House Bill 2089- Retrieval of Hunting Dog

Status
Not open for further replies.
M. R. Byrd

M. R. Byrd

Well-known member
Anyone familiar with HB 2089, which, I understand, would:

Allow anyone to trespass without permission on private land to retrieve a hunting dog if in possesion of a hunting or furharvesting permit.

I am writing to my representative tonight to get an update.
 
In MN you are allowed to go retrieve a unruly or lost dog as long as you leave your gun behind. No weapon. It is not an issue here. Never seems to be a problem. If I have a young dog and it runs off I am going to find my 1,000$ pup. I think it's a good law here and it does not get abused. If you can't take your gun what can you do really. And it states you must immediately leave.
 
Last edited:
Why would it matter if you had a hunting license or not? What if you were training and the dog went onto private land?

I'm sorry but if my dog crosses onto someone elses land and I need to get it back I'm going to go on in and get it back and deal with the court later. My dog is waaaaay more important than that. But, fortunately I don't have to worry about my labs running off and not coming when called. :D
 
It states that any person in possession of a hunting permit can retrieve wounded game and/or their hunting dog on land posted no hunting/trespassing. In my opinion it would be nice knowing that if you do wound an animal that retrieving it won't get you a ticket. Personally I will chase a wounded bird onto private property if it is within sight and I always leave my gun at the property line. Might not be legal (currently) but its what I see is right. My biggest pet peeve is losing a wounded animal. I try to be as humane as possible.




HOUSE BILL No. 2089

AN ACT concerning hunting; relating to hunting dogs; permitting owners
to retrieve their dogs from posted land.; amending K.S.A. 2010 Supp.
32-1013 and repealing the existing section.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:

Section 1. K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 32-1013 is hereby amended to read as
follows: 32-1013. (a) Any landowner or person in lawful possession of
any land may post such land with signs stating that hunting, trapping or
fishing on such land shall be by written permission only. It is unlawful for
any person to take wildlife on land which is posted as provided in this
subsection, without having in the person's possession the written
permission of the owner or person in lawful possession thereof.
(b) Instead of posting land as provided in subsection (a), any
landowner or person in lawful possession of any land may post such land
by placing identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts around the
area to be posted. Each paint mark shall be a vertical line of at least eight
inches in length and the bottom of the mark shall be no less than three
feet nor more than five feet high. Such paint marks shall be readily visible
to any person approaching the land. Land posted as provided in this
subsection shall be considered to be posted by written permission only as
provided in subsection (a).
(c) A person licensed to hunt or furharvest who is following or
pursuing a wounded animal or such licensed person's hunting dog on
land as provided in this section posted without written permission of the
landowner or person in lawful possession thereof shall not be in violation
of this section while in such pursuit, except that the provisions of this
subsection shall not authorize a person to remain on such land if
instructed to leave by the owner or person in lawful possession of the
land. Any person who fails to leave such land when instructed is subject
to the provisions of subsection (b) of K.S.A. 21-3728, and amendments
thereto.
(d) Any person convicted of violating provisions of this section shall
be subject to the penalties prescribed in K.S.A. 32-1031, and amendments
thereto, except as provided in K.S.A. 32-1032, and amendments thereto,
relating to big game and wild turkey.

Sec. 2. K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 32-1013 is hereby repealed.

Sec. 3. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its
publication in the statute book.
__________________



Here's where I found this at.

http://ksccw.com/showthread.php?t=25465
 
:seem more important for guys that run coon dogs or coyote dogs. most upland and waterfowl dogs listen when being called back lol. we've a couple coon thats would run for miles and have to chase them down only to get some angry farmer out behind his house ripping our butts for trespassing till we let him know why were there, then they usually just say well get him and get on ur way, no real problems. but yes please let us know what u find out. never hurts to know the law!:D
 
I'm not a lawyer, but it sure looks to me like this is now giving anybody with a dog permission to "hunt" anywhere they want.:eek: I don't think this is a concept they should try to explain in one sentence. It literally says that it is legal to enter posted land if you are "following" your dog.

Geez, that's my ENTIRE upland hunting strategy.... Let the dog out and follow her and don't bother her unless she is headed onto land that I don't have permission to hunt.

Now apparently I don't even have to bother to stop her from entering somebody else's property because it's legal for me to "follow" her anywhere she goes unless the owner is on site and asks me to leave.:confused: No, I definitely don't like the way that is written...

I wish it said something about not bringing a firearm onto posted land while following your dog. And maybe a line that says you need to collect your dog as quickly as possible and leave immediately.
 
I anticipated many of you on the forum would be 180 degrees opposed to me on this issue.

Here is the post I made over on ksccw.com

I am a farmer, rancher, hunter, sportsman, pointer owner and landowner near Dodge City, Kansas.

I am opposed to HB 2089. I hunt my GSP with a Garmin Astro and SportDog Shock collar. I do not intend to let my dog enter anyone's property that I do not have permission to hunt and with those electronic devices I have a more than reasonable chance to do that.

Entering a property without permission and landowner knowledge to retrieve a hunting dog, be it a bird dog, coyote hound, coon hound or squirrel dog is encroaching upon the private property rights of the landowner and may raise some ethical and safety issues. Take my property of instance. We manage our property extensively for upland birds, turkey and deer. We are avid bird and deer hunters. The terrain of our property makes it necessary to glass and stalk deer. Especially, during deer season our property is kept very quiet with little if any vehicle traffic. We are in the field before daylight and return after dark and many an observer would never know the land was being hunted, but we are there. First, we will certainly not be very happy if we are putting a stalk on a deer and here comes a hunting dog onto our property and then it is followed by a hunter and or coyote wagon. Second, there could be safety hazards on our property that without communications an unsuspecting person could result in harm to him(her) or the dog.

For years we have had issues with people wanting to get on our land under the guise of "wanton waste". Comments like, "We are on your land because we shot this deer and he(the deer) was walking kinda funny, so we will are here after him." I have known of hunters putting plenty of lead in the air with their BARs at ranges well past their shooting abilities, just hoping a bullet will land somewhere on the deer, thus given them the "right" to pursue the game onto our land under the 'wanton waste' requirements. I think there should be tickets given for 'wanton waste' to those people that are shooting at deer like some 'skyblast' geese at unreasonable distances.

I have seen hunters with dogs throw a rock unto our land to get his birddog to go in and flush a covey of quail or some roosters out.

Again, I am opposed to HB 2089.
 
I don't think anyone is oposed Maynerd. And Kansas CB that's true, it happened more running coon dogs. If a dog was out of sight I would talk to the ajacent owners, If I can find them. Most people understand and want to help you find your dog, every one for the most part loves dogs, and knows what can happen to one lost.

Toad that is just not what happens here with this law at all. If the law would state you can "Not" take your fire arm, what are you hunting.

As KH said, Our Law states you can retrieve legaly harvested animal on private or posted land but must leave if told to leave. Now this only pops up seldom, a bird flys and you drop it just over a fence for example. You double lung a deer and it makes it 30-70- yards on to anothers land and drops. There is the wounded one of coarse, in that case you should comunicate with them, they may let you take your gun for that animal.
This is not Kansas and don't get me wrong I am not telling you Kansas folks how to run your business. Just telling you how it has worked fine here. It has been that way for a long time. Losing a dog is actualy a pretty rare ocasion. Hope you fellas get the laws you all can like, some no one likes.:D
 
Maynard- I see it as better than what we now have- there are some gray areas- it's not perfect

2009 this farm was pounded- almost every day- only a few had permission- only a few had written permission- nobody had the written permission slips on them- the law didn't state you had to have it with you

same thing this season- some got run off- some got ticketed

landowners post the land- are upset shooters are still getting on- some are getting fed up- but they aren't arround to keep an eye out-

you are right though- vehicles can drive the road- shoot- then let their dog out- seen it quite a few times
 
I would suggest that in the real world the use of voltage to keep a dog in line may not always be a possibility or a wise one; while smart, my setters can not read No Trespassing signs or recognize the meaning of purple; and that "stuff happens" when hunting that no hunter desires.
I have had my dog cross a line into the wind following scent...I leave my gun at that fence and find him and retrieve him...from a solid point no doubt.
Shocking him into submission while on point, seen or unseen, is what I will never do.
I will deal with landowners later...my birddog comes first and always will....certainly comes above any and all deer or deerhunting landowner.
Whether this is more a problem in certain areas, with certain hunters, with certain landowners or with certain dogs...I do not know.
This world is becoming smaller and the people are often becoming smaller along with it.
 
Very nice posts. I had this occur just a few weeks back. Dog went on point, 250 yards out, It took me forever to get to him, to find that he was on private property. I still had my gun, but crossed the fence, flushed the bird for him, and we walked back directly off of the private property. Simple and no one was hurt.

I think that this bill seems like a good one. Did I read it correctly, when I saw that if a landowner tells you to get off the property, you gotta get off, regardless of whether or not you get your dog? Or did I misinterpret it?
 
I had an experience with a young dog years ago. Entirely my fault, but applicable here. I had a field trial pointer, derby age, bitch, we were in the Flint Hills, early prairie chicken season, dog had been in Canada running ahead of horses, way ahead. I let her go, and while never out of site, was never closer than several hundred yards! We had permisson to about 2000@. I had passed the 4th section road off the property, when I finally got a rope on her. Law would have helped me then, but I helped myself, and I don't have any dogs like that anymore! Generally, I think if a law is written and everybody hates it, it's probably fair. But there exists a percentage of the population that will probe for the extreme boundry, take the implied shortcut, in general abuse any courtesy, extended by the state or man. Looks like there's room for abuse as current and as proposed. And sure as a hailstorm in June, someones going to take advantage.
 
oldandnew said:
I had an experience with a young dog years ago. Entirely my fault, but applicable here. I had a field trial pointer, derby age, bitch, we were in the Flint Hills, early prairie chicken season, dog had been in Canada running ahead of horses, way ahead. I let her go, and while never out of site, was never closer than several hundred yards! We had permisson to about 2000@. I had passed the 4th section road off the property, when I finally got a rope on her. Law would have helped me then, but I helped myself, and I don't have any dogs like that anymore! Generally, I think if a law is written and everybody hates it, it's probably fair. But there exists a percentage of the population that will probe for the extreme boundry, take the implied shortcut, in general abuse any courtesy, extended by the state or man. Looks like there's room for abuse as current and as proposed. And sure as a hailstorm in June, someones going to take advantage.
Click to expand...

Very well said.

IMHO, allowing the retrieval of wounded game goes too far and is most likely to lead to abuse. In MI you are permitted to retrieve your dog (without a weapon) but not game. Permission must be granted to retrieve game.
 
Good points in this thread.

I don't think there should be an issue crossing a boundary to retrieve your dog IF you leave your weapon at the property line. I too wouldn't want to "zap" my dog off a point, when in fact she is doing nothing wrong. There are also times where you may have marked a downed bird better than the dogs, and you may need to help your four-legged friends locate it. Again, all being done with your weapon at the property line. One thing is certain though, this resolution needs to be re-written. Perhaps they should actually consult the people's land that gets violated first (i.e. the farmers and ranchers).

Deer hunting, that's another story. No doubt hard to regulate without there being lots of gray areas. I have tracked deer across property boundaries. I've also had opportunities to take clean shots across property boundaries, but I refuse to do that. There's these virtues of ethics and morals I learned a long time ago that keep me from pulling the trigger in these instances. It's a shame some people have never learned, forgot or disregarded such virtues.
 
That's my rational for not allowing trespass to collect wounded/killed game. If a guy knows he "has the right" to trespass to follow a blood trail, he might be much more inclined to take a shot which might result in the need to do so. Besides, if the game is wounded, it likely isn't going far. Find the land owner and get permission.

Recovering a dog is on an entirely different level to me.
 
Peterson said:
I will deal with landowners later...my birddog comes first and always will....certainly comes above any and all deer or deerhunting landowner.
Click to expand...

So do I understand that the fact that you have a problem that your dog is on land posted land where you have no permission is now the problem of the landowner? Do I also understand that deer hunting and a deerhunting landowner is beneath the level of a birdhunter and birddog? Just wondering?
 
M. R. Byrd said:
So do I understand that the fact that you have a problem that your dog is on land posted land where you have no permission is now the problem of the landowner? Do I also understand that deer hunting and a deerhunting landowner is beneath the level of a birdhunter and birddog? Just wondering?
Click to expand...

I think the only people that might have issues with this bill are ones who charge trespass fees or thousands of dollars for deer hunts.

Not implying that Im talking about you or singling you out...so Im gonna wave the white flag now, however you were just the last person to post and the one who opposes the bill, hence why Im quoting you.

I see no problem with it.

Bottom line, people who are going to trespass anyways are going to do it regardless if this bill exists or not. The honest guys are always the ones who lose out whether theres a law on the books or not.

Really...why would we need a bill such as this? What happened to common sense and civility? I dont know anyone that would be all jacked out of joint for an honest guy crossing onto his property to retrieve his dog if thats what he was truly doing.

I understand theres plenty of rotten apples out there. Maybe MR, you've just ran across too many bad ones.
 
If my bird dog happen to cross onto private land which I did not have permission to hunt (marked or not), and my dog did not respond when called, I would DEFINITELY go and get MY dog. I would leave my gun at the line though. As for retrieving game, NO. If I shot a deer and needed to trail/retrieve it, If would make every attempt to find out who the landowner was and try and get permission. I that failed then I would leave it at that. As for a bird, probably not unless the owner was obvious and allowed me to do so. I would suggest that the bill be slightly modified to at least allow for one to retrieve their dog.
 
Last edited:
KsHusker said:
I understand theres plenty of rotten apples out there. Maybe MR, you've just ran across too many bad ones.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact I have. I spend between $10K and $20K a year on habitat and I do not outfit or charge trespass fees. People look to get on my land anyway they can. The 'wanton waste' law has been used for years to gain access to my land both for big game and upland game.

The bill, as written, lets a dog owner with valid hunting or furharvesting license have more rights to my private posted property than I do. Under this bill the dog owner & dog trumps my landownership and quiet enjoyment of same. The bill would open up to potential trespass abuses similar to what I have experienced with 'wanton waste'.

Very few things get me fired up, but this issue does. I believe what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours and I respect that and hope that others will do the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top