|
|
Post by arrowum on Jul 20, 2014 4:43:18 GMT -6
Proposal to retrieve hunting dogs from private property will be back next year at the spring hearings according to George M. of the WWF. It was poorly written. He says it should have included cows, horses and other pets to get more support……… UNBELIEVABLE !!!!!! The WBHA received my last check they just keep pushing the envelope..
|
|
|
|
Post by droptine on Jul 20, 2014 15:59:44 GMT -6
This is not a resolution by the WBHA. The CC is for individuals to submit resolutions on new rules and change existing rule/regulations.
While the resolution might be submitted by a member of WBHA it does not mean it is supported or backed by the organization.
Without the WBHA bear hunting would be non existant in WI. This organization has been a model for many other states to stave off elimination of bear hunting in their home states and has helped them greatly.
Currently the state of Main is under attack. If you bear hunt I'm sure their state org could use a financial donation or buy a membership to help them out.
The author of this post has posted on several other forums the same thing as here to Ryle up everyone and put hunter against hunter. It's quite sad.
There was resolution was submitted last spring and went nowhere as it had little support. The sky is not falling!
|
|
|
|
Post by arrowum on Jul 21, 2014 5:01:24 GMT -6
This was in the past and is now being pushed by the WBHA period !! The WBHA has done nothing to help out the sitters its all about the bear dogs. They should rename their org. The Wis Bear Dog Hunters Asso. The WBHA has fought against the sitters going first every year and now can run their dogs most of the summer. As far as trying to rile up hunters YES if this law if goes through it will again take away more land owner rights and open the door for hunters/ people to walk all over private land. Remember the xgun issues that was voted down several times and look what we have now.. And oh ya it was also supported by the WBHA. Talk about pitting hunters against hunters the WBHA has done it own fair of damage over the years. If the WBHA was really for ALL bear hunters why not support letting the sitters go first  Sitters going first for one week won't hurt the dog hunting at all. But let the dogs run for a week before you sit where your bait is and that can kill it. |
|
|
|
Post by droptine on Jul 21, 2014 8:48:16 GMT -6
If that were a fact then dog hunters would never run a bear after the first week off their baits. Our baits do slow down at times depending on when mast foods like acorns drop. Berries ripen, and ag crops mature. Bow hunters putting corn all over the woods doesn't help either.
Why should sitters take precedence over other forms of hunting? Harvest statistics show that bait sitters take more bear every year than do houndsmen. Even in the hound first years!
You say WBHA is only in it for the hound hunters. That is false. Like I said without WBHA bear hunting would be non existant in this state. HSUS, PETA, and RAVEN (Patricia Randolf) would have ended it years ago. Hound hunting and just hunting with dogs comes under attack all the time from these groups. Even other hunters like yourself. So yes there is a lot of time and resources spent to protect hound hunting in this state. But they are there for the sitters also always will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ron on Jul 21, 2014 9:53:00 GMT -6
I don’t think the conservation congress nor the bear hunters nor any private entity can mandate away private property rights. I think it would take an act of the legislature to craft a law to prohibit people from charging others with trespass violations and I don’t think that has any standing. If that were the case, anybody that is caught trespassing could simply say they are looking for a pet dog or cat, or hedgehog, cow, sheep, snake or any animal meaning your private land is no longer private since anybody could trespass under the guise of “searching” or “retrieving” a real or imaginary animal.
Couple that with the liability of one of these “searchers” falling or otherwise getting hurt on your property and then turning around and sewing you because they think it your fault that they had to climb over a fence you build or bridge you crafted over a stream. It takes very little imagination to find a way people could blame a landowner for injuries they sustain while trespassing on your land. I don’t think this will stand up in court and I would expect this would be challenged.
|
|
|
|
Post by arrowum on Jul 21, 2014 16:23:35 GMT -6
The WBHA last spring made it clear to their membership that they are in support and asked their members to attend the WCC meeting and vote for it. If this law gets past it will take any incentive away from the dog hunters to avoid private land. They can just rig their dog down the roads and if it strikes on private land dump the dog/dogs and follow. All they have to say is we started it on public land and there will be nothing the land owners can do.
Why should sitters take precedence over other forms of hunting? because the dog hunter can already run most of the summer and dogs running over others baits may ruin them. Even those on private land if this is past. I'm not against dog hunters just some of their ethics or lack of.
|
|
|
|
Post by musky on Dec 12, 2014 11:07:00 GMT -6
Sneaks = WBHA. I talked to WWF George M.….. Liar and a weasel!! GM said it was not wrote up the right way. WWF= Any thing for a buck donation. It will be resubmitted to make it easier to retrieve cows and other farm animals plus hounds. I am not against hound hunting at all…. I am against hound hunters that think there sport is more important than anyone else's.
|
|
Sitters going first for one week won't hurt the dog hunting at all. But let the dogs run for a week before you sit where your bait is and that can kill it.
