Use of a dog to get up birds

I have used a dog numerous times to put geese and ducks up off a field so I could shoot them. Get to the field in the afternoon and birds are already in the field, get to the down wind side of the field, send the dog on a line thru the birds in the field. Most birds just part for the dog and land a short distance away. A few birds will usually drop down wind to make an approach to the field. Shoot your goose and go home. Every so often there would be ducks in the fields also. When the limit on geese was one a day it was much easier than setting decoys for one goose.
 
Thanks all for some interesting banter while I was at work today. Too bad tomorrow is Sunday and the driving school down the block is closed. I would have liked to take the dog down to sign her up for a few lessons.As far as ethics go I do believe that is what I probably what I was more upset about with the use of the dog. But I guess my son is more creative and resourceful than me. Thanks all for your responses.
 
T
Click to expand...
How about a laser?
Click to expand...


I like the laser idea..., but damn, after thinking about it I was wrong.... I thought of two times that it is illegal for a dog to flush geese for you... first, if the dog is driving a motorized vessel and second if the dog is driving a sail powered vessel.

T
Click to expand...

You missed one. If that dogm is talking to you using a radio while flushing birds, that too would be illegal. Glad to help out

Mark W
Click to expand...
 
John et al~

Interesting discussion all around - I will have to pay closer attention to who or what is at the helm of other vessels from now on....

The point I want to make here relates to your thoughts about individual enforcement officers: [font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]

"it may get you into some hot water depending on the law enforcement officer that sees this take place. He may question you and the manner in which you " directed your dog to do so."

I am speaking as a career public servant, the son of a law enforcement officer, and the friend of many ECOs. I think we would all agree that the beginning and end of our professional authority is the letter of the law. Any authority we have is conferred upon us through the legislative process and ultimately through laws and regulations. We do not have the freedom to impose our personal opinions, morals or ethics on the regulated public - and we should be punished if we do so.

Certainly there are "grey areas" in the law - and some of the language is open to interpretation. There are some aspects of the "rallying" defintion that are unclear and raise their own ethical questions - but that is a topic for another post.

All the best,

SJS






[/font]
 
My son was out on one of the rivers here on Long Island and got 4 geese. He says he used the dog to to get the geese up and they flew over him and they knocked them down. I told him he could not do that with the dog. Is this correct?
Click to expand...

No diferent than me having my dog flush Quail, Rabbits or Pheasants. That's what they're there for.
 
John et al~

Interesting discussion all around - I will have to pay closer attention to who or what is at the helm of other vessels from now on....

The point I want to make here relates to your thoughts about individual enforcement officers: [font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]

"it may get you into some hot water depending on the law enforcement officer that sees this take place. He may question you and the manner in which you " directed your dog to do so."

I am speaking as a career public servant, the son of a law enforcement officer, and the friend of many ECOs. I think we would all agree that the beginning and end of our professional authority is the letter of the law. Any authority we have is conferred upon us through the legislative process and ultimately through laws and regulations. We do not have the freedom to impose our personal opinions, morals or ethics on the regulated public - and we should be punished if we do so.

Certainly there are "grey areas" in the law - and some of the language is open to interpretation. There are some aspects of the "rallying" defintion that are unclear and raise their own ethical questions - but that is a topic for another post.

All the best,

SJS






[/font]
Click to expand...


Steve -

While I agree with your statement it is not always the case. A true professional can make the right call and enforce the laws as written like they are sworn to do. I have seen many cases where that is not always the way it works. The wrongly accused individual will get there day in court but it will still cost them in the long run. I too come from a family of LEO's and have worked at 2 law firms that represented some of the NY metro areas law enforcement benevolent associations. While 99% of them are very good there are still that small bunch that can and will use their authority as they see fit. Not to get off topic but look what is happening in NY right now with our 2A rights. The governor trashes the constution and tells the sheriffs to enforce the laws that he passes unjustly.

My comments were more of a word of caution. For me I would rather exercise caution or stay away from any gray area. It's just not worth it to get a bird. Maybe I'm a little more cautious than most but I have a lot to loose if my actions get me in uncharted or questionable waters.
 
Where is the "grey area" in the rallying law, seriously I can't see it?

202.jpg



Office of Law Enforcement - Waterfowl Hunting and Baiting www.fws.gov/.../waterfowl-hunting-and-baiting.html Rallying. You cannot hunt waterfowl that have been concentrated, driven, rallied, or stirred up with a motorized vehicle or sailboat. Dressing.



Now if you feed your pup a lot of cracked corn with his dog food you could get in trouble for baiting, assuming they pass through him undigested. But I have found nothing unclear in the rally definitions. If it's there please share and I'll check it out with our DEEP and pass on any concerns to my students in my Hunter Ed. classes.

Scott
 
Scott~

When I think of rallying, I picture someone in a powerboat - probably up on a plane - trying to herd some birds by circling around behind the raft and hoping they will jump and then fly into his/her partner's rig. Easy enough to stay away from that sort of behavior.

In my mind, the grey area comes from several sources.

One is the wording difference between actual regulations and the plain-language documents that reflect them. Another source is that there are frequently minor differences between State and Federal documents, both the laws/regs and plain language documents.


NYSDEC, at its website and in its brochure for hunters says : No person shall take migratory gamebirds:~ by driving, rallying or chasing birds with any motorized conveyance or any sailboat to put them in the range of hunters.
The actual regulations read as follows: New York Code of Rules and Regulations 2.30 (s) (b) (8): by means or aid of any motor-driven land, water, or air conveyance, or any sailboat used for the purpose of or resulting in concentrating, driving, rallying or stirring up of any migratory bird; [I believe but am not certain that this text mirrors the federal regulations]

In my opinion, whoever crafted the text in the brochure did a good job of reflecting the actual language and intent ("for the purpose of") of the regulation.

On the other hand, the USFWS website presents this approach (I am presuming this is a plain-language document and not the regulations themselves - I could not find the regs after a quick Google search):
Illegal hunting methods. Rallying. You cannot hunt waterfowl that have been concentrated, driven, rallied, or stirred up with a motorized vehicle or sailboat. The former (NYSDEC) approach includes the intent of the person (or dog?) at the wheel or helm of the vehicle or vessel whereas the latter (USFWS) uses the passive voice and does not mention intent. So, if I motor past some loafing Brant in my duckboat (but it could also be a non-hunter in a fishing boat, sailboat, jet ski) - I have to pass near them because I need to stay in the channel - and then some of the birds get off the sand bar and fly into a rig nearby and are shot at - are those hunters guilty of rallying? No question that the birds "have been stirred up with...a motorized vehicle".

More commonly, we always regard helicopters as the Brant hunter's friend. Whereas flocks of Brant seldom flee when a fixed-wing aircraft flies over them, a chopper will almost always get them up. When they have come into my rig and I've shot at them, I never felt I was involved with rallying.

The more worrisome "grey" comes when a law enforcement officer stretches the words beyond their legislative intent. (The reason why I responded to John here). From my own experience, unreasonable or excessive interpretations by State or Federal officers is exceedingly rare. Nevertheless, I have encountered some and feel we must always remain vigilant.

Hope this helps,

SJS
 
Thank you Steve,
I can see your point on the grey area concerning waterfowl pushed around by normal boat traffic verse intentional rallying. CT's synopsis reads the same as NY's: "By means or aid of any motor driven land, water, or air conveyance, or any sailboat used for the purpose of or resulting in the concentrating, driving, rallying, or stirring up of any migratory bird;"

On the other hand I still don't see the grounds for a "grey area" with dogs. With respect to LEOs, I do discuss them in class when we go over the regulations. My personal view is that you always err on the safe side of the law because while the CO officer may be one of the nicest guys in the world he/she could be having a really bad day and they know everyne lies to them. You don't want the CO to "interpret" your actions, make it clear your following both the intent and the letter of the law. My example is walking into and out of the woods at times outside the legal deer hunting hours. I use a light weight cloth sock on my gun to both protect them in the low light and to clearly indicate I'm not hunting.

Thanks again,
Scott
 
Last edited:
I will gladly take my chances with ANY LEO or court/judge on this topic... There is no grey area and nothing wrong with a dog getting birds up....
 
My example is walking into and out of the woods at times outside the legal deer hunting hours. I use a light weight cloth sock on my gun to both protect them in the low light and to clearly indicate I'm not hunting.

Thanks again,
Scott
Click to expand...
Being mainly a solo hunter this is something I've always wonder about what other guys do. I always carry my gun or bow into the woods or blind in a case. Something my dad stressed. Even if it's during shooting hours. For instance if I do drop a deer in late afternoon chances are I'll be leaving the area after shooting hours. Same with duck hunting. If I have a cripple to retrieve I may be leaving in the dark and if I'm away from the case after shooting hours I'll always unload when returning to where my case is. No point in giving a CO a reason to find me at fault for something. Same with loading my gun. I typically won't load until it's a few minutes to legal shooting time. No reason to sit in the blind for a hour with a loaded gun with all the ruckus that goes on getting setup before shooting time especially when hunting with a group.
 
The actual regulations are:

"(h) By means or aid of any motordriven land, water, or air conveyance, or any sailboat used for the purpose of or resulting in the concentrating, driving, rallying, or stirring up of any migratory bird;"

There is nothing illegal or even questionable about using a dog, your cat, or your kids as long as they aren't operating the aforementioned conveyances or vessels. I'll have to check a different regulation to see if you could use your falconry bird to flush migratory birds for the gun.

Intent is not mentioned because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is a strict liability statute. A Law Enforcement Officer does not need to prove intent, just the fact that it occurred. Its always good to exercise caution if you are unsure about any aspect of the regulations.
 
Brad,
Not sure if it is a federal regulation but I know in some states you can not hunt with a gun if you are with a party that is hunting with a falcon. Probably just a state thing and I don't think it has anything to do with rallying the birds but the safety of the falcon/hawk.

Tim
 
I've been watching this thread for a couple of days and couldn't quite put into words what I was thinking until now. It's a sad commentary on our sport when folks feel the need to ask whether the use of a dog to flush game is an infraction. We as hunters have become so afraid of breaking any law, no matter how minor, that we spend hours scrutinizing rulebooks in an effort to avoid the possibility of even the most nuanced interpretation of said rules by the lawmen. It's at the point where hunting isn't fun sometimes, what is supposed to be a relaxing day in the field becomes a day of constant stress for even the most knowledgable and law abiding among us, worrying about breaking some unknown-to-us rule. Just sad.

Now for a little story. Back in the day, 1960's, we are hunting broadbill on a tidal rock a hundred yards or so off the beach in a town which is decidedly anti-hunting. I was just a little kid, the hunting party was made up of my father, grandfather, their best hunting pal and one or two of his sons. Everything was perfectly legal in terms of legal distances and so forth, but the local PD showed up to announce that we could not hunt there because the town had a no-discharge ordinance and they claimed several miles out as part of the town. In CT all water below mean high water is "public trust", of which the PD were informed. They didn't want to let us go, so our friend suggested they call his lawyer, who was his brother, and also the District Attorney. Thank you and have a nice day.

This spot was a really good one and we shot there several more times in the next week. The town didn't want to drop the issue, so they pestered the Game Warden to see if he could get us to stop shooting there. The local guy was an old friend of my grandfathers and he was sympathetic to us and agreed that we were ok, but also warned us that the local Federal Warden had also been contacted. This guy was a crusty old fellow (to me at the time 50-something was older than dirt) who rode around in his boat alone or sometimes with a dog, in the dead of winter in 2 footers. Tough old coot. He would check us from time to time in several areas along the coast but never any problem.

We're on the rock in question on a bluebird day, nothing moving. Around the point come a small group of broadbill, right into the rig, some stay, others leave. The dog picks up the dead birds and we decide to have a sandwich. Now around the point comes the old fellow, heading over to check us. Has his dog who proceeds to pick a fight with ours, off to a good start. Asks about the birds, yup just got some ten minutes ago. Of course here comes the punchline, "well I just flushed that flock, you guys shouldn't have shot them".

After some spirited discussion the GW agreed that we had no way to know that he put them up a couple miles down the coast. I don't know what swayed him, that he was a good, fair guy, or that my grandfather allowed that if we were guilty of shooting rallied birds he was guilty of doing the rallying. The good ol' days.
 
Great story. I love it that your grandpa put the guy in his place.

With the fact we seem to have to be so politically correct to day I thought a call to my local CO might be in order. He returned my call a few minutes ago. He reiterated the illegal use use of a motorized vehicle, boat and sail as in the federal discription of rallying birds. He ended with I will never get into trouble using my dog to FLUSH waterfowl. So at least in the counties I hunt I have a CO with some sense. I hope the rest of you guys have the same informed CO's to deal with that I have here.
 
I agree with the camp who believe there is no legal issue here. I have a few favorite haunts where I have an equal possibility of jumping puddlers or pheasants. It does necessitate using only non-toxic loads but I'm not choosy when a legal gamebird flushes ahead of me. I've never considered running or swimming a dog through a large flock of ducks or geese in a field or on a pond primarily because I wouldn't want to educate that many birds at once but also because I'm doubtful it would be productive more than one in twenty tries.
 
If flushing birds with the dog is rallying, I have concerns about my scull boats and jump shooting. When the teal were piling into the otherside of the wetland, I took a walk to get them up and they landed in the decoys for my buddies.
 
That dog was hunting. That should not be a problem, what may be a problem, if you sent the dog on private property to flush the birds so you can shoot them over the river.
Was the dog on private property when he was flushing the birds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top