Not a good optic from a CT Hunter

[grampy]

Doesn't matter if the hunter mistook the dogs for coyotes, or not. He made a mistake........twice! And now has to pay the piper. Some domestic dogs do look like coyotes. But if you know your animals, there really should not be any doubt. Not like he was hunting the back country. He was hunting an area with lots of houses near by. ALWAYS be sure of your target! Like stated above, if you're not 100% sure, don't shoot! Us hunters are responsible for every shot we take. And once we let the shot go, there is no taking it back. No excuses!!

[phade]

9 minutes ago, grampy said:

Doesn't matter if the hunter mistook the dogs for coyotes, or not. He made a mistake........twice! And now has to pay the piper. Some domestic dogs do look like coyotes. But if you know your animals, there really should not be any doubt. Not like he was hunting the back country. He was hunting an area with lots of houses near by. ALWAYS be sure of your target! Like stated above, if you're not 100% sure, don't shoot! Us hunters are responsible for every shot we take. And once we let the shot go, there is no taking it back. No excuses!!

I don’t know about the legal system but I think intent can be a factor in some scenarios around charges and penalties - no clue about this one but charges like murder 1, 2, manslaughter etc I think takes into account some of that intent or planning. Zero clue if that applies to this situation though. I wonder if the legal system would view this guy being dumb negligent and making a mistake vs a willful intentional plan to kill them dogs as different applications.

[grampy]

2 minutes ago, phade said:

I don’t know about the legal system but I think intent can be a factor in some scenarios around charges and penalties - no clue about this one but charges like murder 1, 2, manslaughter etc I think takes into account some of that intent or planning. Zero clue if that applies to this situation though. I wonder if the legal system would view this guy being dumb negligent and making a mistake vs a willful intentional plan to kill them dogs as different applications.

I agree with you Brad. We have no idea what intent he did, or didn't have. But the cold hard truth is, he shot something he shouldn't have shot..........twice! By not being 100% sure of what he was shooting at. And that falls on him. In my own mind, there is no mistaking a german shepard for a coyote. Sure the dogs do look similar. But no way do they look exactly like a coyote. Enough differences between the two, to distinguish between them. It's our responsibility as hunters, to know the difference. If you don't know, or aren't sure. Don't shoot! Simple as that.

[Marion]

18 minutes ago, phade said:

I don’t know about the legal system but I think intent can be a factor in some scenarios around charges and penalties - no clue about this one but charges like murder 1, 2, manslaughter etc I think takes into account some of that intent or planning. Zero clue if that applies to this situation though. I wonder if the legal system would view this guy being dumb negligent and making a mistake vs a willful intentional plan to kill them dogs as different applications.

Dogs in CT are considered personal property. So unless intentional it's not a "crime" per-se however still horrific for all involved. Now if one was to go "hey those dogs at my neighbors bark all day long they should be poisoned" and such hypothetical individual did such a heinous act then they would be charged in a criminal manner and very rightfully so. But this appears to be an accidental deal. Doesn't make things any less terrible but I don't believe given the minimal info we have in the case that it was intentional killing of pet dogs

[Ogee]

There will also be a civil component to this and they don’t need a conviction or admission of guilt on the criminal end either; but that would surely help the case I would think.

He better hope he can afford a good lawyer.

[mowin]

And why would you cut the heads off if having the hides tanned and you thought they were coyotes?  

That alone has me leaning towards him knowing they were dogs, or at the least realizing they were dogs after shooting them and it was a sad attempt to give himself a out if he got caught. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by mowin

[phade]

18 minutes ago, mowin said:

And why would you cut the heads off if having the hides tanned and you thought they were coyotes?  

That alone has me leaning towards him knowing they were dogs, or at the least realizing they were dogs after shooting them and it was a sad attempt to give himself a out if he got caught. 

None of us know but the article can be misleading - was he thinking of doing a euro/skull mount too? People do that with yotes all the time. We have to remember that article is written by someone clearly not a hunter. It doesn’t say he skinned them after cutting the head off or before with clarity.

Heck I cut the heads off my bucks and I’m getting them shoulder mounted. Did after skinning but still. Who knows I guess but that fact alone doesn’t provide clarity to me. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by phade

[mowin]

6 minutes ago, phade said:

None of us know but the article can be misleading - was he thinking of doing a euro/skull mount too? People do that with yotes all the time.

That's a possibility, but just ask the taxi for the skulls back. 

Lots of info missing from the article. Questions we probably won't get any answers to if the judge approves the  accelerated rehabilitation BS because it sounds like everything stays sealed if that's approved. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by mowin

[Marion]

19 minutes ago, mowin said:

And why would you cut the heads off if having the hides tanned and you thought they were coyotes?  

That alone has me leaning towards him knowing they were dogs, or at the least realizing they were dogs after shooting them and it was a sad attempt to give himself a out if he got caught. 

Guess you've never caped out an animal for tanning

[2BuckBizCT]

1 hour ago, Marion said:

Why lifetime ban on fishing as well? Hunting sure but fishing too?

I just assumed sporting licenses all go together. But who knows.

[phade]

1 minute ago, mowin said:

That's a possibility, but just ask the taxi for the skulls back. 

Lots of info missing from the article. Questions we probably won't get any answers to if the judge approves the  accelerated rehabilitation BS because it sounds like everything stays sealed it that approved. 

That’s not how it works when you skin a yote. You skin the whole animal and provide the pelt to the taxi, or you freeze whole/fresh and drop off. It’s not often like a deer cape job most ppl see where the head and upper neck is given to the taxi. It’s equally unclear if he did that to cover up or it was part of what he thought was two yotes and the process to get a euro and pelt tanned.

[mowin]

1 minute ago, Marion said:

Guess you've never caped out an animal for tanning

Yep.  Always left the head on for the taxi to do the final skinning.  This guy didn't shoot a couple does that he wanted to have the hides tanned.  99% of the predator pelts are tanned with the head on. 

[mowin]

4 minutes ago, phade said:

That’s not how it works when you skin a yote. You skin the whole animal and provide the pelt to the taxi, or you freeze whole/fresh and drop off. It’s not often like a deer cape job most ppl see where the head and upper neck is given to the taxi. It’s equally unclear if he did that to cover up or it was part of what he thought was two yotes and the process to get a euro and pelt tanned.

Then why cut the head off?  Do not most pelts get tanned with the head on? 

If the entire critter is skinned, no reason to cut the head off.  You already have the skull for a euro. 

Lots of guys, like myself, are not comfortable skinning out of skull, lots of delicate tissue that someone without the experience can mess up.

Edited February 28, 2023 by mowin

[Marion]

4 minutes ago, phade said:

That’s not how it works when you skin a yote. You skin the whole animal and provide the pelt to the taxi, or you freeze whole/fresh and drop off. It’s not often like a deer cape job most ppl see where the head and upper neck is given to the taxi. It’s equally unclear if he did that to cover up or it was part of what he thought was two yotes and the process to get a euro and pelt tanned.

To be fair he could have skinned out the easier parts similarly to a bear. Maybe he's not as good as skinning out a head. I know I can't skin out a deer head but I can definitely skin a deer and leave the head attached to the cape. 

[phade]

4 minutes ago, mowin said:

Then why cut the head off?  Do not most pelts get tanned with the head on? 

When you skin out an animal, you skin out the head too. Then you cut off the head/skull from the carcass for a euro or for mounting.

just like this: 

Edited February 28, 2023 by phade