What would you do?

[bayedsolid]

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

Speck's next non-controversial topic. "The right and wrong way to use cattle prods on nuns and orphans"[/b]

Alright guys....I know I said I was done but I feel a little more tolerant, and in a much better mood, than I was this morning, so I'm back and I'll try to keep a big smile on my face.

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

Although I do have questions on a couple things.. Were the dogs barking at a running non bayed pig in first scenario?. Of course, as we wouldn't know there was dogs around if not. So I suppose that would make them not really trained pig dogs and looks like an open door to go ahead and shoot one.[/b]

I think I covered this one before but by far most hog dogs that guys use are Cur's and Cur crosses of some sort rather than hounds and they don't bark on track. They only bark when they are looking at the hog. This is the type of dog they are and has nothing to do with being an experienced dog. If I have a dog that barks, yips, farts, or makes any other noises at all before looking the hog in the eye, I get rid of them. Bear, lion, fox, coon, bobcat ect...are all usually run by hound hunters with open mouthed hounds. Hogs on the other hand are usually not.
In scenario #1, with most hog doggers, there would not be barking but the dogs would be right behind or at least close behind. This is why I said to begin with that unless the dog was chewing the hogs ass, I wouldn't mind if a rifle hunter took the shot. The way I see it is if my dogs are doing their job right I shouldn't ever be involved in anything other than scenario #2 anyway. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

It seems clear from our new education that they do not bark until bayed. Sounds like a crock to to me .(at least for a 100 yards or so going on Bayedsolid's info)...[/b]

Why would that statement sound like a "crock" to you? For what reason would I have to lie about the fact that my dogs don't bark until they are looking the hog in the eye? The snippet of my statement that you used--at least for a 100 yards or so going on Bayedsolid's info--I think you missed my point. I was simply stating that from the time the dogs first find the hog and start barking, although it might be a long ways away from me, if the dogs do their job right the hog will be within 100 yards of the place it was standing when the dogs first opened up and many times doesn't get the chance to move at all. So as a non-involved hunter in the area all you would hear is a dog start barking up on the side of a ridge for instance. Next you would hear a couple more dogs start barking in that same exact spot as they got there. If the hog broke the bay, then the barking would quit and hopefully start again a few yards down the ridge as the dogs got the hog stopped and it turned to fight them. That's it. No running chase. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

I really question how much influence these hounds are on making them pigs so nocturnal and ingrained into the deep dark untreaded brushy woodwork?..[/b]

Dogs don't make them any more nocturnal than a rifle hunter that shoots at them. Pressure is pressure. Hogs are nocturnal by nature anyway with or without pressure, and a little pressure is all it takes to make them even more so. That's why I've said in other threads that you guys need to get out and hunt in the rain and bad weather. The hogs are much more likely to be out in the open and not so nocturnal. Here is another statement that right away comes off like the dog hunters are the cause of something terrible. As long as you are questioning something that is off topic from this thread, why not question how much influence rifle hunters are having on the hogs making it to where the poor hog doggers are having to bust brush too? The street runs both ways.
Allright....let me have it.

Edited for---Jawtightener...thanks for the support. Just wanted to clarify though. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

usually you'll release a couple of catch dogs to bay the hogs then keep a strike dog on a leash until you arrive at the pig.[/b]

You got that mixed up a bit. The strike dogs are the ones that find and bay and the catch dogs are the ones on the leash that would get turned in to them.

 

[pig guide]

Rifleman...You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You have an OBLIGATION to retrieve the game from private property, not the right. The law states that you must ask permission from the land owner to cross his/her boundaries to retrieve your game.
Any means other than by permission is quite simply put...Trespassing. The land owner has the RIGHT to refuse permission. However, most of the time, this is not a problem.

 

[wello]

No Bayedsolid, I won't let you have it... all sounds pretty decent . You sound to be a surgeon in the woods, quik and precise. I mean how often are you out there doing what you do anyway? If your out all the time on the same ground then you'de be creating your own metaphorical hospital but I for one doubt that situation, certainly you bounce around. Certainly you take care of your dogs and don't loose them and starve them. Most of us I suspect are speaking to dogs after predators and we would be a wise to clarfiy as we comment... Perhaps many of us just don't really want to limit this to a pig guy such as yourself... My "crock" statement is not fully limited to hounds after predators though as are we not hearing some imply they know some pig dogs are present due to the barking?..This is not you, I know that from beginning... Keep up the good work...

 

[Speckmisser]

Bayed and some others.

While it's easy to see a tide turn, let's bear in mind that the question was never about how many times any of these situations have occurred. I didn't ask..."Has this happened to you?"

It requires absolutely NO first hand experience to extemporize on what you might do in a certain situation... especially since the situation is potentially realistic. It could happen, and HAS happened to some of us. But, honestly it doesn't happen often... something I attribute in part to the fact that most of us would rather avoid the situation peacefully, rather than putting ourselves into a questionable position.

Challenging the legitimacy of non-houndsmen's responses simply because they either never hunted with hounds or never encountered houndsmen in the field is a weak defense, made weaker because no defense was called for.

It's not about justifying or condemning hog-dogging. I knew there were some folks out there who feel very strongly against it, and those who strongly support it. If I wanted to really crank up a row, I'd have asked how many people think dogs should be allowed on public land. But I see no constructive outcome to such a discussion and certainly wouldn't want to encourage it (beyond opening this current discussion as a platform).

My interest was in gauging the responses, particularly of non houndsmen, in order to see if my own opinion was commonly shared. No really intrinsic value to that, I'll admit, but it sure beat posting up some inanity on the Campfire thread.

I was also curious to hear the perspective of the houndsmen, although I figured I knew what it would be. I was about 75% right in that assumption.

In all, my question for this thread has been pretty thoroughly answered, and I am not at all surprised at the way it was answered. But hopefully, there are some folks out there in lurkerdom and elsewhere getting a little information (and maybe some knowledge) that they can apply to their own hunting experiences. And that's all I want.

Now, about those cattleprods...

 

[bayedsolid]

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

It requires absolutely NO first hand experience to extemporize on what you might do in a certain situation... especially since the situation is potentially realistic.[/b]

That's fine, and I think it was a great topic to start, and I was very interested to see how people might react to those situations. I never really gave it much thought before now. The problem I had is when the "what would you do in this hypothetical situation" turns into "I don't like hog doggers because they MIGHT do this or that"
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

It's not about justifying or condemning hog-dogging. I knew there were some folks out there who feel very strongly against it, and those who strongly support it. If I wanted to really crank up a row, I'd have asked how many people think dogs should be allowed on public land. But I see no constructive outcome to such a discussion and certainly wouldn't want to encourage it (beyond opening this current discussion as a platform).[/b]

The problem is, that is just what happened. It isn't like I don't know how things are out there in the world, but it still doesn't make it any easier to swallow when it is shoved down your throat again.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Challenging the legitimacy of non-houndsmen's responses simply because they either never hunted with hounds or never encountered houndsmen in the field is a weak defense, made weaker because no defense was called for.[/b]

How so Spec? I would think that is the exact time someone should challenge the legitimacy of a response. When somebody voluntarily states that they have no experience with a topic or situation but then voices strong opinions on the matter, are you saying a person who does have experience should just sit back and listen....because their baseless opinion should be accepted? I can't agree with that. I'm certainly not saying that everyone should agree with me or their wrong. Everyone is certainly titled to their opinions. It just irks me a bit when someone has a negative opinion over something that is such a big part of my life, and they don't have any reason to feel that way other than what "might" happen. If you've had a bad experience and form a negative opinion, then there is not much I can do, and I understand why you might feel that way.
I do hope this thread dies soon though. I don't think I've ever typed so much in my life.

At least this hasn't been moved to the Hot Topics forum. For a while there, through no fault of my own,

it could have gone either way.

 

[Speckmisser]

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

I would think that is the exact time someone should challenge the legitimacy of a response. When somebody voluntarily states that they have no experience with a topic or situation but then voices strong opinions on the matter, are you saying a person who does have experience should just sit back and listen....because their baseless opinion should be accepted?[/b]

Because I asked for their opinions. I didn't ask for real-life experiences. Just like you gave your opinion to the hypothetical situation... "As long as they weren't gnawing on the hog's ass...etc."...

I think it's perfectly valid for someone to say, "If I were out there and the dogs chased a hog in front of me, hell yeah I'd shoot it!" Even though it never has... and probably never will... happened to them.

I think it's also perfectly valid for that person to justify why they think it's OK to go ahead and shoot that hog, just as many of these guys did. By simple human nature, that justification often tends to demonizing the houndsmen (the "others") for "wrecking their hunt", because that's how they'd see the situation... IF IT WERE REAL.

I think if non-houndsmen saw your style of hunting as the same as theirs, if they considered the dogs an extension of your will, then they'd be more likely to see a chased hog the same way they'd see one being stalked by another hunter and have more respect toward your "right" to it.

But they don't. And I think it's a very valuable point of discussion to lay that on the table and poke at it for a while. Why don't they see it that way? Why do houndsmen see it the way they do? The two perspectives, dogger and non-dogger, will never likely merge. But it's a good thing to share the divergent points of view, and help one another see that they're both pretty valid.

I do understand where you're coming from about the anti-dogging sentiments, and sorry that the thread stirred that up. I don't claim innocence here, as I knew it would come up. It always hurts getting kicked in the shin when you're already bruised, and that must be what this is like to you and the other houndsmen here. Kinda like when some non-hunter goes off with yet another uninformed stereotype of hunters. It chafes us. It makes us mad and indignant.

But it provides you with your opportunity to educate when you respond that dog hunters aren't really like that, and then to show how the scenarios rarely play out like that. You can believe that there are some guys reading this thread that are now thinking differently about houndsmen and what a hog hunt with dogs is really like. There are guys out there who are realizing, maybe for the first time, that, "you know? All this time in the field, and this scenario never has happened to me... maybe houndsmen aren't such a threat."

And I'm hoping that there are some houndsmen out there reading this thinking, "you know, I never thought about it from the still-hunter's perspective. When I put my dogs out in an area, knowing these guys are there, no wonder they get aggro about it."

This thread has stayed remarkably level, and that says a lot about the guys who've chosen to post up. It could have gotten ugly. That's why I posted the warning at the beginning. But over all, there was pretty remarkable restraint for what is often a very hot topic.

So thanks... especially to the houndsmen who stood in there... but also to the non-doggers who generally maintained civil tones.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

boarhunter67,

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

If the ducks were flying straight over me, then yes I would shoot. I can't guess where the ducks were flying.[/b]

I have to wonder how often you hunt ducks on public land.

For one, you would make yourself mighty unpopular with other hunters if you were shortstopping their birds. What is shortstopping, you might ask? Shortstopping is where you cut off the path the birds were obviously taking in their desire to reach the environment that other hunters had either found or made. A large decoy spread, effective calling, the use of moto-ducks, or a well-chosen area will contribute to pulling the ducks in. If you pass-shoot ducks that are intent on going to the hunters next to you, you would be shortstopping and would get some harsh words, if not some steel shot sent your way by many a duck hunter in that situation.

Secondly, it should be readily apparent where the ducks were flying if you saw any of the conditions/attributes I mentioned above in your vicinity, heard a lot of shooting coming from that immediate area, and witnessed a large number of birds heading in that direction, wings locked, and intent on landing. The birds would be "working" your neighbor's setup.

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

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.[/b]

Let me explain how it makes perfect sense. I brought up the duck hunting example to further reveal your philosophy about when to shoot game. You stated that if it was not yet shot, you would shoot a hog bayed by another hunter's dogs. If you stand behind this position, but do not advocate shooting ducks that are working another hunter's spread, you would be hypocritical to say so. However, if you were philosophically consistent by advocating the pass-shooting of ducks working another hunter's spread, you would be "guilty" of an act that is generally known to be rude and unethical behavior among waterfowl hunters.

This would expose either your bias against those who employ the use of dogs for the taking of mammals, or your overwhelming desire to take game for yourself, even though the opportunity to take either the hog or duck was not due to any action, experience, or know-how (other than firearms proficiency) on your part.

Your attempts to bring up your experience with bearhunting with hounds is not relevant because the mechanics of the pursuit are different between the two species. You derided the use of dogs for the pursuit and taking of hogs based on your experience with the use of dogs for the pursuit and taking of bear; the two are not similar enough to make an appropriate correlation. That would be like saying that you won't like the taste of beef because you don't like the taste of pork. They are indeed somewhat similar, but your experience with the former does not give you any credibility to judge the latter.

Regarding my coming across as arrogant: Please understand first and foremost that it is supremely frustrating for people to make statements or judgements on something they know very little, if anything, about. I cannot, for one second, believe that any of you would not respond in the same way (attacking one's arguments) if you were presented with the opinion or judgement of an anti-hunter when they said something outlandish. If an anti-hunter tried to paint an inaccurate representation of spot-and-stalk hunting as being unsporting, cruel, resulting in a high amount of crippled game, easy to do, etc, you guys would be quick to attack their credentials for making such questionable statements. If they had never gone hunting or spoke with hunters, or more specifically, if they had not done it enough to see the "big picture" rather than basing their opinion of hunters and hunting on the one time they happened to run into some hunters drinking beer and shooting signs, etc, you would understandably challenge the merits of their argument, would you not? Well, what am I doing any differently?

Everyone has a right to hold an opinion, but everyone's opinion should be measured according to generally accepted criteria: significant first-hand experience, thorough knowledge, dedicated study, logical arguments and conclusions, supportive data/evidence/facts collected long-term or with large sampling, etc. These are not my personal criteria. Everyone is free to offer their own opinions, but they should expect those opinions to be challenged by someone who has an opposing opinion should the opportunity logically arise through an absence of any or all of the aforementioned criteria.

I have not called anyone names, but merely called the credibility of their opinion into question. I have not used any derogatory terms, or insulting emoticons. My verbal engagement would be deemed permissable if this was a formally recognized debate; I was even accused of using "scientific rhetoric" (whatever that means.) Despite the advocation of things I deplore (i.e. shooting bayed hogs or even the dogs themselves), I have not responded with equally inflammatory statements. Despite what I deem to be largely baseless attacks with a lack of significant foundation, logic or reasoning, I have not dismissed anyone's arguments as being unworthy of response, but rather, engaged in a discussion with nearly every individual who wanted to offer their opinion...to the point that I confused who said what in one of my responses.


I don't know how to illustrate the glaring issue any more than I already have; the point seems all too obvious to me. But I will try to illustrate it in three examples that are probably better than my Liberian Constitutional Scholar example...

1. I am a systems analyst. I have limited interaction with tax law except when preparing to do my taxes. This represents a small portion of my time, energy, effort and brain space. I would not presume to tell a CPA, Tax Attorney or the like, that claiming x is illegal. They know the truth because it is their business to do so. They are more intimately involved with taxes; taxes are a part of their everyday life. They make it a point to remain on the cutting edge of all things taxes. Your average systems analyst would not be well-equipped to logically argue with one in the tax business, right? While I have every right to offer an opinion about taxes, I would naturally expect to have the accuracy or legitimacy of my opinion questioned by the tax professional when they knew better, and had the qualities necessary to substantiate their opinion over mine. Telling the tax professional about "This one time..." or "I heard that..." would not go very far in convincing them that I knew what I was talking about, or at the very least, that I knew more than they did about tax law. When they tried to correct me, provide me with their significant experience and knowledge about that which they were most knowledgeable in, but I refused to listen to, consider, and respond to their individual points, they might naturally be deemed to be arrogant in the manner in which they discussed the issue with me.

2. I have flown helicopters with my dad all my life. As such, I have some experience and knowledge with flying. Would I try to tell my dad the proper way to perform an auto-rotation? Probably not. If I did, I could expect to have my opinion challenged by him. As a helicopter pilot of many decades, he would be well-equipped to use the critieria I mentioned above to probably obliterate my opinion. Though I certainly have the right to form and express an opinion, it is not likely to bear the weight of scrutiny like his.

3. I do not moderate the Waterfowl Hunters forum because I am not the ideal person to do so. I have gone duck hunting a few hundred times in my life I would guess, but I have nowhere near the significant experience or credibility to be an authority on the subject. I would not try to argue with a duckhunter of two decades about whether or not the J-formation is the most effective spread of decoys for pulling in mallards during a moderately calm day. If I did, I would not expect to win on logical merits.

Now let's look at the accusation logically to see if it is a fair and appropriate one. Arrogance can be defined as the feeling of superiority towards others. 1. As a houndsman of twenty years, I know more about using dogs to pursue hogs than you spot-and-stalkers do. 2. As a houndsman, I spend much more time in the hills hunting hogs than you spot-and-stalkers do. 3. As a houndsman, I catch many more hogs than you spot-and-stalkers do. Should I feel justified in believing that my knowledge of/experience with hunting hogs with dogs is superior to your own? I think so, as bayedsolid and boarrunner should as well.

However, I have also tried to present my arguments supporting my statements in a superior manner to those with opposing opinions. I have spent a great deal of time involving myself in this thread, offering several key themes regarding houndhunting, providing point-by-point rebuttals to statements or examples of inconsistent thought and leaps of logic, and generally offering more than just my opinion...to the point that Speckmisser called into question my statement indicating that I had no previous preparation for my statements due to the number, length and detail of my responses to you all. On the other hand, most of those with opposing views have not chosen to consistently challenge and pursue many of my comments as being inaccurate, but rather, continued with a general statement of their beliefs.

Do I seem arrogant in this topic? Yes, I probably do. But in this case, I know what I am talking about. It is my business and my life's pursuit to do so. If my arrogance is unsettling to folks to a point that they have no interest in reading or responding to what I say, then that is the way it goes, I suppose. But my arrogance in no way detracts from the validity, credibility, or accuracy of what I say.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

pig guide,

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

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.[/b]

Neither is killing another man's dog. Unlike hunting with dogs, it ain't legal either.

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

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.[/b]

First of all, hunting with hounds is the probably the only method of hunting where the emphasis is not on the kill of the animal, but on the use of the dogs to catch. What "The River Runs Through It" did for the popularity of Catch-and-Release Fishing in recent years, houndhunters have been practicing for ages. Houndhunting is the only widely used method of Catch-and-Release Hunting in existence, is the most conservative, "green", natural, and environmentally friendly form of hunting in the entire world. Can you say the same for your method?

Secondly, how do you define hunting? What logical, rational, and objective criteria do you measure an activity by to determine if it is "hunting?"

Third, if you think that there are no skills involved in the use of dogs for the taking of game, you truly have a gravely inaccurate misconception of the sport.

Fourth, do you support the use of dogs for the taking of birds?

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

Just my observation.[/b]

Again, I must ask the obvious question...based on what? How did you come to these judgements?

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Phil,

I'm sure they would. And possibly, rightfully so.

Possibly, rightfully so? I think you would have every right to be bothered, as I would. I don't see any distinction between the two methods, nor any question as to whether either hunter should feel bothered.

Sorry, amigo, and this isn't a knock on dog hunters... but the fact of the matter is, you are far more successful because you are using a weapon that will go places no normal human would go, has senses that no human possesses, and has stamina that can be equalled only by a very few humans.

Yes, it is a superior method; I will readily and gladly admit that. In fact, that is one of the many reasons I extol the use of dogs. However, you can make the same distinction in the extent of successful attributes between:
1. Those who use scoped rifles vs. those who use iron sights
2. Those who use rifles vs. those who use handguns
3. Those who use handguns vs. those who use compounds
4. Those who use compounds vs. those who use recurves
5. Those who use recurves vs. those who use spears
6. Those who use spears vs. those who use rocks
7. Those who use rocks vs. those who use fists

But nowhere was my statement untrue. As a competent houndsman who uses competent hounds, I am more successful. Just as you would be more successful-due to your choice to use a scoped rifle-than someone who chose to use a spear. There is nothing untrue about that. It is what it is.

Your overwhelming advantage is the use of dogs, and has so very little to do with your time, effort, dedication or anything else.

Fine. I want you, Phil, to take a Lhasa Apso and go catch me a pig tomorrow.

When you select, breed, raise, train, and hunt a pack of dogs, your statement will have some weight. Until then, you simply lack the clarity of perspective.

I'm sure you're passionate about the way you hunt, and I don't want to steal that thunder, but don't go giving yourself all the credit for what your dogs do.

This clearly illustrates how little you understand about the perspective, mentality and attitude of the houndsman, and at its core, you miss the most important point about houndhunting. We don't give ourselves most of the credit, we give it to our dogs. We don't extol our own abilities, we beam with pride about the abilities of our dogs. We don't hunt for ourselves; we hunt for the dogs. Killing an animals is not what makes for a successful hunt, it's the admirable performance of our dogs and their safe return home. that only matters. The focus is on them, not on us and not on the kill...that is why most of our game is left alive. We are the last thing on our mind when we are out there and we don't even mention what we did, the shot we took, etc, when we get back. Go back and review some the statements we've made on JHO, look at what few pictures we've shared with the rest of you; you'll see that it's all about the dogs. Look through a houndsman's photo album and you will see where the emphasis is at. (My parents have complained because I am hardly in the photos.) I remember the days all of my dogs were born, and the days when they died. I give them a steak on their birthdays, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. My friends (including a few on JHO) find it odd that I spend more time and effort cooking for my dogs (meat, beans, bread, etc) than I do for myself.

Running hounds doesn't make you superior hunters... it only increases your success rate. You're treading the ground of elitism, brother, and while I'm pretty sure it was an unconscious step, you ought to be aware of it.

I did not raise this point to try to indicate any superiority or anything like that, so you can quickly purge that from your thoughts. I did not point out the distinctions in order to further any elitist mentality, but you need to recognize the simple fact of the matter, Phil. I brought up these readily apparent and easily proven facts of life in order to reveal to the spot-and-stalkers that there is a distinction between the demands of the use of dogs for the taking of hogs and the use of spot-and-stalking equipment and tactics. This greater demand attracts a certain type of person. Of the few that are attracted to it, even fewer can become successful at it. Of the few that are successful at it, even fewer can meet the demands it places on their life for an extended period of time.

I don't know or care how much money or time you exert, and I'm sure you feel the same about my expenditures and passion as a still-hunter. You'd do best to call it even, though, and forget that tack.

At no time, did I make any judgement based on these facts, but let's not mince words; I think you need to recognize something for what it is.
1. My choice to use hounds requires a level of dedication, time, money, effort, and sacrifice far greater than your use of a rifle, pistol or bow.
2. As a houndsman, I do spend more time in the field than you.
3. I do spend more money than you.
4. My use of dogs requires more of a committment in my life than your use of a rifle, pistol, or bow.
5. I have to make more sacrifices to other things in my life than you. It is a lifestyle decision far greater than any you must face as a spot-and-stalker and as such, requires a greater amount of patience and understanding from our spouse and family.
6. My bond with my dog is far stronger than yours with your rifle, pistol, or bow. The emotional pain and pragmatic loss or void that I feel for my dog is far greater than the loss you feel for your rifle, pistol, or bow.

There is no way in the world to not logically recognize that what we put into our pursuits is not at all even. Again, I offered no judgements between the value of the two methods, but merely pointed out things that are true, but may not be so obvious to the spot-and-stalkers on JHO.

Based on the sheer volume of your responses, I believe I figured quite aptly.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you said or meant, but I thought that you said that you figured that I was waiting for you to offer your opinion before I gave mine. At 4:41 am, I am far too tired or lazy to go back and find your original quote, so bear with me.

If my understanding is inaccurate, and you figured it would be better to move it to another thread because of my extensive opinions and even more extensive comments, I ask that you please excuse my confusion. However, if my understanding is indeed accurate, then you need to believe me when I say that my lack of response early in the discussion was not due to any strategy of mine. I was in Illinois on a business trip for several days, and did not view the thread until I was called by those who knew I would get involved in the discussion. I got on the forum after dinner that night, and seeing as I had nothing better to do in a hotel room halfway across the country from home, I spent the better part of the night (in fact, I never went to sleep) reading and responding to the comments of others. Though I did not want to make any excuses in my apology and was willing to take the lumps I was due, the mix-up regarding the misquoting of a statement to wello may have been due to the fact that I was operating without any sleep.

Besides, do you honestly think that I would feel compelled to withhold my opinion? C'mon now, Phil, when have I ever done that? I am usually accused of doing the exact opposite!

By your own admission, you really don't have any way of knowing that you've kept your hounds off the hog I'm stalking. When your dogs strike, they don't care a whit if someone else is hunting those hogs. SO don't play that game.

Yes, I will gladly admit that there is no way to know for absolute certainty that my dogs are not pursuing your hog. What I also would like to reiterate is that it is not at all likely. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely enough to warrant your decision to shoot a hog that my dog is running just because my dogs might someday run your hog? No. I am not saying that it won't ever happen, but I can tell you that in the twenty years that I have been doing this and the hundreds of hogs I have caught, I have never run into a spot-and-stalker who accused me of running the hog he was stalking. And trust me, as rare an event it is for a spot-and-stalker to see a hog in most public areas, you can bet that they would probably not be at all hesitant to either shoot the hog that my dogs caught, chew me out at the bay, or wait for me on the road or by my truck to let me have a butt-chewing. On the flipside, I have met those who were in the general area and asked if they could shoot the hog, and I was happy to oblige.

If, as Bayedsolid suggests, they're seldom more than half a mile from you when they strike and usually bay within 100 yards of the strike, then it's a moot point to me. I won't shoot a bayed hog.

Yep, bayedsolid is right; most hogs won't run all that far, as they will often turn to face off the dogs. As he runs silent-mouthed dogs, the likelihood of a long race is especially very low.

But my admittedly limited experience suggests that this isn't always the case.

You have gone out twice. You are smart enough to know that no kind of accurate conclusion or conception of the sport can be made with such limited experience. No, it is not always the case, but it is the overwhelming majority of the time.

As to the duck hunting scenario... I can't recall. Do you duckhunt public land? If you do, you'd recognize the foolishness in the comparison. If you're so close that you can shoot the birds working someone else's spread, then you're too bloody close.

You can't recall hunting ducks on public property, or you can't recall what you would do? Yes, I do duckhunt on refuges, and no, it is not a foolish comparison. [Duckhunters, feel free to chime in] It happens far too often; So often, in fact, that there is not only a term, but a common reaction to it. As you know, ducks don't drop out of the sky in a vertical column; they come in from different approaches, especially given the presence of a wind. It is entirely plausible for someone who is generally thought to be an acceptable distance away to be physically able to pass-shoot birds that were clearly intent on someone else's spread nearby. I am not talking about Opening Morning at first light in the melee of birds everywhere. I am talking about a dull day for you, spending many hours that are likely to be fruitless. The birds have been avoiding your little piece of real estate, yet you've heard the guys next to you shooting consistently; you see birds working their area and theirs alone. Their methods, tools, tactics etc give them an advantage over you. Do you pass-shoot the birds that are fixated on them?

If so, I would deem that to be greedy and selfish. One who opts to pass-shoot another man's birds puts far more emphasis (at least short-term) on the quantity of the kill, rather than on the quality of the experience.

Just like hearing dogs barking and seeing a hog come out of the brush. Maybe they'll bay, maybe they won't.

So? Maybe the guys will miss the bird locked on their spread. Should you shoot it, too?

If I've humped back into the backcountry, and a hog comes out... I'm taking it. From MY perspective, I've worked as hard or harder for that hog than any hound hunter.

So, if you deem yourself as working harder or being more worthy than the other duckhunters (you drove very far, you carried out the decoys alone, you refuse to use a moto-duck), will you shoot the birds that are locked on their spread?

Well, at least you're honest about your bias, and you are sadly ill-informed; you know nothing about the work involved in houndhunting.

At the very least, there is a great deal of hard work that goes into maximizing the likelihood of success--the preparation. A random person cannot simply take a random dog and consistently catch hogs with it. The person must not only know the habits of the game, but they must become very knowledgeable of all aspects relating to the use of the dogs--selection, breeding, raising, training, and hunting. There is a significant amount of "ramp-up" that is necessary before you can expect to be successful.

At the very most, when the hogs do decide to cover some country, it will often require more work, endurance and sweat than what a spot-and-stalker must exert because 1)unlike spot-and-stalking, the hog knows the dogs and I are after it and it will do what it can to escape us, 2)as you guys indicated, the hogs will often go into the roughest country out there, and 3)we often must move at a pace quicker than a deliberate spot-and-stalker either out of concern for the safety of the dogs, or a desire to finally bring the race to an end.

**If you are up to some sort of wager, I would be willing to pose this challenge to you: I will take my rifle and go hoghunt some public property if you go develop your own pack of competent hog dogs and do the same. I will guarantee you that I get hogs sooner than you will.**

Completely ridiculous. First of all, my "greater likelihood of success" is due to my willingness to shoot a hog driven out by your hounds. Now according to you, the choice to do so is "rude and selfish"... so which is it? If I follow your logic and don't shoot, then I have ZERO likelihood of success.

For clarity, let me detail my perspective once more:

1. If my dogs have a hog bayed, it is absolutely wrong for you to shoot it (out of selfish wont) without my say-so.

2. If my dogs are closely pursuing a hog (within sight, you hear only the one hog in the brush, the dogs are close and you heard them in the direction the hog came from, etc) and you know that this is the hog they are running, it is inappropriate for you to shoot it no matter how far you are from the road, how badly you want pork, or how far you drove to get there.

3. If you see a hog running and then, secondarily, notice the faint sounds of dogs off in the distance, it is a judgement call, and you should use whatever factors you want to make the choice to shoot or not.

4. If you see hogs that are have scattered (kicked up or pushed, not pursued) as a result of my dogs singling out and pursuing a hog, fire away. That is not at all inappropriate.

5. In most cases, the probably scenario will be more apparent than you might think.

Now for the facts:

But if I choose not to shoot, then yes, my hunt is over. The hogs are not staying around. The area has been "ruined", and there is no point sitting tight. This is the big difference between hogs and deer, by the way. Deer will filter back in after the dogs are gone. Hogs might, but not during daylight. If you've disrupted their bedding area, odds are very good that they won't be back for quite some time. Now as a public land hunter, odds are good that I don't have a week or two to wait around. I'm there for a day or a weekend. If your dogs bust up the pigs, the area is, effectively finished.

Where do you get this information? I guarantee you that since I have hunted with dogs more than you, I have been fortunate enough to see the reactions of more hogs and deer to the sound of dogs than you. Again, just another fact.

No, the hunt is not over. Neither deer nor hogs are automatically going to waste that much energy if they don't need to. It is not at all uncommon for me to catch a hog and then move on a little ways and start another burning hot track that ends in a short race, nor is it unlikely to see deer in close proximity to the dogs. Sometimes they'll stand and watch, sometimes they will bed down, sometimes they'll move on at a walk or bound away only to look back when they are a ways up the hill. Once again, I am sure that bayedsolid and boarrunner have had similiar experiences.

I have been around enough to know that the hogs simply aren't going to bolt at the mere sound of dogs, Phil. If the dogs are close enough to a nearby hog that is not being pursued, it might get nervous enough to want to move along. Again, this in no way means that they are going to clear the country. It may get out of the thick brush and walk, trot or run to another area.

Do you really think that deer and hogs are bothered by the sound of coyotes to the point that they are going to clear out of the country? No! They move only as much as they think they need to. Sometimes they don't move at all. This is a very similar stimulus. It is why deer run, hogs bay, bear, coon, fox, cat and lion tree...they are all reacting naturally to a natural stimulus. The dogs don't make them do anything that they wouldn't normally do in the case of a predator. In Nature, animals do not always run for miles to escape a possible or perceived predator.

As such, you may have an opportunity at taking the hog that was acting as natural as can be. It may be bedded down, it may be walking, it may be running. But your hunt is not ruined if dogs happened to be in the same area as you! The serenity and silence are, but the quality of the method or the chances of success are not.

Houndsmen come right in, right past parked vehicles and even through campsites, and put their dogs on trail. To be sure, the majority of times this has happened to me have been with deer hunters... but houndsmen are houndsmen, the same way hunters are hunters. The actions of a few corrupt perception of the actions of the many. If anything, this is the source of any hostility you've sensed to this point.

I understand where you are coming from. As in most cases, be it my bad experiences (first or second-hand) with spot-and-stalkers, your bad experiences with Carolina deer doggers, or even something like a bad experience with a person of a certain race, we must recognize that there is an undesireable element within any demographic, but that we should not allow it to corrupt our objectivity.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Orygun,

Let's me put my context in the perspective of a Californian. I don't what the laws are like up there, but down here...

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

Leash Laws. Most counties have them in addition to cities. Univesral rule is you must keep your animal under control at all times.[/b]

Two common exemptions include the legitimate use of dogs for livestock and hunting.

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

However, I know several sheep ranchers whose first reaction to any canine they see on their property that isn't theirs is to shoot first. They have lost lots of animals over the years to dogs, especially the friendly family pets that never ever would harm even a kitten. I know hounds trained to run pig, run pig and not livestock. But it's all the same to the sheep guys. Not only would they shoot their dog, they would then have you cited for tresspassing.[/b]

The dog must be harassing the livestock in order to be shot. A rancher cannot assume that my dog is going to harass the sheep; it must be caught in the act. Anything less, and the rancher is liable. If I was on the property attempting to retrive my dog and without a firearm, I could not be cited for trespassing whatsoever. With a firearm, it is Hunter Trespass.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

boarhunter67,

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

I admit to only hunting with dogs for preditors. On those hunts the dogs bark the whole time. So what you are saying is that hog dogs, as a rule, don't bark until the hog is bayed or is that only one type of hog dog? Just curious.[/b]

There are two types of hog dogs: Open-mouthed and Silent-Mouthed.

Open-mouthed dogs will bark while they are pursuing the hog. The extent to which they bark is influenced by the breed, genetics, and adaptive memory of the dog, as well as the quality and age of the scent left by the hog. The most common types of open-mouthed dog include the hound breeds, and some strains of various cur breeds. This type of dog is the more popular of the two with hunters who incorporate hogs into the list of game they pursue such as bear, coon, bobcat, lion, and fox.

Silent-mouthed dogs will not usually bark while pursuing the hog. They may bark excitedly when they have transitioned from pursuing the hog by scent to sight. Once the hog has been stopped and forced to bay, often the silent-mouthed dog will bay repeatedly, letting its owner know where it is at. Some silent-mouthed dogs never bark, and attempt to catch the hog immediately upon stopping it, though this is less common. The most common types of silent-mouthed dogs include the majority of the cur breeds, and dogs mixed with Pit Bull, Lab, Boxer or other "non-traditional" coursing dogs. This type of dog is the more popular of the two with hunters who only hunt hogs, and is utilized most dominantly in the South.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

pig guide,

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

Rifleman...You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You have an OBLIGATION to retrieve the game from private property, not the right. The law states that you must ask permission from the land owner to cross his/her boundaries to retrieve your game.  Any means other than by permission is quite simply put...Trespassing. The land owner has the RIGHT to refuse permission. However, most of the time, this is not a problem.[/b]

Actually, I could be more wrong if I tried...it wouldn't take much because my statement was 100% accurate as it relates to California law.

If you will re-read my original statement, you will see that I was referring only to the recovery of my dog on someone's else property. Nowhere did I mention anything about wounding and attempting to recover, or continuing to pursue the game...only to grab my dog and leave.

Once I am on property I do not have permission to be on, I cannot be armed with a weapon. If I comply with this requirement, the owner cannot refuse me permission and I will not be cited for trespassing.

 

[wmidbrook]

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

It seems that we should ask ourselves why we are hunting in the first place. Is it for the satisfaction we get out of it, or is it simply to put something in the pot? When we answer that it seems that common courtesy and respect for a fellow sportsman make the answer to both scenarios simple.[/b]

I agree with Rimrock.

In scenario #1 if it were obvious to me the hounds were tracking the pig in front of me, I wouldn't shoot. If I couldn't tell what the hounds were following, I'd take it.

Scenario #2, I'd move on cursing my rotten luck at being where hounds disrupted my hunt.

If it's obvious a trained dog is getting injured by a bayed animal in front of me, I'd shot the animal and give it to the houndsmen if they wanted it. A buddy up in washington has lost 2 nice brindle Plotts and a walker over the years to bears before the ban up there.

Alternate scenario, if on my ranch and a dog or dogs I didn't know were chasing wildlife, I'd shoot the dog and it wouldn't be the first time (although the dogs I shot were feral).

Bottom-line is that I don't think houndsmen should assume that hunters they encounter in the field have any knowledge about dog handling in the field. Nor should they assume that a hunter has developed any "ethics" around the use of hounds in the field. If I were a houndsman, I'd think twice about sparking an altercation over downed game that someone else "shot out from under their dogs".....because, it will only reflect poorly on houndmen. I don't think it would stand in court as a plausible excuse to fight with another hunter in the field.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Phil,

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

Challenging the legitimacy of non-houndsmen's responses simply because they either never hunted with hounds or never encountered houndsmen in the field is a weak defense, made weaker because no defense was called for.[/b]

I fail to see how this is a weak defense; it is the strongest and most logical defense. You are asking for people's opinions of what they think is appropriate in a given scenario with certain circumstances. They will determine what is appropriate based on what they know, believe they know, or feel.

When there is such a large knowledge gap between the houndsmen and the spot-and-stalkers concerning how houndhunting really works, what the impact is, etc, it will obviously make for some grossly inaccurate misconceptions that will likely influence how a person responds to your hypothetical. If these misconceptions are cleared up, it may very well alter their determination of how they would react in your hypothetical. The remedy of misconceptions would go a long way in lessening the possibility of a "non-(dog)hunter go(ing) off with yet another uninformed stereotype of (hound)hunters."

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

My interest was in gauging the responses, particularly of non houndsmen, in order to see if my own opinion was commonly shared. No really intrinsic value to that, I'll admit, but it sure beat posting up some inanity on the Campfire thread.[/b]

As frustrating as it can be, I much prefer a good topic like this to go round and round with rather than some Campfire nonsense. Leave it to you, Phil!

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

I was also curious to hear the perspective of the houndsmen, although I figured I knew what it would be. I was about 75% right in that assumption.[/b]

If I may be so bold, what did the other 25% chalk up to?

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

I think if non-houndsmen saw your style of hunting as the same as theirs, if they considered the dogs an extension of your will, then they'd be more likely to see a chased hog the same way they'd see one being stalked by another hunter and have more respect toward your "right" to it.[/b]

Therein lies the problem; because there is that arbitrary judgement or condemnation of houndhunting as: "not being hunting, but just killing," "not being due to any hard work by the houndsman," and "not requiring any more effort, time, money or dedication as spot-and-stalking ", spot-and-stalkers won't recognize our "right" to the hog. If they don't respect the method of using dogs, they won't respect the results of using the dogs.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

wmidbrook,

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

Alternate scenario, if on my ranch and a dog or dogs I didn't know were chasing wildlife, I'd shoot the dog and it wouldn't be the first time (although the dogs I shot were feral).[/b]

Unless the dogs were feral in every instance, you would be liable for the value of the dog. In fact, there have been a couple of cases where there were criminal charges pressed against those who shot hunting dogs. The law is starting to swing in the dog owners' direction these days.

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

Bottom-line is that I don't think houndsmen should assume that hunters they encounter in the field have any knowledge about dog handling in the field. Nor should they assume that a hunter has developed any "ethics" around the use of hounds in the field.[/b]

How very true, and for that reason most of us try to avoid the spot-and-stalkers.

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

If I were a houndsman, I'd think twice about sparking an altercation over downed game that someone else "shot out from under their dogs".....because, it will only reflect poorly on houndmen. I don't think it would stand in court as a plausible excuse to fight with another hunter in the field.[/b]

I agree, and I would guess that most houndsmen would, too. A dead hog ain't worth more than some words of warning about the dogs or something. Most of us care only about our dogs; we can catch another hog another time.

During the course of this topic, I have wondered the same thing about the lawfulness of the act. I am curious as to whether or not there have been any cases brought to court and how they might rule what possession is. I would guess that the court would definitely favor the hunter who shot the hog as the dogs ran it near him, and might rule in the favor of the hunter who "visited" the bay.

 

[Timjackson]

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

Unless the dogs were feral in every instance, you would be liable for the value of the dog. In fact, there have been a couple of cases where there were criminal charges pressed against those who shot hunting dogs. The law is starting to swing in the dog owners' direction these days.[/b]

Rifleman.. I know nothing about Cali laws (except they are almost impossible to decifer), but are you telling me that if a dog or pack of dogs (feral or not) was chasing my cattle or calves, I would not have the right to shoot them under California law????? If this is true, you can surely understand how crazy this is and why most would implement the SSS scenario..

Also, I am hogdogger from Texas, so I have a little understanding of both sides of the situation. So please do not think I am talking about something I know nothing about....

 

[pig guide]

Rifleman....Once again, your view of trespassing is wrong. Crossing any boundary, of another's property without asking permission, with or without a gun, and without a trespass permit.....IS ILLEGAL.
I know this intimately as I am in possesion of the Ca. Law Books from the law firm that I work in. This way should I have any doubt when confronted by Fish and Game while I'm afield, I just refer to the books. And why is it that you come accross in all of your replies that you are a super genius and all others are not worthy. You're being quite harsh. Lighten up. This was all based on hypotheticals and the overwhelming responses that I am seeing are not favorable. Just an observation. Good luck and good hunting.

 

[pig guide]

TIM JACKSON.....No court of law in Ca. will prosecute a rancher who shoots a dog and or dogs, harrassing their livestock. In the Fish and Game codes, it is spelled out very clearly that the " Rancher has the right to whatever, means, to protect his livestock and property."

 

[Timjackson]

Originally posted by pig guide@Apr 8 2005, 08:08 AM
TIM JACKSON.....No court of law in Ca. will prosecute a rancher who shoots a dog and or dogs, harrassing their livestock. In the Fish and Game codes, it is spelled out very clearly that the " Rancher has the right to whatever, means, to protect his livestock and property."

Thanks pig guide.. I did find that hard to believe. We mainly run our dogs on private land here in Texas.. I know one thing is absolutely true when we are running.. If my dogs gets on a cow or calf (which they never do), he will be shot on site. It is a given and one of the risks I run by running the dogs. I totally understand the ranchers point of view on this and I should not be out there if I cannot train my dogs well enough to stay off the cattle...

Anyway... back to the original thread now....

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Tim,

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

...but are you telling me that if a dog or pack of dogs (feral or not) was chasing my cattle or calves, I would not have the right to shoot them under California law?????[/b]

No, the rancher would have every right to destroy every dog that was harassing livestock.

I was referring to wmidbrook's statement that he will shoot any dog that he does not recognize that was on his property and chasing wildlife. As wildlife is public property in California, if the dog is in the act of pursuing wildlife legally (even though on private property), it cannot be shot.