What would you do?

[RIFLEMAN]

sdbowyer,

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

Is this part of the whole "defying hunter stereotypes" strategy or is it just self indulgence?[/b]

Yeah, spending all this time and effort is exactly how I would choose to indulge myself. Please........

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Phil,

The only arrogance is the perceived arrogance I get from your initial statements which did, indeed, suggest that since you dump more time and money into your chosen method, then you are more "dedicated" than non-houndsmen...

Dedicated, as defined in the dictionary, means "wholly committed to a particular course of...action." Because of the substantial impacts using dogs to hunt hogs has on a hunter's time, money and lifestyle (on a daily basis), he must be more committed to hunting hogs than someone who can spend their time and money whenever they choose. It requires greater forethought because it requires more resources to get into and stay with. Spot-and-stalking carries no obligations other than the purchase of the equipment; every other expenditure (time and money) is influenced by the amount of excursions the hunter goes on.

The greater dedication to using dogs to hunt hogs is evident in the fact that houndsmen commonly do not have diversified interests in other forms of hunting or recreational pursuits; they are dedicated to the use of dogs to pursue game. A spot-and-stalker does have the luxury of hunting hogs, deer, waterfowl, upland game (and maybe engaging in other things like skiing or boating) equally.

...even though you have absolutely no way of knowing how much time and money some non-houndsmen actually HAVE dumped into their own hunting.

Again, I was referring to the differences in the groups, not any individuals within those groups. For the reasons I extrapolated in a previous post, houndsmen dump more time and money into the sport than non-houndsmen.

That's an arrogant position, regardless of whether my perception aligns with your intent.

If we were discussing the merits of women in law enforcement or combat roles, would it be arrogant to say that men are stronger than women? I know that there are some individual women who are stronger than some individual men, but the statement holds true when you are applying it to the two groups. There is nothing at all arrogant with pointing out the facts when those facts have bearing on the discussion.

That argument, by the way, is even less relevant since hunting with hounds is a CHOICE that YOU have made, while the rest of us have willingly chosen NOT to become houndsmen.

I certainly beg to differ! The fact that I have made a choice to engage in this time and money-consuming sport indicates my dedication to the sport. Something done by choice indicates more dedication than something done by instinct or other obligation.

It's like an archer who uses compound equipment claiming that he's more dedicated to archery because he spent more on his setup than a trad archer.

If the compound bowman spends more time and money bowhunting than the traditional bowman, I think that would be sufficient enough to demonstrate his greater dedication to bowhunting.

Let say there are two hunters who each had 100 hours and $100 to spend on anything they wanted. The one who spent more of his time and money hunting would naturally and logically be considered to be more dedicated to hunting because he dedicated (to set apart for a special use) more of his resources to hunting than the other.

You've chosen an expensive and time-consuming hobby, so the fact that you maintain it with the requisite costs has no value as a comparison against those of us who choose a different path...Your love and passion for a thing are not measured by the money you spend or the time you have to give to it. Those are only measurements of the time and money you have available. In the same way, an urban hunter is in no way diminished by the fact that he only hunts selected weekends, and maybe the occasional "sick day" during the week. The time and money given in pursuit of a passion is even more precious by their scarcity.

I couldn't disagree more. One's love and passion for something is most readily demonstrated by what, and how much, they will dedicate to it. The sacrifice one makes for a person or activity is arguably the best way of measuring how much love or passion they have for that person or activity. Would you sacrifice your life for your child, Phil? I would bet so. If someone else would not, it is logical to conclude that they do not love or feel as passionate about that child as much as you.

The choices I have made as a houndsmen have forever altered the course of my life. I am comfortable with this sacrifice because my misgivings about what I am missing out on are more than compensated by the fuel that my passion for hunting with dogs gives my life.

If the urban hunter is so passionate about hunting, he would change his lifestyle so that it better suited his passion. He chooses not to, so he must indulge in his passion only as time and money permit.

You also implied that, since you are far more successful (take more hogs) than stillhunters, then your method is "better". That, too, is a position of arrogance... you're judging us all according to your values. Your method is better to you, but to ME, success due to the use of dogs is far less satisfying than success due to my own chosen method. It's personal values, man... there's no "better" or "worse" on a global scale.

You may think that was implied, but that was not stated. I have used phrases like "more successful" or "more knowledgeable" in this thread, but have not said that my method is "better" than yours. I try to refrain from statements of judgement whenever possible because, as you said, one's personal values come into play. Values are not always logically supported, so I think that making a statement of value detracts from an otherwise logical argument.

To ME, in MY PERSONAL OPINION, the dogs are doing all the hunting. It's not an implied insult to houndsmen's skill or dedication. It's only the way it makes ME feel when I participate.

So noted. If that is the way you feel, I had better not read any of your posts talking about how much fun you had quail hunting with a buddy's dogs. You most certainly have the right to your opinion, but you would be best advised to keep your opinions consistent and avoid any hypocrisy, implied or otherwise.

Not to presume to analyze you or anything, but it seems that you and some other folks are too quick to draw insult where none is intended.

I am not so sure that the houndsmen in the discussion are insulted as much as irritated. I'm not sure whether the irritation is due to the statements justifying the shooting of a hog our dogs were in hot pursuit of or had bayed, the condemnation that using hounds is not sporting or really hunting, or by the significant amount of ignorance displayed despite the quick conclusions that are drawn. There is just so much to choose from.

As long as we are analyzing here, it seems to me that the spot-and-stalkers are too quick to draw insult from statements the houndsmen (me in particular) have made. A spot-and-stalker should not take offense when they are told that houndhunters catch more game, spend more time and money hunting, or don't have as much knowledge about houndhunting as a houndhunter does. A spot-and-stalker should not be offended when they are asked to substantiate their opinion with facts and logic rather than feelings and personal judgement and told that there opinion is ridiculous (meaning, false).

Insulting someone is the quickest way to shut down dialogue, so as someone who enjoys lively discussion, I try to craft my words in a way that are not outright insulting. But I cannot be responsible for the failure of people to distinguish themselves apart from their opinions.

And as a houndsman who claims to be aware of the issues, you should know that there are a lot of folks in your sport who seem hell-bent on giving it a black eye... running all over private property under the protection of Range Laws (the law that allows you to retrieve your dog from private property), abusing their animals, and making a public spectacle without regard for the sensibilities of the non-hunting public. You and I know it's not ALL houndsmen doing this, but one bad egg can stink up the whole coop.

Yes, I am all too aware of this. As a houndsman who does not satisfy the requisite elements of the stereotype (uneducated, backwards, drunken, anti-social, etc), I am justifiably quick to point out that the segment of the demographic that casts blame on the rest of us is just that, a segment. I should not be condemned, judged or otherwise criticized for the behavior or actions of others whom I cannot control.

As you mentioned, this situation is not all that different from the one you face when trying to improve the opinions of non-hunters. There is an element of the hunting community that has established and continues to meet the stereotypes (shooting signs, littering, crippling game, trespassing, spotlighting deer, killing Bambi's mommy) that the non-hunting public has towards all of you. The non-hunting public would be rightly foolish to assume that all hunters act or think in the manner that they object to, just as it is foolish to be biased against a certain race because of the actions of a segment of that race.

If you really think about it, spot-and-stalkers are in a more influential position with public opinion than houndsmen because of your greater numbers, so us houndsmen are relying on you to put all hunters in a better light.

The discussion was never about whether hound hunting is right or wrong, or if it belongs on public land. The question is of personal ethics... do you shoot, or don't you?

The discussion invariably led to whether houndhunting is right or wrong, or if it belongs on public land, because it will naturally influence some hunters (and some members of JHO) to decide to shoot the hog or not. From your statements, I know that you are not among them, but too many people will use their own biases to determine their course of action.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

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

You guys are going soft on us![/b]

Don't you worry, Mike. We're back on track!

 

[BLASTMASTER]

Originally posted by RIFLEMAN@Apr 23 2005, 11:52 AM
BLASTMASTER,
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

They have the right, though. The right to ruin my day.

Instead of using the same old rhetoric I've heard from a great many people, how about articulating how your day will be ruined. How will the use of coursing dogs in the area you are hunting in ruin your day or your chances of getting a hog?

For once, I would like someone to answer this question I've posed to everyone I noted make the groundless statement above. [/b][/quote]
It's not complicated. It doesn't need an explination the average length of one of your posts. AND, I can't speak for anyone else, but it's simple for me. Like I said, I equate dogs, running through my stalking area, to oblivious LA hunters that blunders by, ruining an otherwise peaceful day in the field (not just a kill).

Because public land is OUR land, and not mine, I understand the right that hunting dogs have to be there.

What you don't, and possibly can't understand, is that some people find the presence of hunting dogs, in that situation, neither peacefull nor pleasant. It's personal thing.

 

[boarhunter67]

Rifleman,
You say you don't make judgements, then go on to say that spending more money makes one more dedicated. If that's the case, anyone who buys land in order to use it for hunting is seriously more dedicated than you. Money doesn't make someone more dedicated at hunting or anything else. A parent who spends more money on their kids isn't more dedicated than I. Someone who buys more expensive anniversary presents doesn't love their wife more than I. As for you wanting someone to explain how dogs could ruin someone's hunt, it's been explained several times. Go back and read through some of the posts. I think Speck did one of the best jobs in pointing out your bad logic when he showed you said he could still hunt because the dogs might even improve his chances by scaring some pigs in his direction, but he better not shoot because that would be selfish. It was brilliant and needs to be re-read if you didn't understand.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

BLASTMASTER,

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

It's not complicated. It doesn't need an explination the average length of one of your posts.[/b]

If it isn't complicated, why is it that no one has stepped forward with some rational arguments to explain it. It might not need as much explanation as I provide, but it does need more than multiple JHO'ers echoing the same general statement and not backing it up with anything more than generalizations at best.

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

Like I said, I equate dogs, running through my stalking area, to oblivious LA hunters that blunders by, ruining an otherwise peaceful day in the field (not just a kill).[/b]

If that is the definition shared by everyone who made the statement, then I can certainly live with that. I suppose that I made the mistake in assuming that people were referring to their chances of coming home with a hog (especially when they cited the amount of work they put into getting a hog as reason to shoot a pursued or bayed hog.)

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

What you don't, and possibly can't understand, is that some people find the presence of hunting dogs, in that situation, neither peacefull nor pleasant. It's personal thing[/b]

I do understand this. I am sure that some hunters view the presence of houndsmen in the area in the same way I view the presence of spot-and-stalkers in the area...something that is unfortunate. However, I do not believe that the sound of rifle shots interrupting the sounds of my barking dogs is enough to ruin my day. I'm sure that most, if not all, of us would prefer to have the hills to ourselves. But when we find that there are others out there, we shouldn't get so worked up about it to let it ruin the day or the hunt.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

boarhunter67,
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

You say you don't make judgements, then go on to say that spending more money makes one more dedicated.[/b]

If you'll read what I said, you'll find that my comments focused on the application of values to an opinion or statement. I said that I try to avoid making statements of judgement or value as in, Houndsmen are "better" hunters because they spend more time in the hills than spot-and-stalkers or Rural hunters are "good" and city hunters are "bad."

If you re-read my statements, you'll see that I used the accepted definition of the word "dedicated" to demonstrate how houndsmen are more dedicated to the sport than spot-and-stalkers. I did not make any judgements of value, just fact. I merely measured the demonstrable expenditure of houndsmen and spot-and-stalkers in the context of the definition of a word. Exactly how is this inappropriate?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

If that's the case, anyone who buys land in order to use it for hunting is seriously more dedicated than you. Money doesn't make someone more dedicated at hunting or anything else. A parent who spends more money on their kids isn't more dedicated than I. Someone who buys more expensive anniversary presents doesn't love their wife more than I.[/b]

If you re-read all of my comments, you'll find that I listed several general areas (which we'll refer to as "resources") that houndsmen (as a group) exhaust more of than spot-and-stalkers. If you'll refer to the definition of dedicated, you'll find that it entails being "wholly committed." I neither said nor implied that money alone could demonstrate one's greater dedication. I did not say, "financially dedicated." If you want to take issue with what I have said, do so in the context of the whole argument or articulation, not in a single element taken out of context.

If someone spends more money and more time and more effort and more energy and more sacrifice than me, then yes, they would be more dedicated. I am perfectly comfortable saying this. I am not at all uptight or self-conscious about recognizing my own limitations in my abilities to enjoy what I am passionate about.

If my use of the definition of dedication, and my articulation of how houndsmen are more dedicated (adjective) because they dedicate (verb) more of their resources to the sport than spot-and-stalkers, does not satisfy your expectations on how to measure dedication, then I want you, boarhunter67, to come up with your own means of determining the greater dedication. I do not want you to say that it can't be measured, that it comes from the heart, or any other feel-good BS that is a convenient means of avoiding the issue. Give me your means of evaluating the greater dedication, and the logical criteria that must be met.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

As for you wanting someone to explain how dogs could ruin someone's hunt, it's been explained several times. Go back and read through some of the posts.[/b]

I have indeed read all of the posts. That is readily demonstrated by the fact that I quote everybody to the Nth degree, yet rarely get the same courtesy in return.

No, the statement has not been explained several times, but merely echoed by several people. If someone takes a position, it is reasonable to expect them to articulate and support that position, not merely re-state it over and over again.

Speck is the one who gave the issue the most attention, but he still could only come up with some kind of general timetable that hogs and deer supposedly abide by when they are supposedly scared off by dogs that are in the area. Do they look at their watch in order to get the "All Clear" sign? Where is this information coming from? No one has responded to my statements concerning why the hogs and deer will not vacate the area. Why is that?

I do not think it is too much to ask that the arguments be supported with some science rather than some general impressions. I want you guys to develop some arguments based on science (say, the natural interaction of hogs and predators, for instance) that support the idea that dogs will ruin a spot-and-stalker's chance of success.

Now, if everyone else shares BLASTMASTER's opinion that the dogs will ruin the experience because they will detract from the peace and tranquility, then I will have to accept that. I do so because that is a personal conclusion based on personal preferences. That is not something that can be proven or disproven and any arguments, for or against, would be moot.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

I think Speck did one of the best jobs in pointing out your bad logic when he showed you said he could still hunt because the dogs might even improve his chances by scaring some pigs in his direction, but he better not shoot because that would be selfish. It was brilliant and needs to be re-read if you didn't understand.[/b]

Regarding my "bad logic"...

It was actually Speck who first stated that if there are houndsmen in the area, it might work to the spot-and-stalker's favor. I cited his quote in the context of refuting the notion that a spot-and-stalker's chances of getting a hog would be ruined because of the presence of hounds in the area. In other words, I was using the statement of a spot-and-stalker to call into question the generalized conclusions of other spot-and-stalkers.

My position has been consistent throughout this discussion: Shooting a closely pursued or bayed hog is selfish. Shooting a hog that has been kicked out of the brush incidental to the pursuit, or is so far removed from the dogs that its role in the pursuit cannot be determined, would not be selfish.

There is no "bad logic" with the statements you are referring to and I defy you, boarhunter67, to prove otherwise.

 

[BLASTMASTER]

Rifleman, you wanted me to articulate how the use of coursing dogs in the area I'm hunting will ruin my day. I did that.
What is that saying, "No one is so blind as he who will not see", is that it?

 

[boarhunter67]

Rifleman,
You still need to show how spending more time and money means more dedicated, which by the way is a subjective judgement, not objective. If a soldier or trucker spends time away from his wife and family because he has to, and another person has CHOSEN a job where he works at home, it doesn't mean the soldier or trucker loves his family less or is less dedicated to them.
Also, I know several houndsman. Some spend more money than I do. All spend more time than I. Some spend far less money than I since they MAKE a lot of money. Now, they are bear and cat dogs, but you said houndsmen, not pig houndsmen. Most really care about their dogs. Some only care about money and how much they can make. It is a shortcoming that crosses all boundries and houndsmen aren't immune to it.

 

[Speckmisser]

Josh,

Now you're just being obtuse.

First of all, as I said, if you spend more money on houndhunting than the spot and stalker, it only means you're more "dedicated" to houndhunting than the spot and stalker. Which is really a pretty pointless position since it should go without saying. Other than that, it's an invalid comparison. Hounds are an expensive and time consuming hobby. Spot and stalking is not. So stop it already. You're not advancing the argument. Kudos to you for your passion, but it means nothing to those of us who don't share it.

Secondly, as to the disruption of a hunt caused by houndsmen...

Several people have explained it to you. Don't hide behind your challenge of scientific proof. Sounds like a sixth grade argument. "Yeah, well prove it!"

You haven't exactly taken the scientific high road in this discussion either.

"Interaction of hogs and predators..."? Simple enough. Predators come, hogs hide or run. If predators don't leave, hogs do. When predator goes away... then MAYBE hogs come back, or maybe they find a place that suits them better (more food, water, shelter). If predator keeps returning, hogs find a new place where predator is not. There's no mystery there, and it doesn't take a wildlife biology student to understand it.

Nobody has to "prove" their experience to you. If, as a hunter I feel that the hunt is ruined, then it's ruined. My day is done. That's what counts, and that's all that anybody needs to say. Your opinion may differ, but that is meaningless to anyone except you.

You are, by the way, absolutely right when you suggest that the spot and stalk hunter may NOT have seen an animal, even if the dogs had never shown up. But there's no way of knowing that either, so drawing the correlation, sour grapes as it may be, is still valid enough to say, "my hunt was ruined."

It corrupts my experience to be involuntarily dragged into someone else's hunting style... whether it's ten guys walking shoulder to shoulder through the brush, or a couple of guys with hounds pushing through the thickets. When that happens, my hunt is ruined.

And I have seen hot trails go stone cold for two days in the aftermath of an afternoon of hound hunting. Even nocturnal use dropped off to nil. So the days of scouting and reading sign that led me to these spots were negated. The behavior I had patterned was disrupted. In other words, my hunt was ruined.

We're not ALL running on hypothetical experiences here, Josh. Many of us actually spend time in the woods and not just behind our computers, despite what you may think, and I'd say we know what we're on about. We may not be well-versed in hog dogging, but that doesn't mean we don't know hog hunting.

By the way, there's no hypocrisy in my choice to hunt quail or pheasants with dogs, but not to hunt hogs that way. I'd credit you with a little more defined sense of logic than that... but maybe I'm mistaken. It would only be hypocritical if I judged someone else on my personal values. It would be arrogance if I presumed to define someone else's values based on simple, linear thinking... e.g. hunting quail is the same as hunting hogs, hence, hunting quail with dogs is the same as hunting hogs with dogs. It's not that simple for me... maybe it is for you, but I'd thank you to keep your personal mores to yourself.

I'm still looking through this thread for any outright condemnation of hound hunting as "not sporting" or "not really hunting". Can't find it. I have seen several statements of individual choice and preference, but no outright condemnation of those who feel differently. So why the defense?

I HAVE seen a few statements suggesting that houndsmen should stay off public land. Now there's a place for debate. It's not my argument, though. I think public land is public. Start blocking off special interests, and it quickly becomes semi-public and then less.

I think you're getting a little too wrapped up in rhetoric, Josh. I can tell, because I'm starting to fall into the same thing pointing it out to you. There's no longer substance to your arguments. This discussion has become tit for tat... point and counterpoint ad nauseum. Who can be the bigger windbag? It's become non-productive.

If you disagree with my positions, then so be it. You've offered nothing to change them. Based on your current line of reasoning, you aren't likely to change them. It's an impasse... a stalemate. The original question was answered, and the tangential discussions have run dry. Unless you have something more compelling to offer, I'm done here. Carry on with the others if you like.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

BLASTMASTER,

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

Rifleman, you wanted me to articulate how the use of coursing dogs in the area I'm hunting will ruin my day. I did that.  What is that saying, "No one is so blind as he who will not see", is that it[/b]

Please note that I acknowledged your explanation of how your day would be ruined because of the dogs' influence on the peace and tranquility that you seek. Please note that I was soliciting an explanation from others who stated that the dogs would ruin the chances of getting a hog, and were not referring to the quality of the experience.

So...you should probably look to yourself in applying the saying you were referring to.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

boarhunter67,

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

You still need to show how spending more time and money means more dedicated, which by the way is a subjective judgement, not objective. If a soldier or trucker spends time away from his wife and family because he has to, and another person has CHOSEN a job where he works at home, it doesn't mean the soldier or trucker loves his family less or is less dedicated to them.[/b]

As I said, if you are not satisfied with the method of evaluating the greater dedication that I offered, I challenge you to come up with one. Based on the definition of dedicated, and the greater demands of the use of dogs to take hogs places on the hunter, there is nothing subjective about it. Dedication can be measured.

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

Also, I know several houndsman. Some spend more money than I do. All spend more time than I. Some spend far less money than I since they MAKE a lot of money. Now, they are bear and cat dogs, but you said houndsmen, not pig houndsmen. Most really care about their dogs. Some only care about money and how much they can make. It is a shortcoming that crosses all boundries and houndsmen aren't immune to it.[/b]

Again, I have been addressing the demands of participating in the two methods in general, and have never based my arguments on "some" individuals who participate in the methods. As I've acknowledged, "some" women are physically stronger than "some" men, but that does not change the accuracy of the statement that in general, men are physically stronger than women.

The determination of physical strength can be objective--so too can the determination of dedication. Subjectivity is influenced by personal bias or experience that may jade the perception. Objectivity requires logical factors or critieria being applied fairly. There is nothing subjective to my statement.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Phil,

First of all, as I said, if you spend more money on houndhunting than the spot and stalker, it only means you're more "dedicated" to houndhunting than the spot and stalker. Which is really a pretty pointless position since it should go without saying.

Not only should it go without saying, it did go without saying. You are making an irrelevant distinction...we are talking about two methods of hunting hogs, not two groups of hunters who interact with dogs. Of course the houndhunter is going to be more dedicated to houndhunting that the spot-and-stalker.

Hounds are an expensive and time consuming hobby. Spot and stalking is not.

So, then it would be safe to say that using dogs is a more expensive and time-consuming method of hunting hogs than spot-and-stalking, correct? The hog hunter who uses dogs must dedicate more of his resources to hunting hogs than the hog hunter who does not use dogs. If the hog hunter who uses dogs dedicates more of his resources hunting hogs than the hog hunter who does not use dogs, he is more dedicated, is he not? Geez, it's basic English we're talking about here.

Don't hide behind your challenge of scientific proof. Sounds like a sixth grade argument. "Yeah, well prove it!"

Isn't that odd? I think that the typical response I've been given of, "because I said so" is much more infantile.

You haven't exactly taken the scientific high road in this discussion either.

I most certainly beg to differ. I have tried to appeal to the scientific rationale behind the response of hogs to dogs in the area at every opportunity. Seeing as how you missed the statements condemning the use of hounds (some of which I've concluded below), I am not suprised that you missed the obvious effort on my part to refute claims that an area is ruined using ecological and biolgical arguments. Need I go back and find them for you, too?

Earlier, you said,

"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...If your dogs bust up the pigs, the area is, effectively finished."

Where in the world did you get this information? What scientific basis do you have for coming up with the whole "deer will filter back in after the dogs are gone..hogs might, but not during daylight" statement?

Nobody has to "prove" their experience to you. If, as a hunter I feel that the hunt is ruined, then it's ruined. My day is done. That's what counts, and that's all that anybody needs to say.

It corrupts my experience to be involuntarily dragged into someone else's hunting style... whether it's ten guys walking shoulder to shoulder through the brush, or a couple of guys with hounds pushing through the thickets. When that happens, my hunt is ruined.

Yes, as I've said probably twice now, if the hunter deems the day to be ruined, I won't try to argue that in the least bit. As you say, it is a personal determination based on personal feelings. I do however take issue with the statment that the chances of bringing a hog home are ruined when there is little more than some firsthand experience supporting the statement.

And I have seen hot trails go stone cold for two days in the aftermath of an afternoon of hound hunting. Even nocturnal use dropped off to nil. So the days of scouting and reading sign that led me to these spots were negated. The behavior I had patterned was disrupted. In other words, my hunt was ruined.

I am not disputing that this happened or that your hunt was impaired or ruined. But I must ask...so? Myself, bayedsolid, and boarrunner have all had experiences where hogs did not leave the area, and we were able to catch multiple hogs throughout the course of the hunt. Experience cancels out experience. Now what are we left with? Science. Science is on my side, not yours.

We're not ALL running on hypothetical experiences here, Josh. Many of us actually spend time in the woods and not just behind our computers, despite what you may think, and I'd say we know what we're on about. We may not be well-versed in hog dogging, but that doesn't mean we don't know hog hunting.

1. I never said that it was hypothetical experience. I just question the value of an opinion within this discussion based solely on experience when other more logical factors conflict with the opinion.
2. With respect to time in the woods...As you have pointed out, hounds require more time. It would therefore be safe to say that hog hunters who use dogs spend more time in the woods than those who don't. It would then therefore be safe to say that hog hunters who use dogs develop more experience and knowledge hunting hogs than those who don't because of the additional time. It would then be easy to conclude that the experience of a hog hunter who uses dogs meets, if not trumps, that of one who doesn't. We then should not attempt to compare experiences, as the weight or credibility of the experiences of the hog hunter who uses dogs would justifiably be greater than that of the hog hunter who does not use dogs.
3. Despite Point 1, I find it pointless to compare experiences; experience can be so subjective and relative. I am trying to solicit more than one's own experiences to support some statements they make.

By the way, there's no hypocrisy in my choice to hunt quail or pheasants with dogs, but not to hunt hogs that way.

You are absolutely right. It would not be hypocritical for you to choose to hunt quail with dogs but not hogs with dogs; the one may certainly appeal to you more than the other. I was unclear in my position when I did not make the important distinction I should have made regarding your stated beliefs about using dogs to hunt hogs compared to your possible interest in using dogs to hunt quail.

It would be hypocritical of you, or anyone else, to state that the use of dogs for the taking of quail is both hunting and sporting, but the use of dogs for the taking of hogs is neither. It would be hyocritical of you to say that the dogs are doing all the hunting for hogs, but the dogs are not doing all the hunting for quail. If would be hypocritical of you to admonish the hoghunter who uses dogs against "taking all the credit," but not the quailhunter who uses dogs. It would be hypocritical of you to say that the overwhelming advantage of the hoghunter is the use of dogs, and has so very little to do with their time, effort, dedication or anything else, but not say the same for the quailhunter. It would be hypocritical of you to say that a spot-and-stalker has worked as hard or harder for a hog than any hunter who uses dogs, but not make the same distinction between quailhunters who do and do not use dogs.

I'm still looking through this thread for any outright condemnation of hound hunting as "not sporting" or "not really hunting". Can't find it. I have seen several statements of individual choice and preference, but no outright condemnation of those who feel differently. So why the defense?

You must not have looked all that hard. Here's a few...

1. Wello: "Hounding is not really hunting to me..." and "I don't classify it as hunting but they deserve being exercised in this manner."
2. pig guide: "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."
3. Common Sense: "I feel much the same as pig guide about hounds, but to each his own.

 

[boarhunter67]

In case you had trouble understanding everything Rifleman was saying, here is a handy translation: "I just question the value of an opinion [unless it's my opinion] within this discussion based solely on experience [unless it's my experience] when other more logical factors conflict with the opinion. LOL.
Seriously though, to put to rest the question of whether a hunter has the same chances of getting a hog after dogs have been through an area, here is a discourse at least as scientific rifleman's: Does someone quail hunting have the same chance of shooting the same amount of quail if he goes through a field that other hunters and dogs just went through? Of course not. Scientifically, that would be impossible. That doesn't mean he might not shoot a quail or two, just that he wouldn't have the same chance of success. Similarly, when one hunter walks through the woods he covers a certain amount of ground. When a pack of hounds go through do they cover the same amount of territory? Once again logic dictates that a pack of hounds will cover miles more territory even if they weren't onto a hog. Does a person have as much chance of shooting a hog immediately after dogs have been through the area? Nope. Once again a person would have to have no ability to reason to believe so. Therefore, if someone is hunting an area without dogs (similar to those hunting without a large group of hunters covering the same area) their chances aren't as good that they will see a hog.

As for the argument that: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

It would therefore be safe to say that hog hunters who use dogs spend more time in the woods than those who don't. It would then therefore be safe to say that hog hunters who use dogs develop more experience and knowledge hunting hogs than those who don't because of the additional time. It would then be easy to conclude that the experience of a hog hunter who uses dogs meets, if not trumps, that of one who doesn't. We then should not attempt to compare experiences, as the weight or credibility of the experiences of the hog hunter who uses dogs would justifiably be greater than that of the hog hunter who does not use dogs.[/b]

By your own description you don't have more experience hunting hogs, only hunting hogs with dogs. How much experience do you have (w/o your dogs) hunting hogs? I believe that would make your dogs better experts at hunting than you. My only point is that you say at one time that you can't compare the two, then you compare the two and say of course that you're greater and better. Once again, pretty arrogant. Just in case you think I'm saying that because you are a houndsman, I'm not. The other houndsmen on here don't come across that way. Maybe it's because they don't say they are better, more knowledgeable hunters, that their opinions are scientific, but other's are irrelevant. The houndsmen I know spend more time in their pick-up truck fiddling with the radio to see where their dogs are. Does that mean they are more experienced drivers? Once again science would say no.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

boarhunter67,

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

Seriously though, to put to rest the question of whether a hunter has the same chances of getting a hog after dogs have been through an area, here is a discourse at least as scientific rifleman's: Does someone quail hunting have the same chance of shooting the same amount of quail if he goes through a field that other hunters and dogs just went through? Of course not. Scientifically, that would be impossible. That doesn't mean he might not shoot a quail or two, just that he wouldn't have the same chance of success. Similarly, when one hunter walks through the woods he covers a certain amount of ground...Does a person have as much chance of shooting a hog immediately after dogs have been through the area? Nope. Once again a person would have to have no ability to reason to believe so. Therefore, if someone is hunting an area without dogs (similar to those hunting without a large group of hunters covering the same area) their chances aren't as good that they will see a hog.[/b]

This statement is not an application of science to the two scenarios. It seems more like statistics and probability...something that belongs in the math realm.

Nowhere in your discussion did you address any of the biological or ecological factors that would influence the behavior of quail or hogs when there are dogs in the area. Let's talk about Fight or Flight, the expenditure of energy, the response to predation, and the evolutionary traits of quail and hogs that allow the species to continue to exist. This is science.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

When a pack of hounds go through do they cover the same amount of territory? Once again logic dictates that a pack of hounds will cover miles more territory even if they weren't onto a hog.[/b]

No, logic does not dictate this because this is not the default practice or outcome of using a pack of hounds to pursue hogs. I can't speak for boarrunner or bayedsolid, but my dogs do not "cover miles more territory" when they are not pursuing a hog, and have very rarely "covered miles more territory" when they were.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

By your own description you don't have more experience hunting hogs, only hunting hogs with dogs. How much experience do you have (w/o your dogs) hunting hogs? I believe that would make your dogs better experts at hunting than you.[/b]

This comment aptly demonstrates the fact that there is something inherently important that is missing from your line of thought...the acknowledgement of the fact that a houndsman must know the habits of the game he pursues. Based on the comments above, I am led to believe that you think that a hunter who uses dogs must not know anything about hunting or hogs, but rather, must know about dogs only. As boarrunner pointed out many pages back, a hog hunter who uses dogs must know just as much as a hog hunter who doesn't. We have to know not only the habits of the game and how it utilizes the terrain, but also how to incorporate the dogs into that terrain during our pursuit of the game.

We are hunters, not just dog owners!

Arguably, the only thing that a spot-and-stalker must know that we don't are the ballistics of their weaponry, where their iron sight, scope or bowsight is "calibrated" for, and the wind conditions. Those are the requisite elements of spot-and-stalking for hogs that are distinct from houndhunting for hogs.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

My only point is that you say at one time that you can't compare the two, then you compare the two and say of course that you're greater and better. Once again, pretty arrogant. Just in case you think I'm saying that because you are a houndsman, I'm not. The other houndsmen on here don't come across that way. Maybe it's because they don't say they are better, more knowledgeable hunters, that their opinions are scientific, but other's are irrelevant.[/b]

1. Re-read what was said. I never referred to myself, but to the two general groups. I challenge you to quote me where I said that I am greater and better.
2. There is nothing at all inconsistent with what I said. You misunderstood what I said and what I intended. Let me break it down in sequential order:
a. The topic was whether or not the presence of hounds in an area will ruin the chances of getting a hog for those who are not using hounds.
b. People on the opposite side of the discussion from me have refrained from arguing their assertion that the area would indeed be ruined from a scientific (biological and ecological) basis, but have instead deferred to their own experiences and the stated experiences of others as support for their assertion.
c. I have encouraged those on the opposite side of the argument from me to present a cogent position based on factors that are found beyond one's own experiences, but instead, use scientific arguments to make a logical conclusion. I did not want to base my argument on my experiences anymore than I wanted you or anyone else to base their arguments on their own experiences. I want to stay away from anectdotal evidence and move to evidence more uniformly recognized as fact.
d. The observations and conclusions that myself, boarrunner, and bayedsolid have made during our own experiences are contrary to the observations and conclusions of those on the opposite side of the argument.
e. Because there were few, if any, counterarguments based on science, and even less supporting scientific evidence, but no shortage of anectdotal statements, I had no choice but to address that line of thinking by invalidating the credibility of the observations and conclusions drawn from the experiences of the spot-and-stalkers by demonstrating that a houndsman's experience is going to more significant, greater, higher (however you want to describe a larger amount) than a spot-and-stalker's. If there was a 1-day study and a 10-day study, which do you think would have the greater credibility? Well, the same would naturally be true of the hunter with the greater amount of experience.
f. Moral of the Story: Fight fire with fire--more specifically, negate conclusions based solely on experience with conclusions based solely on more experience.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

The houndsmen I know spend more time in their pick-up truck fiddling with the radio to see where their dogs are. Does that mean they are more experienced drivers? Once again science would say no.[/b]

Without even addressing the content of the question, I must ask...

Where, exactly, is the science in this? I'm not finding it.

 

[boarhunter67]

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

This statement is not an application of science to the two scenarios. It seems more like statistics and probability...something that belongs in the math realm.[/b]

This comment aptly demonstrates the fact that there is something inherently important that is missing from your line of thought...the acknowledgement of the basis for science. Without math, you cannot have science. Scientific principles are based upon math, equations, and statistics. Without them, you would not be able to prove or correlate hypotheses or studies. Furthermore, I fail to see any scientific studies which you have cited. However, by ignoring the basis of my argument and trying to divert attention to a divergence line, I take it as acquiescence on your part.
As to your "I never said I...", when one states that a group is X, Y, or Z, and that person is included in that group, it is understood that "I" is indeed included in that group. In the English language, "I" is included in "we". Just because the speaker proports to speak for the group, does not mean he isn't included. Also, you should not speak for the group without a scientific study to find out if the group agrees with you. I, therefore, ask the other houndmen reading this if you feel, as rifleman has stated, that you are better, more knowledgeable, and more dedicated than the rest of us lowly non-houndsmen?

 

[RIFLEMAN]

To Speck who challenged my scientific high road, boarhunter67 who asked for scientific studies, and anyone else who challenged my assertions that the mere presence of hounds in an area will not inherently ruin your chances of taking a hog or deer, please read "Do Pressured Deer Fly the Coop?" in the recent issue of American Hunter.

To capture the highlights:
When dogs are being used to pursue deer...

1. "Even when hunters use hounds to hunt deer they have a difficult time forcing deer from their home range for more than a few hours." -Patrick Durkin, Article Author
2. "They often ran long distances on a straight line when being chased and then, before leaving their home range, they doubled-back on about the same line. Sometimes they'd get back to the center of their home range and hold, or they'd stop on the perimeter and hold until flushed again." -Gino D'Angelo, Doctoral Student at the University of Georgia
3. "The only real exception was a doe that tried to stay within her home range, but then ran 1 1/2 miles from the periphery and stayed out there until dark. Then she made a beeline home." -Gino D'Angelo, Doctoral Student at the University of Georgia
4. "D'Angelo also found that the longer a hunt lasted, the more determined deer became to hold still. They would not flee until the dogs apparently had their scent and were moving in. His results were similar to those recorded by Marchington during a 1971 study." -Patrick Durkin, Article Author
5. "'It's almost like a big version of a cottontail rabbit. They run a long time, go into a holding pattern and circle back." -Gino D'Angelo, Doctoral Student at the University of Georgia

When dogs are in the area but are not being used to pursue deer...

1. "...deer hunters often claim raccoon hounds chase away 'their deer' when working the same woodlots at night. However, research at Clemson University from 1993-1994 monitored 27 radio-collared deer in South Carolina, and found no evidence that deer movements were affected the day after raccoon hunts." -Patrick Durkin, Article Author
2. "...not once did a radio-collared deer leave its home range during these monitored hunts." -Patrick Durkin, Article Author
3. "Further, the researchers used cameras at baited sites to monitor post-hunt deer movements, and found no difference in deer visitations before and after the hunts." -Patrick Durkin, Article Author

 

[Speckmisser]

Not exactly timely... but great info about deer hunting (which I already knew)... now find the same data regarding hogs. And not incidental stuff about coon hounds, but about hog dogs.

Seriously, Rifleman...

I've been bombarded with enough bombast on this thread... You didn't get it then, you don't get it now. I said my piece. I have better things in my life than do it all over again. Have at it if you will... but I'm done.

 

[MikenSoCo]

If a man's dogs are affecting my hunt on public, it's only fair for him to expect his hunt to be affected by me. It's public land, period.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Speck,

"Not exactly timely"
Wait a second here. This is somewhat disingenuous, Phil. You guys challenged my "scientific high road" and asked for studies proving my statements. I have done so. Now you knock me for citing an article from the September 2006 issue of AH that supports my argument from a discussion in April of 2005. Should I have cited this article back then? The timeliness of the article does not lessen the merits of the article or the findings of the studies within.

"... but great info about deer hunting (which I already knew)."
You did? I seem to recall your opinion that when dogs were in the area, deer would leave and filter back in once the dogs were gone. Your appraisal of their behavior is not supported by the studies. In fact, only one doe came close to what you said deer will do. She moved a whopping mile and a half away and then came back into her home range that night. The rest stayed put...this was when the deer were being pursued by dogs, not merely occupying the same area as the dogs as was discussed.

"...now find the same data regarding hogs."
If I do, will you concede, or just take issue with how much time it took me to collect the research?

"And not incidental stuff about coon hounds, but about hog dogs."
Why? How is that secondary study not relevant to our discussion? This refutes the position that the presence of dogs in an area will impact the behavior of deer--something repeated by many of you.

"I've been bombarded with enough bombast on this thread..."
There was nothing arrogant about my statements. What you saw was stated confidence in my assertions (which the article and referenced studies support) and impatience with the lack of acknowledgement of some fundamental concepts (definition of words, recognition of the value of science and logic over anectodotal experience, etc) during the discussion. Nothing pompous about that.

"You didn't get it then, you don't get it now."
I don't get it because you have yet to use science, logic or ecology to demonstrate how the mere presence of dogs in an area will decrease your odds of taking a buck or hog. While I did not reference any studies during the discussion, I did employ concepts such as Conservation of Energy, Flight or Fight, etc to demonstrate my position. Your arguments had no scientific basis, just anectodotal experience and subjective determinations. Any person could reasonably reject or "not get" that sort of position.

You and several others made the point that your day was ruined by the presence of dogs...that the quality of the experience was impacted. I acknowledged the merits of this subjective position and never took issue with it.

I think you guys unfairly and inaccurately attempt to portray me as some sort of one-dimensional, narrow-minded houndsmen who refuses to acknowledge anything but his own position or the merits of any method other than his own. My statements do not give you any justification for this.