What would you do?

[Roaddog]

Originally posted by BGH831@Mar 30 2005, 06:25 PM
and stick around to watch the fun!

#2-No way would i sit there for much more than 5 mins and watch a hog getting tore to pieces, just for a show. We all practice for a quick kill and dispatch the animal with min of suffering. If ur hunting for a show, u have the wrong hobby!



#1-I wouldn't get involved. Never get between a man and his dogs! This could cause more problems when the owner catches up with u. When i lived down on the coast of SC, we did a lot of dog running. I had 18 head at one point. A guy shoot a deer in front of my dogs one time and i was very unhappy.

 

[Timjackson]

#2-No way would i sit there for much more than 5 mins and watch a hog getting tore to pieces, just for a show. We all practice for a quick kill and dispatch the animal with min of suffering. If ur hunting for a show, u have the wrong hobby!

Roaddog.. not all dogs are catch dogs.. Some are strictly bay dogs. I have never seen a hog really torn up, but I have seen a few dogs...

 

[MikenSoCo]

Rifleman, for the sake of my own education, a couple questions... 1) Are you houndsmen able to control the distance your dogs chase? Are you able to call them off a running hog if need be? Are they in your control at all times? Just curious as I admit I'm not educated on the practice....

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Mike,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Are you houndsmen able to control the distance your dogs chase?[/b]

Speaking for myself, no. I cannot program or otherwise influence the extent to which my dogs will pursue a hog.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Are you able to call them off a running hog if need be?[/b]

This would depend on the distance between the hunter and his dog, the age of the scent they are following, their fatigue, etc. It is possible, but varies according to the circumstances of the pursuit.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Are they in your control at all times? Just curious as I admit I'm not educated on the practice....[/b]

No, they are not in my control at all times. I define control only as being on a leash or otherwise restrained. A well-behaved or superbly obedient dog is not under control, by voice or otherwise, while unrestrained. They may be under one's influence (knowing that they should come when called, etc), but they are not under one's control.

 

[sdbowyer]

"So ease up on your holier than thou attitude..."

That's rich.

 

[boarhunter67]

Rifleman,
You said you would make sure your dogs didn't pursue a hog I was tracking. You later said you don't usually know if other hunters are there. How will you stop the dogs from chasing or getting on the trail of a hog I am stalking?
Secondly, you asked how dogs will chase away game off public property. Most of the hogs I chase know where the private land is and start heading for there as soon as they think there is trouble. There has been many times when I am trying to creep up to within shooting distance and someone with or without dogs chases them away to public land by shooting at a squirrel, target, or by the noise the dogs make. I have hunted with and without dogs. So hopefully you won't say I'm stupid the way you called others who disagreed with you.

 

[jawtightener]

boar67- if you don't think hunt'in with dogs on public land should be legal then why don't you just say it?
i don't agree all of rifleman's opinions but at least he is making his position clear.

 

[wello]

Rifleman!!

I really appreciate your addition with the comprehensive approach.. Although next time it could be appreciated far greater if you do not add words to individuals mouths when addressing them in sepparate posts. I did not say:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

QUOTE 
...the houndsman just DID take something from EVERYONE else's net, just by being there...Once those dogs are in the woods, all chances for anyone else getting ANYTHING in the "traditional manner" are off. Everything runs the other way.  The houndsman has taken the rifle hiker/hunter's chances at getting anything through spot and stalk, and thrown it out the window...The way I see it, the houndsman is taking the chance of finding unmolested game from the other hunters. Is that right? [/b]

. So now I would welcome an appolgy for making me out to something I am not..


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

QUOTE  Wello:
Hounding is not really hunting to me, I don't even hunt with dog's or ever met a houndsman. 
Quote Rifleman:  Yet you still managed to form an opinion and make a statement about something you have no experience with and know very, very little about. Hmmm......[/b]

You think us that don't actually hunt with dog's know nothing about it or just hunting in general? I know this. We can all form an opinion about things we haven't seen or touched, etc... I hunt, I chat, I see media, I read books, I take care of others dead beat dog's (once)...Hence I now enough to say what I did. Notice I did not say much...
But to answer you or to contiue on....when your chasing dog's and shooting pig's your doing exactly that. It is what it is...It is harvest with physical exercise and expense and effort far beyond most method of take..If I ever use term hunting with dog's for pig's I really mean "chasing dog's and shooting pig's ". If I use term hunting with dog's for other species I may call it exactly that.. "Hunting with Dog's" cause hunters like bird hunters are way more directly involved right there with their dog. Some methods involve spotting game first, etc. If used loosly, it is all hunting..so granted if ya like. ...Regardless, make no bones about it, I never met a real houndsman, cause the puke that lost his dog in my story aint no real houndsman.. Why not address that whole issue since you addressed every other? How long your dog's in woods and or starved? I hope to God your not a puke..

On my joke about dynamite in the lake.. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

QUOTE Wello:
I don't classify it as hunting but they deserve being exercised in this manner. Does this mean we should be allowed to dynamite the lake for fish? 
Quote Rifleman:Are you kidding me? You actually think houndhunting is the same as using dynamite for fish? Seeing as how you don't hunt with dogs, and have neven even met a houndsman, what exactly do you base this ridiculous opinion on?[/b]

Yes Rifleman, I am kidding ya.. was a joke of sorts meant to only question the idea that your dog's scare the whoe area and ruin it.. I don't believe that. I am firm believer that game stay put in the most unsettling circumstances like you.. So no, not really "rediculous". More like laughing material, lighten up and let me stick one of your pigs, OK? Don't pick on me, agree with me,, hehe. Your not my enemy in here at all and I not yours. I ask just be careful what you read into peoples words..

 

[boarhunter67]

Jawtightener,
I think hunting with dogs on public land should be legal. They have every bit as much right as I do. I was responding to rifleman saying he would keep his hounds off my pig if I didn't bother his pig.

 

[MikenSoCo]

SD, "holier than thou" explain it please, kind of vague. Hidden in all the scientific rhetoric are two very important facts Rifleman was so kind to point out. 1) You can't control how far your dogs will roam. 2) You can't call them off when need be. I'm not against dog use in hog hunting. I am opposed to the uncontrolled use of them on public land though. You can argue all you want in your scientific tones, it doesn't change the facts you've just described. I also think it's quite arrogant to let them run uncontrolled impervious to its effect on other people in the area, be they hunters , landowners, or hikers.

 

[jawtightener]

10-4

 

[BGH831]

The only thing and last thing I have to say about this one is that

1. I am ignorant as heck to the subject. I have been Hound hunting all of 3 times and have yet to kill anything and highly doubt that I would be of any help if the dogs found anything.
2. Houndsman are some hard core S.O.B.'s and anyone that doubts thier commitment or effort is and absolute fool.
3. I have two dogs for the sport that have cost me more time effort and money than my safe full of "gear" and "crap" that will help me kill something after a nice easy paced walk ( more than likely drive ) through the "woods".
4. Anyone that has really followed dogs or tracked a scent and busted brush for hours(miles/elevation feet) and still wants to talk smack about houndsman being non-sporting can lick my un-bloody boot.
5. I am thinking more and more that if you are on privet or public land and you **** with a mans dogs/hog being chaced by you are seriously out of line and ignorant(like me )
6. If you find a bayed hog in the woods and stand back for 6 hours or so and see noone kill the pig and set the dogs back the way they came, come back in 5-8 days and look for vultures eating the houndsman that fell off the cliff trying to catch his dogs.

Anyone that talks smack about theese guys obviously does not have a clue about the work they put in to be there.

I have a great amount of respect for theese guys, they had to tame,train, and concour the beast to catch the true beast(of California anyway).


My ignorant

you can now have your way with me. Be easy please.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

wello,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

  Although next time it could be appreciated far greater if you do not add words to individuals mouths when addressing them in sepparate posts... So now I would welcome an appolgy for making me out to something I am not.[/b]

My apologies for attributing a quote to you that was actually from ooja. Too many comments to respond to all at once, I guess. I was not trying to make you out to be something you are not, but merely put the wrong quote into the wrong response.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

You think us that don't actually hunt with dog's know nothing about it or just hunting in general? I know this. We can all form an opinion about things we haven't seen or touched, etc... I hunt, I chat, I see media, I read books, I take care of others dead beat dog's (once)...Hence I now enough to say what I did. Notice I did not say much...[/b]

I am not saying that you are not welcome to have an opinion; it is certainly your right to hold one. However, given your admitted lack of first hand knowledge or experience, your opinion is not very credible. You lack the necessary background, knowledge, or experience that would lead a person to reasonably conclude that your opinion has a significant basis in fact. Your right to simply have an opinion does not give that opinion any legitimacy, nor does it make it compelling.

For example, I am certainly free to have an opinion on whether or not the lack of a constituency violates Liberia's constitutional mandate concerning national elections. However, having absolutely no background in, or first hand knowledge of, the constitutional provisions of a country I have never visited does not give my opinion much credibility. My ignorance of the Liberian Constitution would naturally make me hesitant to offer an opinion of it and I would certainly avoid getting into a debate with a Liberian Constitutional Scholar who makes it his business to know the facts.

Though you can certainly have an opinion, the merits of your opinion are naturally quite suspect.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

But to answer you or to contiue on....when your chasing dog's and shooting pig's your doing exactly that. It is what it is...It is harvest with physical exercise and expense and effort far beyond most method of take..If I ever use term hunting with dog's for pig's I really mean "chasing dog's and shooting pig's ". If I use term hunting with dog's for other species I may call it exactly that.. "Hunting with Dog's" cause hunters like bird hunters are way more directly involved right there with their dog. Some methods involve spotting game first, etc. If used loosly, it is all hunting..so granted if ya like.[/b]

Oh, so now hunting is defined by the distance you are from your dog. Gotcha.

I fail to see the logical distinction between labeling houndhunting as "physical exercise and expense and effort far beyond most methods of take" and labeling the use of bird dogs "hunting." Both methods are intended to use an enjoyable means of providing you with the opportunity to harvest an animal. The hound enhances your ability to take mammals, while the bird dog enhances your ability to take upland birds. Their participation is intended to provide you with a shot.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Why not address that whole issue since you addressed every other? How long your dog's in woods and or starved? I hope to God your not a puke..[/b]

Okay. Tap, tap, tap Is this thing on? Umm, my handle is RIFLEMAN, and I am not a puke.

Enlighten me, wello...what is the "whole issue" that you mention?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

I am kidding ya.. was a joke of sorts meant to only question the idea that your dog's scare the whoe area and ruin it[/b]

Now that you explain it, I can understand how it was a joke. I was under the impression that you were comparing the "sporting" elements of using hounds for hogs and dynamite for fish and did not make the noise association between the two. I should have paid more attention to the emoticon.

I do not consider you my enemy whatsoever. Please do not confuse my passionate verbiage and enjoyment of a lively debate for hatred, animosity or condescension.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

MikenSoCo,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

SD, "holier than thou" explain it please, kind of vague.[/b]

Don't fret too much about it, Mike. This is not sdbowyer's first offering of his brand of wisdom. He's attempted to enlighten the rest of us (and me in particular, it would seem) with his random one-liners before.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Hidden in all the scientific rhetoric are two very important facts Rifleman was so kind to point out. 1) You can't control how far your dogs will roam. 2) You can't call them off when need be.[/b]

If you object to my use of dogs based on my responses to your questions (which I anticipated weren't just out of mere curiousity), then you would need to object to the use of bird dogs on public property as well.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

I'm not against dog use in hog hunting. I am opposed to the uncontrolled use of them on public land though.  I also think it's quite arrogant to let them run uncontrolled impervious to its effect on other people in the area, be they hunters , landowners, or hikers.[/b]

Arrogant? How is my desire to enjoy this age-old tradition on property I have every right to be on, arrogant? As I stated before, it is not my intent to affect you or anyone else. I am perfectly content to leave you alone and be left alone in kind.

Are you to be considered arrogant for affecting hikers while you're out hunting? What if the sound of your gunshots impacts their ability to enjoy the outdoors in the manner of their choosing? Should you only hunt on private property so as not to impact them?

Also, explain to me how I am more likely to impact landowners while hunting on a tract of public property than if I was to be hunting on a piece of private property. As I pointed out to you before, most public sites are going to be larger than the available private sites, thereby reducing the likelihood that my dogs would impact landowners.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

boarhunter67,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

I'm not so sure I wouldn't shoot in both cases...if it's on public property and the pig hasn't been shot then it's fair game as far as I'm concerned...If it hasn't been shot, it is fair game.[/b]

The same must hold true if you sight a buck in your scope at 250 yards and notice someone beginning to stalk it at 100 yards. He hasn't shot it, so it's all yours, right?

Refer to the scenario I posed to Speckmisser about duckhunting on public land. If the ducks aren't yet shot by the other hunter, then they are fair game to you? How are either of these two scenarios different from the houndhunting scenario in principle?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

...and every single time the hounds start barking, the animals, all of them not just the one being chased, heads for cover. Is that fair?[/b]

You say that they head for cover. Many others will say that the dogs bust them out of the security of their cover and make them run through the countryside until they can find some more.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

All I'm saying is if you are hunting an area first and hounds come into your area, you shouldn't have to stop hunting because they came in.[/b]

I would never consider asking you to stop hunting, nor should you have to stop.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

The bird dog comparison doesn't really fit. If someone is bird hunting, their dog is always in sight.[/b]

Not true. Bird dogs are dogs, too. The fact that they are animals and inherently fallible, coupled with their innate desire to find the birds will sometimes separate them from the hunter.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

When someone is using dogs for large game, the dogs run throughout the countryside. I've hunted with dogs before and had a hard time keeping up in a vehicle. We traverse miles of mountain roads following the dogs.[/b]

I'd be willing to bet that you were running bear. This discussion is about running hogs. Let's limit our anectdotal evidence to the specific topic at hand.

Most hogs that are run by dogs-both silent and barking while on track-do not run throughout the countryside traversing miles and miles. Ask boarruner, bayedsolid, or other hog hunters about the length of an average hog race.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

So what you are basically saying is that if dogs are used, the whole forest is off limits.[/b]

Nope, I don't recall ever saying that at all. Do me a favor and find my quote.

If you will refer to any one of a multitude of my comments, you will see that I am of the opinion that the two methods are not mutually exclusive. Both the houndsman and spot-and-stalker can be successful while hunting the same public property.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

A trap is different than a dog. I've hunted with hounds and several times the animal got away after it was treed or bayed.[/b]

You may have hunted with hounds before, but it does not appear that you have ever run a trapline. Otherwise, you would know that animals can get away after they've been caught. Game can break bay and escape the hounds, and game can pull out of traps set on land. Do you shoot the trapped game that is there through no credit of your own just as you condone shooting treed/bayed game that is there through no credit of your own merely because they both may escape?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

You said you would make sure your dogs didn't pursue a hog I was tracking. You later said you don't usually know if other hunters are there. How will you stop the dogs from chasing or getting on the trail of a hog I am stalking?[/b]

First of all, I said that I would never intentionally turn my dogs out on a hog I knew you to be stalking. This is in stark contrast to the prominent opinion of several of you who feel justified in intentionally shooting a hog that my dogs were pursuing or baying.

Secondly, the odds of my dogs finding the scent of, and pursuing, the very same hog that you have already been stalking is so remote as to not warrant much response.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Secondly, you asked how dogs will chase away game off public property. Most of the hogs I chase know where the private land is and start heading for there as soon as they think there is trouble. There has been many times when I am trying to creep up to within shooting distance and someone with or without dogs chases them away to public land by shooting at a squirrel, target, or by the noise the dogs make.[/b]

So which is it? Do the dogs make the hog head for cover or private property? You and I both know that "cover" is in abundance on public property. That is, after all, partly why the hogs remain on public property despite the hunting pressure. It is as, if not more, inaccessible by humans and therefore, often more safe for the hogs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

I have hunted with and without dogs. So hopefully you won't say I'm stupid the way you called others who disagreed with you.[/b]

I never called anyone stupid. Find the quote for me, if you please.

I may challenge the merits of someone's opinion, but I always leave the name-calling and emotion to others who don't have much to offer the discussion.

I can respect an opposing opinion if it is clearly stated, well articulated, and supported by facts or logical arguments even though it is contrary to my own. I respect someone who will cite my statements one by one, and then logically refute them...this is impressive and respectable, not offensive. Speck and I disagree on a great many things, but I respect his ability to verbally joust with me in a rational and effective manner and have never called him stupid.

 

[wello]

Rifleman, Apology accepted on words in my mouth, par for the course I suppose...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Quote Rifleman:  I am not saying that you are not welcome to have an opinion; it is certainly your right to hold one. However, given your admitted lack of first hand knowledge or experience, your opinion is not very credible. You lack the necessary background, knowledge, or experience that would lead a person to reasonably conclude that your opinion has a significant basis in fact. Your right to simply have an opinion does not give that opinion any legitimacy, nor does it make it compelling.

For example, I am certainly free to have an opinion on whether or not the lack of a constituency violates Liberia's constitutional mandate concerning national elections. However, having absolutely no background in, or first hand knowledge of, the constitutional provisions of a country I have never visited does not give my opinion much credibility. My ignorance of the Liberian Constitution would naturally make me hesitant to offer an opinion of it and I would certainly avoid getting into a debate with a Liberian Constitutional Scholar who makes it his business to know the facts.

Though you can certainly have an opinion, the merits of your opinion are naturally quite suspect.[/b]

Theory has it...fact based opinion is but a tadpole in a sea of unproven factual theory...

An attempt at comprehensively proving whether or not opinion forming is effectively futile until paths end is perhaps as groundless as one standing firm that Liberian example is not going to be understood for its laughable hidden nature or intentions..here, there, or anywhere, let alone accepted that you Rifleman have not partaken.

Regardless if we find a credible Liberian Constitutional Scholar named perhaps Shnerdly(forgive spelling) this side of self absorption, it would still be popularly perceived opinion that a constituency is unrequired based in part on principle fact that tree hitting ground still makes sound in woods if no one around to hear. A new one can even sprout up without any of our own doing or seeing too.

..Can I hear an Amen or Verily , Verily?

Last time I read this threads intro and nature I may have heard, smelled, saw, interpreted, or plainly sensed via common sense that hunter etiquette, feeling, and decision making processes as a whole group was being questioned or sought after instead of just known houndsman fact. I find it helpful to know what one has in the past or is currently admitting to prior to following them into battle as some innocent may fall in a big tree hole sized bunker on its way to being replanted....
Conclusively though, leading a person (whether ones own cortex or a nation) or being leader thereof is usually and justifiably a product of popular opinion if your of substance...We don't need no stinkin merit badges to know difference between true ignorance and playing smart stupid....Liberia is maybe a terrible thing to waste..

 

[pig guide]

It is a simple question of ehtics and morals. If you're not a part of the particular hunting party, that is using the dogs to flush, then, get outta the way and let the hunt play it self out.
I have been there with deer and pigs. I also keep in mind the psychosis of these people out here and what they do to each other for lesser offenses. But then again, I have seen a proportionately higher degree of immoral and unethical behavior hunting here in Ca. It is the small group of bad seeds that put the stigma on all of the great people out there.

 

[boarhunter67]

Rifleman, <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

This situation is no different. If I had ten dozen decoys, a fleet of moto-ducks, the most expensive duck calls in the world and 20 years of experience, and you had a dozen decoys (in other words, my methods were more advantageous than your own) would you pass-shoot the ducks that were locked in on my spread all because 1. we were hunting on public property, and 2. my methods (that you didn't agree with) impacted your ability to carry out your methods?[/b]

If the ducks were flying straight over me, then yes I would shoot. I can't guess where the ducks were flying. Also, I fail to see why when someone compares this senario to hunting with bird dogs or with fishing or even bear hunting with dogs, you say it isn't relevant, but bring up duck hunting. Huh...that makes sense.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Arrogant? How is my desire to enjoy this age-old tradition on property I have every right to be on, arrogant?[/b]

While I understand you are just trying to get your opinion across, I think the some of what you say could definately be taken as holier than thou arrogant. For example: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

You have little, if any, sense…so your judgement above carries no legitimacy….Are you kidding me? Where are you from?…How do you figure?…So ease up on your holier than thou attitude... You have little, if any, sense…Yet you still managed to form an opinion and make a statement about something you have no experience with and know very, very little about. Hmmm...... Are you kidding me? You actually think houndhunting is the same as using dynamite for fish? Seeing as how you don't hunt with dogs, and have neven even met a houndsman, what exactly do you base this ridiculous opinion on?… given your admitted lack of first hand knowledge or experience, your opinion is not very credible. You lack the necessary background, knowledge, or experience that would lead a person to reasonably conclude that your opinion has a significant basis in fact. Your right to simply have an opinion does not give that opinion any legitimacy, nor does it make it compelling…offering of his brand of wisdom. He's attempted to enlighten the rest of us (and me in particular, it would seem) with his random one-liners before[/b]

I admit my experience with dogs has always been in hunting bear and cats. I've hunted with them and had hunts ruined by others who released dogs next to where I parked and walked in a few miles. I guess now that I've admitted to never hog hunting with hounds you'll call me ignorant and say my arguments have no merit.

 

[sdbowyer]

I know rifleman. I too, prefer to be awed. It can be very frustrating.

 

[pig guide]

First of all. Why are people so understanding of a single individual turning out his or her hounds on public land instead of private, thus disturbing every other hunter in the woods.
In the Mid West where I lived for 12 years, many dogs went out and fewer came back. Just a fact. People don't liven up to others hounds destroying their hunt. It simply isn't a polite thing to do.
I just can't see using dogs anyway. That just goes from hunting to straight up killing. Think about it. You have done no actual hunting of your own ....at all. The dogs hunted the game, the person simply walsk up and kills it. No skills needed there.
Just my observation. I know this is going to piss off the dog runners.