Hunter tells his side of dog’s death

Tue, 02/20/2007 - 4:56pm
By: Letters to the ...

Yes, it is I, the so-called irresponsible, trigger-happy hunter that shot Fender [the pet dog]. I have kept out of this emotionally charged discussion since the incident. I have been attacked repeatedly by members of the community that have been driven by emotion and a one-sided story. Here is my side.
On that day, I was hunting with my fiance on her family’s property. The property is approximately 100 acres. Also hunting that day was my future brother-in-law.
We had been in a stand that was facing away from any populated areas. Our hunting lanes were to the back of the property onto an additional 400 unoccupied acres. We went to the stand on a bright and sunny day.
We had been in the stand a short time when I had the opportunity to harvest a deer. I took the shot and unfortunately missed the animal when it ducked. I then had a second opportunity to harvest another deer. I carefully placed the shot and waited for the animal to go down. After waiting for about 20 minutes, my fiance and I began gathering our gear to go find the animal.
As I stood up, I placed my rifle down and put my gear bag on. We heard a loud noise coming at us from our left. A deer came out of the wood line at a full run for its life.
I was unable to gather my rifle to place a responsible shot on the animal.
Quickly behind the deer, two dogs were running after it. The animals were snarling and growling.
I told my fiance, who is a certified conservation ranger and current sheriff’s deputy, that I was going to shoot one of the animals. I did not see or hear a collar on either animal.
My fiance agreed with my decision and I shot the dog that was in the rear, a brown boxer that was viciously attacking (pursuing) the deer. Once shot, the dog immediately went down and did not move.
We left the stand and hurried to the dog. As we arrived at the animal, roughly 86 yards away, we found it was wearing a collar. We checked the tag, and saw the owner’s name. We called my fiancee’s grandfather. He told us that he knew the owner and where he lived.
As we were getting ready to visit the owner, my future brother-in-law came to us. He told us that he recognized the dog as the same one that had attacked several other deer during his hunt also. My brother-in-law went to find the deer that I shot while we felt obligated to return the dog to its owner.
Mr. Edwards lives three properties over, approximately one-third of a mile away. Not quite the backyard distance as described before.
As we pulled into his driveway, Mr. Edwards met us. I told Mr. Edwards that I had shot his dog because it was chasing deer. I offered my sincere apology and then offered to bury the animal if he wished. He became quiet for a moment before he began yelling, cursing and verbally assaulting my fiance. I again apologized. We placed the animal where he instructed us to and we left. At no time did I try to hide the fact I shot his dog.
The comment was made that I was trying to hide behind the law. I wasn’t trying to hide. I did what I thought was right and lawful.
As I said before, my fiance is a certified conservation ranger and a current sheriff’s deputy. As a conservation ranger, she was obligated to shoot ALL dogs chasing deer.
We honestly thought that the dog was not collared and was likely a dangerous stray. There had been problems recently with wild dogs in that area of Fayette County. This information was obtained from the Department of Natural Resources.
Also, there have been specific problems on this particular property in the past. Family pets and other animals have been slaughtered. With several children in the family, would you risk a vicious animal roaming your property?
Comments were also made about the poor defenseless family pet. What about the poor deer? The dog was chasing the deer to kill it for fun. Stray dogs that run deer rarely eat them, if ever. Why is the dog considered more important than the deer? Someone please inform me as to how animal’s lives rank and why.
The dog was going home eventually to have a nice bowl of human-issued dog food. The deer was going to die for no good purpose.
For those of you that say I was killing the deer for sport, no such thing. Every year I harvest deer for food. I eat venison (deer) year round. Also, my fiance and I hunt deer for her mother. Her mother is severely allergic to beef. One beef taco sent her to the hospital. Her red meat intake is supplied by harvesting deer.
As for the criminal offense, I did not know anything about it until I was notified by mail. I went to the Fayette County Sheriff’s Office and got a copy of the report. The report stated that no criminal offense was committed and that the case was closed.
A comment was made implying that the case was closed to protect another cop. The Sheriff’s Office never knew that I was in law enforcement. No one was aware of my employment until the day I went to court for the warrant Mr. Edwards was attempting to obtain.
As for the warrant, Judge Tinsley did not make a decision that day, nor has he since. An agreement was reached between myself and Mr. Edwards. I agreed, voluntarily, to donate the money. Also, I did not lose my license for a year, just the license I had at the time of the incident.
Another comment really hit me. An individual on this newspaper’s website stated, “For all of you manly hunters out there who like to kill deer and support shooting dogs, try hunting something that can shoot back like a terrorist in Afghanistan or Iraq. It’s more exciting, more competitive, and actually takes some guts to hunt down a guy that can shoot back and actually knows you are trying to kill him.”
My fiance and I serve our country/community everyday. We put on a uniform and head off to work where every day we hunt bad guys that shoot back, not knowing if we will come back. And yes, I have been shot at by one of those bad guys and I made it home. I do know what it is like.
As you have also probably noticed, I have referred to both the deer and the dog as animals through most of this writing. That is because they are. Neither is more important than the other and they certainly are not more important than human beings, or even equally so.
I know most of you will still think of me as the irresponsible hunter; oh, well. This all stems from an irresponsible dog owner that chose not to keep his animal under control. He is bitter and continues to attack me through this newspaper and any way he can. He cannot accept his own personal responsibility for this incident.
I took my responsibility from the beginning by taking the animal back to him and agreeing to donate the money. I could have left the dead dog on my fiancee’s property and the buzzards and coyotes would have devoured him in no time. No one would have ever known what had happened to Fender.
However, as a responsible, kind and compassionate person who believes in doing what is right, I returned the dog to his home with heartfelt apologies. As thanks for my honesty and good intentions I have paid both emotionally and financially and am still being maligned, not just by Fender’s owner, but by people who don’t even know me.
I am comfortable with my actions of that day. I stand by what I did. I do regret that Mr. Edward’s family lost their pet due in part to my actions but also due in part to his own actions.
I have taken responsibility for my actions. When will Mr. Edwards take responsibility for his? And when will Mr. Edwards become mature enough to lay this matter to rest?
Tommy Grier
tdgrier (at) mindspring.com

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by xb2000 on Mon, 03/19/2007 - 2:19pm.

Animals kill due to a need Humans are the only ones that kill for fun.

the_assassin's picture
Submitted by the_assassin on Wed, 02/28/2007 - 4:02pm.

From the hunter's words:

"I was unable to gather my rifle to place a responsible shot on the animal. Quickly behind the deer, two dogs were running after it. The animals were snarling and growling."

So you couldn't aim at the deer but 1-3 seconds later you could hit the much smaller dog?

What we have here is two different versions of country living at odds with each other.

1. The dog owner, who is culpable in this whole mess, depended on having some nearby woods for his friend to play in.

2. The hunter, meanwhile, wants to continue hunting deer on his property, and if a mangy mutt runs them all off there will be no more deer to "harvest."

That all added up to no small tragedy here, and although he's not good at saying it I'm sure if the tables were turned Mr. Grier wouldn't like someone to have killed his family pet, even if it had been "trespassing" on someone else's property.

That said, nothing will bring the dog back and nothing will bring Mr. Grier's reputation back, at least in the eyes of some. There are enough black eyes to go around.

If we had a decent bar around these parts we could invite the two to bury a hatchet under some brewskis and let bygones be bygones.


novic tim's picture
Submitted by novic tim on Wed, 02/28/2007 - 12:12pm.

A friend asked me earlier today my thoughts regarding the actions of Officer Grier. Much emotionally-charged language and opinion has been lobbed back and forth since the incident occurred.

Officer Grier’s been called some pretty derogatory names by folks whom I suspect are otherwise well intentioned.

What makes the most sense here? Is Officer Grier a gun-crazed nut-job (not my words…)? Or, did he act responsibly?

First, what’s the problem with a dog running deer? Well, there are multiple citations for this issue. In a February 9, 2005 article reporting comments from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Chief Conservation Officer Mike Hamm, we read the following:

“When dogs are loose, they naturally chase the wildlife,” Hamm said. “It’s devastating what a dog can do to an animal, especially when they kill it. The dogs are usually well fed at home, so most kills are not made because the dogs are hungry, but rather because of instinct and frenzy.”

“However, dogs do not always kill the animals. Dogs, in their domestication, have lost many of their instincts for making a quick kills, and instead chase, harass, and terrorize wildlife until the chased animal collapses in exhaustion (italics added).”

“For example, if a dog chases a deer, the dog often does not know what to do with it once they catch it,” said Hamm. “Wolves are efficient killers, but dogs will bite the nose off and chew ears,” he said. “The animal really suffers when the dog is just playing around.”

If you really care about wildlife, this is a problem for you. If you don’t understand what’s really happening when a dog runs a deer, that ignorance is now cured. If, however, you’re just giving lip service to caring about – and willing to be a good steward for – wildlife, then you’ve got a different problem. Understand that if humans acted in the same manner a dog does when it runs a deer, we’d be incarcerated for cruelty to animals. So that is the key problem with dogs running deer.

Second, the statement was made that Officer Grier “hid behind” Georgia Code Statute 27-3-49(c). This section of the code states that “It shall not be unlawful for any person to kill a dog which does not have a collar and which is pursuing or killing deer in any locality other than that prescribed by law or rules and regulations permitting such hunting, and no action for damages shall be maintained against the person for such killing.” At issue here is the fact that the dog in question did have a collar affixed around its neck. What I don’t know – and neither does anyone else other than Officer Grier – is whether Officer Grier could see the collar from the distance at which the dog was shot. He indicated the distance was 86 yards. That’s a long way to see a collar.

But what I DO know is this; if you’re going to cite Georgia Code, you’d better review the entire statute. Statute 27-3-49(a) says “It shall be the duty of every conservation ranger to kill any dog pursuing or killing any deer in any locality other than that prescribed by law or rules and regulations permitting such hunting, and no action for damages shall be maintained against the person for such killing.” Statute 27-3-49(b) goes on to say “It shall be unlawful for any person other than a conservation ranger, sheriff, or deputy sheriff to kill a dog wearing a collar, which dog is or has been pursuing or killing a deer.”

Code section (a) tells us unequivocally that a dog running a deer is a serious problem. So serious, that if a conservation ranger witnesses the act, it is his duty to terminate the dog. No choice in the matter; DUTY. Officer Grier isn’t a conservation ranger, so he wasn’t legally required to terminate the dog. However, because of the seriousness of the issue, he was ethically and morally required to do so, so long as the dog wasn’t wearing a collar.

What’s the difference between an ethical hunter and a dog running a deer? An ethical hunter only takes the shot when he’s CERTAIN of his target (and what’s beyond it), and the shot will result in a clean, quick kill. Notice we didn’t use the words “torture”, “harass”, or “terrorize”. That’s what the dog does.

So, from an ethical and moral point of view (if you care at all about wildlife), the dog should have been terminated. Officer Grier did the right thing, both morally and ethically.

More importantly, however, what have we learned about Officer Grier’s character? He could easily have terminated the dog and left it at that. Especially when he found the dog was wearing a collar. The dog had a collar; he wasn’t a conservation ranger, sheriff, or sheriff’s deputy. He was now at personal risk. So what did he do? Took the dog’s body to it’s owner and told him exactly what had happened. That act required character.

And how does Officer Grier get rewarded for doing the right – but difficult – thing? Loses his license to hunt for a year, receives a $1,200 fine (oh, no, wait…it was a donation…yeah, that’s it…), and pays the family $100 for a marker.

Good grief..are we THAT “stuck on stupid”?


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Wed, 02/28/2007 - 1:55pm.

novic tim, you quote all for the correct codes and what other people say about the subject, that was nice of you to look it all up for us.

If "Officer Grier" couldn't see a blue collar on a brown dog at 86 yards then it seems rather suspicious that he was following your code of, "An ethical hunter only takes the shot when he’s CERTAIN of his target (and what’s beyond it), and the shot will result in a clean, quick kill.". Heck man, he couldn't even see what was ON it never mind what was beyond it. "CERTAIN" of his target, he was not.

As far as your statement of "the shot will result in a clean, quick kill." all I can say is the state of Georgia better ban bow hunting where the majority of the time the hunter must follow a blood trail to find the animal.

Why didn't "Officer Grier" simply kill the DEER he claims the dog was chasing? If he could hit a running dog at 86 yards then shooting the actual deer, a much larger animal, should have been easer.

The bottom line is that "Officer Grier" was PO'ed because the deer he came to the woods to KILL by ambushing it with a high powered rifle had been spooked by a dog.

What the judge gave "Officer Grier" was minimally appropriate for his actions. I can only hope that his conviction is placed in his personnel file and will follow him around for the rest of his life.

It's bad enough he didn't consider the consequences of his actions while in the woods hunting, I can only hope he's not as stupid while walking around in public with a gun.


Submitted by GloriaG on Wed, 02/28/2007 - 2:02pm.

Amen!!!

Submitted by bladderq on Wed, 02/21/2007 - 9:52pm.

Wasn't this ingested / digested a long time ago? Anybody want to talk about the new Wally-mart @ the already congested 154 (Sharpsburg-McCollum / Hwy 29) I-85 Intersection? You know the 1 everyone living 12 Oaks & McIn-town need to use. How about the Coweta Commission waiting for a regional decision on the Hwy 34 / Fischer Rd development @ Wynn's Pond? Doesn't anyone read the Newnan paper? Where is John Thompson?
Keep on worrying about the dog and the deer and the butterfly (Heart).

Paved Paradise...Oh, you know...you don't know until it's gone. (J. Mitchell) (sic) on the lyrics to both but U git what I mean.

Submitted by GloriaG on Wed, 02/28/2007 - 2:01pm.

Who keeps bringing it up? Every week?

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Thu, 02/22/2007 - 5:59am.

gives a rat about such mundane things as commercial building around new developments when we have a dog shot or baked. Or, an Anna Nicole Smith on TV for days when we are having hundreds killed and wounded in a stupid war every day! It is a way to forget.
I am reminded of the Roman orgies while the armies were out slaughtering tens of thousands capturing more bounty. (oil).

Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Wed, 02/21/2007 - 9:06pm.

Tommy, I sincerely hope that you exercise better judgment with firearms as a law enforcement officer than you do as a hunter.

I'd hate to read about you emptying the magazine of your service revolver into a three year old who wasn't properly seatbelted at a routine traffic stop. I suspect you'd urge the driver to "take responsibility" for their actions in that scenario as well.


mudcat's picture
Submitted by mudcat on Wed, 02/21/2007 - 8:40pm.

You shot a dog chasing a deer and you actually said "What about the poor deer? The dog was chasing the deer to kill it for fun." And you, of course were out their with you gun hunting deer for ---what?

Do you understand the difference between dogs and deer? Housepets and wild animals?

How do you justify even being there with your gun to shoot down deer (and sometimes dogs)? Thinning the herd?
meow


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Wed, 02/21/2007 - 8:47pm.

mudcat, while I don't condone for a second what this man did, it's a fact that without the hunters the deer would be starving and so would a lot of smaller animals, in one of our state parks in the mountains where there was no hunting the deer had eaten all the vegetation away up to shoulder height and left nothing fot the rabbits and other small animals to eat.


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Wed, 02/21/2007 - 8:47pm.

mudcat, while I don't condone for a second what this man did, it's a fact that without the hunters the deer would be starving and so would a lot of smaller animals, in one of our state parks in the mountains where there was no hunting the deer had eaten all the vegetation away up to shoulder height and left nothing fot the rabbits and other small animals to eat.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.