What would you do?

[Franklin3]

Since I'm older than most of you here and I also grew up with houndsmen when it was legal in the state of Oregon. I live in the city now and have no opportunity to run with any houndsmen plus my knees are shot and I don't keep up so well. I am a still hunter, spot and stalk, hide in a blind, I have also spent days returning to an area looking for dogs with big hearts and tattered pads. I have also picked up other folks dogs fed them up and left them in the woods, because I knew someone would be back for them.
Specs scenarios give me great pause. They could go so many ways. While there are means ands methods more stimulating in a hunt than a pack of good hounds working a bay, they are few and far between. At fifteen years of age I stood in a feild and watched a mature sow bear stand on her hind legs, reach down and swat a cub on the bottom to send it scurrying up a tree then turn to face down a pack of hounds. I dont think I need to explain the adreniline rush or the hair on my neck standing up, I'll never forget that sight. My oppinion therefore is based on my own experience from both sides of the issue.
If I am aware of working dogs in the area I'm hunting regardless of how much time, money energy I spent. I am leaving the area even if they push my quarry right in front of me unless that hog, bear, whatever moves to attack me I'm steppin down, it belongs to the houndsmean.
If I hear a pack at bay near enough to me I might try to find a discreet location where I can watch the action undetected without disturbing the participants cuz it truly is a sight to see. I don't want to shoot an animal bayed up by someone elses dogs when I'm not part of their party. I'm in it for the whole experience of spot and stalk hunting the kill is just one peice of the puzzle. Without the resat of the experience it's hollow. I am no subsistence hunter I dont have to hunt to survive. I do eat everything I kill and it is a major part of my diet so I do like to keep the freezer full.
Just my humble 2cts

 

[JNDEER]

well i think i am reply 220 something and it probably won't get read but i will put in what i have to say....hunting on public land for hogs in central/norther california i have run into this situation once....

for both scenarious i would not shoot...i don't think that would be right, if i cannot determine for a fact that the dogs would be just loose dogs and not being ran by some hunter then i would not shot.... my example would be if i was doing a deer drive on public land and pushing deer up the ridge to my brother who is in the draw and a hunter is on the ridge and shoots down at the deer coming up to my brother that is not right....(sorry best example i could come up with showing my point).... the dog owner is trying to kill a hog so me shooting them just because i am in the right place at the right time isn't morally right for me....

the one situation i did have was two guys running one dog and he yelled to me from the buttom of the canyon to let me know there would be some hogs coming up my way and to take them if i could...the dog ran the hogs the wrong way...i never saw them but in that instance i would have probably shot if it was clear...

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Franklin,

I wish your brothers back home in Oregon could continue to enjoy the sport as you did way back when. As Oregon's deer and elk continue to slide (as they are in Washington), I think it is plausible that the use of hounds will once again come into favor (at least on a limited basis) with the state government.

I know that the hunters whose dogs you took such good care of appreciate your compassion, and as a houndsman, I thank you for that concern. I am so thankful when people take the time to look out for my dogs when they come across them.


JNDEER,

"well i think i am reply 220 something and it probably won't get read but i will put in what i have to say"
The scenario presented and the discussions that came about as a result of it have definitely inspired a lot of passion and opinion, but I think it is a discussion worth having for however long houndsmen and spot-and-stalkers have to share the hills. Your thoughts are certainly welcome to me no matter your position.

"...and he yelled to me from the buttom of the canyon to let me know there would be some hogs coming up my way and to take them if i could"
You will find that this is a pretty common attitude of houndsmen; generally speaking, we are not selfish with the game and are more than happy to share. Over the years, I have seen lots of spot-and-stalkers who heard the dogs or happened upon the scene jump at the chance to shoot a bayed hog or treed bear. But I certainly appreciate and respect the reasons why others would not even be remotely interested in taking up the offer.

The fact that hunting with dogs does not appeal to everyone, and the fact that the mere presence of dogs may impair the ability of some to truly enjoy their experience outdoors goes without saying to me; this was never even up for debate as far as I am concerned. I am far more interested in disspelling myths and misconceptions about houndsmen and hound hunting than I am in trying to recruit more houndsmen.

Hound hunting is a natural and sporting pastime, steeped in tradition, but it isn't for everybody. I will argue tirelessly in support of the former concept, but will never waste one breath challenging the latter.

 

[BirdDawg]

I'd shoot the hounds......always wanted a good dog mount.

 

[ooja]

How about DFG changing the rules on this and having the houndsmen run the hogs at night when they are not in their beds?

DFG's guide to Boar Hunting says when someone scares a hog out of its bed that it is more than likely not going to return to the area for a long time, whereas if it is scared while it is out feeding it is much less likely to flee the area indefinately.

I don't know much about running hounds, but I heard this is how it is done by some anyway. Would that be a problem for the houndsmen? I would not want houndsmen to get stuck with the worst time to hunt, but if there was not much effect, it might be a solution.

Why are there dog control zones in the state? and why are houndsmen limited to the number of hogs they can run during certain seasons?

I am not trying to prove any points with these questions. I really don't know.

I stayed out of this for a while because a few misunderstood some points I made. One point I made was I hoped nobody would threaten dogs, even in jest. I love dogs. Someone misunderstood my intentions with this point. I know Bird dawg is joking, but I have heard some serious threats over the years, and I cannot stomach anyone hurting someone else's family member (read hunting dog). That thread on the wolves eating the bear dogs in Idaho messed with my head for a few weeks.

Well, there is very little chance I will ever see this situation happen anyway. If it does, I still stick with my original stance, I will choose to leave the area, there will always be other days. I am a solitary kind of hunter, I would also leave if I saw a bunch of guys heading up the hill as well. No difference to me, people or dogs.

 

[snoopdogg]

Man, I can't believe this thread is still going, 17 years later. lol

Josh, go to bed! What the hell are you doing replying at 3:11 in the frickin' a.m.???

You boys definitely have your opinions on this thread, this very long thread...

 

[MikenSoCo]

I say we sick Rifleman on the Anti's

 

[snoopdogg]

I'm in!

 

[crittergetter]

I dont think a hog is worth compromising. Case one I would watch it run by since I don't care for a running shot and then take up chase with the houndsmen later if they agreed.
Second case I would get a visual just for entertainment. I would wait for a while, if the dogs eventually began to kill it I may step in for a courtesy kill. I would consider that many times the catch dogs are pits or other powerfull dogs that could be excited and protective over the animal if anyone but their owner tried to get in the way. I would keep clear of the dogs for sure. Basically I would watch until it was time to stepin for the animals sake.
Either case is not worth a confruntation.

 

[PorkChopper]

Ok, so how many here have spent numerous gallons of gasoline, elbow grease, money, time, sweat/blood and time convincing your spouse/family to let you out of the house to go hunting for the weekend or whatever?

So you finally get to go, you and a buddy have this great idea of using some public land a few hours away and figure your gonna hike in and stay the weekend. You get there set up and are ready for some serious hunting.

early morning you head out to spot and stalk. You spend a day of going through a treacherous adventure of brush, rocks, hills etc... you finally get to a great spot and set up.

Wait all of a sudden you spot maybe a pig, a deer or whatever it may be quite some distance away. Maybe your using bow, shot gun or rifle. However you dont feel you can ethically take a shot of that distance. So you begin to track or wait.

HOWWWWWWWWWLLLLLL all of a sudden you hear dogs in the distance, and the noise is getting closer. you notice the game starts to shuffle and move. Now your questioning "can i take the shot?, should I ? I did all this to have my trip ruined by dogs?" This is a serious debate. Emotions and ethics are highly tied up in this scenario.

No one side is going to win for what ever choice is done in this scenario. Both parties must be professional and handle this situation on an understanding basis. This is not a reason to fight or cuss each other, instead hear each other out and come to understand each others reasons. Then split the meat and have some drinks and call it a day! There is no right answer or choice. One will do what they felt was right, for whatever reason so. This is just my 2 cents...

 

[RIFLEMAN]

ooja,

"How about DFG changing the rules on this and having the houndsmen run the hogs at night when they are not in their beds? Would that be a problem for the houndsmen? I would not want houndsmen to get stuck with the worst time to hunt, but if there was not much effect, it might be a solution."

I would like to see DFG manage the feral hog within their mandated authority and correct the classification of the feral hog to livestock much as the Texas Wildlife and Parks does. This would authorize, among other things, the ability to take hogs at night. DFG has exceeded their mandate by encouraging, sponsoring or otherwise supporting the outright propagation of the feral hog by restricting their take with regulations as a big game animal.

I've done enough depredation work and hunting in Texas to know that running hogs at night can be more productive, but can be more challenging as well. While it helps the dogs avoid the heat of the day, vehicles, and dog killers, and is likely to put them into greater contact with hogs seeking refuge from heat and hunting pressure, it poses its share of risks for the dogs and hunter. The ease of pursuit and bay may be impacted by the relative lack of light, and going into the brush to shoot a black hog at night can be interesting.

However, I do not hold out any hope of this change being made so we are left to figure out a way to peacefully co-exist.


"DFG's guide to Boar Hunting says when someone scares a hog out of its bed that it is more than likely not going to return to the area for a long time, whereas if it is scared while it is out feeding it is much less likely to flee the area indefinately."

During a hunt more than a decade ago, my dogs bayed a hog in a draw covered by an isolated patch of manzanita; this was the only brush/cover over miles of rolling oak tree-covered hills. The place literally stunk with the stench of hog, there was a trail etched into the earth (like a cow trail) made by the hooves of the hog traffic, and there were tunnels and beds everywhere in the manzanita. I used that spot as my ace in the hole for many years until the property was sold. Whenever I failed to catch a hog elsewhere on the ranch, I would walk my dogs to that spot and started a hog from that bedding area more often than not. I did not find that the frequency of my "predation" had any impact on the activity of the hogs in that spot. Perhaps this was artificially influenced by the relative lack of cover, but it is among the more glaring examples where my experiences have not matched the DFG guide.


"Why are there dog control zones in the state? and why are houndsmen limited to the number of hogs they can run during certain seasons?"
The dog control zones are regions of the state deemed by the DFG to be historic or developing ranges of black bear habitation. In order to promote the highest bear cub recruitment, the use of dogs for the pursuit or take of any species is prohibited from April 1st through the day that precedes the start of the general deer season for that area.

Houndsmen are not limited to the number of hogs at any time, but assuming you meant dogs, there is a limitation of 3 dogs per hunter during the portion of the year not involved in the general deer season. In my efforts to petition a change to align the dog regulations for hogs to the dog regulations for bear, I was told by Sonke Mastrup that the primary concern about this potential change was that the hog could not seek refuge from the dogs in a tree like a bear could, so there was an issue with the possibility for the hog being treated inhumanely.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Oscar,

Josh, go to bed! What the hell are you doing replying at 3:11 in the frickin' a.m.???"

I have been using JHO as a way to wind down after taking my dogs out. What can I say...you guys wear me out more than my dogs do!

 

[snoopdogg]

Dude....

And here you are reposting at 1!!!

 

[boarhunter67]

I've never had that happen with pigs, just bears. Lots of times with bears, but not with pigs.

 

[rusman66]

Ok #1 I would have shot the pig, but I probably forgot to turn down my scope so I couldn,t find it.

#2 I would have watched the scenerio unfold and appreciate a form of hunting that I am unfamiliar with
and probably enjoyed watching some good dogs in action. I might even ask the houndsmen If I could tag along. And then after quickly falling behind I would call it a good day and go home a happy and more educated man. I can buy bacon at the store!!!

 

[ooja]

Thanks for the information Rifleman. Yeah, I made a typo, should have read "dogs."

Figures, another idea that makes sense, that is not employed by CADFG in spite of the fact that a state with far more experience is using it.

 

[jjhack]

I have owned and hunted with hounds for many years of my life. I have hunted them on private and public land for sport and very heavily for animal damage control.

However,..... hunting on public land by spot and stalk to make a good attempt at getting a hog within the reach of your rifle or bow, only to have a pack of hounds come screaming through the area moving hogs would be no reason not to shoot a hog that was coming by in a group or all alone.

The area belongs to all the hunters, none of it belongs to the dogs. When this happens the hunters with hounds cannot claim a greater use of the land then they have control over. If the hounds have ranged out of the functional distance of the hunters to catch them, then how can they claim greater ownership of that area when they are not even there?

The **HUNTER** has the legal right with his tag to harvest a big game animal, a dog does not have this right. The owner of the hounds cannot claim a greater use of the land then a hunter without hounds. If this were the case you would only have a few houndmen monopolizing the whole area because there dogs needed to have the room to chase pigs or other big game around.

I have these opinions which I think are fair and within a logical and reasonable expectation of the law and just good manners in the field. Even though I have been a hound hunter much of my life. I don't think if I were to argue this with a non-hound hunter in the bush, if he were to shoot a hog infront of my hounds I would be doing hound hunting any favors. It's no wonder the use of hounds is being voted out in so many places.

When one man with one tag thinks he can monopolize the whole area because he is using a pack of dogs, and another hunter who is not using dogs but has the equal right to the land use, and the limited available wild hogs, he can equally be the one to have the shot first and has every right to take it.

It took me a long time to grasp this whole concept and the big picture of just how many guys hunts I must have ruined with my hounds over the years who had packed in and worked their butts off only for my dogs to rip through the area and blow out every bear they were after. I was a stubborn sort and did not believe this was a problem. However after sitting in huge meeting rooms listening with an open mind to the anti hound movment among big game hunters, I began to open my eyes a bit and realize that houndmen are there own worst enemy in almost every case.

Hound hunters don't have any greater rights to the land then a non hound hunter. The game and the land are equally available, and the hounds are **not** hunters, only the guy with the gun is. If the hounds have pushed game so far out of reach of the hound hunters they no longer have the immediate control over the area. Only the hunter in that area does.

That was actually the way it was legally described by a F&G officer and their lawyer at one( actually several) of the meetings I attended. Lots of hound men were irrate and got very aggressive and made lots of threatening statements about this out loud and in public.

It did not help their image during these meetings. We no longer have a hound season. It's time to open our eyes and think about these things. Hounds on private land all bets are off. But on Public land, the land does not belong to the dogs, it belongs to the hunters!

 

[boarhunter67]

Finally some logic. It's good to hear a houndsman who doesn't brag about how much better and more experienced he is than us ordinary hunters.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

jj,

Though I have admittedly not taken the time to go back and review all of the posts from the last four pages of this topic, I do not recall any houndsman asserting greater claim to the land they hunt on, or greater right to be hunting than the non-houndsman. For this reason, I am not sure how germane your comments are. The arguments offered thus far have less to do with the legality of the circumstances and more to do with the morality and ethics of the possible outcomes of the scenarios that were offered. But the premise of your arguments invites response anyway.

"If the hounds have pushed game so far out of reach of the hound hunters they no longer have the immediate control over the area. Only the hunter in that area does. If the hounds have ranged out of the functional distance of the hunters to catch them, then how can they claim greater ownership of that area when they are not even there?"
How does one decide how "immediate control" and "functional distance" are defined? By what means? If the dogs are running an animal 1/4 mile away, is this within "immediate control" and "functional distance" of the houndsman, and conversely, what if the dogs have an animal bayed or treed several miles away? How does a non-houndsman make these determinations without knowing where the houndsman is located in relation to the dogs, or what the capabilities of the houndsman and his dogs are?

"The **HUNTER** has the legal right with his tag to harvest a big game animal, a dog does not have this right...The game and the land are equally available, and the hounds are **not** hunters, only the guy with the gun is."
I would assume that you repeated this assertion in order to demonstrate the absence of lawful possession of the game, and would not question that legal recognition. However, as the dog is a lawful extension of the hunter, the determination of whether or not to shoot is a challenging moral dillema...as evident by the variation of opinions offered thus far.

"When one man with one tag thinks he can monopolize the whole area because he is using a pack of dogs, and another hunter who is not using dogs but has the equal right to the land use, and the limited available wild hogs, he can equally be the one to have the shot first and has every right to take it."
You did not qualify your comments with applicability to one scenario or another, so I must ask when, exactly, you think it is appropriate for the non-houndsman to take the shot first...when the hog is hundreds of yards ahead of the dogs? tens of yards ahead? bayed by the dogs?

"That was actually the way it was legally described by a F&G officer and their lawyer at one( actually several) of the meetings I attended. Lots of hound men were irrate and got very aggressive and made lots of threatening statements about this out loud and in public. It did not help their image during these meetings. We no longer have a hound season. It's time to open our eyes and think about these things. Hounds on private land all bets are off. But on Public land, the land does not belong to the dogs, it belongs to the hunters!"
I am not trying to justify any threatening or unprofessional behavior that may have occurred, but the success of I-655 had less to do with the behavior of houndsmen during hearings with the WDFG, and much more to do with the typically successful emotional initiative campaigns of well-funded organizations like HSUS. Tapping into the ignorance of the voting public about two little known methods of take-hound hunting and trapping-is a template in the playbook of the anti hunting community. Real or perceived threats did not influence the WDFG, as they remained opposed to I-655 throughout the campaign, and hound hunting has managed to make a comeback in Washington in certain counties for emergency management purposes.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

boarhunter67,

"Finally some logic."
You have said some pretty nonsensical things during this discussion, but this one definitely takes the cake. You are actually stating that boarrunner, bayedsolid or myself have not offered any logic? You may not agree with what has been said, but to say that our comments have been illogical is ridiculous. Do not make the mistake of confusing logic with consensus.

"It's good to hear a houndsman who doesn't brag about how much better and more experienced he is than us ordinary hunters."
Label my comments as arrogant and elitist if it makes you feel better about yourself, but let's review the summary of my statements that you must be referring to:
1. Competent houndsmen who hunt with competent dogs generally catch/kill more hogs than "ordinary" hunters.
2. It requires more time, money and sacrifice of one's lifestyle to develop and maintain competent dogs than it does to develop and maintain competency with a rifle, pistol or bow.
3. More time in the hills and more hogs caught quite naturally equals more experience hunting and catching/killing hogs.
4. Given the accuracy of the statements above, competent houndsmen are more successful and experienced in the hunting, and catching or killing of feral hogs than competent spot-and-stalkers. However, I specifically remember avoiding making any statement saying that I personally am a "better" hunter than you or any other hunter, or that houndsmen are "better" than spot-and-stalkers. In fact, I made several repeated statements to make it clear that I was not alleging myself to be a better or superior hunter. Shall I dig up some examples for you, or will you finally move beyond the grade school rhetoric?

Why is it so hard for you and others to acknowledge simple truths...it is not a personal reflection on you that houndsmen generally hunt more and have a higher success rate. Perhaps you should go back and review the comments of Common Sense (a non-houndsman who has repeatedly stated that he doesn't like hounds) regarding a possible, if not likely, motivation.