That's State of Alabama v. C.T. Golden. When you search with quotes for the exact case, its important to have the name correct and also the court of Jurisdiction. That case is an appeals case.

I did read it and fully comprehend it.

Law was upheld and the dogs owner was found guilty. What more do you need to know???

What happened? Where is everybody? It's mighty quiet in here?

Sure is quiet.

I'm still waiting for a law or statute to be posted that overrides � 3-1-5...

Unless it has lots of pics I doubt you'll be interested.

Yall Killin me .. Regardless of the law it was wrong for the dogs to get shot. You dont understand those dogs are like our kids. If ya wanna argue the law bring it to Montgomery on the 9th. Im can damn well guarantee The Alabama Dog Hunters Assoc. will be in attendance.

You sure they can find it? Seeing how they cant read signs and all.

The CAB meeting is a waist of time.

I am not in favor of nor do I condone the killing of someones dog for no good reason. But in no way is loosing a dog comparable to loosing one of your children. The only people that I know personally that say that is people that have never lost a child.

Really???? are ya saying since we run dogs we cant read? OMG. thats the stupidist thing I ever heard.

I'm pretty sure he was referencing the inability to adhere to the No Tresspassing signs that the dogs run right past

Which one of ya'll shut down the football forum last time I was here................for start shucks like this?

You haul your kids around in a dog box and let them roam alone miles away from you on other peoples property? Cause I buckle my 5 year old in a booster seat inside the car when we ride and never let him out of my sight when we are away from home. That's how you treat a child. The other stuff is how you treat.....well, a dog.

I agree. I would hate to have to harm another mans dog and I have had beloved pets too. But to equate them with children or losing a child is ridiculous. And I think the average dog hunter probably puts his actual children at far less risk than he routinely does his dogs. At least I hope that's true.

The problem is, you do not understand the legal language of the Law.
Also, you are exempting the act of due diligence in your haste to pronounce guilt.

But, I really am weary of this thread and really don't have anything to prove to you.
I know the Law, you think you do.

BTW, Golden's dogs were not hunting dogs that accidentally crossed a line for those that don't care to read the case. They were dogs allowed to roam at large and broke into the deer pen at Auburn......big difference.

Danny, by your own statements, I must not know the law because I'm not an Attorney. I do believe the same applies to you as well. Pot, meet kettle.

In my profession, I have been dealing with contract law for more than 12 years now. On a daily basis, I read and interpret contractual language as it relates to my profession during the execution of more than $60-million in capital projects that I have been responsible for. To date, I have yet to have a single contractual issue with my interpretations of legal language during my career.

What is your background and experience that deems you more qualified than myself to read and comprehend a statute?

In the end, we will both just have to agree to disagree on what the law means since it is open to interpretation, and the only interpretation that matters is the one expressed by the courts.

However, this thread will be helpful to people who have issues with dog hunters and cannot get relief from their local LEOs. They will now have a statute to use in defense of their land and their rights against dogs at large, whether they are yard dogs or hunting dogs. That was the point of this thread anyway.

At any rate, the fact that there is a law that sides with the private landowner gives them another option OTHER than shooting a dog. Since they have a legal option, maybe, just maybe it won't come down to shooting a dog to keep it off their property.

If dog hunters don't want their dogs shot, then they should embrace this law and do what they can to abide by it. If they say the law isn't applicable, then they give private landowners no other recourse but to take the situation into their own hands.

Which do you prefer a private landowner to do when faced with a neighboring hunter who will NOT honor a landowner's right to keep his property free from dogs?

Andy, that is hypocritical BS!!!!

There are several instances in this thread alone that you have suggested shooting the dogs and claiming self-defense or use the defense that you thought the dogs was going to harm the deer.

Now, on the Law, I have personally dealt with it.
Have you?

Deer Hunters are going to self-destruct from the inside out!!!
As a group they are the whiniest, most griping, cry-baby, SELFISH people around!!!
There are threads on this board complaining about everything from neighbors shooting does, neighbors shooting little bucks, neighbors putting out corn, neighbors looking at deer in headlights, neighbors talking loud at their gates, neighbors dogs barking, neighbors dogs walking through the woods, etc......As a single instance, Hunting Dogs running through a persons property ranks low on number of complaints. So, maybe you should work on 'neighbors' instead of dogs????

Damn, Man.......just go hunting and relax!!!!

It's hard to relax with dogs running around all over the place

Well, looks like you've figured out the law, now all you gotta do is force the LEO's and Judges to agree that free-casting hounds for hunting is illegal and they just didn't realize it. I'm sure that once they all finish patting you on the back for being so smart & reading the laws that they couldn't understand they'll get right to the business of shutting down all the criminal dog hunters.








Where's that "dripping sarcasm" icon when you need it?


.

I have not suggested shooting dogs. What I did say is that there is a loophole in the Animal Cruelty Law that allows for shooting a dog that is threatening another animal.

I don't shoot dogs. I catch and return them to their owners, usually after giving them some water and a little food. Only one I ever shot was growling and showing teeth at me from about 10-feet away and wouldn't back down when I yelled at it.

Danny, I haven't dealt with that law. So, you've had encounters, personally, with the court system or Law Enforcement Officers over the statute regarding dogs at large? Please, do tell. If you've "dealt" with it personally, then you've been arrested under that statute since you're not an Attorney. That's the only way you can "personally deal" with a statute. This should be an interesting story. Can't wait to hear about it...

Fourtunately, I don't have to worry about it as I hunt family land in MS almost exclusively with the only exception being WMA in AL. I don't have to deal with the know-it-all dog owners and their dogs running on the property I hunt. Sure is nice that way.

Hey Einstein, free-casting hounds for hunting is NOT illegal and never has been until the CAB put the permit system in place and started banning it due to the outlaws involved with the sport.

What IS illegal is allowing ANY dog to roam free to the point that it crosses onto another man's property. That, for ANY reason, including hunting, is illegal by the definition of the law on the books.

Whether it is enforced or not is not up to me.