- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,003
More hounding of state hunters could be on the way
By Ed Zieralski, San Diego Union-Tribune
February 23, 2003
We have become numb to the attacks on hunting in this state.
Witness the recent call by animal rights activists to back a bill in the California Legislature that bans the use of hounds to hunt black bears. It's an issue that has raised its furry head before, and now it's rolling along in Sacramento without so much as a yelp from the outdoor community.
Earlier in the week, the Humane Society of the United States issued its latest howl and called for the California Legislature to pass A.B. 342, "a bill to ban the cruel and unsporting practice of hounding of black bears."
Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-Beverly Hills, introduced the bill, which has the Humane Society, the Animal Protection Institute and the Fund For Animals as co-sponsors.
What Californians have to decide, and rather quickly, is this: Are we going to continue to let liberal, city-based politicians such as Koretz and out-of-state animal rights organizations manage our wildlife?
We lost the right to hunt cougars because the Department of Fish and Game fell asleep in the early 1970s and hunters didn't react soon enough to protect their right to manage the state's top predator.
By the time the mountain lion propositions hit the ballot box in 1990 and 1996, the anti-hunting organizations had taken too strong a hold here, and their advertising blitzes and rabid passion were no match for asleep-at-the-trigger hunting dis-organizations.
What has to be stressed in this latest battle is that hounds are just one method of hunting bears. And although it can be dangerous for both the dogs and the hunter, it's the most practical and ethical tool for doing the job.
Yes, chasing a bear with hounds may not sound like a fair chase, but it is, and here's why:
By treeing a bear with hounds, the hunter has the option to shoot the bear or pass on the shot. If the bear is young, or it's a sow with cubs, an ethical hunter will pass on the shot.
That same option usually isn't available for a stalk-and-shoot hunter, who won't get nearly as good a look at a bear before deciding to shoot it.
Know this about houndsmen: They spend more time driving dark roads at night looking for their dogs, even the ones fitted with radio collars, than they do actually hunting bears.
These houndsmen, the most dedicated of all dog handlers, work their tails off training their dogs. And it takes incredible training skill to get a good pack to work together and chase a critter that could kill them with one swipe of one of its giant paws.
Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president of the Humane Society, is way off the mark in saying: "Shooting a bear in a tree is the moral and sporting equivalent of shooting a bear in a cage at a zoo."
What do Pacelle and other animal rights activists think the federal or state hunters or animal damage control hunters use when they get called in to capture or kill problem mountain lions or bears? They use hounds, man, and they're paid by taxpayers like you and me to do the job that hunters gladly pay big license and tag fees to do.
What the Humane Society and Koretz are telling us is this: It's perfectly fine for federal or state hunters to use taxpayer money and go on "high-tech search-and-destroy missions," as Pacelle calls hound hunting for bears.
But tax-paying citizens who have the right to hunt and pay big money for the right to hunt, shouldn't be able to train and use those same hounds and utilize the latest technology.
What would President Teddy Roosevelt, a man who used hounds and wrote about it in his "Hunting Trips of a Ranchman," say about all this?
California's bear population is expanding at a rapid rate. The DFG's "conservative estimate" puts the state's bear population at between 25,000 and 30,000. It has even expanded into San Diego County in recent years.
Of the 20,573 tags sold to bear hunters last year, only 1,796 hunters killed bears.
DFG wardens recently busted a number of poachers who used hounds to track, chase and kill bears. It's interesting that this legislation comes on the heels of that bust.
But this most recent legislation has less to do with the morality of hunting and more to do with the politics and emotion that organizations such as the Humane Society and politicians such as Koretz spew in the backcountry.
Black bear hunters should have every tool available to them for their hunts, and using hounds is a very valuable one. Just ask the federal hunter who is called in on the next mountain lion or bear problem. You can count on him having some very good hounds at his side, and remember this:
You'll be paying for his hunt and his hounds with tax money taken from your hard-earned paycheck.
By Ed Zieralski, San Diego Union-Tribune
February 23, 2003
We have become numb to the attacks on hunting in this state.
Witness the recent call by animal rights activists to back a bill in the California Legislature that bans the use of hounds to hunt black bears. It's an issue that has raised its furry head before, and now it's rolling along in Sacramento without so much as a yelp from the outdoor community.
Earlier in the week, the Humane Society of the United States issued its latest howl and called for the California Legislature to pass A.B. 342, "a bill to ban the cruel and unsporting practice of hounding of black bears."
Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-Beverly Hills, introduced the bill, which has the Humane Society, the Animal Protection Institute and the Fund For Animals as co-sponsors.
What Californians have to decide, and rather quickly, is this: Are we going to continue to let liberal, city-based politicians such as Koretz and out-of-state animal rights organizations manage our wildlife?
We lost the right to hunt cougars because the Department of Fish and Game fell asleep in the early 1970s and hunters didn't react soon enough to protect their right to manage the state's top predator.
By the time the mountain lion propositions hit the ballot box in 1990 and 1996, the anti-hunting organizations had taken too strong a hold here, and their advertising blitzes and rabid passion were no match for asleep-at-the-trigger hunting dis-organizations.
What has to be stressed in this latest battle is that hounds are just one method of hunting bears. And although it can be dangerous for both the dogs and the hunter, it's the most practical and ethical tool for doing the job.
Yes, chasing a bear with hounds may not sound like a fair chase, but it is, and here's why:
By treeing a bear with hounds, the hunter has the option to shoot the bear or pass on the shot. If the bear is young, or it's a sow with cubs, an ethical hunter will pass on the shot.
That same option usually isn't available for a stalk-and-shoot hunter, who won't get nearly as good a look at a bear before deciding to shoot it.
Know this about houndsmen: They spend more time driving dark roads at night looking for their dogs, even the ones fitted with radio collars, than they do actually hunting bears.
These houndsmen, the most dedicated of all dog handlers, work their tails off training their dogs. And it takes incredible training skill to get a good pack to work together and chase a critter that could kill them with one swipe of one of its giant paws.
Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president of the Humane Society, is way off the mark in saying: "Shooting a bear in a tree is the moral and sporting equivalent of shooting a bear in a cage at a zoo."
What do Pacelle and other animal rights activists think the federal or state hunters or animal damage control hunters use when they get called in to capture or kill problem mountain lions or bears? They use hounds, man, and they're paid by taxpayers like you and me to do the job that hunters gladly pay big license and tag fees to do.
What the Humane Society and Koretz are telling us is this: It's perfectly fine for federal or state hunters to use taxpayer money and go on "high-tech search-and-destroy missions," as Pacelle calls hound hunting for bears.
But tax-paying citizens who have the right to hunt and pay big money for the right to hunt, shouldn't be able to train and use those same hounds and utilize the latest technology.
What would President Teddy Roosevelt, a man who used hounds and wrote about it in his "Hunting Trips of a Ranchman," say about all this?
California's bear population is expanding at a rapid rate. The DFG's "conservative estimate" puts the state's bear population at between 25,000 and 30,000. It has even expanded into San Diego County in recent years.
Of the 20,573 tags sold to bear hunters last year, only 1,796 hunters killed bears.
DFG wardens recently busted a number of poachers who used hounds to track, chase and kill bears. It's interesting that this legislation comes on the heels of that bust.
But this most recent legislation has less to do with the morality of hunting and more to do with the politics and emotion that organizations such as the Humane Society and politicians such as Koretz spew in the backcountry.
Black bear hunters should have every tool available to them for their hunts, and using hounds is a very valuable one. Just ask the federal hunter who is called in on the next mountain lion or bear problem. You can count on him having some very good hounds at his side, and remember this:
You'll be paying for his hunt and his hounds with tax money taken from your hard-earned paycheck.