Hog Huntnig With Dogs On TV, Good Or Bad?

[tony270]

When we hunt hogs in the south using dogs we used a catch dog. A catch dog will grab and hold a hog in between the rear flank and stifle muscle, some grab the scrotum but we discourage that. That way the hog can’t go anywhere and the hog can't cut the dog, the only thing the hog can do is lay on the dog. When we get to the hog we capture or dispatch it, and for the most part no dogs get hurt. We use baying houds to find and bay the hog, they don't attack they bay up the hog.

The hog hunts that I see on TV use finishing and fighting dogs, or dogs that don't know how to hold a hog safety. That's just more ammo for the antis to use to have hog hunting with dogs stopped. I'm stating that a bulldog or pit-bull can hold a hog without getting injured, that's one of the duties they're use for.

So is using fighting dogs and dogs that don't know how to hold a hog safety a good thing?

 

[RIFLEMAN]

As a houndsman, I have no practical or ethical concerns with televising the use of dogs to hunt hogs...the practice is very easy to defend from both an ecological and sporting perspective given the ancient relationship between the two animals. That, however, is with the assumption that the hog is not being mauled by the dogs.

Things get a lot more clouded when using dogs that grab the hog, and I say that mostly because I learned long ago that it is unrealistic and futile to appeal to people's sense of logic. The image of a hog being immobilized and squealing (as they do with little justification as anyone who has ever raised hogs fully knows) because of dogs (which are an extension of man) is enough to evoke contempt and anger among the uninformed masses. Thus, for practical reasons, I lean towards not airing such footage. While many people can watch a wildebeest being disembowled by African Hunting Dogs while still on its four feet without little qualms, seeing dogs catching a hog by the ears somehow violates their sensibilities. I suppose it is due to the subjective inconsistency with which people place humanity's relationship with the natural world; those who are most likely to object to the practice of using catchdogs (presumably because it would be cruel to do so) are often the same people who think that humanity deserves no greater station nor consideration than any other species on earth. Whether by misanthropy, humanism, displaced maternalism, or other philsophies or psychological disorders, they advocate for an unnatural disposition of animals (by treating animals humanely) that would not be granted by the animals' peers in the natural world while asserting that humans are no better than any other species in the natural world. It comes down to this: If we are no better than any other species, then logically why should we accord greater care, respect, or similar consideration to any other species when the rest of the species do not?

I fully admit to being host to some inconsistency myself; as much as I pride myself on keenly acknowledging the gory implications to the life-and-death struggles in the natural world and recognize that a young hog might succumb to a emboldened pack of coyotes in a very unsavory manner, I do not want my hounds to catch the hog, but greatly prefer that they stand back and bark. Try as I might, I cannot eliminate the corruptive influence that emotion has on my logic.

 

[bigboarstopper]

My answer> Depends on the tv channel, the publics perception and the intent..

Discoverey channel= yes. They show the sport and action in a more positive light. They portray hogs for what they really are (basically). A non-native invasive species causing ecological and agriculture damage

National Geographic= no. They portray the hunter as a menace killing our natural resources. The dogs as killers of defenceless animals.

Im a houndsman like rifleman. I know where he is comming from. The animal rights groups love it when people post hunting stuff they can use to twist the truth around to gain support and money from. Its their MO. However in a way I strongly disagree with him as well. Look at the way the discoverey channel has portrayed the use of dogs in the show "hogs gone wild". I personally think the hunters they show on the show are complete morons but at least they are showing the dog hunting sports in a positive light. Its all about how its portrayed

Mostly though, I dont trust the public to interpret what they see on tv correctly. Everything people see on tv is considered litteral and factual. Most, if not all the time its nither of the two.

 

[Common Sense]

I've never used a dog for hunting, and have no desire to do so. I am pretty much anti-dog. That being said, if someone else wants to use dogs, that is their business and none of mine.

Should dogs be used on TV shows? The free market will determine that.

 

[tony270]

Thanks for the replies.
It doesn’t mean much but I’m impressed Rifleman.

IMO it’s not farfetched to construe that producing shows like this is a strategy that anti hunters could use to fuel anti hunting sentiment, that could help their cause to sergeantly regulate or banning this type of huntnig.


That’s the show, Hogs Gone Wild, the episode with the hogs being mauled (good description Rifleman). I’ve hunted coon and hogs with dogs and I know how it’s done. It’s almost nothing more exciting to me than getting to a treed coon, the tree vines chewed in half 6’ up and the ground cleared far back, then climbing the tree to shake the coon out so the dog/s can finish it. Even at the end, some die hard hunters can’t take it and ask to have it stopped, not me, but I’ve seen that.

IMO the Rifleman is right; basically the public can watch and accept a pack of wild dogs eating an animal alive. But when man’s best friend does the same thing most think it’s different, but it really isn’t.

It’s not farfetched to construe that producing shows like this is a strategy that anti hunters could use to fuel anti hunting sentiment. On Trapperman dot com some anti’s have been caught employing tactics that are substantially more subversive than what a television show can attempt to do, the antis on TM tried and got names and addersses.

Next thing you know will have more ACE Venturas PD's around.

Be careful.

 

[Huntr Pat]

Anti's will always twist the truth. even if a biological test was shown on the effects of how bad hog can be on farmland or ppls backyard turf.Emotional feelings will take presidence if you're a non hunter and believe all that bambi stuff. Its part our duty to police after our selves in front of the non hunting public. If you see trash while hunting and a non hunter see you near that trash they can or could associate you with that trash. They perceive hunters in a negative way. All they see is hunters hunting for trophy racks etc, We have to work together to change their perspective on us.