BC Hunter who shot support dog fined and banned

So someone correct me if I'm wrong...
But my understanding is that in B.C. a dog or pack of dogs if it is chasing deer or any wildlife ..
Will and can be shot on site..by a Conservation officer or I'm assuming ..any LEO
This has been a long held assumption and probably correct in B.C.
We take loose dogs chasing wildlife in B.C. very seriously
And no matter what the easterners in Ontario say.. here..many hunters, shooters would shoot, shovel and shut up
 
Livestock protection laws or dogs chasing wildlife have nothing to do with this case. The hunter made a bad mistake and was charged with it. It's that simple, why it's getting twisted around I have no idea, I guess some can't handle the truth.
 
Mayday_ said:
Don't waste your breath on these old grumpy fossils calling people snowflakes and defending the hunter. They can't help it, their lives are just miserable :)

Dogs get out of fenced properties all the time, mistakes happen. A normal good neighbour will call you up or return your dog, not shoot it. If it's an on going problem then things are different and the dog owner is at fault but to shoot the dog the first time it comes on your property is absurd. You can view your own dogs as "just animals" but you don't have the right to view someone else's dog as just an animal because to them and their children it's not. Killing a dog is way more then just killing an animal. You're killing someone's pet, a family member.
If you have no shame or compassion for killing someone's pet then I feel sorry for you. Maybe some counselling will help with your childhood traumatic stress disorder caused by bad parenting.
Click to expand...

A good neighbor makes sure their pet doesn’t get loose, a good neighbor doesn’t put you in the position where you have to deal with their animal after it’s killed your livestock or one of your own cats or dogs. I don’t care how you look at it in Ontario but in most places in BC if a farmer or rancher catches someone’s dogs running livestock that dog is no different than a coyote or any other varmint that’s killing animals.

9 times out of 10 it’s some ####### that doesn’t care about what their meat head dog is out doing, we got a family on the other side of town right now that’s about to have two dogs go missing as soon as they get out the next time. The “good” neighbors all around them are all ready to take care of the problem that the owners have created and refuse to deal with.
 
pete dobinson said:
Livestock protection laws or dogs chasing wildlife have nothing to do with this case. The hunter made a bad mistake and was charged with it. It's that simple, why it's getting twisted around I have no idea, I guess some can't handle the truth.
Click to expand...

Well technically he did not get charged for shooting a dog. He got charged for hunting wolf in an area with no season.
 
Mayday_ said:
Don't waste your breath on these old grumpy fossils calling people snowflakes and defending the hunter. They can't help it, their lives are just miserable :)

Dogs get out of fenced properties all the time, mistakes happen. A normal good neighbour will call you up or return your dog, not shoot it. If it's an on going problem then things are different and the dog owner is at fault but to shoot the dog the first time it comes on your property is absurd. You can view your own dogs as "just animals" but you don't have the right to view someone else's dog as just an animal because to them and their children it's not. Killing a dog is way more then just killing an animal. You're killing someone's pet, a family member.
If you have no shame or compassion for killing someone's pet then I feel sorry for you. Maybe some counselling will help with your childhood traumatic stress disorder caused by bad parenting.
Click to expand...

I think your demograhics are way off and in B.C. Okanagan we are living the dream
Older guys are more tolerant..But a younger crowd of hard core guys are taking up hunting and shooting
They are the ones that get pi...ed off when they see so called pets running loose
From two of the second hand stories I have heard... the owners were asked to keep their pets under control..and of course they said FU..
Live trap.. then a one way ride..
 
I shot a wolf here on Vancouver Island a few years ago. Prior to that I had only seen two other wolves, running together on a beach in Knight Inlet. I sometimes hunt areas close to Victoria where it is common to come across people walking their dogs so I have always been somewhat paranoid about seeing a "wolf" and making the wrong decision. However, when I saw the wolf that I shot, there was absolutely no question in my mind that it was a wolf. Looking at the pictures of the dog that was shot, I could see how at first glance someone might think it is a wolf, but in a location such as it was, it wouldn't have taken me long to be confident that it was a domestic dog. For those who have actually stared into the eyes of a real wild wolf, they know what I mean.
JP
 
Lots of Black wolves around as well, and they don't look anything like the pictures you normally see of timber wolves!
 
rkm456 said:
The main problem with your interpretation is that you continually circle back to this idea that the dog owners should share equal blame. It's right up there with "Well, she wouldn't have been raped if she wasn't wearing those clothes."
Click to expand...

I get that, (Just to clarify I never said "dog owners", I'm referring this owner and situation only) but my point is and always has been if you don't want your dog to get shot you need to plan ahead a bit, identify dangers, and take the necessary precautions. After all it's your valued family member at risk and you have the primary onus to take reasonable precautions to keep your pets safe. This dog/kennel owner here did none of this but relied on laws and the judgment of others to keep her valued pet safe and she's the one who suffered to loss. If she had not made the decision to ignore the minimum advice of every pet/dog organization across Canada and outfitted the dog with orange it would be alive today (especially while in zone open for deer). Legal recourse after the fact won't change the fact that her dog is dead.

When it's the behavior of others that can determine the difference between injury or not I don't advocate that attitude for riding bicycles, motorcycles, boating, skiing, crossing the street, or any other activity that can be inherently dangerous, you need to rely on yourself to keep you safe as laws alone can't do that. Assess the real physical risks/threats involved and weigh any preventative measures against the trade-off of doing nothing but relying on your perceived rights and good judgement of others. Nor would I walk into a ### biker bar wearing leather chaps and no underwear just to prove a point of trust and entitlement.
 
Last edited:
Jaylegger, I understand the point your making. I take precautions when I take my golden retriever out for a walk, I usually walk her in areas that aren't open to hunting. There are people, especially women, that don't know when hunting season is and there's lots of city folk like that. When your carrying a firearm your responsibility is way higher than somebody walking their dog and all of us hunters need to remember that.
 
Jaylegger said:
If she had not made the decision to ignore the minimum advice of every pet/dog organization across Canada and outfitted the dog with orange it would be alive today (especially while in zone open for deer).
Click to expand...

I can't believe how you continue to go on, and on, and on, about how part of the blame falls on the dog owner. The hunter shot a dog, which he misidentified as a wolf in an area where there was no legal wolf hunt - and yet, you continue to argue that there were mitigating circumstances. There weren't, the hunter is entirely at fault for this accident.

You're practicing what scholars now refer to as "whataboutism":

whataboutism | ˌwɒtəˈbaʊtɪz(ə)m |
noun [mass noun] British
the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue. Also called whataboutery: the parliamentary hearing appeared to be an exercise in whataboutism.
Click to expand...
 
7ECA said:
I can't believe how you continue to go on, and on, and on, about how part of the blame falls on the dog owner. The hunter shot a dog, which he misidentified as a wolf in an area where there was no legal wolf hunt - and yet, you continue to argue that there were mitigating circumstances. There weren't, the hunter is entirely at fault for this accident.

You're practicing what scholars now refer to as "whataboutism":
Click to expand...

The daftness of some boggles the mind. Have you even attempted to comprehend my point??
 
They are planning a hunting closure in the area where this took place. Hunters and shooters will often lose when it comes to land use conflict. There is virtually no real danger to continuing to allow hunting here, but they will close it anyway.
 
7ECA said:
Your point being that the dog owner is to blame, because they brought their dog to an area where someone was illegally hunting wolves?
Click to expand...

WTH? Are you serious?? That's your takeaway? The shooter was hunting deer... Strawman much?
 
Last edited:
Jaylegger said:
I get that, (Just to clarify I never said "dog owners", I'm referring this owner and situation only) but my point is and always has been if you don't want your dog to get shot you need to plan ahead a bit, identify dangers, and take the necessary precautions. After all it's your valued family member at risk and you have the primary onus to take reasonable precautions to keep your pets safe. This dog/kennel owner here did none of this but relied on laws and the judgment of others to keep her valued pet safe and she's the one who suffered to loss. If she had not made the decision to ignore the minimum advice of every pet/dog organization across Canada and outfitted the dog with orange it would be alive today (especially while in zone open for deer). Legal recourse after the fact won't change the fact that her dog is dead.

When it's the behavior of others that can determine the difference between injury or not I don't advocate that attitude for riding bicycles, motorcycles, boating, skiing, crossing the street, or any other activity that can be inherently dangerous, you need to rely on yourself to keep you safe as laws alone can't do that. Assess the real physical risks/threats involved and weigh any preventative measures against the trade-off of doing nothing but relying on your perceived rights and good judgement of others. Nor would I walk into a ### biker bar wearing leather chaps and no underwear just to prove a point of trust and entitlement.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, you make a bunch of valid points, but they're all overshadowed by the actions of the poacher. This dog owner doing something stupid doesn't negate the fact that the pacher did something much dumber.
 
rkm456 said:
Here's the thing, you make a bunch of valid points, but they're all overshadowed by the actions of the poacher. This dog owner doing something stupid doesn't negate the fact that the pacher did something much dumber.
Click to expand...

That in some way is the point, the actions of the what you call "poacher" without any evidence to suggest this is the case is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters to me is that this owner is now without her beloved dog. She relied on someone else to ensure her dogs safety despite ignoring the most basic common sense advice from those in the know. Yes the shooter completely f'd up and was too hasty in his decision but in the end he's out a few thousand and 4 years without a firearm license. She's out a valued pet and family member for some time.

I feel like I'm just smashing my head against a wall here. Is this concept really that difficult to understand or are you just purposely being difficult?
 
Jaylegger said:
That in some way is the point, the actions of the what you call "poacher" without any evidence to suggest this is the case is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters to me is that this owner is now without her beloved dog. She relied on someone else to ensure her dogs safety despite ignoring the most basic common sense advice from those in the know. Yes the shooter completely f'd up and was too hasty in his decision but in the end he's out a few thousand and 4 years without a firearm license. She's out a valued pet and family member for some time.

I feel like I'm just smashing my head against a wall here. Is this concept really that difficult to understand or are you just purposely being difficult?
Click to expand...

We rely on others to ensure our safety literally every day. It's not the dog or owners fault that this guy is a moron.
 
rkm456 said:
We rely on others to ensure our safety literally every day. It's not the dog or owners fault that this guy is a moron.
Click to expand...

And it's not her fault she or he is a moron. But she's the one without a dog. Lot's of morons out there, protect yourself.
 
Last edited:
Jaylegger said:
I feel like I'm just smashing my head against a wall here. Is this concept really that difficult to understand or are you just purposely being difficult?
Click to expand...

Apparently it’s hard for you to understand that defending the hunter or putting blame on the dog owner is idiotic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom