Petition to ban hound hunting - AZ Game and Fish Commission

[01lowbird]

The problem with that logic is anyone could make an argument against the next hunter for anything. Examples, it's not fair to use a compound bow, binoculars, a rifle, modern boots, and so on. All sportsmen and sportswomen need to stick together, otherwise once the antis get enough traction, they'll be coming after what you prefer the most next.

I'm not sure thats fair to me or anyone to be honest. I can have an opinion just as can you on any topic. Diminishing my opinion because it doesn't effectively support your case or any cause with enough vigor to satisfy you is not how the world works.

 

[tallbuchholz]

I'm not sure thats fair to me or anyone to be honest. I can have an opinion just as can you on any topic. Diminishing my opinion because it doesn't effectively support your case or any cause with enough vigor to satisfy you is not how the world works.

Of course you can have an individual opinion about an activity, but failing to recognize that these attacks are targeting hunting as a whole will weaken our ability to defend against them. They're saying "just ban lion hunting with hounds," but what they mean is "ban lion hunting with hounds first, and then we'll ask to ban the next most controversial thing until we've banned all hunting." This is the right place to draw the line because this is where the fight is, not because it's where your personal line would be drawn.

 

[go_deep]

I'm not sure thats fair to me or anyone to be honest. I can have an opinion just as can you on any topic. Diminishing my opinion because it doesn't effectively support your case or any cause with enough vigor to satisfy you is not how the world works.

Sometimes putting something into a text, verse actually talking something out can come off one sided.
I'm not telling you what option to have, or that you can't have one, I have several options on things I like and don't like about particular types of hunting, but if we stand back and let antis outlaw those types of hunting, guess what they'll be aiming for next? The type of hunting I like, or you like. Look no farther than the West Coast states to see how that playbook has been ran and worked for many types of hunting.

I'm not asking you to publicly advocate for hound hunting, just don't stand against it, because unfortunately as the hunting rights dominos fall, sooner or later, it'll be your that falls.

 

[mt terry d]

Good thing we pay experts to manage our wildlife.

Oh, wait.

Nevermind.

 

[Trap]

Using dogs is super cool. I appreciate the hard work into training the dogs. I appreciate the nostalgia of it. There's a lot to like.
However it does feeeeeel a little bit like a cheat. Having dogs tree an animal or corner an animal, then just shooting it.... IDK it's not for me.
I see both sides.

Have you been on a hound hunt for lion or better yet bear? I appreciate your honest opinion but most people who feel its cheating have not actuslly experienced it. I have had some "easy" lion hunts but I have also had more than a few easy deer or elk hunts. some of the hardest most stressfull hunts I have had were also behind dogs. If you have not done it -I suggest going on a few hunts first. If you have been on a number of hound hunts and feel its cheating I will respect that opinion. Anyways I appreciate at least your honest response on here and will echo prior posts that this is ALL about getting rid of ALL forms of hunting and we need to stick together. trgardless

 

[BBob]

People have this idea that you just let the hounds out and you go kill something. Nope, not even close. Way more to that whole deal.

 

[madtinker]

I was a bit conflicted about hound hunting until I thought of this: it’s not all that different from falconry (train an animal to find the prey for you).

And I’ve always thought falconry was sooo cool. So sure, I may not use hounds myself, but I’ll support your right to use them.

 

[Stubborn_bowhunter]

Using dogs is super cool. I appreciate the hard work into training the dogs. I appreciate the nostalgia of it. There's a lot to like.
However it does feeeeeel a little bit like a cheat. Having dogs tree an animal or corner an animal, then just shooting it.... IDK it's not for me.
I see both sides.

It's the most ethical way to hunt them from a conservation stand point.

It allows better confirmation of gender and age of animals. Often lion and bear hunting without dogs turns into shooting the first one people see.

It's not a tool for you, but it really is the best tool for managing these animals whether you want to use it or not.

 

[North Idaho Stickbow]

Using dogs is super cool. I appreciate the hard work into training the dogs. I appreciate the nostalgia of it. There's a lot to like.
However it does feeeeeel a little bit like a cheat. Having dogs tree an animal or corner an animal, then just shooting it.... IDK it's not for me.
I see both sides.

If you haven’t tried it, you should. It sounds like a cheat on paper, but it’s just as much a strategy as anything else. It takes a ton of time and effort to train and take care of the dogs. On top of that, once you get them out and on a track, they will run for MILES to chase down the critter you’re after until it trees. Usually it’s straight up a nasty grade, or down into the nastiest, roadless pit you can think of. Then, you get to chase after the dogs to one of those places, and time is limited to get there before the bear/lion jumps the tree.

I look at elk hunting like a marathon, where you put miles on your feet finding and stalking, and hound hunting like a sprint, where you bust your butt to be fast. Usually, I’m gasping and sweating my a** off hound hunting. I know there’s an elk-shape podcast out there, and I think there ought to be a hound hunting shape podcast too.

All that aside, in think it ought to stick around purely for the historical aspect alone. We’ve been using dogs to hunt with as long as we’ve had dogs to tame.

 

[2-Stix]

Using dogs is super cool. I appreciate the hard work into training the dogs. I appreciate the nostalgia of it. There's a lot to like.
However it does feeeeeel a little bit like a cheat. Having dogs tree an animal or corner an animal, then just shooting it.... IDK it's not for me.
I see both sides.

You have not spent the time training hounds, running them and hunting them. 1,000's of hours. And you can run them with out harvesting. Its more hard work than hunting on foot.

 

[Bubblehide]

Most simply do not realize the ins and outs of hound hunting. It is not uncommon for a lion to set ambush on the dogs chasing them. They will pick an overview spot and watch the dogs comming, if one is ahead of the pack, it may likely get picked off.

There is a reason hounds have been used for generations, it's simply been it us the only effective way to manage some predators. But that does not mean its easy. Hell, I chatted to some hound hunters 2 days ago. Hunting the area I was in. I the 4 days of hunting (4 that I am aware of) they had yet to get close to a cat. In thise 4 days, they were attempting to catch up to the cat.

If hound hunting is illegalized, an exceptionally valuable management tool for problem animals will be lost and needless to say, there will no longer be a means to regulate such populations short of professional hunters utilizing helocopters. Lastly, who do you think will foot the bill for the professional hunters.

 

[mt terry d]

I was a bit conflicted about hound hunting until I thought of this: it’s not all that different from falconry (train an animal to find the prey for you).

And I’ve always thought falconry was sooo cool. So sure, I may not use hounds myself, but I’ll support your right to use them.

Don't take this personally, just as an observation:

This is Game management by feelings.
Not unlike the vast majority of arbitrary rules and regulations we currently live under.

 

[01lowbird]

There seems to be a fair amount of 'better than you' floating around

 

[Gila]

Don't take this personally, just as an observation:

This is Game management by feelings.
Not unlike the vast majority of arbitrary rules and regulations we currently live under.

Any ballot measure or petition should only be about funding a program or project. Any and All Wildlife Management should be accomplished by the best “Science” that money can buy. Predator management is a tricky business. The number of apex predators affects the entire ecosystem all the way down to the plant and water quality levels. Nearly all or close to all, problems with lions are with young males or rarely an injured cat. Alpha males kick them out of their range which can be up to 200 sq miles. Obviously the carry capacity for the big cats needs to be closely monitored and managed. I don’t think it takes a “rocket scientist” to figure out that managing their numbers with hounds is an effective management tool though.

 

[mt terry d]

Any ballot measure or petition should only be about funding a program or project. Any and All Wildlife Management should be accomplished by the best “Science” that money can buy. Predator management is a tricky business. The number of apex predators affects the entire ecosystem all the way down to the plant and water quality levels. Nearly all or close to all, problems with lions are with young males or rarely an injured cat. Alpha males kick them out of their range which can be up to 200 sq miles. Obviously the carry capacity for the big cats needs to be closely monitored and managed. I don’t think it takes a “rocket scientist” to figure out that managing their numbers with hounds is an effective management tool though.

Exactly.

If management is to be done by ballot then we need to fire a lot of folks in "wildlife management" as they are unnecessary.

They better start speaking out publicly if they think they'll keep their jobs.

Yeah, I know they "can't speak politics". Game management is not political.

 

[Gila]

Game management isn’t supposed to be “political” but often is. Most states have some sort of a wildlife or fish and game commission that is a panel of up to a dozen individuals that make wildlife management decisions. How the commissioners are appointed and how long they serve matters greatly. In some states the commissioners are appointed by the Governor with the state legislature’s approval. In California the Wildlife commission falls under the Natural Resource Department which is part of the Governor’s cabinet. So yes, it can be very political. I don’t know about Arizona.

 

[BBob]

I don’t know about Arizona.

The Commission is composed of five members appointed by the Governor pursuant to A.R.S. 38-211. The Commission appoints the Director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the Director serves as secretary to the Commission. No more than one commissioner may be from any one county. No more than three may be from the same political party. Each commissioner serves a five-year term, staggered. Commissioners customarily serve as chair during their last year.

 

[Gila]

I have read the petition…Looks like CBD and SC are throwing their “junk science” out there again. They use hounds in New Mexico for bear and that doesn’t even put a dent in the population which is too high in many areas. I think they should have an archery spring bear hunt using bait. Doesn’t work for lions though.

 

[Gila]

What is considered to be fair chase is a tough row to hoe because every individual has a different opinion on what is considered to be ethical hunting. Lowbird stated his/her opinion but also stated that they were not opposed to hound hunting, and that opinion should be valued. The ones who are against it are the same ones who are against sport hunting in general. They have a shallow argument and no good data as usual.

 

[mt terry d]

I should clarify my previous statement : Game management is not political.
to
Proper game management is not political.


All opinions are not of equal value and should be treated as such.