http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_...pnpID=909&NewsID=832207&CategoryID=13280&on=0
One Douglas man learned the expensive way that there’s just no excuse for shooting another man’s hunting dog.
According to Macon Attorney Carl Reynolds, Adrian James Teal of Douglas, who claimed to have had 26 years of hunting experience, was ordered Tuesday by a Paulding County jury to pay Gene Brooks of Dublin a total of $10,000 for his hunting dog, Buster.
“I wouldn’t have took that for him. I wouldn’t have took $25,000 for him. He just wasn’t for sale,†said Gene Brooks this morning from Millwood Lodge, where he and his brother, Joe, train dogs, lead hunts and raise their own hunting dogs to use for hunts.
“People don’t realize what dogs mean to dog owners. You get attached to them,†he said, adding he can’t explain how it felt to walk to where his dog fell to find him dead.
“He was just that much to me,†said Brooks. “For the simple reason that I went hunting and when I came home with him you knew you’d been hunting with a real dog. He handled just like a lab. He had just that much sense. He was the most sensible dog I’ve ever owned. He was a pleasure to hunt with and everybody that hunted with him bragged on him. I never had no trouble with him being like a trash dog.â€
Buster is a “Kerr†breed of dog, which is a breed name given by the Brookses to the dogs they raise that are one-half hound, one-quarter bulldog and one-quarter bird dog. Buster was a solid white dog.
Reynolds explained that Brooks, along with his brother Joe and Tripp Neal, were hunting feral hogs in Washington County on property estimated to be a tract of about 6,000 acres near the river. Buster was wearing two fluorescent orange collars, with one of those collars obviously a tracking collar. He had crossed the river, which marked the land line to a hunting club, while in pursuit of a hog. Horne’s associate attorney Joe Boyd said Brooks’ hunting companion, Neal, told him the river was the property line, but before Brooks could call his dog back a shot was heard on the other side of the river.
Reynolds said Teal admitted he was in the deer stand when the dog came near his stand and “ruined his day hunting,†which was the last day of the deer season of January 2005.
Although Teal left the area after shooting the dog and had to be tracked down by Brooks, he admitted to shooting the dog. He also admitted that he knew it was someone’s hunting dog, but that the dog was messing up his deer hunting and it had no right to be on that property. Teal was identified in the shooting by members of his hunting party on the hunting club, where he was an invited guest. When questioned in court, Teal claimed he shot the dog accidentally.
“A hunter who showed such disregard for someone’s hunting dog needed to be held accountable for his conduct,†said Reynolds, a trial attorney with the firm of Reynolds, Horne and Survant. Reynolds said he is an avid outdoorsman and owner of several hunting dogs himself.
Prior to going to trial, Teal had offered $1,500 for shooting the dog. Reynolds said the jury award was twice what Brooks had originally said he’d settle for and about seven times what Teal offered to pay.
Reynolds presented testimony to the jury showing Brooks had spent considerable time and money training Buster and that the dog generated substantial income from stud fees, as well as catching feral hogs.
Boyd said Brooks would take the dog and go to the property of others to catch feral hogs that were causing a problem for the landowner and then when the hogs were caught he could sell them to hunting clubs who wanted hogs on their property.
Brooks said he believes Teal shot his dog and left the scene because like some deer hunters he’s come to know, he hated hunting dogs.
“He just took off, but that ain’t nothing uncommon for a deer hunter to shoot a dog. Deer hunters hate dogs. They just don’t like dogs, I’d say 70 percent of them don’t. I’ve known of them to poison them,†he said, adding some deer hunters will ride down the road near their hunting club or property and pour poison out for the neighborhood dogs to get.
“Their idea is a deer is scared of a dog,†he said, but added his experience has been quite different. He said he has dogs near a stream 200 yards from his house and the dogs can bark all they want to and it won’t frighten the deer who come out of the woods nearby, but if a person is out there and moves then it frightens the deer away.
“The dog barking at them doesn’t bother them...â€
Brooks said Buster was his favorite dog and was worth so much more to him than money.
“He was just above the average dog. I’ve never owned but two like him. His daddy was like that, but he was just exceptional,†said Brooks.
Brooks said he also didn’t buy the accidental shooting story either.
“He wasn’t 25 yards from him. He knew what he was shooting. I had two fluorescent collars on him and one of them was a tracking collar,†said Brooks.
Peter Schmidt of St. Simons represented Teal in the case. He declined comment citing “pending litigation†and said he thought Brooks was going to appeal the judgment because he believed Brooks had wanted $110,000 for the dog.
But Brooks said he is satisfied with what the jury did despite that if Buster had lived the next five years he probably would have made more than $110,000 off the stud fees, puppies ad hunting trips done with the dog, which is where that figure came from.
“It’s over with and I ain’t got to worry about it anymore,†said Brooks.
According to Macon Attorney Carl Reynolds, Adrian James Teal of Douglas, who claimed to have had 26 years of hunting experience, was ordered Tuesday by a Paulding County jury to pay Gene Brooks of Dublin a total of $10,000 for his hunting dog, Buster.
“I wouldn’t have took that for him. I wouldn’t have took $25,000 for him. He just wasn’t for sale,†said Gene Brooks this morning from Millwood Lodge, where he and his brother, Joe, train dogs, lead hunts and raise their own hunting dogs to use for hunts.
“People don’t realize what dogs mean to dog owners. You get attached to them,†he said, adding he can’t explain how it felt to walk to where his dog fell to find him dead.
“He was just that much to me,†said Brooks. “For the simple reason that I went hunting and when I came home with him you knew you’d been hunting with a real dog. He handled just like a lab. He had just that much sense. He was the most sensible dog I’ve ever owned. He was a pleasure to hunt with and everybody that hunted with him bragged on him. I never had no trouble with him being like a trash dog.â€
Buster is a “Kerr†breed of dog, which is a breed name given by the Brookses to the dogs they raise that are one-half hound, one-quarter bulldog and one-quarter bird dog. Buster was a solid white dog.
Reynolds explained that Brooks, along with his brother Joe and Tripp Neal, were hunting feral hogs in Washington County on property estimated to be a tract of about 6,000 acres near the river. Buster was wearing two fluorescent orange collars, with one of those collars obviously a tracking collar. He had crossed the river, which marked the land line to a hunting club, while in pursuit of a hog. Horne’s associate attorney Joe Boyd said Brooks’ hunting companion, Neal, told him the river was the property line, but before Brooks could call his dog back a shot was heard on the other side of the river.
Reynolds said Teal admitted he was in the deer stand when the dog came near his stand and “ruined his day hunting,†which was the last day of the deer season of January 2005.
Although Teal left the area after shooting the dog and had to be tracked down by Brooks, he admitted to shooting the dog. He also admitted that he knew it was someone’s hunting dog, but that the dog was messing up his deer hunting and it had no right to be on that property. Teal was identified in the shooting by members of his hunting party on the hunting club, where he was an invited guest. When questioned in court, Teal claimed he shot the dog accidentally.
“A hunter who showed such disregard for someone’s hunting dog needed to be held accountable for his conduct,†said Reynolds, a trial attorney with the firm of Reynolds, Horne and Survant. Reynolds said he is an avid outdoorsman and owner of several hunting dogs himself.
Prior to going to trial, Teal had offered $1,500 for shooting the dog. Reynolds said the jury award was twice what Brooks had originally said he’d settle for and about seven times what Teal offered to pay.
Reynolds presented testimony to the jury showing Brooks had spent considerable time and money training Buster and that the dog generated substantial income from stud fees, as well as catching feral hogs.
Boyd said Brooks would take the dog and go to the property of others to catch feral hogs that were causing a problem for the landowner and then when the hogs were caught he could sell them to hunting clubs who wanted hogs on their property.
Brooks said he believes Teal shot his dog and left the scene because like some deer hunters he’s come to know, he hated hunting dogs.
“He just took off, but that ain’t nothing uncommon for a deer hunter to shoot a dog. Deer hunters hate dogs. They just don’t like dogs, I’d say 70 percent of them don’t. I’ve known of them to poison them,†he said, adding some deer hunters will ride down the road near their hunting club or property and pour poison out for the neighborhood dogs to get.
“Their idea is a deer is scared of a dog,†he said, but added his experience has been quite different. He said he has dogs near a stream 200 yards from his house and the dogs can bark all they want to and it won’t frighten the deer who come out of the woods nearby, but if a person is out there and moves then it frightens the deer away.
“The dog barking at them doesn’t bother them...â€
Brooks said Buster was his favorite dog and was worth so much more to him than money.
“He was just above the average dog. I’ve never owned but two like him. His daddy was like that, but he was just exceptional,†said Brooks.
Brooks said he also didn’t buy the accidental shooting story either.
“He wasn’t 25 yards from him. He knew what he was shooting. I had two fluorescent collars on him and one of them was a tracking collar,†said Brooks.
Peter Schmidt of St. Simons represented Teal in the case. He declined comment citing “pending litigation†and said he thought Brooks was going to appeal the judgment because he believed Brooks had wanted $110,000 for the dog.
But Brooks said he is satisfied with what the jury did despite that if Buster had lived the next five years he probably would have made more than $110,000 off the stud fees, puppies ad hunting trips done with the dog, which is where that figure came from.
“It’s over with and I ain’t got to worry about it anymore,†said Brooks.
