EAST TEXAS HOG DOGGERS FORUM

Has anybody read the Austin American statesman's sports page today. there is a interesting artical about hog hunting I was wondering what yall's thoughts were.        http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/outdoors/0419legcol.html                                                         

   Yes. Shows how the media will turn a story and words around to make a story.

I just hate to see such an article come out in times such as this when there is so much in the legislature about dog wrights especially in the Austin paper as liberal as it is

JMO but if I was that hunter I would get a good legal counsel and be ready for the worst. That artical will have some negative feed back in the Austin area, and your right it couldn't of come at a worse time even though I know that is not what was intended by the men interviewed in the artical. You just can't tell a story like that to the paper and let them run freely with it.

  Pretty sure no laws were broken. So why legal counsel. No need to beat around the bush.

 The picture was sent by me. The story that was printed did not come out of my mouth like that. The writer already had most details when I was contacted. It was read on here first I would assume.

Pretty sure no laws were broken. So why legal counsel. No need to beat around the bush.

I think his idea was that the animal rights activist might try and make something out of the fact that he put his dogs in danger!  but thats Hog Huntin

I can not speak for L3 but HSUS and Peta can bring lots of trouble for you and god knows there is a lot of those whack jobs in Austin that would take a story like that and run with it I believe the the good counsel was to protect your self

sucks that our heritage is such a touchy subject. a man cant even be proud and brag a little in less its in private.  ??? i find that the general population doesnt have a clue to the realities of the facts of life ! have to be careful who you tell your stories to dont ever know how they will be inturpreted...... my.02

that story makes hog hunters look like they are careless to go back and get a hog like that. i hate to hear that dogs were killed but thats just how it is sometimes.

amen Dirty dog. It sucks that a reporter would git his fax wrong and wright a story like that don't it and yes you are wright most of the general public don't have a clew that is why in my opinion we as hog hunters and dog men have to be care full what gits out to the public because of people like Peta supporters that will just focus on the bad and not the good

I don't know if any legal issues will arise, but I think that it is very careless to send this picture along with this story to a publication such as the Austin American Statesman.  You must have known that radicals such as PETA would have a field day with this kind of story.  As it has been said, there is a lot of legislation floating around that could make it difficult on us dog hunters.  This is the kind of story that could sway a non-hunter to an anti-hunter.  Not good publicity at all.

That being said; I'm glad you killed the big hog; .22, .357, & deer rifle or not.

JMO
  folks we need to think about the stories we write and the pictures we post.
 instead of writing about how many dogs get cut and killed  and showing bloody hog pictures with ears chewed off
and multiple stab wounds, yall know the ones i am talking about lets leave those stories for the tail gate and  select gatherings of fellow hunters
  we need to take pictures of corn fields plowed,fences ripped down,turkey,quail nest rooted up, not to mention the ones of goats calves and fawns gobbled up like a big garbage disposal.
 we all know the damages these  vermin do to the landscape and wildlife,and see it just about everytime we go hunting take pictures of that and post them  dont give the radicals ammo to use against ourselves.
 we all need to do our part to preserve our rights and heritage and as bad as i hate it we are going to have to keep it all to ourselves when it comes to the bad parts of the  hunt
        just a thought id been  wanting to say alot of our problems we bring upon ourselves
              Dexter

Dexter is right on with his statement. We are dealing with RADICALS they will work twice as hard to stop hunting than hunters will to keep hunting. With there being NO WRITEN LAW saying its legal to hunt hogs with dogs people need to keep a lid on the bad things and focus on the positive till we can get a law saying it is a legal means of taking a hog. I sugested the legal counsel beause some wack job will try and press animal cruelty charges, or come try and inspect the dogs and kennels. The charges will probley fall through the cracks but it will be a hassle for you.

cantexduck
      L3 might has a good ideal on the legal problems that might arise
          as some of  law enforcement friends say and ill quote
          "You might bet the rap,but you wont beat the ride popo
                   
right now we are the farmers and ranchers best resource for ridding Texas of the pest, til they  encroach the cities and suburbs more and root up the gardens and manicured lawns and golf courses more  we have to lay low and wait for them to beg us to rid them of the
hogs that cost them big bucks  like a old ad said "you can pay me now,, or you can really pay me later"
       ;D  Dexter

it is deals like this that opens the wrong peoples eyes. i dont understand why every body wants to be so public when you know there are people right now that are strongly against this. what people dont know about dont hurt them but when they read it or see the graphic pictures people put on here and everywhere else sooner or later someone thats against it is gonna see it and stir up a bunch of bs.   

I think that we can all learn something from this sitiation.  Mike is no more in the wrong for putting is story in the paper then any of us are for putting our stories with pictures on this PUBLIC forum.  There are nearly 1000 members on this forum and probably 3-5000 people (guess) that view it on a weekly basis.  We all need to be more aware of how we tell stories post pics etc.  I don't think it is going to do anyone any good to beat Mike over the head with this and I am not going to keep a post open just so that can happen. 
Matt

People are over reacting to this. I thought the editor made a decent argument about the negatives of hogs and showed how the catch dog is suppose to be protected.

It would have been best if it did not talk about the dogs getting killed.

However, I would be willing to bet that most of the people here would have liked to brag about their kill and allowed a paper to write an article. That is what almost every post on this forum is about.

Austin is full of idiots and ignorance and he might get some hate mail, but I think it is better to stand up for what we do rather than hide and point fingers.

When I heard about this I wondered how hard that reporter had to search to find the story.  I did a google search of Mike's name and home town.  On the SECOND PAGE of the results was a link to bowhunters.com discussion forum to the story.  This was simple to find!!!  We all really need to be careful of what we are putting on the internet.  I am guilty too!!!  But this should serve as an example to all of us, the content on this site is read by the entire world, not just hunters.  It sux that we have to do this, but Dexter and L3 are right we really need to choose which pictures to post.

That being said, Mike I know that you never saw any of this coming.  I don't blame you, you killed a big hog and have every right to be proud of it.  It sux that reporter did you like that, but maybe we will all learn from it.

Can someone explain to me what was wrong with the article? How does it shed a poor light on hog hunting?
I personally thought the reporter wrote a fair and unbiased article about the hogs. The damage they can do to crops, and the risk of hunting them with dogs.   Nothing I read sounded any different than what I read on here daily.

At what point to dog hunters stop being afraid of what the anti's think, and start standing up for their rights as dog hunters?

Chris I kind of thought the same thing, but wondered if I was wrong because everyone else seems to think it showed hunting in a bad light. I thought it was a nice article, yeah your gonna have people complain, but somewhere, someone is always gonna gripe about anything you do regardless. lol

The thing about it is there was noting wrong with what Mike did but it gives the anti's plenty of ground to stand on if they  use it  aginast dog hunting .  This world is not what it use to be and the people in it have changed so we have to live with the change and change ourselfs are else we suffer from the anti's pure igroance of the hunting world .  They don't see things as we do and in there eyes the animals have more rights than the people do thats were the problem is.  When a animal has more rights than its owner does are the animal that is being hunted has more rights than the hunter does then noting good can come from that.  Point is when dealing with the press are media  sometimes less said best said.

TexasHogDogs

Jim

It's pretty hard to stand up for your rights when there is not writen law saying you can hunt with dogs. With no law to back you up you cant say its your legal right to hunt hogs with dogs. Get a law first.

I did not post this with the intent of blasting Mike I posted it with the intent of trying to make other dog hunters aware of how things can be seen in a negative lite to none hunters and animal wrights people

  I know. If anyone feels the need to bash me please send it via pm . Negative comments in view of the public is just going to add to the fire. Like I said, I made a mistake. It was not my intentions in any way. I was proud of the hog we (chris and I ) killed. The same motivation that fuels us all to post threads , etc. I messed up.

L3,
 Don't most laws say what you cannot do as opposed to what you can do?  Hogs are allowed to be hunted by "Any Legal Means" per the State of Texas...Additionally the federal government specifically allows hog dogging in the state of Texas, I take that to mean that it is perfectly legal to do so. Precedent has been set that it is legal. At least to this lay person.


Jim,
   This is where I am torn. I agree that the world is changing, but that does not mean we must be in constant fear of the anti's.  The problem with hunters is this,  we are real quick to jump a fellow hunter, and to be divisive. Yet, most hunters will not take the time to show the general non-hunting public that there is a reason we do what we do. It does not all have to be blood and gore, it can be explained that the dogs are "working dogs" and they are used as a tool. Explained that they wear kevlar vests similar to what a LEO uses, and yes there are risks involved, but that "working dogs" are the most effective manner in controlling the spread of feral hogs.   I believe that the absolute worst thing we can do is to keep to ourselves, and not INFORM the public.

    Go to a Trailblazer's event sometime and see the positive reaction that kids and adults alike experience when being properly educated about hunting with dogs.  

  Seems to me the article in question pretty well presented a hog hunt with dogs. I don't think the reporter dwelled on the negative myself.

Chris presented a pretty good point.

I have already talked to Mike by PM. I read the article before I read alot negative remarks about it. Therefore I was not biased. My opinion the article was not written biased either. It presented the facts, and by the writers comments, I do not feel he was biased but wrote the article very well to the general public to allow them to make up their own minds, I find that rare these days, so very good job Mr.Leggett!

Here lies the problem, when talking to reporters, they have a way of presenting it in their own opinion in a way to influence the their readers. Therefore it can be very dangerous to talk to reporters at all, if you don't want your words twisted and turned against you, the dog hunting, and hunting in general.

Some of you may remember an article that came out in a Dallas free publication, then it was reprinted in the Houston edition also. Scott Trammell a dog hunter and owner of a bay pen in Nixon, had only the best intentions and prepared to present Hog Dog Hunting in an educational manner. However when the paper was printed it caused alot of havoc, Scott was ectremely embarrassed. He had spent alot of time and trouble to take the writer along on a few hunts. The article presented them as blood thirsty rednecks, that were teaching this blood sport to children and cruelty was apparent.

Sooooo... If you feel the need to speak to a reporter, please research their background and find out who you are dealing with, make sure they are hunters, farmer, or rancher supportive, and go out of your way to choose your words carefully. The writers are trying to do a job, earn a living, and the more interesting their story the more oppertunities they have to get paid, in turn will usually mean writing controversial subjects. I am contacted a few times year, I will take the time to speak to them, however, they usually decide my version, is not interesting enough to write about, and that is the end of it!

Nice picture Mike and I thought it was a pretty good story! Don't think you messed up because you caught a trophy and had a good story to tell.

Negative feedback or not, you didnt do anything wrong from my perspective. Like I said earlier....It may have been best if it were not known that 3 dogs were killed but good story none the less.

There is no need to get legal counsel or admit to something you didnt do. No laws were broken. Hunters, especially dog hunters should stand up and back this sport rather than think it needs to be hidden and worry what others will think.

mike i think you were in the right to tell your story there is nothing wrong with wanting to show off something that you are proud of.  dont worry bout the neg. feedback that you will get thats just how some people are. i think that you will have the support you need to deal with this from the hunters here. you have mine.
                                                    Mandy

I can only fully agree,hiding away does nothing to get the general public viewing hunting as a exceptable sport .I saw nothing wrong with the reporters story ,who told it the story of the hunt the way it is ,ruff ,tuff ,down & dirty.The only thing I would question is the hunters choice of a .22 to kill large hogs is that a law thing in more populated areas over in the states? I'm sure the hunter feels bad about wounding the animal ,something that can happen no matter what  gun is used ,but once you do so ,that tends to make for one mad hog . :)

Ditto!  Seems a lot of folks are way over thinking this.

I didn't find anything wrong with the article other than he should have left the part about the dogs being killed out.

There's no reason for us to "hide" what we do, promote it in a positive manner to the general public and you'll find that most folks are all for it.

Mike, you did fine and I wouldn't worry about it.

I see nothing wrong with the article itself. The headline is sensational. But I worked for the Austin American Statesman, and I can tell you that the reports have nothing to do with the headlines, that is 100% the responsibility of the copy editors. But I think Mike Leggett did a fine job of presenting a balanced story. After all, it is true that three dogs got killed. It is also true that hogs are incredibly destructive creatures that need to be controlled by people like Mike. If you want one truth in the story, the other comes with it, that's the reality of journalism. It has nothing to do with a crazy liberal bias and everything to do with researching and reporting the facts.

So some will say if you don't like some of the facts, just hide the whole story. Considering that far worse stories are sitting around the Internet ready to be read and judged by anyone with a computer, I think that is PR suicide. I agree with Circle C that people need to stop running scared and start representing the sport in a positive light. If you want to lose your rights, the quickest way to do that is treat hog dogging like a shameful blood sport rather than a legal way to control vermin. Sure, pictures and stories will ruffle a few feathers, but a thread like this where everyone scream about the sky falling will ultimately raise more eyebrows.

That the Statesman has a hunting column at all is pretty impressive. I've been trying to place the Hunt for the Hungry story in various publications around Texas and am having a biotch of a time doing it. It isn't the dog part that turns them off, it's the thousands of pounds of dead pigs part that gets to them. For many, hunting is hunting, and unless you share stories about the reasons behind, the reputation of you folks as Bambi killers won't go away anytime soon.

I see nothing wrong with the article.....You are gonna get some negative, especially in the Statesman......Mike could have shot that hog with a rifle and never used a dog and if it got to the Statesman there still would be negative uproar from the anti's in Austin about killin' a poor helpless piggy.........Dealin' with the anti's is part of the recipe these days.......