Increased funding for enforcement will affect all hunters. It would seem to be easier to just ban Hound Hunting altogether.
Hound Hunters better listen up and stop being so hard headed. Police yourselves and get rid of the bad element or you WILL lose your way of hunting.
Hunters who use other methods will not and should not have to pay more in licenses' and fees to support extra enforcement officers and methods just so Hound Hunters can hunt.
Great article on awareness for dog owners. Where I live, this issue is hashed out at every public meeting with our Game & Fish Commission. We all know that "more law enforcement" does not solve the issue, it only complicates it. I am an avid fan of hunting with dogs and I do still hunting, also. I have heard comments from all sides on this issue and I feel the real issue here is private property owners trying to put their ownership on the public's game. Private property owners have the right to their private property and the dog hunters should not turn their dogs loose on their private property if the property owner does not give permission. However, if the dogs are turned loose on public land and they run across private property, it does not give the property owner rights over the dogs.
Where I live, the main issue is the private property owners have watched the Outdoor Channel and have seen how much money is to be made by guided hunts and lease hunting and they all say when you talk to them, "it's our deer herd, we want our smaller bucks left alone to grow bigger horns" for bigger money. According to these people, the dog hunters don't have any deer or game and also they claim that the dog hunters run their big bucks off.
We tell them to show us the "bill of sale" where they bought these deer that they claim is their deer herd and also to put up a 12 foot high fence around their property and to put a collar on their animals. Then if they should get out, we will use our dogs to run them back in their property, if they will open the gate.
THIS GAME IS FOR THE PEOPLE, BUT, YOU SHOULD NOT INFRINGE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS EITHER BY TURNING THE DOG'S LOOSE ON THEIR PROPERTY.
Just remember, the real issue here is "big money" and "people trying to control other people for their benefit".
I've lurked here now and again, and this is my first time posting. I've also lurked on other hunting forums, and have generally been very disappointed in the posts directed at hound hunters.
But please let me put that into context. I have hunted with and without hounds, and I understand why some still hunters dislike hound hunters so much. I also deeply respect the rights of landowners, and fully support their right to restrict access to their property.
Having said that, I must tell you that hound and still hunters are completely mistaken about this study. The Strategic Advisory Committee has indeed made some reasonable recommendations - but they are only recommendations.
What none of you have read is the Technical Report. What none of you appear to be aware of is that animal rights groups have been very very active and vocal during the entire study period. The entire Technical Report is not only anti-hunting with hounds, it is anti-hunting in general. Including bird dogs.
Anyone who supports hunting - any form of hunting of any species, would be well advised to read the entire Technical Report, and ask yourself why the study participants (not the SAC) felt it necessary to consult animal rights groups, continually make references to public opinion about hunting (not hunting with hounds - but HUNTING), keep referencing the drop in numbers of hunters (which is not borne out by recent US Fish and Wildlife data), and keep focusing on outdoor recreation.
Why? Ask yourself why. Why is a group whose leader has recently been convicted of dog theft consulted about the welfare of hunting dogs? This same convict is speaking at the National Animal Rights Conference being held this week in DC - and being hailed as a hero.
I'm trying to figure out why any American landowner would approve of this study when the Burns Inquiry is referred to repeatedly. The Burns Inquiry is what led to the ban on foxhunting in the UK. But UK law is different than the US - about the same time they were banning foxhunting Parliament created the "Right to Roam" act - an act that would horrify any landowner in the US. In the UK, the public has a right to access any private land - the landowner CANNOT prohibit them.
There is a great deal that is ethical and responsible about hunting, with and without hounds. I think we all know that it's difficult to find good places to hunt. Even if some of you dislike hunting with hounds, I think it's in our interest as sportsmen to band together and present a united front. Because we are making it very easy for animal rights groups to pick us off one by one.
I would be happy to answer any questions about this Report, and discuss what other states have done and why.
I have no agenda and no "side" - I'm merely a fellow hunter appalled by this Report and its implications for sportsmen in this Commonwealth.
Very well written comment and very informative and I appreciate someone bringing out the underlying cause of this issue. If we (hunters, in general) do not get together, we will be made into mince meat by animal rights activists. The strategies they use are all internal. I enjoy hunting with hounds and still hunting and can see both sides of the issue with dog hunters and private property owners and really the fight isn't between them. I appreciate what you had to say and I am always looking for more information than what is laid out in front of me. Please keep me updated on this...thanks. Can I use your comment on a blog on my site?
You're welcome; please feel free to post this on your blog if you think it will help anyone. I truly just want sportsmen to just put their thinking caps on. Do some Internet searches and see what is being said about hunting; and who is saying it and what they're doing about it.
Sportsmen and women in the US really need to understand not only the animal rights angle, but also understand how our game departments are being funded and who is demanding what sort of services from them. More and more, they are having to accommodate "outdoor recreation"; even if it is not in the best interest of the wildlife population.
This is more than who gets what season with what weapon. Put that aside. We all hunt, we all have our "turf" and our strong opinions about who is better or deserves more time in the woods. While we're all squabbling amongst ourselves, the game traces are being paved over for "nature walks", with niches for "bird watching".
And that's fine too. Each of us enjoys Nature in our own way. But the people taking those nature walks and birdwatching are now demanding that hunters - all hunters - be banished from the woods. Because as our nation becomes more urban oriented, people have no idea what the natural world is really like.
To them, the natural world is..... sanitized. It's a world of manicured paths with viewing platforms, kayaking, snack stands, cycling, etc.
And I'm telling you plain, there is no room in that world for a hunter with Bambi's Mom strapped to the hood of his truck.
Whether or not he got that deer with the help of a dog, rifle or bow is immaterial.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, "We must all hang together; or we will most assuredly all hang separately."
You are so right about all that! I see the same thing happening to the hunters that happened in a rural community over the last several years. Big groups, like animal rights activists, etc., came in and shut down a county's industry (logging), all for the sake of tourism. By tourism, I mean, biking, hiking, nature trails. It came down to a fight between the main industry in the area that sustained the county year round and tourism....tourism won for a few years because the little loggers and big loggers fought among themselves for who was right and while they were fighting, they lost all the logging industry in the county to tourism. They are using the same strategy with the hunters and the nature trails and so forth. This just goes to show, they don't change their strategy on any issue they choose. So let's get wise and forget arguing amongst ourselves and fight the real issue. I thank you for the permission to use your comments on the blog on my site and maybe you can help to educate more hunters along the way.
The first deer I shot, way back in 1958, was taken to the local meat shop and processed into steaks, roasts and some burger. Back then in that little Idaho town, when you took a deer into the butcher, you got the same deer back. Unfortunately, times have changed. The last time I took an animal to a butcher, in the mid 60's, I don't have a clue who's meat I got back, but I sure don't think it was mine. I ended up throwing the burger as it stunk the house up every time we...