Growing up in the great state of Oklahoma I grew up coon hunting. More recently I call home Idaho, where I plan to loin hunt later this spring. Both of these hunts use dogs to chase the animal. Raccoons are an invasive that decimates populations of birds by eating there eggs and killing them (dove, turkey, quail). Mountain loins are not invasive, but if not managed can substantially decrease deer and elk populations. Without the ability to use dogs, no hunter would ever be able to kill one (only when they would just happen to see one). Nor would state game manager be able to keep them in check. Tree hugging, pet loving, environmentalist urbanites are ignorant of how game populations and the environment work.
by definition hunting with dogs is not fair chase,the fact is that it is the only way to hunt them with any consistency of succes and it is vital to keep thier numbers in check to protect our deer and elk populations.Cat numbers around here are way up and the deer have just about been wiped out,thanx to the local F&G and thier messed up quota system.
just curious, how is it not fair chase? my g-parents did the coon hunting (treeing walkers) thing too so i've never see a problem with it. esp for hunting animals that are eaither a) too small to see at night or b) can stalk your butt (note the picture...and i'm betting that deer had better hearing and sense of smell than me).
Reference my earlier post -- dogs chasing animals in the wild is fair chase.
If "fair chase" is defined as one on one, you vs. the animal, then is it fair chase to use a rifle that improves your reach? How about a scope that improves your vision? What about driving to the hunting area? What about clothing that enables you to endure temperatures you couldn't naturally?
The fair chase argument is an old one, but not nearly as simple as a lot of people would think. IMO it's more of a cultural definition based in how people were raised to hunt. I've been in places where they hunted deer over bait, which I thought was horrid -- but the hunters in that part of the country all thought it was perfectly ethical.
not wanting to fight. i was just wondering why you thought what you do
must be the cultural differences thing because the idea of baiting deer being ok blows my mind. but i'm a hypocrite because, i see very little wrong with baiting yotes...but they are in abundance right now where i'm from
As far as predators are concerned i think it should be anything goes,we have a huge problem with cats here right now and we have a real short season where you can use dogs,and if we dont get snow its very difficult to get started,I think they should set thier quotas and allow hunters to use hounds all year until the quoata is filled,people who spend time out in the woods around here know the cat numbers are out of control and with the low quotas they set each year all we can do is wait for all the deer to get killed of and then hope they will starve to death...
I don't see anything wrong with hound hunting for predators, though I probably wouldn't do it. As expariate said, what consitutes fair chase? Also, what qualifies as hound hunting? We use dogs to flush out pheasant. Does that count? Do people still use dogs to hunt deer down South? If so, how about that?
Ethics, in hunting, and in life can be tough to get a grip on. Here in MN we can bait bear but not deer. Cross the river into WI and you can bait deer.
When it comes to scent, there are basically two types; those that attract and those that mask. I've tried both on many occasions. There are lots and lots of "doe in heat" scents, designed to attract a big buck into range. I've also used a "cow in heat" scent while elk hunting.
Another scent would almost be better named as a "coverup smell". The main goal is to cover up human odor or mask it. Though I don't believe you can ever totally eliminate all human...