts burst, kill turkeys and other wildlife. It's a shame for the dogs. Personally, I'd hope the hunters didn't shoot nonaggressive dogs, but a dog trespassing on property people are hunting on is bad news.


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom

I think the situation is sad . We own a very small piece of property surrounded by three farmers. I had permission to walk my dogs on the woods of one farmer and Lucky got away and went running through a newly planted corn field.He was caught. Daisy got loose and chased horses not once but twice. I watch my dogs ,never let them loose except in their fenced in yard. The same farmers allow people to hunt. We had someone w/ a rifle shoot through one wall of our garage w/ high enough velocity ammo that it pierced the back wall of our garage as well and the bullet was found there. Another idiot who was probably drunk was sighting his guns and fired in on our property while I was outside w/ the dogs and my husband.I have no issues w/ hunters but I dread this time and worry about my dogs ,especially when you are dealing w/ the one day a year surburban great hunter or the idiots who drink prior to hunting.I understand how if a dog is loose and chasing farm animals or wildlife ,they can be shot .Daisy is w/ us only today because a rider threw his reins to his buddy and enticed her to chase him back. She had broke through me when I went out to get the paper. All that aside I still feel horrible re these two GSD's and the kids who loved them and lost them. I wonder what you have to be like to shot two dogs who are pets.


----------



## Dainerra

It makes me very sad to have to kill someone's dog.  for me, it is only a last resort after I have called the cops and had an official warning given. Unless I catch the dog in the act of killing and it doesn't take off, I never shoot the first time.

I'm also angry at the owner who disregards those warnings and let's their dog continue to be a problem.
The last time I called the police, the dog was let out to roam again while the cop was still in their driveway. I figured they would AT LEAST wait for the police to leave..


----------



## KentuckyGSDLover

Daisy&Lucky's Mom said:


> The same farmers allow people to hunt. We had someone w/ a rifle shoot through one wall of our garage w/ high enough velocity ammo that it pierced the back wall of our garage as well and the bullet was found there. Another idiot who was probably drunk was sighting his guns and fired in on our property while I was outside w/ the dogs and my husband.I have no issues w/ hunters but I dread this time and worry about my dogs ,especially when you are dealing w/ the one day a year surburban great hunter or the idiots who drink prior to hunting.I understand how if a dog is loose and chasing farm animals or wildlife ,they can be shot . . .


I hope to God you told the farmers who live next to you about these incidents. Anyone hunting on my property that does not know what their backdrop is and shoots accordingly doesn't hunt here again!


----------



## DharmasMom

No where has it been proven that these dogs were causing problems. No where has it been proven that they were running deer. They could have taken off after a squirrel for all we know. All of that is pure speculation. What we DO know is that 2 dogs were shot 5 TIMES, by hunters who were out hunting deer so I would bet they had pretty high powered hunting rifles that they used. That is blatant overkill. 

The owners were stupid and irresponsible but the hunters were cruel and malicious. Cruel and malicious trumps stupid and irresponsible in my book any day. The owners made a mistake, the hunters made a premeditated decision and killed those dogs on purpose. As far as I am concerned they are the male-sex-organ heads here.

I do have a question though. Why is it illegal for dogs to chase deer? I really don't understand why this is an issue.


----------



## Vinnie

Mistake? More like negligent, disrespectful and irresponsible. Causing you're own dog's death is what's cruel & malicious - in my book. Guess that's just me.

We don't know for sure that it was hunter's who even killed the dogs. We don't know if the person or people who killed the dogs made a "premeditated decision" or a snap decision out of fear. We don't even know if the dogs were killed on purpose or on accident.


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom

KentuckyGSDLover said:


> I hope to God you told the farmers who live next to you about these incidents. Anyone hunting on my property that does not know what their backdrop is and shoots accordingly doesn't hunt here again!


It was reported to all three farms but I didnt have a visual on the incidient with shooting through garage wall. The shot in on us in the yard ,guy denied it happened.Love our neighbors,great people,hunters who get permission to hunt are all over about a 1000 acre spread.So I keep my dogs close starting right after Thanksgiving till the end of gun season. Try not to let them out in yard alone even though its fenced,


----------



## sparra

DharmasMom said:


> No where has it been proven that these dogs were causing problems. No where has it been proven that they were running deer. They could have taken off after a squirrel for all we know. All of that is pure speculation. What we DO know is that 2 dogs were shot 5 TIMES, by hunters who were out hunting deer so I would bet they had pretty high powered hunting rifles that they used. That is blatant overkill.
> 
> The owners were stupid and irresponsible but the hunters were cruel and malicious. Cruel and malicious trumps stupid and irresponsible in my book any day. The owners made a mistake, the hunters made a premeditated decision and killed those dogs on purpose. As far as I am concerned they are the male-sex-organ heads here.
> 
> I do have a question though. Why is it illegal for dogs to chase deer? I really don't understand why this is an issue.


Um......there are a fair few assumptions being made on your side of the fence here too don't you think? You are only taking the word of the owners as gospel truth who I think have already given a few different accounts as to what happened which makes me a tad suspicious.


----------



## DharmasMom

Vinnie said:


> Mistake? More like negligent, disrespectful and irresponsible. Causing you're own dog's death is what's cruel & malicious - in my book. Guess that's just me.
> 
> We don't know for sure that it was hunter's who even killed the dogs. We don't know if the person or people who killed the dogs made a "premeditated decision" or a snap decision out of fear. We don't even know if the dogs were killed on purpose or on accident.



5 shots. And while the article doesn't say what kind of gun the dogs were shot with exactly, since they were hunting, I will take the liberty of assuming that they used their rifles. That is not an accident. And if they were afraid, why didn't they just take refuge in the deer stand? The article said that there was a deer stand where one of the dogs was found. And even if they killed the dogs out of fear, they still did it on purpose, right?

The only way the killing was an "accident" was if the hunters thought they were shooting at deer or the dogs were hit by stray bullets. Which the fact that the dogs were hit 5 times, the odds off that scenario are pretty slim. 







sparra said:


> Um......there are a fair few assumptions being made on your side of the fence here too don't you think? You are only taking the word of the owners as gospel truth who I think have already given a few different accounts as to what happened which makes me a tad suspicious.



I haven't taken the owner's word as anything. I already said they were stupid and irresponsible. But I don't for a second believe they ever intended for their dogs to get killed or even thought it could happen. So, no, matter how many times they change their story (and I think they are probably changing it because they are even stupider than we were led to believe), they are still not malicious.

As for the hunters, we don't know WHY they decided to kill those dogs, BUT, IMHO, 5 freaking shots is overkill. It is slaughter. It tells me those hunters MEANT to kill those dogs. So for whatever reason they chose to do so and whatever happened after- well, the police need to decide that. I do think though that they meant to kill those dogs, that they did it on purpose, willfully and maliciously.


----------



## Kittilicious

DharmasMom said:


> As for the hunters, we don't know WHY they decided to kill those dogs, BUT, IMHO, 5 freaking shots is overkill. It is slaughter. It tells me those hunters MEANT to kill those dogs. So for whatever reason they chose to do so and whatever happened after- well, the police need to decide that. I do think though that they meant to kill those dogs, that they did it on purpose, willfully and maliciously.


Exactly.


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom

! shot is an accident,two maube three thats Im killing something and while A GSD may have a white butt you probably have a sight problem and shouldnt have a gun if you mistake not one but two gsd's as deer. My grandfathers hunted ,my uncles and one grandmother,I have as well so Im not against hunters and guns but 5 shots is not an accident.


----------



## Dainerra

5 shots might be over-kill and yes I have no doubt they MEANT to kill the dogs. Of course they did it on purpose. Did they have reason to believe that they were within their rights? Probably. Will they get in any trouble? It depends on the public outcry, otherwise I would give a firm and resounding NO.

As for the stupidity of the owners. The woman who took a nap while her baby was in the bathtub alone, she didn't INTEND for the baby to die. The couple who left their baby in the car didn't INTEND for the baby to die. There are people who don't believe that those things are bad until they are standing at their child's funeral. So, no, I don't think that the dog owners get ANY kind of pass because they didn't think it was a possibility.
Actually, I am amazed at the number of people here who don't know that it is legal in all 50 states to shoot a dog for being on your property or "going after" livestock. All it takes is the farmer to say "I have calves in that field and the dogs were chasing them." After all, there is no one else to see, so he can do whatever he likes. They even have a name for it, SSS - shoot, shovel, and shut up. The last part being the key, of course. 
Did you also know, that in WV (for example) if you are told that you're dog has killed livestock that your dog MUST be destroyed? It is even illegal to rehome the dog, even out of state? There is a daily fine for keeping the dog as well as criminal charges. 
Ignorance of these laws is very sad. As a dog owner, you should know EVERY law that applies to your dog, esp those that can end with his death. So, these owners at a MINIMUM were practicing flagrant stupidity by allowing dogs out of their sight during deer season. At worst, the owners were committing a crime AND stupid. Yet it is the hunters who are getting all of the blame?
They might have been jerks, but again, we only have the owners' word on that. My guess is that the hunter's attitude was "duh. dogs running loose get shot. What kind of an idiot are you that doesn't know that??" Sadly, yes I would laugh if I was confronted with the owners as they describe themselves. I would be sorry for them, but yes I'd have to laugh because, well, they are screaming CRIME CRIME CRIME when they are the ones in the wrong.

This, though, is why I always call the sheriff's dept for dog problems. Yes, I am in my legal rights to shoot on sight, but if I have any idea who owns the dogs, I have the deputy give them a warning. It also gives me a paper trail to cover my behind if the dog comes back.


----------



## GermanShepherds6800

I agree Dainerra.


----------



## Vinnie

DharmasMom said:


> 5 shots. And while the article doesn't say what kind of gun the dogs were shot with exactly, since they were hunting, I will take the liberty of assuming that they used their rifles. That is not an accident. And if they were afraid, why didn't they just take refuge in the deer stand? The article said that there was a deer stand where one of the dogs was found. And even if they killed the dogs out of fear, they still did it on purpose, right?
> 
> The only way the killing was an "accident" was if the hunters thought they were shooting at deer or the dogs were hit by stray bullets. Which the fact that the dogs were hit 5 times, the odds off that scenario are pretty slim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't taken the owner's word as anything. I already said they were stupid and irresponsible. But I don't for a second believe they ever intended for their dogs to get killed or even thought it could happen. So, no, matter how many times they change their story (and I think they are probably changing it because they are even stupider than we were led to believe), they are still not malicious.
> 
> As for the hunters, we don't know WHY they decided to kill those dogs, BUT, IMHO, 5 freaking shots is overkill. It is slaughter. It tells me those hunters MEANT to kill those dogs. So for whatever reason they chose to do so and whatever happened after- well, the police need to decide that. I do think though that they meant to kill those dogs, that they did it on purpose, willfully and maliciously.


In everything you're saying you're assuming (based on what the dog owners said) that it was the deer hunter's who killed these dogs. What about the land owner? You are making your statements based on ONE side of the story. 

5 shots from someone who is afraid for their life? Heart's racing! I'll bet someone who is afraid will shoot until they're sure it's dead.

ETA: not to mention there could be other possible scenarios too.


----------



## Dainerra

also, it's 5 shots for 2 dogs. 1st shot misses because it's a "small" running animal, 2 shots per animal. Hardly overkill. 
Cruel would have been a shot to just wound the dog and leave it to bleed out and suffer. Multiple shots to make sure your target is dead is kinder.


----------



## GermanShepherds6800

The owners are posting the story and facebook link to all dog forums now. They are asking for money. The law will either charge or not charge the hunters, so I am very confused as to why they need donations because they left dogs loose and someone shot them? There are not medical care bills? There are no prosecution costs? No defense costs?

Justice for Devaki and Makita | Facebook


----------



## Mrs.K

o


Dainerra said:


> also, it's 5 shots for 2 dogs. 1st shot misses because it's a "small" running animal, 2 shots per animal. Hardly overkill.
> Cruel would have been a shot to just wound the dog and leave it to bleed out and suffer. Multiple shots to make sure your target is dead is kinder.


Still, five shots all in all were fired, that is still not an accident. One shot, that is an accident. Two shots...not anymore. Three shots, definitely not an accident, for and five... how can anyone think that it was an accident? That is shoot - miss - aim - shoot again -HIT- aim - shoot - HIT - first dog is going down got to aim at the 2nd dog - shoot - hit -aim- shoot- hit - aim.... you get the idea. 

However, the question is how many hunters were out there and came the shots from one or two or even more hunters. 

If it was a group of hunters I can see them laughing and riling each other up. 
It would fit the profile from the first article. 
You know those games where they challenge each other, one shot each, who gets the dog first kind of games? But that is speculation...


----------



## GermanShepherds6800

It says to buy themselves new dogs. People are even giving fifty dollar donations. I do hope surplus will be used to contain the dogs this time. 

I still believe the owners and the hunters were all a part of the problem. Poor dogs to have been between both of them.


----------



## longhairshepmom

Well, I had this long post all typed out. But then deleted it. All I have to say, there is a lot of "holier then thou" going on. While the owners were negligent, no doubt about it, I would like the perfect dog owner who's dog NEVER got away from them to cast the first stone.
No, we don't know the "hunters" story, but unfortunately I know how many of those "guns, alcohol and good time" places and people there are. NO disrespect to the responsible hunters out there. 
Those beautiful dogs had to pay the price. I don't wish this pain on any dog owner, no matter if their negligence caused it, nobody is perfect.
IF the hunters were of the kind that I think they may just have been, I hope they will rott in ****. If those hunters were of the responsible kind and they simply were "afraid for their lives" and shot the dogs for a very good reason, I think they would have come forward and had no problem defending their right. 
All this is just my opinion.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs

GermanShepherds6800 said:


> The owners are posting the story and facebook link to all dog forums now. They are asking for money. The law will either charge or not charge the hunters, so I am very confused as to why they need donations because they left dogs loose and someone shot them? There are not medical care bills? There are no prosecution costs? No defense costs?
> 
> Justice for Devaki and Makita | Facebook





GermanShepherds6800 said:


> It says to buy themselves new dogs. People are even giving fifty dollar donations. I do hope surplus will be used to contain the dogs this time.


Now this I do NOT agree with. If they can't afford to buy new dogs, how can they afford to take care of them? To ask for donations for something like that is ridiculously silly. They're trying to capitalize on tragedy, and that makes me feel a whole lot LESS sorry for them.

I think one of the reasons a lot of people got so all fired up about it is that pictures of the dead dogs were posted on various places on Facebook. It really pulls at a GSD lover's heartstrings to see two dogs lying there, shot to death. It's hard not to imagine our dogs in their place.

Of course, my dogs are always kept contained. I would feel a whole lot sorrier for these people if they also always kept their dogs contained, and they just happened to escape. It doesn't sound like this was the case: it sounds like they always let them roam free.

I still don't agree with the hunters/landowner shooting them, however.



Vinnie said:


> 5 shots from someone who is afraid for their life? Heart's racing! I'll bet someone who is afraid will shoot until they're sure it's dead.


As a hunter who has hunted with various different groups of other hunters, I find the whole "fearing for their life" story highly unbelievable. We've seen wolves plenty of times... I've even driven a couple towards one of the standers on the hunt... they didn't decide to haul off and shoot the animal because they were scared.

Hunters certainly shouldn't lose their heads like that. 

More believable: "I'm sick of these dogs on my land!" and shooting the dogs.

Perhaps several people in the hunting party decided to shoot at the dogs and all five shots were not from the same rifle.

Perhaps whoever shot at the dogs was a really crappy shot, and it took that many shots to kill the dogs. 

As you said, there are endless possibilities and we'll likely never know the full story, but I think a shaking-in-their-boots group of hunters who fire willy nilly at a couple of dogs is the least likely story.


----------



## Dainerra

Mrs.K said:


> o
> 
> Still, five shots all in all were fired, that is still not an accident. One shot, that is an accident. Two shots...not anymore. Three shots, definitely not an accident, for and five... how can anyone think that it was an accident? That is shoot - miss - aim - shoot again -HIT- aim - shoot - HIT - first dog is going down got to aim at the 2nd dog - shoot - hit -aim- shoot- hit - aim.... you get the idea.
> 
> However, the question is how many hunters were out there and came the shots from one or two or even more hunters.
> 
> If it was a group of hunters I can see them laughing and riling each other up.
> It would fit the profile from the first article.
> You know those games where they challenge each other, one shot each, who gets the dog first kind of games? But that is speculation...



but no one is saying that it was an "accident" that they shot the dogs? I'm not sure where that line of thinking even started. All anyone has said is that there is a good reason to think the hunters were legally allowed to shoot the dogs. Even if that is not the case, there is still plenty of reason for the hunter to THINK he was doing something legal by killing the dogs. Ignorance is not protection, but that doesn't make them evil or vicious. 
I was just pointing out that 5 shots at 2 animals isn't necessarily overkill, esp when you have a group of people. Now, 5 bullets in each dog, yes that shows something different. 

The owners have lost any sympathy that I had for them when they started actively soliciting donations.  I do think that their later stories where they were doing chores and then realized the dogs were gone sound more believable than the first story.


----------



## longhairshepmom

I also don't agree with donations to purchase new dogs or to re-coup "training and diet" cost of the deceased shepherds.
It just tarnishes the whole thing. I wonder, who is running the facebook page/donation thing, how are they connected to the owners of those dogs ? Was this whole thing the owners idea or some well meaning person not personally connected to the owners ? 
Either way, its wrong. IMHO


----------



## LARHAGE

I don't agree with soliciting for money either, but that doesn't change my opinions one iota of the hunters and their charachters, I seriously doubt they were ever afraid of the dogs , if they were they must be cowardly , trigger happy hunters afraid of their game, they are far more likely poor shots, which is good in my opinion, that makes them likely to shoot each other .


----------



## Mrs.K

I didn't see anything about buying new dogs. It's always about "getting justice for them". 

Nobody has to donate if they don't believe in the cause or case at all. 

Also, if my dogs were shot by hunters, no matter the circumstances, you betcha I'd be out there rallying, demanding justince, if I felt I was wronged by the hunters. 

Also, what kind of neighbor shoots your dogs? I couldn't look you in the eye if I had shot not only one but both dogs. 

One thing I wonder about is WHY there is no response whatsoever from the hunters. You'd think they'd want to straighten the story out if they were in the right. 



Rott-n-GSDs said:


> Now this I do NOT agree with. If they can't afford to buy new dogs, how can they afford to take care of them? To ask for donations for something like that is ridiculously silly. They're trying to capitalize on tragedy, and that makes me feel a whole lot LESS sorry for them.
> 
> I think one of the reasons a lot of people got so all fired up about it is that pictures of the dead dogs were posted on various places on Facebook. It really pulls at a GSD lover's heartstrings to see two dogs lying there, shot to death. It's hard not to imagine our dogs in their place.
> 
> Of course, my dogs are always kept contained. I would feel a whole lot sorrier for these people if they also always kept their dogs contained, and they just happened to escape. It doesn't sound like this was the case: it sounds like they always let them roam free.
> 
> I still don't agree with the hunters/landowner shooting them, however.
> 
> 
> As a hunter who has hunted with various different groups of other hunters, I find the whole "fearing for their life" story highly unbelievable. We've seen wolves plenty of times... I've even driven a couple towards one of the standers on the hunt... they didn't decide to haul off and shoot the animal because they were scared.
> 
> Hunters certainly shouldn't lose their heads like that.
> 
> More believable: "I'm sick of these dogs on my land!" and shooting the dogs.
> 
> Perhaps several people in the hunting party decided to shoot at the dogs and all five shots were not from the same rifle.
> 
> Perhaps whoever shot at the dogs was a really crappy shot, and it took that many shots to kill the dogs.
> 
> As you said, there are endless possibilities and we'll likely never know the full story, but I think a shaking-in-their-boots group of hunters who fire willy nilly at a couple of dogs is the least likely story.


----------



## longhairshepmom

The donations were to be used for an autopsy (necropsy, really) as well as to replace the cost of the dogs, their training and diet (??) etc.

I do not agree with the donations unless they were SOLEY used towards the investigation. 

It was mentioned more then once how funds were needed for the necropsy, yet I see a picture of the dogs in a grave ? Wonder if they did the necropsy. I mean, its pretty clear what the dogs died of, but if they ask for money to perform a necropsy, I hope it was done.

I still have nothing but contempt for the hunters. It seems pretty clear what went down, and its not responsible hunters fearing for their lives or farmers protecting their livestock or anyone protecting their family or loved ones. Seems more like "good ole boys having fun". 
Although the owners were negligent, the "hunters" are no better then any other animal abuser. Besides being horrible shots.

If those were the responsible kind of hunters they would have had no problem to speak openly and defend themselves. 

IMHO.


----------



## Dainerra

1) in rural areas it is the ONLY legal recourse for stray dogs. In AR, for example, there is no leash law so it is legal for dogs to roam at large. Animal Control in my county won't even come out if the dog "might" have an owner. If a dog is a danger or a nuisance, especially where livestock is involved, you are to shoot the dog.
In some states (WV) it is REQUIRED that dogs that are menacing livestock be destroyed. To not do so is a crime.

2) would YOU come forward??? The social media attention is a witch hunt. If they were to come forward, I would be afraid of vandals, death threats, who knows what.

I don't know if they were afraid, I do know that in most areas saying "afraid for my life" makes what they did legal. So, yeah, I would use that defense when questioned by the cops.

3) looking my neighbor's in the eye? do it every day. Of the dogs I've been forced to shoot, every owner apologized to me because THEY were the ones in the wrong. I called up and said "I had to shoot your dog" 
"Oh, he bothering the birds again?" 
"Yes" 
"I'm sorry. I'll come over and collect the body. How much do I owe you for damages?"


----------



## Vinnie

Vinnie said:


> 5 shots from someone who is afraid for their life? Heart's racing! I'll bet someone who is afraid will shoot until they're sure it's dead.





Rott-n-GSDs said:


> As a hunter who has hunted with various different groups of other hunters, I find the whole "fearing for their life" story highly unbelievable. We've seen wolves plenty of times... I've even driven a couple towards one of the standers on the hunt... they didn't decide to haul off and shoot the animal because they were scared.
> 
> Hunters certainly shouldn't lose their heads like that.
> 
> More believable: "I'm sick of these dogs on my land!" and shooting the dogs.
> 
> Perhaps several people in the hunting party decided to shoot at the dogs and all five shots were not from the same rifle.
> 
> Perhaps whoever shot at the dogs was a really crappy shot, and it took that many shots to kill the dogs.
> 
> As you said, there are endless possibilities and we'll likely never know the full story, but I think a shaking-in-their-boots group of hunters who fire willy nilly at a couple of dogs is the least likely story.


I agree. *IF* it was hunters who shot the dogs. But when I made that comment I was not assuming it was hunters who shot the dogs.  How about the land owner's wife - who maybe doesn't hunt? Or someone else? Yes, many different and endless possibilities. At this point - we only have heard one side of the story. 

And because animal rights' activists are involved - we'll probably never hear the full story. I know I'd probably keep my mouth shut knowing I'd still be condemned by these people not matter what reason (valid or invalid). 

Yes - the donation and fundraising stuff is just disgusting to me. People don't even know the truth yet and heart strings are being pulled and you're being asked to monetarily support these people. These people are slick if you ask me.

PS. Can't remember who said it but MY dogs have never been allowed to run freely all over the neighborhood unattended. Not even when I was a child. If a dog of mine ever slipped out of it's collar (or whatever), I was right there and on that dog's tail. I'm not playing "holier than thou" but I do believe in being RESPONSIBLE. I get pretty sick of hearing these kind of stories over and over and over again. And seeing people excuse the irresponsibility of the dog's owner. You owe it to the dog to BE responsible. It's wrong to try and make someone else be responsible and pay when you are not responsible. In the end - YOUR dog pays the price and it's YOUR fault.


----------



## longhairshepmom

Clearly, there are reasons and situations where you should/could kill a dog if he is a danger to you or your loved ones. 

I have a strong feeling this doesn't apply here. 

And whether those hunters are afraif of a "witch hunt" or not, they STILL have a legal obligation not to lie to the authorities. Period. And someone is lying or withholding the truth. And its usually not people that have nothing to hide that would do this.


----------



## Vinnie

longhairshepmom said:


> Clearly, there are reasons and situations where you should/could kill a dog if he is a danger to you or your loved ones.
> 
> I have a strong feeling this doesn't apply here.
> 
> And whether those hunters are afraif of a "witch hunt" or not, they STILL have a legal obligation not to lie to the authorities. Period. And someone is lying or withholding the truth. And its usually not people that have nothing to hide that would do this.


Then I've got a strong feeling it could apply. In one of these stories I read that there were 2 of the deer hunters' wives in one of the shacks. Just creates more questions in my mind. Were these women seasoned hunters too? Were they new hunters? Were they just out keeping their husbands company and not hunting at all? Did they have children? Had they been alone together in the shack at some point. The story says they were the FIRST people who were asked if they had seen the dogs. Story also says the land owner was in his house - not a deer stand. Was he done hunting for the day? Was he even a hunter at all? This same story also implies that the dogs' owners did not live at the property they kept their horses and where the dogs escaped from. These dogs could very well have been dogs the neighbors had NEVER seen before.

Oh so many possibilities here..................

I’ll agree – someone is lying. Hum, is it these deer hunters or these dogs’ owners? Gee – the dogs’ owners have told what - like 4 (maybe more – can’t remember) *different* stories to the public – so far! And to top it off now want donations? Deer hunters – 0. I don't know what that says to anyone else but to me it says the dogs' owners are lying.  Trying to justify their own mistake and shift fault onto someone else.


----------



## KentuckyGSDLover

DharmasMom said:


> The owners were stupid and irresponsible but the hunters were cruel and malicious. Cruel and malicious trumps stupid and irresponsible in my book any day. The owners made a mistake, the hunters made a premeditated decision and killed those dogs on purpose. As far as I am concerned they are the male-sex-organ heads here.


I disagree. I think the owners were cruel and malicious. A German Shepherd is an easily trained dog. Only a cruel idiot would let them run on another person's property during deer season (or any other time, for that matter). German Shepherds, in fact, can be potential weapons, the dog of choice of both the military and the police, for good reason. To just let one run (or two in this case) is setting them up. Let's say they were just chasing a squirrel. Then where was the owner when they did? 



DharmasMom said:


> I do have a question though. Why is it illegal for dogs to chase deer? I really don't understand why this is an issue.


You really have no problem with pets running to death or shredding up wildife? Dogs cannot run deer for the same reason hunters cannot hunt year-round or kill an unlimited amount of deer. There is a balance and respect for the species. Have you ever seen what dogs running loose do to wildlife? I have and it's ugly. My geese shredded on the edge of the frozen pond; a coyote would have at least used them for food and eaten them but a dog does not. Or even sometimes people? (A little girl on a bicycle mauled to death by running dogs in southern Indiana comes to mind.) A dog that has gone wild is the most feared thing in the woods where I live and the specific reason many carry a pistol in the woods. You don't know if they're pets or if they're rabid, wild or what, and they are not afraid of you like the coyote. Ever watch a loose dog circle a cow while it's giving birth? I have. I choose to own property because I love nature and wildlife. My GSD, Bear, once killed a quail nearby in my yard while I was working in the garden. He never did it again. He was taught he could not accost wildlife. Think of it this way: How would you feel if I dropped my dog in your back yard (okay, so my back yard is 30 acres of woods, but it's still my back yard) and let it chase around and terrorize what was in your yard? Who would be at fault then? Me, of course.


----------



## longhairshepmom

The dogs were not "intentionally dropped" on another persons property. The owners made a MISTAKE not keeping the dogs leashed or confined. They didn't INTENTIONALLY push them onto the property to run off. They didn't WANT or MEAN for this to happen. Hindsight is 20/20. Nobody is perfect. 
They were negligent. But "cruel and malicious" ? Do you understand the meaning of someone being cruel and malicious ? So you are here to tell me that there is NO WAY IN HADES that your dog could one day see something or for whichever reason bolt away from you, and if that were to happen, it would make you a CRUEL AND MALICIOUS person on that account alone ? 
Wow.

Meaning of malicious:


_(a.)_ With wicked or mischievous intentions or motives; wrongful and done intentionally without just cause or excuse; as, a malicious act.
_(a.)_ Indulging or exercising malice; harboring ill will or enmity.
_(a.)_ Proceeding from hatred or ill will; dictated by malice; as, a malicious report; malicious mischief.


----------



## KentuckyGSDLover

longhairshepmom said:


> The dogs were not "intentionally dropped" on another persons property. The owners made a MISTAKE not keeping the dogs leashed or confined. They didn't INTENTIONALLY push them onto the property to run off. They didn't WANT or MEAN for this to happen. Hindsight is 20/20. Nobody is perfect.
> They were negligent. But "cruel and malicious" ? Do you understand the meaning of someone being cruel and malicious ? So you are here to tell me that there is NO WAY IN HADES that your dog could one day see something or for whichever reason bolt away from you, and if that were to happen, it would make you a CRUEL AND MALICIOUS person on that account alone ?
> Wow.
> 
> Meaning of malicious:
> 
> 
> _(a.)_ With wicked or mischievous intentions or motives; wrongful and done intentionally without just cause or excuse; as, a malicious act.
> _(a.)_ Indulging or exercising malice; harboring ill will or enmity.
> _(a.)_ Proceeding from hatred or ill will; dictated by malice; as, a malicious report; malicious mischief.


In context, I suppose you're right, they were no more "malicious" than the hunters. But cruel - yes. So many GSD and border collies, both working dogs that require a lot of training and work, are euthanized because of ignorance and negligence, and I find it cruel. Can a dog bolt? Yes, and one usually follows it running and calling it back. I personally find neglect of duty to these magnificent creatures a form of cruelty.


----------



## Dainerra

except we aren't talking about someone who's dog got out. ZERO measures appear to have been taken for keeping the dogs.

Their most recent account is that they went to the barn and left the animals sitting in the back of the truck. During hunting season? When there are armed people roaming the woods in droves? 
As I said, people who leave their baby in the car for 5 minutes don't MEAN for the baby to die either. They assume that "I've done it before and nothing happened it will be ok" Should we give them a pass as well? It's the same logic.

They took a dog and placed it in a situation where there was an above normal amount of danger and left it there. The people who drop stray dogs off along the highway don't mean for the dogs to die either. But that is what happens. 

Sorry, I don't see anyone to blame EXCEPT the owners. It's not just "oops, dog slipped his lead" or out the door of the kennel. The dogs were left alone and unsupervised and, not surprisingly, got bored and wandered off. 

In the last incarnation, the owners are saying they didn't start actually searching for the dogs until the next morning.

Authorities investigating shooting death of two dogs on Iron Range | Duluth News Tribune | Duluth, Minnesota
It was too dark to search for them Saturday. She said she called their names, Makita and Devaki, and heard gunshots shortly after the dogs ran. After getting a tip from a neighbor who also heard gunshots, and whimpering, she found the dogs dead the next morning near a hunting stand on the adjoining property.


----------



## GermanShepherds6800

Which of us would have not went into the dark to look for our dogs if they were gone and gun shots had been heard? I would have tracked mine all night. Hunters can't hunt after darkness. It is safest time anyhow to be out there looking. I would have been unable to go home and sleep with my dogs loose and missing.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs

Vinnie said:


> In one of these stories I read that there were 2 of the deer hunters' wives in one of the shacks. Just creates more questions in my mind. Were these women seasoned hunters too? Were they new hunters? Were they just out keeping their husbands company and not hunting at all? Did they have children?


I am agree that something isn't adding up in the dog owners' stories, but there's a hole in the "scared hunter's wives" theory, too. Why would they have guns if they weren't hunting?


----------



## longhairshepmom

I never did not put blame on the owners, I think its pretty clear they were negligent.

BUT it has also NOT been proven that the "hunters" did not in fact maliciously gunned down the dogs for the fun it. 

What if it will become known that it is true that one of the "hunters" taunted them , laughed, admitted to it and told them to get their dogs and get off their "bleeped out" property now ? And is now lying about it ? 

I'm sorry, one wrong doesn't cancel out the other. 
Lets say someones cat accidently slipped out of the house and is found having been "maliciously" killed and tortured. Since it was the owners fault the "cat killer" should be excused and go free ? 

I KNOW it hasn't been proven that the "hunters" were malicious. However, it has also not been proven that they haven't been !! And if they did just kill for fun and the dogs suffered (horrible shots they were) needlessly, I'm sorry, but those people should pay, just like any other animal abuser !


----------



## Vinnie

Rott-n-GSDs said:


> I am agree that something isn't adding up in the dog owners' stories, but there's a hole in the "scared hunter's wives" theory, too. Why would they have guns if they weren't hunting?


 Easy - 1 husband shot a deer but only wounded it and both husbands when out tracking the deer. One or both could of easily left their hunting rifles in the shack (at this point they only need a hand gun). The wives had their husband's hunting rifle. ................. could and has happened many times.

Of course that's just speculation. I could dream up many other stories too.

Bottom line - the dogs' deaths are their owners' faults. NO ONE else is at fault.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs

Dainerra said:


> ]Authorities investigating shooting death of two dogs on Iron Range | Duluth News Tribune | Duluth, Minnesota


From the article (randomly: I work in Duluth, MN, so this is pretty close to home for me):


> “I put a ton of money and training into them,” Hautala said Monday.


Interesting that she's now stressing how much money she spent on training the dogs. I'd be interested to learn (1) how much and (2) where. There are only a couple of training facilities in the area.

The article also mentions that charges are not going to be filed at this point because there is no evidence and no one has confessed. THAT is likely why none of the hunters have come forward to tell their side of the story.



Vinnie said:


> Easy - 1 husband shot a deer but only wounded it and both husbands when out tracking the deer. One or both could of easily left their hunting rifles in the shack (at this point they only need a hand gun). The wives had their husband's hunting rifle. ................. could and has happened many times.
> 
> Of course that's just speculation. I could dream up many other stories too.


LOL, I'm loving the conspiracy theory.

Maybe it's just my hunting crew, but most everyone only has a rifle (not a handgun) and we wouldn't ever leave their rifle behind while tracking a deer. After all, you might see another one.


----------



## KentuckyGSDLover

Rott-n-GSDs said:


> I am agree that something isn't adding up in the dog owners' stories, but there's a hole in the "scared hunter's wives" theory, too. Why would they have guns if they weren't hunting?


LOL, maybe for the same reason I keep a loaded .38 and 16 gauge shotgun in my bedroom?


----------



## msvette2u

Mrs.K said:


> I didn't see anything about buying new dogs. It's always about "getting justice for them".





> Good night, my friends. I am amazed by how fast this page has grown. It's a great cause. I hope all of you will continue to spread the word so this does not have to happen again. If you can afford even a small gift like $5, please consider donating to Shannon, Gary and the kids. It all adds up, and it will help them be able to bring a couple more loving, faithful canine companions into their family. May you all have a good night and a pleasant tomorrow. Thank you again and God bless.


Really. They want new dogs and are asking for donations, despite the fact the dogs are dead because they were irresponsible idiots.


----------



## GermanShepherds6800

Pretty much, in a nut shell. They want reimbursement for the loss of their investments I think. They want recoup training expenses they put in to them to me tells me the "therapy" was to be a sales pitch for puppies instead of to help others IMO. The latest article explains a great amount about the one sided nature of the other articles. The writer is a friend of the dog owner.


----------



## Jack's Dad

The hunters/land owners *may* have shot the dogs legally.

So far there is no evidence of a crime.

The hunters don't need to prove anything until they are charged with a crime.

If they are charged they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. 

There are many worthy causes but one of them is not buying new dogs for neglectful owners.

The hunters may be low lifes who did a horrible thing but know one knows that.


----------



## Vinnie

Rott-n-GSDs said:


> LOL, I'm loving the conspiracy theory.
> 
> Maybe it's just my hunting crew, but most everyone only has a rifle (not a handgun) and we wouldn't ever leave their rifle behind while tracking a deer. After all, you might see another one.


 Conspiracy theory? Maybe a little? As I said, I can dream up stories ALL day if I wanted.

Seriously though, I know many deer hunters that do carry a hand gun along with their hunting rifle (in MN anyway) and many that will leave a hunting rifle in their shack (given that there is someone else still in the shack) when they go to track a wounded deer - especially through swampy land. NOT ALL but SOME. So not so much of a conspiracy theory here in MN.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs

Vinnie said:


> Seriously though, I know many deer hunters that do carry a hand gun along with their hunting rifle (in MN anyway) and many that will leave a hunting rifle in their shack (given that there is someone else still in the shack) when they go to track a wounded deer - especially through swampy land. NOT ALL but SOME. So not so much of a conspiracy theory here in MN.


I'm gonna keep my rifle with me at all times.... just in case "the Big One" happens to appear.  

Random, off topic story:
Once I was doing a drive through some swampy land, lost my boot in the muck, and at that moment, a deer appeared. I managed to get a shot off but missed. *sigh* 

Maybe that's just us crazy Wisconsinites!


----------



## Vinnie

:rofl: No comments about Wisconsinites - I'll get in way too much trouble. 
My brother hunts in WI.


----------



## Kittilicious

Jack's Dad said:


> The hunters/land owners *may* have shot the dogs legally.


Then why is there talk of possible charges of *damaging private property* (the dogs)? Charging the HUNTERS if they shot them legally? It is NOT legal to shoot them this time of year. Yeah, we read the laws as they are written about shooting dogs on your own property, but there is no mention of the cops mentioning that either... I think it's one of those laws that are not fully enforced anymore (there are tons of those on the books!). 

I get that the dog owners stories have changed, but maybe they haven't - maybe the stories have been written differently, since so many of us are saying what is written is always twisted. I really have a hard time calling these owners neglectful. The dogs took off, I get that, but it happens - it doesn't mean they are bad owners because of it. And to question them being trained for therapy when it says they have therapy horses, why wouldn't they have therapy dogs? 

Two dogs are dead, 5 shots are fired, within MINUTES of the dogs taking off. I just can't believe there is so much speculation that the owners are at 100% fault here, that they are lying, etc. I understand there are 2 sides of the story, but I'm amazed that the amount of people taking the hunters side just because their side isn't written, especially on a dog board. A deer hunting board I could see this outcome.


----------



## GermanShepherds6800

So just because this is a dog forum and dogs were killed we have to support their owners even if we feel they were neglectful and responsible for the dogs deaths? If the dogs died because they fell out of the back of that truck because they were not restrained/confined and no hunters were involved, would we still have to blindly support them and that would have been just as much a neglectful reason the dogs died?


----------



## Jack's Dad

Kitti:

Your first sentence says it all. There is talk of possible charges. When there are charges then the story changes.

I'm not taking the hunters side I don't know what it is.

I could say the same for the owners side, we have several versions but know one knows the truth. Why pick their side.

I was merely pointing out some legal issues and things we don't know.

I personally just don't care for the money angle of the dog owners.


----------



## Vinnie

Thought I was making it clear that I don't know for sure if the hunters even shot the dogs. (Conspiracy theory and all.) I don't know if it was hunters who shot these dogs or someone else. How can I take their side if I don't know? I don't know if they're bad guys - or good guys and at this point I'm really not willing to make that judgement call.

I don't know if I believe the articles are "twisted" either but they are definitely ONE-sided. There's not one interview with the hunters in question presented in a single one of these stories. All the stories leave us to ASSUME many things. Poor journalism is what I'd call it. 

Still, really doesn't make a difference to me who or why. The owners of the dogs could of prevented this from happening and they didn't. Those poor dogs paid a terrible price. And now the owners think the public should HELP them get more dogs? Not from this corner of the world!!!


----------



## msvette2u

GermanShepherds6800 said:


> Pretty much, in a nut shell. They want reimbursement for the loss of their investments I think. They want recoup training expenses they put in to them to me tells me the "therapy" was to be a sales pitch for puppies instead of to help others IMO. The latest article explains a great amount about the one sided nature of the other articles. The writer is a friend of the dog owner.


Makes me want to vomit 
It just drives home the point that people cannot accept responsibility but would rather blame and sue others for their own mistakes.


----------



## GermanShepherds6800

I fully agree with you.


----------



## longhairshepmom

Well, lets just do away with any kind of animal abuse laws. After all, every animal (unless wildlife) had at some point along the way an OWNER before it ended up with the abuser, and that owner did "somehow" (intentionally or not) caused this animal to end up with this abuser. So there, an abuser is not at fault if some owner lost, got rid of, sold, had it stolen, given away their animal prior to them abusing it. 

I agree the owners were negligent. 

I have a BIG problem with the "hunters" if they maliciously gunned down those dogs for a good ole time. Now, hasn't been proven thats what happened. But hasn't been proven it DIDN"T happen that way. Seems to me MORE points toward them being scum, though, and that does concern me. This should be looked into , and thoroughly so. Just because the owners were neglinent and ultimately caused their dogs demise does NOT mean we should let abusers off scott free or not even worry about "their" part. 

My opinion only.


----------



## Vinnie

:thinking: Isn't animal neglect also animal abuse?

Abuse is abuse.


----------



## msvette2u

Saying the owners were irresponsible doesn't mean we (whoever agrees with that point of view) think the hunters should be exonerated.

But ultimately, had the dogs been cared for better, we'd not be having this discussion. Careless owners = dead dogs.

It's the height of gall to sit there pissing and moaning and _collecting donations _ because you were so careless you let your dogs "go explore" in the woods in hunting season and they got shot. 

But saying that doesn't mean I think they should have been shot. 
Two different things, IMO.


----------



## Vinnie

msvette2u said:


> Saying the owners were irresponsible doesn't mean we (whoever agrees with that point of view) think the hunters should be exonerated.
> 
> But ultimately, had the dogs been cared for better, we'd not be having this discussion. Careless owners = dead dogs.
> 
> It's the height of gall to sit there pissing and moaning and _collecting donations _ because you were so careless you let your dogs "go explore" in the woods in hunting season and they got shot.
> 
> But saying that doesn't mean I think they should have been shot.
> Two different things, IMO.


:thumbup: (Sorry, couldn't find a "like" button.  )


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom

msvette2u said:


> Really. They want new dogs and are asking for donations, despite the fact the dogs are dead because they were irresponsible idiots.


Speaking as a irresponsible idiot owner My dog got away barreled through me as i opened our old front door. she chased horses,thank god the rider did not shoot when he pulled his 22 and another rider helped me get my then 14 month old GSd back in my yard. I understand that had my dog been shot it would have been my fault. Im struck often here by sheer perfection many owners have obviously achieved and if they havent they certainly apply it to others.Did the owners show good thinking and problem solving in leeting their dogs out,no.The folks who shot did they show good judgement probably not. My reaction is the moral of the story ,Dont let your dogs run loose unless its your property or public land and you have the ability to recall. Iam probably missing out on the the need to trash the owners,its just as I look back at the stupid decisions I made w/ daisy ,I would probably react violently to anyone who stated I didnt care about her or was abusive. Ive seen a thread where an adolescent owner was told it was her fault that her dog got hit because he got out of the yard. Seriously folks hows about some figgin empathy for the kids who lost those shepherds. I get the need to discuss what the law is whose rights were violated the idiot owner thing gets to me but Iam far from the perfect dog owner.In closing where can I get a blaze orange vest for my dogs as the great hunters will be returning in 10 days.


----------



## Mrs.K

You know. One thing that bothers me is the talk about negligience. These dogs do not look neglected in any kind of way. 

Ya'll never had anything happen ever before? Gate open? Leash slipping out of your hands? Dog broke out of a crate or kennel? Climbed the fence? 

Never? 

More power to ya. 

One of my bitches climbed the fence back then at my parents place. 
When my parents went on holidays and a friend cared for the horses the entire herd escaped and ran down a Highway. One horse went under a bus, luckily nothing happened to the horse or to anyone on that bus. Could have been a disaster. Was she negligent? NO! It was a frickin accident. Accidents happen. 
Just because those two dogs wandered off it doesn't mean that the owners were negligent. 

Indras leash slipped through my hands when she was a young dog and she took off barking. It took a split second and she caught me completely off guard and that might be exactly what happened in this case. 

And I honestly can see it happen. My friends great dane had his moments where he ran off exploring. He was never chasing anything, he got a scent in his nose and he was gone for at least 10 minutes. No matter if she went after him calling his name and there is no way that you could have ever kept up with him but nobody shot him, he never went on the road and didn't do anything to anyone.

I can't even comprehend a conversation like 
"Hey, I had to shoot your dog."
"He went after the birds again?"
"Yep"
"What do I owe you in damages..."

That goes beyond my comprehension. Where I come from you go to the police and press charges, you don't shoot the dog, you leave it to the authorities to deal with the situation.


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom

Mrs.K said:


> You know. One thing that bothers me is the talk about negligience. These dogs do not look neglected in any kind of way.
> 
> Ya'll never had anything happen ever before? Gate open? Leash slipping out of your hands? Dog broke out of a crate or kennel? Climbed the fence?
> 
> Never?
> 
> More power to ya.
> 
> One of my bitches climbed the fence back then at my parents place.
> When my parents went on holidays and a friend cared for the horses the entire herd escaped and ran down a Highway. One horse went under a bus, luckily nothing happened to the horse or to anyone on that bus. Could have been a disaster. Was she negligent? NO! It was a frickin accident. Accidents happen.
> Just because those two dogs wandered off it doesn't mean that the owners were negligent.
> 
> Indras leash slipped through my hands when she was a young dog and she took off barking. It took a split second and she caught me completely off guard and that might be exactly what happened in this case.
> 
> And I honestly can see it happen. My friends great dane had his moments where he ran off exploring. He was never chasing anything, he got a scent in his nose and he was gone for at least 10 minutes. No matter if she went after him calling his name and there is no way that you could have ever kept up with him but nobody shot him, he never went on the road and didn't do anything to anyone.
> 
> I can't even comprehend a conversation like
> "Hey, I had to shoot your dog."
> "He went after the birds again?"
> "Yep"
> "What do I owe you in damages..."
> 
> That goes beyond my comprehension. Where I come from you go to the police and press charges, you don't shoot the dog, you leave it to the authorities to deal with the situation.


Amen Sister Amen.


----------



## TankGrrl66

The donation thing looks bad, and is bad unless it is for legal costs.

With that said, judging from the information I have gathered....

The owners of the dog are beign judged a little harshly. Many people are still pretty relaxed when it comes to dogs. Are all of you saying you have NEVER let your dogs off leash? Not even in the country? Boo. This sounded pretty routine, these dogs being with her while she works around her property. So what if they wandered a little? Unless the dogs were doing something malicious, they didn't deserve to die over it. Put yourself in their shoes. So all of you on the hunter's side would just shrug it of if this happened to you? Of course you wouldn't, because all of us are perfect right?

If the report on the hunters reaction to killing the dogs was correct, I for one would be trying to get every drop out of every charge I could. I would want them to be punished. This honestly just sounds like a bunch of younger guys being a little overexcited about shooting things. Which is surprising, considering how big stories like this can get and (from a hunters standpoint) how expensive ammo is. Whew, wait 'til they go to peta over it. Ohhh man. You all thought THIS forum was 'interesting'? :crazy:

I would NEVER shoot someone's dog unless it specifically ran up and tried to attack PEOPLE. I don't care if it just chased off a trophy buck or whatever. If you hunt (esp. legally), you have the money to buy food if you are that desparate for it. In california for ex, it is stupidly expensive to hunt. license is over $40, deer tag is over $200. Even the invasive and damaging hog has a tag costing 40 bucks. 80 dollars can buy you a LOT of food. California wonders why there is such a poaching problem, but I digress.
My point? They shot those dogs out of spite, to be cruel and not respect life. Good hunters respect life (for ex, the other big rule of killing instantly).


----------



## Dainerra

wow, hunting license here is like $20? I think? Oops, no $25. and that includes 6 deer tags and 2 turkey tags (Arkansas). In VA, for $200 you can get a lifetime license and hunt deer every year until you die. Regular license is $20. For an extra $18 you get 6 more deer tags.
Also, in many areas, you can legally kill all the deer you want on the property you own or live on. 

I'm not saying that accidents happen, but that doesn't make it someone ELSE'S fault either. Your dog got out and was hit by a car. Is it the driver's fault? Nope, not even if they were speeding. Now, maybe if your dog was in your yard and they ran up on the sidewalk to hit him, but then again, your dog wouldn't have been where he wasn't supposed to be.

Your dog is running through the woods during hunting season and gets shot? Not the hunters fault. 
Your dog is trespassing in a pasture and shot by a farmer? Nope, still no one elses fault.


----------



## Kittilicious

Mrs.K said:


> You know. One thing that bothers me is the talk about negligience. These dogs do not look neglected in any kind of way.
> 
> Ya'll never had anything happen ever before? Gate open? Leash slipping out of your hands? Dog broke out of a crate or kennel? Climbed the fence?
> 
> Never?
> 
> More power to ya.
> 
> One of my bitches climbed the fence back then at my parents place.
> When my parents went on holidays and a friend cared for the horses the entire herd escaped and ran down a Highway. One horse went under a bus, luckily nothing happened to the horse or to anyone on that bus. Could have been a disaster. Was she negligent? NO! It was a frickin accident. Accidents happen.
> Just because those two dogs wandered off it doesn't mean that the owners were negligent.
> 
> Indras leash slipped through my hands when she was a young dog and she took off barking. It took a split second and she caught me completely off guard and that might be exactly what happened in this case.
> 
> And I honestly can see it happen. My friends great dane had his moments where he ran off exploring. He was never chasing anything, he got a scent in his nose and he was gone for at least 10 minutes. No matter if she went after him calling his name and there is no way that you could have ever kept up with him but nobody shot him, he never went on the road and didn't do anything to anyone.
> 
> I can't even comprehend a conversation like
> "Hey, I had to shoot your dog."
> "He went after the birds again?"
> "Yep"
> "What do I owe you in damages..."
> 
> That goes beyond my comprehension. Where I come from you go to the police and press charges, you don't shoot the dog, you leave it to the authorities to deal with the situation.


 totally agree. And with TankGrrl66, too.


----------



## msvette2u

Dainerra said:


> *I'm not saying that accidents happen, but that doesn't make it someone ELSE'S fault either. * Your dog got out and was hit by a car. Is it the driver's fault? Nope, not even if they were speeding. Now, maybe if your dog was in your yard and they ran up on the sidewalk to hit him, but then again, your dog wouldn't have been where he wasn't supposed to be.
> 
> Your dog is running through the woods during hunting season and gets shot? Not the hunters fault.
> Your dog is trespassing in a pasture and shot by a farmer? Nope, still no one elses fault.


EGGsactly!!!



> Im struck often here by sheer perfection many owners have obviously achieved and if they havent they certainly apply it to others.


Ah yeah the old "oh you must be a_ perfect_ owner then", of course I am not, nobody is.
But if my dog gets off my property and gets ran over, killed by another dog, or shot, I'm not going to be whining all over the net asking for donations because I didn't make sure he/she didn't get off my property.

As the above poster said, just because a mistake was made, doesn't give you the right to blame others and sue and ask for donations, it doesn't make it someone else's fault, it is still the owners duty to care for the dog properly and if something fails, sh*t can and does happen.


----------



## Dainerra

Mrs.K said:


> That goes beyond my comprehension. Where I come from you go to the police and press charges, you don't shoot the dog, you leave it to the authorities to deal with the situation.


here, you go to the police and they say "shoot the dog" As I said, we don't have a leash law here and Animal Control only picks up strays, not "problem dogs" The legal recourse for a dog that attacks livestock is to shoot it. 

This is how it goes at my house (I am the only one here who doesn't SSS). I see dog killing chickens. I chase dog off and watch where it goes. I call police and ask them to make a report. They talk to me, ask if I know who might own the dog, I point in the direction the dog went. If they find the owner, the Deputy advises that the legal action is to shoot the dog on sight. Deputy writes up a report and I pick it up in a couple days from the office if I want a copy. The next day the dog is back. Dog is shot. I call police and say "I shot the dog. Please inform the owner." If they come pick up the body, good. If not, then I am allowed to also include in damages the cost of disposing of it myself.

In other cases, the dog belonged to someone I knew well and had known since I was a kid. I called them up and told them I had to shoot the dog. They apologized and asked how much for any damage to livestock. As I said, in rural communities the LAW is to shoot the dog. If a deputy had been here at the time of the attack, the deputy would shoot the dog.


----------



## GSDolch

Dainerra said:


> Also, in many areas, you can legally kill all the deer you want on the property you own or live on.


Yup, here, if you own the property, you do NOT need any kind of license. So long as you are not in city limit, have at it. Depending on where one lives one can have a few acres up to hundreds.

Also, if you have the owners permission, you do not need a license to hunt on their property.

Has anyone brought up the TYPE of gun it is? Some can shoot off five rounds rather quickly. My husband has a shot gun that would be legal to hunt with, its over kill however, but still legal. Its easy to shoot of five shots rather quickly, with in seconds. Not *Pop*......*pop*...etc. (I will ask him when he gets home)

*rustling in woods*
<poppoppoppoppop>
dead dog...


----------



## Jack's Dad

msvette2u said:


> EGGsactly!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yeah the old "oh you must be a_ perfect_ owner then", of course I am not, nobody is.
> But if my dog gets off my property and gets ran over, killed by another dog, or shot, I'm not going to be whining all over the net asking for donations because I didn't make sure he/she didn't get off my property.
> 
> As the above poster said, just because a mistake was made, doesn't give you the right to blame others and sue and ask for donations, it doesn't make it someone else's fault, it is still the owners duty to care for the dog properly and if something fails, sh*t can and does happen.


I agree with this. I don't see where any of us are saying we don't make mistakes. I was loading Jack in the truck and he bolted to chase a squirrel. He didn't recall and ran across 2 roads. Luckily he wasn't hit. If he had been hit there is no way I could blame the driver of the car. In that instance and others I could be called neglectfull, or made a mistake whichever way one wants to look at it.


----------



## Dainerra

is it really bad that I am getting a serious craving for deer steaks??? 

Pretty much any rifle will allow you to get off 5 shots pretty fast, esp since there may have been more than one person shooting.

As you said, in many rural areas of AR, WV, and VA people count on bagging their limit to feed their families over the winter. I have several family members who would be living on nothing but potatoes and beans if not for their deer meat. Growing up, deer meat was the only meat we had for much of the winter. BLEECH on deer burger, had almost 70lbs of it one year - in chili, in burgers, in hamburger helper, nothing but deer burger. 
So, that may be part of the miscommunications? Some of us equate hunting with survival. Others view it as a sport for rich people to play.


----------



## sparra

Mrs.K said:


> I can't even comprehend a conversation like
> "Hey, I had to shoot your dog."
> "He went after the birds again?"
> "Yep"
> "What do I owe you in damages..."
> 
> That goes beyond my comprehension. Where I come from you go to the police and press charges, you don't shoot the dog, you leave it to the authorities to deal with the situation.


What about this Mrs K
"Hey, I had to shoot your dogs"
"They went after your ewes which took you 5 years to breed again...what 60 of them?"
"Yep"
"What do I owe you in damages.."
"Well .....60 ewes at $170 each (current value here in OZ)...lets see that's 
$10,200"

Where I come from this is reasonable.....


----------



## msvette2u

Oh yeah, I mentioned in another thread about the dogs that killed a bunch of Emus?
Emus are_ very_ expensive, valued at $1200 each.
The owner of the dogs opted for euthanasia before I made it back to the shelter with them


----------



## Mrs.K

sparra said:


> What about this Mrs K
> "Hey, I had to shoot your dogs"
> "They went after your ewes which took you 5 years to breed again...what 60 of them?"
> "Yep"
> "What do I owe you in damages.."
> "Well .....60 ewes at $170 each (current value here in OZ)...lets see that's
> $10,200"
> 
> Where I come from this is reasonable.....


And where I come from you'd still call the cops and let them shoot them... then you press charges....


----------



## Dainerra

Mrs K, the cops here won't come out to shoot the dogs. Now, if the cops happen to be here and the dog comes back, then yes. Otherwise, you are on your own. Also, there are no "charges" to press. You just give them a bill for the damage amount. It is entirely a civil matter. 

You can't trap the dog either as Animal Control won't take it. You can't take it to the Humane Society because 1) there is a fee 2) you have to sign a statement saying that you own the dog and 3) there is a several month long waiting list. 

A neighbor of my mother's had a pack of dog killing cattle. They would catch the cows as the were birthing and just rip the calf out of her. The local farmer's banded together to keep watch 24/7. Believe me, any dog even walking by the property was shot on sight. In all, they probably killed a dozen or more dogs.


----------



## KentuckyGSDLover

Daisy&Lucky's Mom said:


> In closing where can I get a blaze orange vest for my dogs as the great hunters will be returning in 10 days.


Cabela's, or you can even fashion one. I use a person's blaze orange vest for my dog and sew adjustments for it to fit him.


----------



## sparra

Mrs.K said:


> And where I come from you'd still call the cops and let them shoot them... then you press charges....


Well if the dogs are owned by neighbors who are also your friends of 30years you just sort it out like adults and don't bring the cops in.
Around here we don't have a lot of neighbors and we are all "good mates". We help each other and look out for another as that is what remote communities do. If our dogs get loose and kill our neighbors sheep we don't whinge and whine, go to the media and then have the hide to ask for donations, we take responsibility for our mistakes and sort it out without having to bring the law in. 
Call that "old fashioned" but it works just fine around here.


----------



## Dainerra

Hi-Viz Dog Vest - Orange Dog Vest

anyplace that carries hunting dog supplies will have them available.

http://www.dontshootme.ca/ just love the site name - very to the point!


----------



## Mrs.K

sparra said:


> Well if the dogs are owned by neighbors who are also your friends of 30years you just sort it out like adults and don't bring the cops in.
> Around here we don't have a lot of neighbors and we are all "good mates". We help each other and look out for another as that is what remote communities do. If our dogs get loose and kill our neighbors sheep we don't whinge and whine, go to the media and then have the hide to ask for donations, we take responsibility for our mistakes and sort it out without having to bring the law in.
> Call that "old fashioned" but it works just fine around here.



Honestly, if we were such good buddies and you'd tell me that my dogs went after your lifestock I'd contain my dogs from that day on. It wouldn't happen again. In fact, I'd probably shoot the dogs myself. 

There wouldn't be a second time. However, if they got out and wander over without attacking any of your lifestock and you'd shoot them just because they are on your property, that would be the last day of our friendship.


----------



## Dainerra

however, if caught in the act, the dog will be shot the FIRST time.


----------



## sparra

Mrs.K said:


> Honestly, if we were such good buddies and you'd tell me that my dogs went after your lifestock I'd contain my dogs from that day on. It wouldn't happen again. In fact, I'd probably shoot the dogs myself.
> 
> There wouldn't be a second time. However, if they got out and wander over without attacking any of your lifestock and you'd shoot them just because they are on your property, that would be the last day of our friendship.


You didn't read my original post on this....don't blame you as it was about 10 pages back!!! We didn't actually shoot these dogs as I was with my hubby when we found them BUT had it been another neighbor they surely would have!! Not all people are dog enthusiasts like us and I certainly wouldn't judge anyone for shooting dogs who are killing their livestock.
But someone ask the question "what is so bad about dogs chasing deer anyway? .....well if you have that attitude then you are not going to be very compassionate toward other livestock being chased/killed by a dog.
Anyway...I am signing off......this is taking up far too much energy for me!!!


----------



## Vinnie

Don't have the energy left to quote everything I would like to but just want to say a few things (yipee). 

I think it's 2 completely different things having a dog slip out of it's collar or pull away or even dart off from you than to let dogs wander off exploring. Wander so far that they are out of sight. 

Said it before but will say it again. No, I have NEVER (never ever) let any of my dogs just wander off exploring and into the woods or onto my neighbors land - unattended. Them breaking away from me and me being right on their tail is another story and really doesn't apply - IMO. However - even at that, I would still consider it my fault and not blame others. 

Yes, I'm getting hungry for some venny steaks too........ on the grill.

I got my orange dog vests at the local feed mill.

A deer hunter's license in MN is $27 this year (extra for a management addition - meaning doe) for a resident of MN. More for non-residents. You can tag 1 deer on that license. You need to have a license no matter if you are hunting on your own property or someone elses. 



sparra said:


> Anyway...I am signing off......this is taking up far too much energy for me!!!


Yes, it's starting to go round and round now.


----------



## Mrs.K

> Said it before but will say it again. No, I have NEVER (never ever) let any of my dogs just wander off exploring and into the woods or onto my neighbors land - unattended. *Them breaking away from me and me being right on their tail is another story and really doesn't apply* - IMO. However - even at that, I would still consider it my fault and not blame others.


Are you really that fast that you can be right at their tail if they break off you with full speed? ****... :silly:


----------



## Vinnie

Oh geez.......I'm fast enough to keep them within in my line of vision! Hanging on to their tails - depends on which dog we're talking about. Jessie - YES! (but she's almost 15 and very slow  )

What difference does that make? These people didn't even realize their dogs were gone until they were out of view - god only knows how far away.........

ETA: Of course, depending on which version of their story you read. :rofl:


----------



## longhairshepmom

Mrs.K said:


> Are you really that fast that you can be right at their tail if they break off you with full speed? ****... :silly:


especially in the woods and at twilight !


----------



## longhairshepmom

Vinnie said:


> What difference does that make? These people didn't even realize their dogs were gone until they were out of view - god only knows how far away.........


If you are on the edge of woods, that takes about 2 seconds flat ! Esp. with a dark colored dog. 
I helped someone find a horse that broke loose from them. A white colored grey Percheron (huge) mare. Even large and loud and light colored as she was, she seemed to disappear into the woods within seconds and she wasn't running fast.


----------



## Vinnie

What does it matter?

Completely different than what is happening here. These people didn't even have the dogs on a leash. One didn't even have a collar on. The dogs went "exploring". Unattended. Out of sight. Then the owners realized the dogs were gone. Completely different thing than a dog bolting and you loosing control.


----------



## longhairshepmom

The collar was on the dog before it disappeared. It was missing on the dead body, most likely removed when the hunter dragged the carcass away from the deer stand. But oh my gosh, we don't know if the hunter did this or not, just like we don't know exactly how or why the dogs bolted. Lets explore in a 1001 ways on how the owners stink, but spend nay a thought on if the "hunters" may possibly be dirty rotten scum. Oh, but yeah. It doesn't even matter if the so called hunters may be dirty rotten scum animal abusers. Because since those negligent abusive owners let the dogs escape in first place, everything that happened to the dogs afterward or whoever might have done something to them then, is simply irrelevant.


----------



## DharmasMom

KentuckyGSDLover said:


> You really have no problem with pets running to death or shredding up wildife? Dogs cannot run deer for the same reason hunters cannot hunt year-round or kill an unlimited amount of deer. There is a balance and respect for the species. Have you ever seen what dogs running loose do to wildlife? I have and it's ugly. My geese shredded on the edge of the frozen pond; a coyote would have at least used them for food and eaten them but a dog does not. Or even sometimes people? (A little girl on a bicycle mauled to death by running dogs in southern Indiana comes to mind.) A dog that has gone wild is the most feared thing in the woods where I live and the specific reason many carry a pistol in the woods. You don't know if they're pets or if they're rabid, wild or what, and they are not afraid of you like the coyote. Ever watch a loose dog circle a cow while it's giving birth? I have. I choose to own property because I love nature and wildlife. My GSD, Bear, once killed a quail nearby in my yard while I was working in the garden. He never did it again. He was taught he could not accost wildlife. Think of it this way: How would you feel if I dropped my dog in your back yard (okay, so my back yard is 30 acres of woods, but it's still my back yard) and let it chase around and terrorize what was in your yard? Who would be at fault then? Me, of course.


PLEASE tell me where in my question I said I have no problem with this. PLEASE. I asked a question because I truly didn't understand why it was/is illegal. Especially since people hunt with dogs. I had never understood this and could not figure out this rationale. I appreciate you answering, even if you were quite sarcastic in doing so. I guess I made the fact that I really didn't know the answer or understand unclear, despite I stated that in my post.



sparra said:


> You didn't read my original post on this....don't blame you as it was about 10 pages back!!! We didn't actually shoot these dogs as I was with my hubby when we found them BUT had it been another neighbor they surely would have!! Not all people are dog enthusiasts like us and I certainly wouldn't judge anyone for shooting dogs who are killing their livestock.
> But someone ask the question "what is so bad about dogs chasing deer anyway? .....well if you have that attitude then you are not going to be very compassionate toward other livestock being chased/killed by a dog.
> Anyway...I am signing off......this is taking up far too much energy for me!!!



If you are referring to me, that WASN'T my question. Perhaps you should go back and check what you are referring to before assuming other people have attitudes or aren't compassionate.



As for everyone being all up in arms and an uproar over them asking for donations, I find that interesting. This is the SAME board and SAME posters who were sharing and donating like crazy to Hex's memorial fund. And his tragedy occurred because his owner made a mistake as well. No one crucified him though.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs

Daisy&Lucky's Mom said:


> Speaking as a irresponsible idiot owner My dog got away barreled through me as i opened our old front door.


An "irresponsible idiot" is one who lets their dogs roam freely all the time, not a responsible dog owner whose dog manages to escape/slip away



Mrs.K said:


> Ya'll never had anything happen ever before? Gate open? Leash slipping out of your hands? Dog broke out of a crate or kennel? Climbed the fence?


Again, it sounds like the owners *never attempted to contain their dogs* which is different than a dog simply escaping.

I'm not sure if people truly understand what goes on around here (I live in the general area). Responsible dog owners are incredibly rare. Some counties have "leash laws" but they are not enforced. We don't even have "dog wardens" to enforce them. The law in my county states that dogs have to be on leashes if they are off their property. I am *the only person on my entire road that keeps my dogs fenced/contained*. Almost everyone has dogs. My neighbors on the right have an intact Great Pyr that comes up to my fence, taunts my male Rott, and marks like crazy (our house, our car, our fence, etc.). The have a Bassett and a little spaniel that leave Ol' Roy poops on the parts of my lawn that aren't fenced and in my driveway (lovely to step in a giant pile of poo on my way the car to go to work.

The neighbor to my left has an aggressive Golden that comes over to "fence fight" with my dogs. They once sent their little boy after the dog and he couldn't catch it, so I thought I'd help. When I grabbed the dogs collar, it nearly bent itself in half trying to bite me.

The neighbor down the road goes through Labs like you wouldn't believe. He's had four different ones in the past year because they keep getting hit by cars and dying. He just buys a new one when that happens. One of them was shot by the local farmer because it kept chasing his cattle. The Lab owner was warned about it but refused to contain his dog.

Keep in mind that this isn't a city where the dogs hop out the door, take a couple of steps, and are on someone else's property. These are dogs that are roaming about, often traveling miles, and their owners don't bother to pay attention to where their dogs are.

Can you see where someone who isn't a dog lover wouldn't have a whole lot of reservation about shooting a nuisance animal?

NOT saying this is what happened in this instance, but I do agree that it COULD.



TankGrrl66 said:


> Are all of you saying you have NEVER let your dogs off leash? Not even in the country? Boo. This sounded pretty routine, these dogs being with her while she works around her property.


Yep, that's what I'm saying. I never let my dogs off leash if they aren't in a fenced enclosure. It's simply not worth the risk to me.

I have heard of people who have trained their dogs to respect their property lines and never wander, and that's perfectly acceptable. But letting two young dogs wander willy nilly is not.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs

DharmasMom said:


> As for everyone being all up in arms and an uproar over them asking for donations, I find that interesting. This is the SAME board and SAME posters who were sharing and donating like crazy to Hex's memorial fund. And his tragedy occurred because his owner made a mistake as well. No one crucified him though.


As I understand it, Hex was one of those dogs that was trained to stay put, not allowed to wander where he willed.


----------



## DharmasMom

My point isn't about the differences in the dogs but that BOTH people went to the internet to ask for donations. In one case it was okay, embraced and even shared and I am sure people here even donated and in the second case the owner's are being called all kinds of names because of it. In both cases it was the carelessness of the owner that allowed the tragedy to happen so why is it accepted for one to ask for money and not the other?


----------



## Vinnie

Hum - let's see.....
One dog in his own yard.
Two dogs wandering around someone else's yard.
See any difference?


----------



## Mrs.K

Rott-n-GSDs said:


> As I understand it, Hex was one of those dogs that was trained to stay put, not allowed to wander where he willed.


Do we know if those two dogs weren't trained as well to stay put? 

There is absolutely no difference. His owner went inside the house and left him completely unsupervised. How does it differ in any kind or form? 

There is NO difference whatsoever, at all. No matter if trained or not, there was no fence, the dog was off leash, unsupervised and dissappeared. His owner started a huuuuuge campaign but because he was a professional Schutzhund Handler, Judge and Hex was a Champion everybody jumped to his aid and if there was a single word of critisizm you got flamed and called a hater. 

It's quite the double standard!


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs

DharmasMom said:


> My point isn't about the differences in the dogs but that BOTH people went to the internet to ask for donations. In one case it was okay, embraced and even shared and I am sure people here even donated and in the second case the owner's are being called all kinds of names because of it. In both cases it was the carelessness of the owner that allowed the tragedy to happen so why is it accepted for one to ask for money and not the other?


The donations in Hex's case were initially being used to find the dog, and now are being used for the ongoing investigation. A PI has been hired and is actively working on the case and those certainly do not come cheap.

In the current situation, the owners have apparently stated they want to recoup their training costs (really... if their dogs died of natural causes should they ask for donations to recoup training costs? Not to mention I have serious doubts about the training costs to begin with) and to buy new dogs. New dogs that many of us are afraid might meet the same fate, unless some of those donations are used for a FENCE to contain the dogs.

To be fair, they have also stated that they will use it for "justice" but have not specified what. They did state in one of the articles that they plan to pursue a civil case so maybe that's part of it... but speaking as an employee at a law firm in St. Louis County, Minnesota (where this incident occurred), they're going to have a hard time finding an attorney willing to take their case.


----------



## Mrs.K

Vinnie said:


> Hum - let's see.....
> One dog in his own yard.
> Two dogs wandering around someone else's yard.
> See any difference?


Really? An unfenced yard where the dog could have wondered off onto the road and get hit by a car, flying into the ditch where he was later on found. It's really really easy to search an area and miss a spot. It happens all the time. 

Speculation? Just as much as speculating that he was stolen by somebody, then killed and brought back, dumped into the ditch. 

Nobody knows what happened, probably not even Al.

On every single side it's stated to NEVER, NEVER, NEVER leave your dog unsupervised in an unfenced yard and how negligent it is. But because it's a champion dog and champion handler, all of a sudden it is okay? 

*It's irresponsible, no matter what kind of level of training the dog and the handler has!*


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs

Mrs.K said:


> Do we know if those two dogs weren't trained as well to stay put?


Obviously not... or if they were someone certainly didn't do a good job of it.



> There is absolutely no difference. His owner went inside the house and left him completely unsupervised. How does it differ in any kind or form?
> 
> There is NO difference whatsoever, at all. No matter if trained or not, there was no fence, the dog was off leash, unsupervised and dissappeared. His owner started a huuuuuge campaign but because he was a professional Schutzhund Handler, Judge and Hex was a Champion everybody jumped to his aid and if there was a single word of critisizm you got flamed and called a hater.
> 
> It's quite the double standard!


Seriously? Someone stealing a dog out of his own yard is the same as dogs potentially being a great distance off of their own property? (Remember, we're not talking about groomed city yards here... we're talking about the woods... a rural area where often you can't even see your neighbors). 

As stated, there are people whose dogs stay put in their own yards (even unsupervised) and I have no issue with that.


----------



## Mrs.K

Rott-n-GSDs said:


> Obviously not... or if they were someone certainly didn't do a good job of it.
> 
> 
> Seriously? Someone stealing a dog out of his own yard is the same as dogs potentially being a great distance off of their own property? (Remember, we're not talking about groomed city yards here... we're talking about the woods... a rural area where often you can't even see your neighbors).
> 
> As stated, there are people whose dogs stay put in their own yards (even unsupervised) and I have no issue with that.


Yes it is! 
Even if your dog is trained to stay put, they can always wonder off. ALWAYS! There is nothing that holds them back, no fence and even the best trained dog can run onto the road and get hit by a car or cross the property line. 

It's irresponsible to keep a dog in an unfenced yard and then walk away and leave the dog out unsupervised. Period! 

You can't say that it's irresponsible and then all of a sudden turn around and say "Oh, _but his_ dog was trained..." just because it's a Champion. 

Do you know if Hex didn't wander onto the road and didn't get hit by a car? It's just as much as a possibility as him being stolen. Again, nobody knows what really happened!


----------



## longhairshepmom

Seriously people ??

And we know "how" that Hex stayed in his yard and was actually stolen ? A trained Schutzhund dog that sat in his own yard and allowed a menancing stranger to not only come close to him, but to grab and STEAL him, all without a sound or commotion. Right. 
All the people here that are so fond of conspiracy theories actually bought this ?
All the names we called the black dog owners and cried about negligence and even abuse but someone leaving a dog unsupervised in a yard to "either" wander off, bolt, be stolen, shot, blahblahblah, THATS ok, because the dog was "trained to stay put".

Holy cow. I need to hear no more from some people no matter what its about. Either you have certain standards or you do not. You don't bend them around who you deem worthy or not.


----------



## Vinnie

longhairshepmom said:


> As stated, there are people whose dogs stay put in their own yards (even unsupervised) and I have no issue with that.


Yes, my neighbors have trained their dogs to stay within their property lines. 2 very nice dogs.


----------



## Mrs.K

Vinnie said:


> Yes, my neighbors have trained their dogs to stay within their property lines. 2 very nice dogs.


And yet they could take off... there can always be that one day where they take off and what would you say if they took off and got shot? 

There would be an outcry of how they could have EVER left these dogs outside without a fenced in yard.


----------



## DharmasMom

Personally, I think Hex got hit by a car but that is neither here nor there. I am just bringing up the contrast in his owner soliciting money from people vs these people doing it. And from what I read these people already run some kind of camp/ranch with therapy horses so it isn't really too far of a stretch that they would have therapy dogs. I can also see where a place like that may ask for donations to help replace such dogs. Doesn't mean I'm going to give them money but I can see their point of view. 

Also, there really isn't a difference. Hex was left outside, unattended in an unfenced yard. These dogs weren't contained and able to run off into the woods. In both cases the owners were careless. The only difference is one was a champion and well known and his owner/handler was also well known and well liked in the GSD world. So he got a pass.


----------



## longhairshepmom

Mrs.K said:


> And yet they could take off... there can always be that one day where they take off and what would you say if they took off and got shot?
> 
> There would be an outcry of how they could have EVER left these dogs outside without a fenced in yard.


Since there are those superior dog owners, you have to have superior dogs too. The ones who are trained not to wander, which means there is no way in this world that they will. As we all know that we can 100% depend on a living being to never even once act out of the ordinary. 

Seriously, there a million and one things that would tempt even the best trained dog to run over and investigate. I find it the height of negligence to leave your dogs unsupervised in an open area boasting of how they would never leave anyway. Yeah, sure. Talk about being irresponsible. To me that is FAR MORE negligent and irresponsible then the people that have a dog bolt from them. At least they don't INTENTIONALLY let it happen.


----------



## Vinnie

Mrs.K said:


> And yet they could take off... there can always be that one day where they take off and what would you say if they took off and got shot?


They haven't taken off in YEARS but if they did - my neighbors and I both agree that it would be her fault. We have talked at length about this as both her and I have horses. (One swift kick from a horse - and......)


----------



## sparra

DharmasMom said:


> I do have a question though. Why is it illegal for dogs to chase deer? *I really don't understand why this is an issue.*


Sorry if I misunderstood you....


----------



## Vinnie

BTW: she is also always outside with her dog.

and no, we are not "superior dog owners" we are responsible dog owners


----------



## Mrs.K

Vinnie said:


> BTW: she is also always outside with her dog.


At my old place I've had a single incident that could have ended in a disaster even though I was supervising the dogs outside. 

My neighbor used to walk from the lumbermill to his house at the side of the highway. One day the dane spotted him and ran over and every single dog followed even though they are really well trained on their re-call. So I had five happy tail wagging dogs on one of the busiest highways saying hi to the neighbor. The snow was so deep that I could barely follow them. 

I was lucky. Really lucky that at that very moment there was no traffic whatsoever. We were far away from the highway for me to feel comfortable to let them run off the leash, supervised. I posted tons of pictures of them bolting through the snow, on the property. We had a 160 Acres to let them run and yet, one single time, they took off onto the road, greeting a neighbor, not listening to their re-call. They could have gotten killed that day. Thank god they didn't. 

There is no such thing as a reliable dog. Whether the are Champions and trained out the wazoo or really well trained companion dogs or pet dogs, or SAR dogs...


----------



## Vinnie

I guess that was your experience. I have seen this dog (my neighbor's dog) go running after another neighbor's collie as he was out for his evening walk down our road. First neighbor recalled her dog AT THE PROPERTY LINE and that dog made a dead stop and turned back around and headed to her. 

If he hadn't, it would of been her responsibility - her fault. She would of had to pay for any damages that might of occurred.


----------



## sparra

This thread is going down hill fast!!!

Maybe its time for agree to disagree!!!


----------



## Jack's Dad

No one knows what actually happened.
My problem with the money is that it seems weird. If I lost my dog in that manner the last thing I would be worried about for sometime would be money and getting another dog. It's not like replacing your car. Why aren't they grieving their dogs and worry about money and new dogs at an appropriate time.


----------



## Mrs.K

Vinnie said:


> I guess that was your experience. I have seen this dog (my neighbor's dog) go running after another neighbor's collie as he was out for his evening walk down our road. First neighbor recalled her dog AT THE PROPERTY LINE and that dog made a dead stop and turned back around and headed to her.
> 
> If he hadn't, it would of been her responsibility - her fault. She would of had to pay for any damages that might of occurred.


There can always be that one time where they don't listen. Mine always listened as well except for that one time where they went onto the road. 

It took one dog and the entire pack followed.


----------



## Mrs.K

Jack's Dad said:


> No one knows what actually happened.
> My problem with the money is that it seems weird. If I lost my dog in that manner the last thing I would be worried about for sometime would be money and getting another dog. It's not like replacing your car. Why aren't they grieving their dogs and worry about money and new dogs at an appropriate time.


It's a Therapy Horse Place. I bet that those dogs were ment to work in one of their Therapy Programs and now they need re-placement to get the whole thing up and running ASAP.


----------



## Vinnie

And if something had happened to your dogs - whose fault would it of been?

Yes, I agree this topic is getting way off and probably time for me to bow out. I'll agree to just disagree. Don't think I'm going to convince anyone of anything here anyway. 

Goodnight - going to go dream of snow now.


----------



## msvette2u

Agreed Vinnie


----------



## selzer

After reading from page five to page 22 of this thread, I have to comment. 

Why do we give the dog owner's the blame and let the hunters off? Because we are a dog-site of course. 

We care about dogs. When owners are irresponsible and reckless with their dogs, when they leave them in hot cars, or let them ride in the back of pick up trucks, we get angry. We do not give them a break for being ignorant or for being forgetful, because the dogs died horrible deaths, or were in serious danger. 

Dogs running at large, dogs allowed to explore on their own, gentle dogs that look like full-grown GSDs to most people, these are flaming examples of irresponsible owners. 

When the outcome is tragic, and the people say, I feel so bad, my dogs got out and were shot. They did not come back when I called them. I screwed up. When they take responsibility, we can be all compassion. 

When people say my daughter was walking my dog and she bit a lady in the butt, and her husband was a total jerk about it. Or my dog was out in the yard and ran across the street and this speeding driver slammed into her and I want to sue him for damages. Or my two dogs were in my truck while I went to the barn, and they took off onto the neighbor's property and were shot, and the people that shot them were real idiots about that and now we want to sue them. These indicate that the dog owners do not realize how their actions contributed, caused their dogs to be dead. Which means they will get more dogs, and like as not, they will be in just as much danger. 

We are harder on the dog owners because we love dogs, and we realize that to keep dogs safe, the owners have to stop blaming other people. 

And what kind of a low-life would except donations for letting their dogs get killed. That is repulsive.


----------



## Dainerra

:thumbup: selzer


----------



## Jack's Dad

Dainerra said:


> :thumbup: selzer


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: selzer


----------



## GermanShepherds6800

I third it! exactly what I have been feeling about it.


----------



## sparra

Jack's Dad said:


> :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: selzer


What he said


----------



## Dylan

When I lived in PA I had a dog shot in her kennel during hunting season. It was not fatal. After that I posted my property and was told by the law that should hunters trespass, I would have to make a citizen's arrest if I wanted to prefer charges. This was after the roof of my front porch was sprinkled with buckshot.

A vet I worked for had an IWH that ran loose most of the time. She was shot and killed during hunting season. That was on the owner, not the dog or the hunter/s who pulled the trigger.

Common sense seems to dictate that owners who allow their dogs to roam free off their own property, especially during hunting season, are not responsible dog owners and they should probably not own anymore dogs. If I were a breeder I would not sell them a dog nor would I contribute toward their being able to purchase another.

Some hunters are irresponsible and stupid. A friend, a forest ranger in PA, told me that a hunter dragged a steer he had just shot to his office asking if it was a buck. 

You can't fix stupid.


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom

I followed this thread from the begining and have typed three entries and deleted. There is another thread about a GSD who kids put a rocket in her mouth. Last night the news reported a youg Lab shot in the head and may have to be put down.I lost a dog due to a neighbor who left his two dogs roam and our lab mix was out but tied up for her business and as I was going in to change she broke the chain as the other two were barking at her in the yard she was hit and killed less then 7 min later before I could find her. Same idiot neighbors I have rounded up their small dachshunds and sent them home, The dogs that were w/ our mix who was hit spent many afternoons chasing them and standing in the middle of the road as the two dogs chased cars and stopped traffic ,stopped a guy who was going to get a gun . Called police re this. The reason iam giving this seemingly trival info is I am incredibly sensitized right now to the deaths and injury to animals but in the back of my mind I say "there but for the grace of God Go I". I live amoungst farmers . The farmers whose horses daisy herded as a young dog got loose destroyed some garden and drove my dogs who are fenced insane.I helped as did my husband another neighbor and our police.Our neighbor the Dairy Farmer doesn't pasture cows any longer but we have had a cow or two here in our yard and garden. Love my garden but wont starve if i lose my crop.To the person who has had to shoot dogs b/c they threatened her poultry/geese I understand thats a livilihood. I cant fathom shooting a dog and I have been while living in the city have been charged by a aggressive starving pit. So my stand on this is no different then what my record is. If when my dog herded the horses w/ riders and she had been shot It would have been legal and understandable but right now I am truly thanking God that it wasnt a vote by this forum that decided my dogs life. Iam waiting for the week after thanksgiving and have everybody aware that during deer season supervise the dogs even though they are in a fenced in yard. I worry though that a shot could spoke Lucky or a deer coming through the yard next to mine could somehow spur Lucky over the fence.There was a comment made about Hex , schutzhund does not mean personal attack dog and he was trained to be social.Leaving you dog in the yard for the 5 minutes it takes to run the garbage out is something I would think if your honest everybody has probably done. In the past several months there seemed to be alot of dogs harmed and I always feel some wariness at this time of the year so Im gonna have to agree to disagree right now.In summary I have been the idiot owner and the dog person out try ing to stop the loose dogs.


----------



## wyominggrandma

I too feel sorry for the dogs. BUT, in glancing over the messages, I have to wonder the whole story.
First off, in most states dogs can and will be shot for chasing deer or other game animals, or even livestock. Would the owners say" well the dogs have chased deer before? No, they want the whole blame on the nasty mean hunters. Maybe these guys were real jerks, who knows, only the hunters and the owners were there.
My second thought is when they said the dogs went exploring, then heard the shots. If these hunters had a stand 150 yards off their property line, um, that is no longer exploring, that is running off. 150 yards is a football field and a half. That is pretty far to be saying "our dogs were just exploring"... Most folks would be hard pressed to see their dogs at 150 yards away, to be able to call a dog back and it even hear that far away on a straight line, much less in a "forest" land.
If your dogs are so important, then why are they that far away from you, unfenced? 
Yes, I think its horrible that the dogs were shot, if the hunters were as callous as the article reads, then they were jerks. But, the dogs were not under control, and as far as anyone knows, they might have been chasing deer... That is against the law in all probability.
Don't be so quick to blame one or the other. You have only heard one side of the story, would love to hear the hunters side before they are totally hung without a trial. 
Bottom line: keep your dog in your site and under control all the time and stuff like this would not happen.


----------



## Dainerra

I think the report said 150 feet, so 50 yards. Still quite a sizable distance over the property line. Also, depending on the size of the property, you have to add in the distance from the barn where the dogs were left in the truck.

Daisy, the things you describe as happening to you are NOTHING like the owners in this story. By their own words, they left the dogs unattended in the bed of the truck, just assuming that they wouldn't go anywhere. Then, they didn't go looking for them until the next day, even though they heard gunshots the night before.

Their own words and actions are what make them responsible in my eyes. You even say that you would have understood that the neighbor's were within their rights. These owners are taking none of the responsibility, putting it instead on others.


----------



## longhairshepmom

Not to excuse the negligence of the owners, but from what they've said is that they went calling and looking right away, but couldn't find them. They talked to a few people and then gave up looking in the dark and came back at daylight with more people to continue looking.


----------



## msvette2u

Actually, that's just one report. Other reports said they didn't do anything as it was "too dark". 
About 15 pages ago I put up three different accounts, all told by the owners. Very odd there'd be at least 3 different versions of this story, but there are at least that many, all with the owner being quoted.


----------



## Kittilicious

msvette2u said:


> Actually, that's just one report. Other reports said they didn't do anything as it was "too dark".
> About 15 pages ago I put up three different accounts, all told by the owners. Very odd there'd be at least 3 different versions of this story, but there are at least that many, all with the owner being quoted.


but it's also that many different news reporters reporting the story.... I'm just giving both sides here, not saying the owners aren't lying, but we don't know that. Just because they quote something doesn't mean it was quoted correctly.


----------



## wyominggrandma

but whether the owners don't want to take blame or not, their dogs were unattended and running loose on someone elses property.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs

selzer said:


> Why do we give the dog owner's the blame and let the hunters off?


Well, some want to let the hunters off, some want to let the dog owners off.. but personally I think BOTH are to blame. The dog owners shouldn't have let their dogs "go exploring" and the hunters shouldn't have killed the dogs.

As far as some of the other comments, I still don't think people understand what goes on around this area... Those who put any sort of training into their dogs are extremely rare and those of us that do are the kind that wouldn't let our dogs "go exploring." We also wouldn't give up looking just because of darkness (particularly during hunting season). Heck, my cat got out and my husband and I were out well past midnight searching and calling for him (we did eventually find him safe and sound).


----------



## selzer

Daisy&Lucky's Mom said:


> ... the horses w/ riders and she had been shot It would have been legal and understandable *but right now I am truly thanking God that it wasnt a vote by this forum that decided my dogs life*...


I think you would be ok with the people that commented here, unless your dog was actually attacking their livestock. You might not want to stand before us if we were the judge and the charge was dog running at large. 

I don't think it is helpful to be easy on the attitude, boys will be boys. Dogs will be dogs. They are going to get loose. Accidents happen. This is not about being perfect. This is about doing everything possible to keep your dog safe. Be safe with your dog ALL THE TIME. 

If we have a lackadaisical attitude about their safety, accidents will be more frequent. 

But if the worst does happen, the dog does get loose, does not recall, runs in front of the vehicle, or gets shot by the hunter, don't blame the driver or hunter, don't take money to cover a necropsy and all the training you put in the dogs (so much training that they hadn't mastered a recall).

Sometimes it takes a tragedy for us to actually wake up. The door latch is broken, and if the dog pushes on it, he can open it. Nothing lies between the latch and the highway 20 feet from the front porch. As the months go by, the latch is constantly noticed and dismissed, and then one day the dog hits it just so, and goes after the mailman, or runs in front of a car. The dog recalls 100% of the time in class or in the house, but 80% of the time outside, normally if we are just walking to the car, he comes right along, and then one day he sees a squirrel or a deer. Most of the time we dodge those bullets, and the more we seem to get away with it, the more lax we become. 

And then when our dog is hurt, we are so angry, we should usually be angry with ourselves, but for some people it is so much easier to be angry at anyone else.


----------



## selzer

"Why do we give the dog owner's the blame and let the hunters off?"

Because there is no point in going after the hunters. No one has to _prove_ the dog was menacing, they just need to _say_ the dog is menacing. No one has to _prove_ a dog is running deer, except where it is not lawful to shoot dogs for running deer, you just have to _say_ the dog was running deer.

If hunters are so evil, so terrible that they shoot dogs just because they are drunk, ******** getting their kicks, than shame on anyone who puts their dog at risk of the nasty hunters. I have hunted, my father is a hunter, and we don't shoot dogs.


----------



## msvette2u

> shame on anyone who puts their dog at risk of the nasty hunters.


Exactly...it crosses my mind that if these dogs had simply been run over in the road, or struck by a train, both of which could easily have happened, nothing would have been done or said. They would never have stepped up to a microphone and admitted they were letting their dogs "go explore" and thus the dogs were killed (by said train or car).

The inflammatory nature of being killed by being shot allows the "poor owners" to garner donations yet the irresponsibility is the same; loose dogs often ends tragically. This situation is compounded by the fact the owners have taken absolutely zero responsibility for their careless actions and in fact are now fundraising because those actions allowed their dogs to be killed.


----------



## Warrior09

Either way..... The whole point is the Hunters shouldnt have shot those dogs. Yes the owners should have taken their responsibility and not let them roam freely, but the hunters shouldn't have shot them. It would be like me shotting a neighbors dog bc he let it out. As long as it wasn't bothering me or my kids if i had any, i wouldn't have done anything to those dogs.


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom

Selzer and others I have no problem w/ hunters per say. I have issues w/ the hunter who consumes a couple of PBRs and his shooting ability sucked to begin with.Iguess my point is as a dog owner the day my dog(Daisy) herded the riders and their horses into a circle I knew she could be shot. I was out there in a pair of pajamas and in fuzzy slippers in March in a harvested corn field calling her and diving for her. Yes Incredibly stupid of me as it was the worst thing to doand probably made her run more.The hunter who fired in on us when confronted by my husband of course denied it. When horses or cows get loose I help. I apologized often when Daisy was young and people generally were gracious. She has never harmed livestock only rabbits,wild ones.I guess shooting a neighbors dog b/c Im in danger I can get or b/c destroying someone's livilhood or endangering farm animals ok,I get that. I have gone out of my way to help neighbors ,it is what I was raised to do. I dont understand shooting a dog ,From several reports it sounded like they knew the dogs and were blatant re shooting them. I guess my day w/ Daisy and the horses is weighing heavily on me as to just how lucky I was that that rider helped me. I need to to find him and thank him. My view on this is my experience in the past few years w/ hunters and my exdperiencew/ Daisy.

In regard to the money I thought that was over the top but if they used the dogs as part of equine therapy maybe. Were the owners at fault yes. As I said before Iam on my yearly warnings to people at my house about watching ours when they are in the yard.So I guess Isee Selzer,Dainerra and others point re responsible dog ownership but sorry guys cant understand the shooting of the two dogs.


----------



## msvette2u

The point is, _anything_ could have happened to them. What did happen is of little importance in the scheme of things, it could have been anything. For gosh sake, a buck deer could have attacked them, even. They could have fallen off a cliff or eaten poisonous mushrooms. Again, we'd not be discussing it if any of the other things had occurred, however!
The difference is, this way, _they have someone else to blame_ (and thus are asking for money on top of it all!)

And God forbid they get more dogs, donations or not, the same fate awaits since the owners refuse to admit any wrongdoing on their part, along with a good many others, apparently and unfortunately.


----------



## Jack's Dad

Daisy&Lucky'sMom.

Here is the thing. Let's say the hunters are terrible awful people and they shouldn't have shot the dogs. They are charged with some crime, do some time and are fined.

The dogs are still dead. The only way the dogs wouldn't be dead is if the owners would have kept them contained some way.

Yes we all make mistakes with our dogs.


----------



## selzer

Warrior09 said:


> Either way..... The whole point is the Hunters shouldnt have shot those dogs. Yes the owners should have taken their responsibility and not let them roam freely, but the hunters shouldn't have shot them. It would be like me shotting a neighbors dog bc he let it out. As long as it wasn't bothering me or my kids if i had any, i wouldn't have done anything to those dogs.


Now I am doing some calculating here, if it is indeed 50 yards from the tree stand to the property line, would not that be dangerous to shoot at dogs moving toward the shooters, away from the people calling their names, and only 50 yards away? Five shots in the direction of people, just 50 yards away. That sounds pretty dangerous. I am guessing that those dogs may have been a bit more than 50 yards away. And only 50 yards into the woods, dark or not, you would think you could find your dogs, if you looked. 

Which of you would notice that your dogs ran off your property, heard shots, call a few times and then go in and wait for the morning to go look for the dogs? That is odd. 

Which of you would not notice the dogs were missing, hear shots, and have your stomach fall through your shoes, get a flash light if necessary, but be out in the woods calling and looking for your dogs? 

This whole story stinks to the heavens. Donations indeed!


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom

Jack's Dad .Im not disagreeing with that re owners Im just saying for me There but for the grace of god go I . Gotta go Penn-State/OSU party.


----------



## msvette2u

> This whole story stinks to the heavens. Donations indeed!


For all we know, the owners lost the dogs, something bad did happen, and they shot them themselves, posthumously, with the intent of getting donations. 
Nobody else was around, who is to say that didn't happen?

I believe the version of the story that the dogs ran off and the owners decided to not even look until the next day (after all, the dogs are black and you couldn't see them at night, as the owners stated). After all, it's the woods! They're out "exploring"! What COULD possibly go wrong?


----------



## wyominggrandma

there are bad hunters out there no doubt. But, can anyone who is saying the hunters should not have shot the dogs, say without any doubt that the dogs were not chasing deer? How do you know the dogs had not pulled a deer down and were mauling it?
Story is way to one sided. 
Moral of story, dogs were running loose on someones elses property with nobody in attendence. ..


----------



## Warrior09

selzer said:


> Now I am doing some calculating here, if it is indeed 50 yards from the tree stand to the property line, would not that be dangerous to shoot at dogs moving toward the shooters, away from the people calling their names, and only 50 yards away? Five shots in the direction of people, just 50 yards away. That sounds pretty dangerous. I am guessing that those dogs may have been a bit more than 50 yards away. And only 50 yards into the woods, dark or not, you would think you could find your dogs, if you looked.
> 
> Which of you would notice that your dogs ran off your property, heard shots, call a few times and then go in and wait for the morning to go look for the dogs? That is odd.
> 
> Which of you would not notice the dogs were missing, hear shots, and have your stomach fall through your shoes, get a flash light if necessary, but be out in the woods calling and looking for your dogs?
> 
> This whole story stinks to the heavens. Donations indeed!


That makes sense. I would have noticed if my dogs ran out of the yard bc I'm constantly checking up on them even though they are outside dogs. If I heard a gun go off, you better believe id be looking and seeing where my "babies" were at. 
You have made excellent points. If the owners did hear a shot, they should have checked to see where the dogs where at the moment and if they didn't come when called they should have went to look. 

Why did the daughter have to drag the body?!?!? I mean why would you let your kids exspecially if they were young to see the bodies. I couldn't handle carrying my dogs body, I would be scared and probably traumatised (Try to spell it the best i could). 

But at the same time, WHY would you shot a dog period?!?!? exspecially since it wasn't bothering you. Animals are like kids, if they aren't bothering you then you shouldn't punish them. 

If the dogs scared off a deer that they could have shot, I would be pissed id cussing up a storm, but I wouldn't shot them id yell at them to get away or go to a local house IF close and telling the owner to contain their pets, they were on hunting territory. 

I point I have to make also.

Why let you dogs out running around during deer season?!?!? 
I sure as **** wouldn't at least not for a long period of time and by themselves.


----------



## selzer

I think that the reason that people will shoot dogs running deer is that dogs will run deer to death. They will run just to kill them, just to chase, not to eat them. They can actually kill a lot of deer. Deer are a state natural resource and they have a value, not that dogs do not, but if the dogs kill lots of deer, the state will lose revenue. That is why many states have laws stating that you should shoot dogs running deer. It is not because the hunters don't like dogs.

Be that as it may be. My friend at work once told me that his dog came home one day (a lab), and barfed the whole of a deer's guts all over the rug. A hunter field dressed a deer and left the guts, and the dog imbibed. Your dog may not be able to eat too much elk or deer, but that doesn't mean the dog will keep it all down. Ick!


----------



## Warrior09

selzer said:


> I think that the reason that people will shoot dogs running deer is that dogs will run deer to death. They will run just to kill them, just to chase, not to eat them. They can actually kill a lot of deer. Deer are a state natural resource and they have a value, not that dogs do not, but if the dogs kill lots of deer, the state will lose revenue. That is why many states have laws stating that you should shoot dogs running deer. It is not because the hunters don't like dogs.
> 
> Be that as it may be. My friend at work once told me that his dog came home one day (a lab), and barfed the whole of a deer's guts all over the rug. A hunter field dressed a deer and left the guts, and the dog imbibed. Your dog may not be able to eat too much elk or deer, but that doesn't mean the dog will keep it all down. Ick!


Really?!?!? I've never heard of that law... not saying that your a liar or w/e just never heard about that law. 
Which I dont live near any hunting grounds, not even 50miles  so i really don't worry about my dogs getting shot by hunters and I have never seen a deer where i live for years and years LOL. I live in the boonies; in the head of a holler and still never seen a deer or even a bear. 

Weird?!?!? YES! LOL


----------



## selzer

I think it is lawful to shoot dogs running deer in many places. My dad was told by a game warden while he was hunting, he knows what to do if he sees any dogs running deer, shoot, shovel, shut up. 

That is awful if you do have a dog missing. And I don't mean people who let their dogs run, but if your dog slips out of a yard or kennel and is lost. Even if your dog is dead, you want to know so you can have some closure. There is nothing worse than not knowing if your dog is out there freezing, starving, scared, hurt, or dead. 

But letting the dog loose when there are a lot of hunters in the woods and deer are running due to the rut -- it is just not smart. 

Frankly, I wouldn't be too concerned if dogs cut our herd in half here in Ohio. The giant rodents are everywhere. My sister lives where there is no hunting, near a game reserve, and on her postage stamp lawn, I have counted a dozen deer. They roam her neighborhood like vermin, eating trees when grass is not plentiful. But I live 75 miles off where hunters are all over, and don't see many save with my vehicles, and this year I have seen more deer out here than ever. Daily, I see two or three in my neck of the woods, even on my land. 

I would consider shooting one and cutting the meat, bones, and antlers for my dogs, but I have never hunted deer. I wouldn't want to wound one and not kill it. I would be more confident with a bow, but I gave mine to my nephew.


----------



## Warrior09

I 've never hunted considering i'm a female
So I don't really see the idea and excitement of killing deer..... (personal opinion).
I don't argue with any1 that does hunt, just wrong to me if you kill any living thing.
deers even though, they can cost alot of $ when hit by deer.

LOL
Ive watched bambi too many times 

Anyways; 

I blame both parties in this whole mess. more upset that the hunters didn't at least get ahold of the owners and explained what happened and offered an apology of some sort, instead they had to act like heartless bamboons; scratching their asses and ignoring the feelings of the owners.


----------



## selzer

What does being female have to do with it. 

I think I need to add my name to my signature again, LOL!

Ohio has a huge deer problem. The herd needs to be thinned. If they are not, winter will be terrible on them. I think for me, I would rather a bullet in the brain, or through the heart, than starvation.


----------



## Germanshepherdlova

I love deer. I am in the city and see the poor things all the time. It's not their fault that the forests have been cut down and we have left them no place to go. I also don't see what joy people derive out of shooting those beautiful animals.


----------



## Warrior09

Selzer, considering i'm girl I don't go hunting. I understand the over population of deer, but could there be something else done about it besides killing them?!?!?

@ Germanshepherdlova 
I agree!


----------



## wyominggrandma

I'm female and hunt deer, elk, moose and buffalo. My husband hunts also.. We shoot them to fill the freezer. 
In Wyoming the deer population USED TO be hunted to thin it down. Now of course we are lucky to have any population of game animals at all, we live close to Yellowstone and since they brought wolves back, there are not many deer, elk or moose around anymore. The wolves did not stay in the park, they have multiplied and kill just to run critters down and kill them. They have also killed domestic cattle and sheep, so the deer population is getting culled without any hunting at all. Its so bad they don't even have a moose hunt in Jackson Hole anymore, no moose left. The elk herds are down to nothing and deer are almost non existant, but the do gooders don't want anyone to cull the wolf packs down. They brought them in, now there are too many to control.
Our state has laws that if dogs are seen chasing any wild game they can be shot immediately. We also have laws if dogs are seen chasing livestock, they can be shot.
We get sob stories in the paper about how mean and cruel a farmer was for shooting a families pet, the kids miss their pet and had to go looking for it after it went missing. How awful the farmer was for shooting their dog in the farmers field and how nobody should shoot a dog. Too bad the family didn't watch as the dog pulled down and killed a newborn calf. 
I feel bad when a dog gets shot for being on someone elses property, or gets killed by a car.. Had a horse driven through a barb wired fence when dogs chased it, my husband shot and killed both dogs. We dragged them up to the road to see if anyone would claim them. Funny, nobody claimed the dogs , even though we knew where they belonged. Since they had no collars we had to eat the vet bill since the "owners" said they were not theirs. They got new dogs within the week.
Who knows if the hunters were in the right shooting the dogs? Maybe they were trying to save a deer. Maybe they were jerks and shouldn't have shot the dogs. But, if the dogs had been with their owners, under control, nobody would have to feel sorry for the dogs because they would still be alive.


----------



## selzer

Warrior09 said:


> Selzer, considering i'm girl I don't go hunting. I understand the over population of deer, but could there be something else done about it besides killing them?!?!?
> 
> @ Germanshepherdlova
> I agree!


I went hunting when I was a girl, about 14 the first time. I went with my father, we hunted grouse. I went with my brother hunting pheasant and grouse. There is nothing wrong with hunting. 

Deer are a nuisance in my opinion. They are over-populated. What is there to do besides killing them? Really? Let them starve? Re-introduce wolves so they can rip and tear them to death. 

Deer are prey-animals, herbivores put on earth for predators to eat. People eat deer. If I ever hunt deer, it will be processed, and I and my dogs will eat it.

I am not a fan of deer meat, but I can soak it in salt and onions, dredge it with flour and make an excellent stew out of it. Some people eat it because they like it. Some because they must. Some because we are sick of running the deer over. 

There are too many deer up this way. This winter will be awful on them. I hope the deer hunters harvest enough so that is not so.


----------



## Warrior09

selzer said:


> What does being female have to do with it.
> 
> I think I need to add my name to my signature again, LOL!
> 
> Ohio has a huge deer problem. The herd needs to be thinned. If they are not, winter will be terrible on them. I think for me, I would rather a bullet in the brain, or through the heart, than starvation.





Germanshepherdlova said:


> I love deer. I am in the city and see the poor things all the time. It's not their fault that the forests have been cut down and we have left them no place to go. I also don't see what joy people derive out of shooting those beautiful animals.





selzer said:


> I went hunting when I was a girl, about 14 the first time. I went with my father, we hunted grouse. I went with my brother hunting pheasant and grouse. There is nothing wrong with hunting.
> 
> Deer are a nuisance in my opinion. They are over-populated. What is there to do besides killing them? Really? Let them starve? Re-introduce wolves so they can rip and tear them to death.
> 
> Deer are prey-animals, herbivores put on earth for predators to eat. People eat deer. If I ever hunt deer, it will be processed, and I and my dogs will eat it.
> 
> I am not a fan of deer meat, but I can soak it in salt and onions, dredge it with flour and make an excellent stew out of it. Some people eat it because they like it. Some because they must. Some because we are sick of running the deer over.
> 
> There are too many deer up this way. This winter will be awful on them. I hope the deer hunters harvest enough so that is not so.


Okay.... I see your point... sorry if i offended u in anyway. are they really that bad up there where u live?!?!?


----------



## msvette2u

They are "that bad" just about everywhere there are trees.
They are so bad in Colorado that cougars come into town to hunt them!


----------



## Warrior09

msvette2u said:


> They are "that bad" just about everywhere there are trees.
> They are so bad in Colorado that cougars come into town to hunt them!


 
WOW! 

well like said in my other posts..... Ive never seen a deer where I'm located until you hit rt 68 which is 25 miles away from. I had exaggerated when i said 50 earlier but i hardly ever see deer there too so idk whats going in eastern ky.


----------



## AbbyK9

We've got deer like crazy here in upstate New York ... especially on base where they aren't hunted. Groups of them walking around in the middle of the afternoon, across parking lots and all. It's crazy. Same with turkeys. When we lived out past Gouverneur in the country, we also had bear. We saw bear tracks all the time.

Bear in mind that a lot of people don't hunt because it's "fun" to shoot deer. They hunt to put meat onto the table. A lot of people in my area hunt for the meat because they need it.

And being a girl has nothing at all to do with anything. Girls hunt just like boys do.


----------



## selzer

We have turkeys like crazy too. They take up the environment that used to be good for grouse. I have never eaten wild turkey, dad never got a turkey tag, and I have never hunted turkey. But back in the day, my dad used to get his limit with grouse, and we did eat them. I like grouse, pheasant, and rabbit. Now grouse seems non-existent because of the turkeys. 

The deer ARE that bad. They are dangerous too. Not only might you run them over, but they can spread lepto and other things. This is the first year I have seen them walking through my yard. I mean with the dogs barking and all you would think they wouldn't be so bold. 

One of my pup's owners said that his dog just took down his third deer. This was a buck, and the two year old dog took it to the ground and broke an antler before he could pull him off, he is sure the dog would have killed it. He has a fenced yard, but deer jump the fence -- he lives near my sister where the deer are everywhere -- no hunting. 

What is sad is when they do not allow hunting, and the population gets out of hand, they go in at night with rifles with scopes and just slaughter them. They should just allow hunting and sell deer tags. Every year the people get in an uproar about the slaughter, but it is better than having them starve in the winter.


----------



## Mrs.K

AbbyK9 said:


> We've got deer like crazy here in upstate New York ... especially on base where they aren't hunted. Groups of them walking around in the middle of the afternoon, across parking lots and all. It's crazy. Same with turkeys. When we lived out past Gouverneur in the country, we also had bear. We saw bear tracks all the time.
> 
> Bear in mind that a lot of people don't hunt because it's "fun" to shoot deer. They hunt to put meat onto the table. A lot of people in my area hunt for the meat because they need it.
> 
> And being a girl has nothing at all to do with anything. Girls hunt just like boys do.


Yeah, they literally expect you to stop so they can cross the road. There is absolutely no fear of humans or dogs whatsoever. I've never experienced it like that until I moved here. In Germany you barely get to see them at all. Maybe in the woods, IF you are lucky and only from behind. 

As for Watertown, even in the middle of the city they walk around in the early morning and afternoon. Deers are crazy out here. 
Wished i had a big freezer and a hunting license. I think you wouldn't have to buy any kind of meet for the entire year if you got three deers.


----------



## Gretchen

After reading some of your posts, the ones where there is an abundance of deer - I can see that they may need to be hunted, but to kill dogs over deer is crazy. It's not like a deer is the only food source for these shooters. It is unbelievable how intolerant these hunters were about having the dogs on their property. Three shots to one dog - a bit excessive? And I thought I had bad neighbors. They are crazy and should have their gun licenses revoked.


----------



## Mrs.K

Gretchen said:


> After reading some of your posts, the ones where there is an abundance of deer - I can see that they may need to be hunted, but to kill dogs over deer is crazy. It's not like a deer is the only food source for these shooters. It is unbelievable how intolerant these hunters were about having the dogs on their property. Three shots to one dog - a bit excessive? And I thought I had bad neighbors. They are crazy and should have their gun licenses revoked.


I agree. I don't agree with shooting the dogs either.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs

Just a comment in response to some of the posts. I am female, and I hunt. Not hunting this year, but I have a 6 month old baby at home. 

I hunt for meat for us and for the dogs. My brother hunts for meat... as long as that meat also includes a nice, large set of antlers. He's a trophy hunter, but does also use the meat so I don't have an issue with it.

There are trophy hunters that don't use the meat, but many of them donate the meat to programs that use it for the poor/homeless.

Deer up here are a dime a dozen. If there wasn't a hunting season, they would starve. The DNR carefully calculates how many deer there are and how many need to be killed and issue licenses accordingly.

My mom has hit something like 9 deer on the highway. I've personally hit one, and my hubby has hit a couple. It's rare to find anyone who hasn't hit at least one deer around here. They are even in the middle of the city.


----------



## selzer

I saw one in the express lanes of an 8 line freeway on Sunday!?! In the middle of the city. On a bridge. There was no grass anywhere but in the median. Where did the deer come from? It is crazy? I think I am on deer six or seven (harvested with my vehicles). I am tired of deer, they are a bloody nuisance.


----------



## DunRingill

There are deer on my front lawn RIGHT NOW. When I come home at night with the dogs, I have to look around before letting the dogs out of the van.....last week there were 8 deer on the front lawn 2 doors down. I live in a suburb in central NJ, deer are EVERYWHERE. It's rare that I don't see several on the 10 mile drive to and from training.


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom

I live about a mile from a game reserve that surrounds our local resevoir. Lost part of my garden to deer,6 really nice cabbage,tops to my turnips and some peppers. They have atrail through the field next to us. Hunting them is necessary here. Im still pissed about my cabbage.


----------



## Dainerra

the resort next to my in-laws feed the deer. GRRRRR stupid giant rodents. There are over 3 dozen that show up for feeding. That's not counting the fawns that were born this year. 
There are always dead deer along the highway in town as well. I can tell you that there deer are all over eastern KY as well.  I know because I have several family members there that go hunting every year.


----------



## Warrior09

Dainerra said:


> the resort next to my in-laws feed the deer. GRRRRR stupid giant rodents. There are over 3 dozen that show up for feeding. That's not counting the fawns that were born this year.
> There are always dead deer along the highway in town as well. I can tell you that there deer are all over eastern KY as well.  I know because I have several family members there that go hunting every year.


HAHA i know there is deer but I'm saying where i live in eastern ky. I don't see deer and i live in the boonies  Ive lived here for 21 years.


----------



## Mrs.K

Agree with MrsK, post above deleted due to board rules - leaving this so it doesn't seem like she's responding to nothing. 

Jean
Admin


----------

