Do you realy call chasing them Loud barking , smelly annoying dogs hunting? I dont see any hunting in that at all. I would shoot them dogs before I shot the hog and do everyone a favor including the dogs. My neighbor has them pinned up in his back yard, who wants to live in a 5 foot x 8 foot jail cell. Sory to tick you hound guys off but you dont own the woods and shouldnt think you have the right to take over an area if you want to. Leave the dogs at home get off your lazzy but and do your own hunting.
- Thread starter Speckmisser
- Start date
Rifleman, We could go round and round about the feelings we each have here and get noplace.
Ive been a serious houndman for a hella long time chasing big game with dogs. However I never mistook it for me being the hunter. The dogs are the hunter, I .... and my clients were simply followers. Having taken game by spot and stalk, with handgun, archery, and rifle, I make no mistake that shooting a treed or bayed animal was actually an equal effort or skill set to doing it without them.
A dog is a far superior hunter to a human, which is why my success rates with dogs was unbeliveabley good when compared to the same hours and days afield without them.
I have never really felt I was the "hunter" when I used my dogs, I always felt I was a very skill dog handler, and understood the dogs actions. My efforts and experience were in learning to read the dogs and the way they act. I did not need to know nearly as much about the game because the dogs took care of that for me.
Put anther way, I could catch a bear or lion about every week or maybe more more without much problem using my dogs. I would be lucky to even see a bear or lion in many weeks without them. For this reason the poor bugger who has made the masive effort to get into a position for a shot at his game only to have a pack of dogs come blazing through the area well outside the control of the owner becomes an very rude and unfair situation for that hunter.
When you asked who defines the area of control? Simple the licensed hunter that see's the game first. If you're on foot and spook a muley over a ridge and a hunter on the other side shoots it, then you have no claim to as it was out of your control and range. No different with a dog. The hunter with hounds cannot lay claim to a greater area then a hunter without dogs. Both hunters are equally entitled to the available wild big game there. The dog's simpley do not define the area as "owned" by the hunter who has them.
When a Pheasant is flushed from the field and flys out of range of the hunters shotguns and across a field to another hunter and he shoots it it's the same thing. You have the right to the animals your dogs have bayed up if your there to dispatch the game. If not, you don't own it, the licened hunter that is there has every right to it. Ownership does not occur until death and it gets tagged, it's not owned while running through the bush.
I've not come to these conclusions, or assumptions myself. I've sat in countless meetings prior to the loss of the hound hunting seasons here in Wa. State. Having to sit and listen to the complaints, and concerns of both parties and then hearing the legal descriptions by the F&W officers, administrators, and lawyers in front of the whole crowd was a heck of an enlightening series of events for me.
As a wildlife manager for my living, and knowing the value of the hounds for damage control work I did not want to lose that tool for my job. I attended every meeting possible and had to report back the findings and opinions to the company on what our resources were going to be should we lose this option.
Don't mistake the opinions I have here for being anti hounds, that's about as far from the truth as possible. I'm absolutely not anti hound.
What I am is Pro hunter and hunters rights. It's not possible to have happy hunters that both use the same areas when some have hounds and some do not. I've been involved with this far too long and with to many other legal professionals in the business, and too many groups each with their own agenda to see this any other way.
The only functional way to manage this is with spilt seasons, or scheduled hunting days for each type of hunting. That never seems to go over well for the houndmen who have as you must know a massive level of expense to manage the hounds for a year only to hunt 4-6 weeks on Avg. The houndmen get irate, say things they regret, and the media and the other hunters take offense.................what do you know the hounds are being cut back every year in every state. Hound hunting is going the way of the leg hold trap. The only solution is to change the perception of the hound hunters by the hunting public. There must be hound hunters who recognise that non-hound hunting rights should be protected at least as well as the hound hunters rights.
When a man has worked his butt off for a chance at a trophy only to have dogs ruin the effort, it's not likely he will be voting the way a houndman needs him too down the road. Houndmen would be very well advised to select special seasons, or specific days to hunt, sharing the bush with the non-hound hunters on the other days without dogs. Both using the same area at the same time will result in conflict that hound hunters will never win. They are a very tiny minority of the big game hunters with the greatest level of success. Maybe some jeaslousy exists? Call it what you like but hound men need to take a strong stand in agreeing with the issues rather then trying to fight them. They cannot win this battle over the long term. I've been on both sides of this for 20 years in Wa. State and I watched the struggle and seen the same situation. Once we lost the hounds we sat back and said to ourselves wow it actually happened. We should have given in to some of the complaints and taken what we were offered. Now we lost it all!
Your mileage may very
I wish you well makng the right choices and knowing that the loss of the dogs is a very strong possibility. We never thought it could happen here.
But guess what!
Ive been a serious houndman for a hella long time chasing big game with dogs. However I never mistook it for me being the hunter. The dogs are the hunter, I .... and my clients were simply followers. Having taken game by spot and stalk, with handgun, archery, and rifle, I make no mistake that shooting a treed or bayed animal was actually an equal effort or skill set to doing it without them.
A dog is a far superior hunter to a human, which is why my success rates with dogs was unbeliveabley good when compared to the same hours and days afield without them.
I have never really felt I was the "hunter" when I used my dogs, I always felt I was a very skill dog handler, and understood the dogs actions. My efforts and experience were in learning to read the dogs and the way they act. I did not need to know nearly as much about the game because the dogs took care of that for me.
Put anther way, I could catch a bear or lion about every week or maybe more more without much problem using my dogs. I would be lucky to even see a bear or lion in many weeks without them. For this reason the poor bugger who has made the masive effort to get into a position for a shot at his game only to have a pack of dogs come blazing through the area well outside the control of the owner becomes an very rude and unfair situation for that hunter.
When you asked who defines the area of control? Simple the licensed hunter that see's the game first. If you're on foot and spook a muley over a ridge and a hunter on the other side shoots it, then you have no claim to as it was out of your control and range. No different with a dog. The hunter with hounds cannot lay claim to a greater area then a hunter without dogs. Both hunters are equally entitled to the available wild big game there. The dog's simpley do not define the area as "owned" by the hunter who has them.
When a Pheasant is flushed from the field and flys out of range of the hunters shotguns and across a field to another hunter and he shoots it it's the same thing. You have the right to the animals your dogs have bayed up if your there to dispatch the game. If not, you don't own it, the licened hunter that is there has every right to it. Ownership does not occur until death and it gets tagged, it's not owned while running through the bush.
I've not come to these conclusions, or assumptions myself. I've sat in countless meetings prior to the loss of the hound hunting seasons here in Wa. State. Having to sit and listen to the complaints, and concerns of both parties and then hearing the legal descriptions by the F&W officers, administrators, and lawyers in front of the whole crowd was a heck of an enlightening series of events for me.
As a wildlife manager for my living, and knowing the value of the hounds for damage control work I did not want to lose that tool for my job. I attended every meeting possible and had to report back the findings and opinions to the company on what our resources were going to be should we lose this option.
Don't mistake the opinions I have here for being anti hounds, that's about as far from the truth as possible. I'm absolutely not anti hound.
What I am is Pro hunter and hunters rights. It's not possible to have happy hunters that both use the same areas when some have hounds and some do not. I've been involved with this far too long and with to many other legal professionals in the business, and too many groups each with their own agenda to see this any other way.
The only functional way to manage this is with spilt seasons, or scheduled hunting days for each type of hunting. That never seems to go over well for the houndmen who have as you must know a massive level of expense to manage the hounds for a year only to hunt 4-6 weeks on Avg. The houndmen get irate, say things they regret, and the media and the other hunters take offense.................what do you know the hounds are being cut back every year in every state. Hound hunting is going the way of the leg hold trap. The only solution is to change the perception of the hound hunters by the hunting public. There must be hound hunters who recognise that non-hound hunting rights should be protected at least as well as the hound hunters rights.
When a man has worked his butt off for a chance at a trophy only to have dogs ruin the effort, it's not likely he will be voting the way a houndman needs him too down the road. Houndmen would be very well advised to select special seasons, or specific days to hunt, sharing the bush with the non-hound hunters on the other days without dogs. Both using the same area at the same time will result in conflict that hound hunters will never win. They are a very tiny minority of the big game hunters with the greatest level of success. Maybe some jeaslousy exists? Call it what you like but hound men need to take a strong stand in agreeing with the issues rather then trying to fight them. They cannot win this battle over the long term. I've been on both sides of this for 20 years in Wa. State and I watched the struggle and seen the same situation. Once we lost the hounds we sat back and said to ourselves wow it actually happened. We should have given in to some of the complaints and taken what we were offered. Now we lost it all!
Your mileage may very
I wish you well makng the right choices and knowing that the loss of the dogs is a very strong possibility. We never thought it could happen here.
But guess what!
bayedsolid
Forever Hunting
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
- Messages
- 964
- Reaction score
- 0
I can't believe this is back. From what I remember about the numerous posts on this subject was that there are hundreds of hypothetical negative situations that could possibly occur, but very few actual negative experiences of rifle hunters caused by hounds. This is even more true when it comes to hog hunting as opposed to deer hunting. How 'bout we drop the I hate you, you hate me BS and get back to reality where we are all on the same side and there really aren't many problems between the two. Everyone is so worried about being "right" it seems like there is a fight where there doesn't need to be one.
buck_t1,
"Do you realy call chasing them Loud barking , smelly annoying dogs hunting? I dont see any hunting in that at all. I would shoot them dogs before I shot the hog and do everyone a favor including the dogs. My neighbor has them pinned up in his back yard, who wants to live in a 5 foot x 8 foot jail cell. Sory to tick you hound guys off but you dont own the woods and shouldnt think you have the right to take over an area if you want to. Leave the dogs at home get off your lazzy but and do your own hunting."
If you wield a weapon with the same proficiency you demonstrate with the English language, my dogs have nothing to worry about...and by extension, neither do you.
"Do you realy call chasing them Loud barking , smelly annoying dogs hunting? I dont see any hunting in that at all. I would shoot them dogs before I shot the hog and do everyone a favor including the dogs. My neighbor has them pinned up in his back yard, who wants to live in a 5 foot x 8 foot jail cell. Sory to tick you hound guys off but you dont own the woods and shouldnt think you have the right to take over an area if you want to. Leave the dogs at home get off your lazzy but and do your own hunting."
If you wield a weapon with the same proficiency you demonstrate with the English language, my dogs have nothing to worry about...and by extension, neither do you.
"Ive been a serious houndman for a hella long time chasing big game with dogs. However I never mistook it for me being the hunter. The dogs are the hunter, I .... and my clients were simply followers...I have never really felt I was the "hunter" when I used my dogs, I always felt I was a very skill dog handler, and understood the dogs actions. My efforts and experience were in learning to read the dogs and the way they act. I did not need to know nearly as much about the game because the dogs took care of that for me."
I think your reasoning here is very flawed. To say that you are not a hunter, just a very skilled "dog handler" is to discount or eliminate altogether the importance of knowing the habits of the game you intend to pursue. You must know the habits of the game in order to put your dogs in a position to encounter the scent left by the game...same as you would put a spot and stalk hunter in an area where they could encounter the game.
Let me break down one of the fundamental distinctions in the mechanism of the two methods:
With spot and stalk, the hunter must primarily use tactics and tools to overcome the animal's ability to detect danger; one must act in a manner that marginalizes the senses of the animal they pursue. Walking softly in a topographically-strategic manner, and using camoflague, scents and sighting technology (scope, bow sight, etc) all are used in this endeavor. In many (if not most) cases, the animal's detection of the threat posed by the hunter will substantially decrease the odds of the hunter taking the animal.
With the use of dogs, the hunter must primarily use tactics and tools to overcome the animal's ability to evade danger. The senses of the animal are not relevant because the dogs typically make no effort to hide the fact that they are pursuing the animal. The dogs must marginalize the physiology, knowledge of its habitate, and ability to fight off predators of the animal they pursue. In virtually all cases, the animal's ability to evade danger will eliminate the odds of the hunter taking the animal.
With all this said, how is the hound hunter's knowledge of the animal and its habits, and how to apply that knowledge to the selection, raising, training, and hunting of the dogs not necessary, let alone existent!
I would love to see a top notch dog handler for the AKC dog show circuit experience the same level of success in hunting with hounds as a houndsman. I have posed this challenge before, and I will once again offer it: I am willing to bet (money, dinner, six pack of beer) that as a houndsman, I could spot, stalk and shoot a hog in less time than a spot and stalk hunter could raise, train and use hounds to bay a hog.
"Having taken game by spot and stalk, with handgun, archery, and rifle, I make no mistake that shooting a treed or bayed animal was actually an equal effort or skill set to doing it without them."
I agree with you only as it relates to the mechanism of the shot, but getting oneself in position for the shot requires more work for the houndsman when taken from the origins of the efforts. As I alluded in the comments above, the ramp-up time to position yourself for the shot requires more effort as a houndsman.
"When you asked who defines the area of control? Simple the licensed hunter that see's the game first. If you're on foot and spook a muley over a ridge and a hunter on the other side shoots it, then you have no claim to as it was out of your control and range. No different with a dog. The hunter with hounds cannot lay claim to a greater area then a hunter without dogs. Both hunters are equally entitled to the available wild big game there. The dog's simpley do not define the area as "owned" by the hunter who has them."
I do not understand why you are so adamant about this concept of owning or controlling an area. None of the comments I personally made, or the comments I read from the two other houndsmen who have participated, have ever asserted that houndsmen have a greater right to own or control the region we occupy. The question has been centered on the extent of ownership or control of the animal our dogs have either bayed/treed or are in pursuit of.
"When a Pheasant is flushed from the field and flys out of range of the hunters shotguns and across a field to another hunter and he shoots it it's the same thing. You have the right to the animals your dogs have bayed up if your there to dispatch the game. If not, you don't own it, the licened hunter that is there has every right to it. Ownership does not occur until death and it gets tagged, it's not owned while running through the bush."
So if I shoot the pheasant that your dog has pointed in the brush, you will have no issue with it? I am willing to bet that few here on this site would be willing to tolerate that. While it may very well be legal, many would assert that it would not be ethical to shoot a bird that another man's dog is pointing.
In this same spirit, regardless of whether or not shooting a bayed hog is legal (which few, if any, of us have disputed), the ethics are what is in question here and have been the primary focus of this lengthy debate.
"I've sat in countless meetings prior to the loss of the hound hunting seasons here in Wa. State. Having to sit and listen to the complaints, and concerns of both parties and then hearing the legal descriptions by the F&W officers, administrators, and lawyers in front of the whole crowd was a heck of an enlightening series of events for me...The houndmen get irate, say things they regret, and the media and the other hunters take offense.................what do you know the hounds are being cut back every year in every state....When a man has worked his butt off for a chance at a trophy only to have dogs ruin the effort, it's not likely he will be voting the way a houndman needs him too down the road...I've been on both sides of this for 20 years in Wa. State and I watched the struggle and seen the same situation. Once we lost the hounds we sat back and said to ourselves wow it actually happened. We should have given in to some of the complaints and taken what we were offered. Now we lost it all!"
Give us some additional background into the demise of houndhunting in Washington. Was it by the decision of the state agencies as you seem to infer, or was it by the initiative process? Even if the houndsmen made threats and embarassed themselves (which I don't doubt), I think you give far too much weight to the meetings and hearings in the evolution of the hound hunting ban.
For the sake of full disclosure, please elaborate on the program underway that has usurped the decision of the people and reinstated the use of hounds in some counties in order to mitigate the loss of elk calves.
"Hound hunting is going the way of the leg hold trap."
This may be true, but the reason has less to do with any possible disasterous relations between houndsmen and F&W or non-houndsmen, and more to do with the fact that it is a relatively small and non-affluent demographic that is more inclined to spend time in the woods and hills with dogs than in the halls of state legislatures fighting off threats. Given this, the sport is among the hunting methods (including trapping, bowhunting, and baiting) that the anti's can target first in their incrementalized fight against all hunting. Furthermore, the sport is easy to mischaracterize and emotionally sensationalize, and lacking scientific merit, arguments against the use of dogs readily fit into the 60-second television commercial format.
"I wish you well makng the right choices and knowing that the loss of the dogs is a very strong possibility. We never thought it could happen here."
Fighting off threats to hound hunting in California is nothing new to me or most houndsmen in this state, and we have successfully defeated legislative efforts to ban the use of dogs for bear, bobcat, and all mammals at various times during the last decade. Those who know me know that I have not stood on the sidelines during this fight. This possibility is all too real to those of us south of you. Given our ability to withstand the threat you guys succumbed to, perhaps we are in a better position to offer you some insight into what we have learned thus far.
Let me say that while I disagree with you on a great many things in this topic, I do respect your ability to articulate your opinion in a respectful and serious manner, jj.
I think your reasoning here is very flawed. To say that you are not a hunter, just a very skilled "dog handler" is to discount or eliminate altogether the importance of knowing the habits of the game you intend to pursue. You must know the habits of the game in order to put your dogs in a position to encounter the scent left by the game...same as you would put a spot and stalk hunter in an area where they could encounter the game.
Let me break down one of the fundamental distinctions in the mechanism of the two methods:
With spot and stalk, the hunter must primarily use tactics and tools to overcome the animal's ability to detect danger; one must act in a manner that marginalizes the senses of the animal they pursue. Walking softly in a topographically-strategic manner, and using camoflague, scents and sighting technology (scope, bow sight, etc) all are used in this endeavor. In many (if not most) cases, the animal's detection of the threat posed by the hunter will substantially decrease the odds of the hunter taking the animal.
With the use of dogs, the hunter must primarily use tactics and tools to overcome the animal's ability to evade danger. The senses of the animal are not relevant because the dogs typically make no effort to hide the fact that they are pursuing the animal. The dogs must marginalize the physiology, knowledge of its habitate, and ability to fight off predators of the animal they pursue. In virtually all cases, the animal's ability to evade danger will eliminate the odds of the hunter taking the animal.
With all this said, how is the hound hunter's knowledge of the animal and its habits, and how to apply that knowledge to the selection, raising, training, and hunting of the dogs not necessary, let alone existent!
I would love to see a top notch dog handler for the AKC dog show circuit experience the same level of success in hunting with hounds as a houndsman. I have posed this challenge before, and I will once again offer it: I am willing to bet (money, dinner, six pack of beer) that as a houndsman, I could spot, stalk and shoot a hog in less time than a spot and stalk hunter could raise, train and use hounds to bay a hog.
"Having taken game by spot and stalk, with handgun, archery, and rifle, I make no mistake that shooting a treed or bayed animal was actually an equal effort or skill set to doing it without them."
I agree with you only as it relates to the mechanism of the shot, but getting oneself in position for the shot requires more work for the houndsman when taken from the origins of the efforts. As I alluded in the comments above, the ramp-up time to position yourself for the shot requires more effort as a houndsman.
"When you asked who defines the area of control? Simple the licensed hunter that see's the game first. If you're on foot and spook a muley over a ridge and a hunter on the other side shoots it, then you have no claim to as it was out of your control and range. No different with a dog. The hunter with hounds cannot lay claim to a greater area then a hunter without dogs. Both hunters are equally entitled to the available wild big game there. The dog's simpley do not define the area as "owned" by the hunter who has them."
I do not understand why you are so adamant about this concept of owning or controlling an area. None of the comments I personally made, or the comments I read from the two other houndsmen who have participated, have ever asserted that houndsmen have a greater right to own or control the region we occupy. The question has been centered on the extent of ownership or control of the animal our dogs have either bayed/treed or are in pursuit of.
"When a Pheasant is flushed from the field and flys out of range of the hunters shotguns and across a field to another hunter and he shoots it it's the same thing. You have the right to the animals your dogs have bayed up if your there to dispatch the game. If not, you don't own it, the licened hunter that is there has every right to it. Ownership does not occur until death and it gets tagged, it's not owned while running through the bush."
So if I shoot the pheasant that your dog has pointed in the brush, you will have no issue with it? I am willing to bet that few here on this site would be willing to tolerate that. While it may very well be legal, many would assert that it would not be ethical to shoot a bird that another man's dog is pointing.
In this same spirit, regardless of whether or not shooting a bayed hog is legal (which few, if any, of us have disputed), the ethics are what is in question here and have been the primary focus of this lengthy debate.
"I've sat in countless meetings prior to the loss of the hound hunting seasons here in Wa. State. Having to sit and listen to the complaints, and concerns of both parties and then hearing the legal descriptions by the F&W officers, administrators, and lawyers in front of the whole crowd was a heck of an enlightening series of events for me...The houndmen get irate, say things they regret, and the media and the other hunters take offense.................what do you know the hounds are being cut back every year in every state....When a man has worked his butt off for a chance at a trophy only to have dogs ruin the effort, it's not likely he will be voting the way a houndman needs him too down the road...I've been on both sides of this for 20 years in Wa. State and I watched the struggle and seen the same situation. Once we lost the hounds we sat back and said to ourselves wow it actually happened. We should have given in to some of the complaints and taken what we were offered. Now we lost it all!"
Give us some additional background into the demise of houndhunting in Washington. Was it by the decision of the state agencies as you seem to infer, or was it by the initiative process? Even if the houndsmen made threats and embarassed themselves (which I don't doubt), I think you give far too much weight to the meetings and hearings in the evolution of the hound hunting ban.
For the sake of full disclosure, please elaborate on the program underway that has usurped the decision of the people and reinstated the use of hounds in some counties in order to mitigate the loss of elk calves.
"Hound hunting is going the way of the leg hold trap."
This may be true, but the reason has less to do with any possible disasterous relations between houndsmen and F&W or non-houndsmen, and more to do with the fact that it is a relatively small and non-affluent demographic that is more inclined to spend time in the woods and hills with dogs than in the halls of state legislatures fighting off threats. Given this, the sport is among the hunting methods (including trapping, bowhunting, and baiting) that the anti's can target first in their incrementalized fight against all hunting. Furthermore, the sport is easy to mischaracterize and emotionally sensationalize, and lacking scientific merit, arguments against the use of dogs readily fit into the 60-second television commercial format.
"I wish you well makng the right choices and knowing that the loss of the dogs is a very strong possibility. We never thought it could happen here."
Fighting off threats to hound hunting in California is nothing new to me or most houndsmen in this state, and we have successfully defeated legislative efforts to ban the use of dogs for bear, bobcat, and all mammals at various times during the last decade. Those who know me know that I have not stood on the sidelines during this fight. This possibility is all too real to those of us south of you. Given our ability to withstand the threat you guys succumbed to, perhaps we are in a better position to offer you some insight into what we have learned thus far.
Let me say that while I disagree with you on a great many things in this topic, I do respect your ability to articulate your opinion in a respectful and serious manner, jj.
This happened during this season.
Started hike at 4:30AM.
Got to hunting area at first light at 6:20AM.
Noticed dog barking across canyon at 7AM, on and off.
Noticed another set of dog barking randomly, close by, roughly 100 yrds away.
10 mins later, 4 dogs come running by, no barking. No motivation to hunt that canyon any longer. Hiked back to car.
4hrs drive, 3.5hrs hike in/out, hunt ruined by two houndsman sitting in their truck with rifles, waiting for their dogs to chase the bear to them. Waved "hi" and they gave me the look. They seemed to be pissed off because I came out of the same canyon as their dogs.
Finally on dirt road, back to car. Sounded like another set of dogs got a bear pinned deep in the canyon. Mins later, two different trucks raced down the dirt road passed me, heading toward the barking. Mins later, the same trucks raced back up. Dogs in canyon continue barking for nearly 30 mins and go silent. Guys in trucks never left dirt road.
Radio dad and grandpa to come back. 2 hrs later 62 yrs old grandpa is back at the truck. Grandpa said he heard "slow walking, stopping, and walking" in draw. He sat tight and listened for nearly 10 mins and finally got a glimpse of a huge bear. Suddenly, slow walking becomes fast movement toward him. Bear is moving fast toward him, followed by a barking dog. He got a clear shot at 30 yrds but decided not to shoot it since dog is following the bear.
I told him, you should've taken the shot. The houndsmen were too busy yahoo-ing up and down the dirt road when they heard the barks. What did those guy think the dogs will do? Drag the bear alive by the ears back up the deep canyon to the dirt road for them to cap it? Clearly trying to road hunt with their dogs. Too lazy and never step out of their trucks. I guess these guys got too excited at the sound of their dogs barking, they forgot to do their part in the hunt.
I would've taken the shot with no hesitation. I guess old man was just trying to avoid a nasty confrontation. Wise but morning hunt ruined.
Started hike at 4:30AM.
Got to hunting area at first light at 6:20AM.
Noticed dog barking across canyon at 7AM, on and off.
Noticed another set of dog barking randomly, close by, roughly 100 yrds away.
10 mins later, 4 dogs come running by, no barking. No motivation to hunt that canyon any longer. Hiked back to car.
4hrs drive, 3.5hrs hike in/out, hunt ruined by two houndsman sitting in their truck with rifles, waiting for their dogs to chase the bear to them. Waved "hi" and they gave me the look. They seemed to be pissed off because I came out of the same canyon as their dogs.
Finally on dirt road, back to car. Sounded like another set of dogs got a bear pinned deep in the canyon. Mins later, two different trucks raced down the dirt road passed me, heading toward the barking. Mins later, the same trucks raced back up. Dogs in canyon continue barking for nearly 30 mins and go silent. Guys in trucks never left dirt road.
Radio dad and grandpa to come back. 2 hrs later 62 yrs old grandpa is back at the truck. Grandpa said he heard "slow walking, stopping, and walking" in draw. He sat tight and listened for nearly 10 mins and finally got a glimpse of a huge bear. Suddenly, slow walking becomes fast movement toward him. Bear is moving fast toward him, followed by a barking dog. He got a clear shot at 30 yrds but decided not to shoot it since dog is following the bear.
I told him, you should've taken the shot. The houndsmen were too busy yahoo-ing up and down the dirt road when they heard the barks. What did those guy think the dogs will do? Drag the bear alive by the ears back up the deep canyon to the dirt road for them to cap it? Clearly trying to road hunt with their dogs. Too lazy and never step out of their trucks. I guess these guys got too excited at the sound of their dogs barking, they forgot to do their part in the hunt.
I would've taken the shot with no hesitation. I guess old man was just trying to avoid a nasty confrontation. Wise but morning hunt ruined.
Yes, it is unfortunate but true that some hound hunters come accross as unfriendly folks. If I was in the position of those hound hunters and you walked out of the canyon by me I would have offered you a chance to go to the tree(if the dogs were successful in treeing the bear) and harvest the bear. I also would have apologized for any problem caused by both of us hunting the same spot at the same time. Harvesting a bear is not what I like from hunting with hounds anyway so if you wanted the bear we would both have a positive experience. I know there are other houndsmen who would do the same as me in this senario. We all need to show respect for other hunters regardless of their chosen method(as long as it is a legal method).
Jean
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 553
- Reaction score
- 15
If I go bird hunting, part of my reason to go is to watch the dogs work. I have never owned a dog. I like them but do not have the time to properly care for one.
Scenario one: Maybe I would shoot one of the pigs if there was no danger to the dogs. I have not done enough hunting to really know what is there in my heart to do.
Scenario two: I am guessing I would go see what all the ruckus was, but it is very unlikely that I would shoot the pig unless a dog was being seriously maimed or killed.
My first pig hunt was guided spot and stalk. I know this is not particularly important to the conversation. The gentleman who guided me also had dogs that he ran for pigs. They were like his kids to him. Well, pretty close anyway.
Most of this discussion is moot for me because I haven't hunted much public land. Please pardon my ignorance.
Scenario one: Maybe I would shoot one of the pigs if there was no danger to the dogs. I have not done enough hunting to really know what is there in my heart to do.
Scenario two: I am guessing I would go see what all the ruckus was, but it is very unlikely that I would shoot the pig unless a dog was being seriously maimed or killed.
My first pig hunt was guided spot and stalk. I know this is not particularly important to the conversation. The gentleman who guided me also had dogs that he ran for pigs. They were like his kids to him. Well, pretty close anyway.
Most of this discussion is moot for me because I haven't hunted much public land. Please pardon my ignorance.
chickenfried
Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2004
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
I think this is a great thread, especially for a novice hunter. Really made me think about why I want to hunt, what kind of experience am I seeking. Things that I might not have thought about until later, since I have a beginner's enthusiasm to get a first animal.
jjhack's post is good.
jjhack's post is good.
