austin news paper

[TexasHogDogs]

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

[L3Outdoors]

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.

[mradel]

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

[cantexduck]

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.

[Circle C]

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.

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 .

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.

[uglydog]

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!

[Bump]

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.

[hoghunterswife]

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

[rabbiter]

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.

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 .

[madshark]

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?

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

[Mike]

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.

[TrueBlueLacys]

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.

[Black Gold]

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.......