Did Louisiana's hog-dog fighting law prohibit hunting hogs with dogs?

Plain-English summary

Senator Joseph McPherson asked whether running a hog with dogs violated Louisiana's 2005 Act 111 when injury was a reasonably likely outcome, and whether running a hog with an intent to harvest it was allowed. The AG's first answer was yes: it said a hunt or run violated the act if injury was possible or reasonably likely, even without intent to injure. Its second answer was no for lawful hog hunting aimed at harvesting or killing the hog under subsection (D). The opinion did not explain how those answers fit together when an intended harvest also makes injury likely.

The quoted statute also addressed organized combat and competitive events. Its subsection (C) exception for trained hunting or herding dogs ended where injury, maiming, mutilation, or death was reasonably foreseeable. The opinion's headnote stated that limit. A later sentence nevertheless said a competitive event under subsection (C) would not violate Act 111 after answering the first question yes. The opinion did not explain how that sentence applied when injury was foreseeable.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the AG say hog hunting with dogs was allowed?
A: It said lawful hog hunting for harvest fell within subsection (D), but separately answered that a hunt or run was a violation when injury was possible or reasonably likely. It did not reconcile the two answers.

Did the AG say a hunt was unlawful even without intent to injure? A: Yes, in its answer to the first question. It said foreseeable injury could make the described hunt or run a violation despite no intent to hurt the animals.

Did organizers need to intend to injure an animal for the event ban to apply? A: No. The opinion said the statute also reached organized events where injury to dogs or hogs was reasonably foreseeable.

Were all competitive events with hunting dogs exempt? A: No. Subsection (C) and the opinion's headnote both said the exception ended where injury, maiming, mutilation, or death was reasonably foreseeable. A later sentence suggested that a competitive event under subsection (C) could be exempt without explaining how the limit applied.

Background and statutory framework

Act 111 was codified in LSA-R.S. 14:102.19. The opinion quoted subsection (A)'s ban on organized canine-hog combat with intended or reasonably foreseeable injury, subsection (C)'s conditional competitive-event exception, and subsection (D)'s lawful-hunting and other specified uses of dogs. The AG's answers on foreseeable injury during hunting and on hunting for harvest are both reproduced in the original text below.

Citations

• LSA-R.S. 14:102.19(A), (C), (D) (the provisions quoted and applied in the opinion).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/05-0069

Original opinion text

July 22, 2005
OPINION NO. 05-0069

62 LEGISLATURE – Acts & Bills
Honorable Joseph McPherson
Legislative Act Number 111
State Senator
Legislative House Bill Number 1244
LSA-R.S. 14:102.19
880 Robinson Bridge Rd.
Woodworth, Louisiana 71485
An individual may hunt hogs with dogs for harvesting/killing
under the exception outlined in subsection (d) of LSA-R.S.
14:102.19, but may not competitively run dogs in an event if it is reasonably foreseeable that the dogs, or hogs, would be
Dear Senator McPherson,
injured, maimed, or killed.

This office is in receipt of your opinion request of recent date wherein you inquired the following:

(1) Is it a violation of Act 111 if a person is hunting and/or running a hog with dogs where there is no intent on the part of the participants to injure the dogs or the hog but where it is understood that such injury is possible or a reasonably likely outcome of the hunt?
(2) Is it a violation of Act 111 if a person is running a hog with the intent to kill/harvest the hog?

This office is of the opinion that the answers to your inquiries are found directly in LSA- R.S. 14:102.19 (A), (C) and (D), providing that:

(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to organize or conduct any commercial or private event, wherein there is a display of combat or fighting among one or more domestic or feral canines and feral or domestic hogs and in which it is intended or reasonably foreseeable that the canines or hogs would be injured, maimed, mutilated, or killed.
(Emphasis added).
(C) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any competitive event in which canines, which are trained for hunting or herding activities, are released in an open area or an enclosed area to locate and corner hogs, and in which competitive points are deducted if a hog is caught and held, unless by such actions it is reasonably foreseeable that the canines or hogs would be injured, maimed mutilated or killed. (Emphasis added).

Page 2

Senator Joe McPherson
OPINION NO. 05-0069
Page 2

(D) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the lawful hunting of hogs with canines or the use of canines for the management, farming, or herding of hogs which are livestock or private training of canines for the purposes enumerated in this subsection provided that such training is conducted in the field and is not in violation of the provisions of subsection A of this Section. (Emphasis added).

Subsections (C) and (D) of the statute are exceptions to Subsection (A). Subsection (C) applies to competitive events involving canines that are trained for hunting and herding. Subsection (D) allows for the lawful hunting of hogs with canines, the use of canines for the management, farming, or herding of hogs or the private training of canines.

Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that it is a violation of Act 111, if a person is hunting and/or running a hog with dogs where there is no intent on the part of the participants to injure the dogs or the hog but where it is understood that such injury is possible or reasonably likely outcome of the hunt. It is also the opinion of this office that this is not a violation if it takes place during a competitive event according to LSA-R.S. 14:102.19(C).

The statute, LSA-R.S. 14:102.19(C), does not require there to be an intention to injure (maim or kill), merely the reasonable foreseeability of said occurrence. A “likely possibility” would be reasonably understood by most men to be “reasonably foreseeable.”

Lastly, your second inquiry is addressed in subsection (D). It is the opinion of this office that it is not a violation of Act 111 if a person is running a hog with the intent to kill/harvest the hog. The exception in subsection (D) specifically permits the lawful hunting of hogs with canines. Thus, the logical conclusion of the hunt, harvesting/killing, the hog would be an extension of said exception.

Very truly yours,

CHARLES C. FOTI JR.
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:______
DONALD S. WINGERTER
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
DSW/mv/jy

Page 3

OPINION NO. 05-0069

62 LEGISLATURE – Acts & Bills

Legislative Act Number 111
Legislative House Bill Number 1244
LSA-R.S. 14:102.19

An individual may hunt hogs with dogs for harvesting/killing under the exception outlined in subsection (d) of LSA-R.S. 14:102.19, but may not competitively run dogs in an event if it is reasonably foreseeable that the dogs, or hogs, would be injured, maimed, or killed.

Attn: Senator Joe McPherson
880 Robinson Bridge Road
Woodworth, Louisiana 71485

Date Received:
Date Released: July 22, 2005

DONALD S. WINGERTER
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL