I usually do not chime in, but this requires a response.

Typically the term Sport is in a category of competitive physical activity. OK, not all – look at chess playing etc…

However, the second criteria of SPORTS are usually governed by a set of rules or customs, which serve to ensure fair competition, and allow consistent adjudication of the winner.

Fair Game? I do not think so. Shame on them. One giant leap backwards for humanity in Nevada.
Paige
PS: If anything, bear hunting with dogs should be banned from calling it a sport – Let’s just call it Nevada’s Legal Terrorism Law!

There are several blatant innaccuracies in this story, most because telling the truth doesnt doesnt tell the sort of story that incites people, so just lie. Here are the facts, backed up with common sense.

1) Using hounds to chase bears is not cruel particularly to the dog. The dogs live to hunt. Just like you dont have to train Americas favorite hunting dog, the labrador retriever, hounds hunt. Keeping them couped up is cruel.

2) I have hunted hundreds of times with hounds and I have never in my life seen a case where someone would leave thousands of dollars of dogs and equipment treeing a bear for two days. Are the dogs capable of it? Who knows, it hasnt happened and doesnt happen. I guess lightening could strike a bear that is being chased by dogs, but it is so rare as not to be worth mentioning.

3) Hunting with dogs has in fact been banned in several states, but it has nothing to do with cruelty or fair chase. Dogs are banned particularly on the East coast because the land ownership is too small. Dogs will follow the bear onto the neighbors property, so using dogs in the east has fallen out of favor, its just too many problems. In the West dogs have been banned where there are too many conflicts with elk and deer hunters. If I put in the time to scout and pattern a nice buck, I would probably be pretty mad to have a pack of hounds mess up my hunt. Finally bear dogs cant tell the difference between grizzley and black bears, so that has come up in Idaho and Montana particularly.

4) Hounds are used for “catch and release” bear hunting for the most part. If a bear is shot, it is a fatal shot. I can put a bullet into a 2 inch circle at 300 yars. I am not a terribly good shot. If a bear hunter shoots a bear, its a dead bear. Yeah it may take a minute or two to bleed out, but its a dead bear. Yes, just like lightening, it could happen that there is a bad shot, but it is very very rare.

5) Paige, we really dont care what you think of our sport. But the fact is the habitat reconstruction and conservation projects that have led to the proliferation and now over-population of bears is largely paid for by hunters, our license fees and taxes on ammunition. The bear league doesnt even have any skin in the game.

Although no large long term studies have been done, common sense tells us, chasing a bear for several hours while preparing for hibernation is detrimental to the bear. Bears are not physiologically made to run like this. There is significant documentation of hounds being killed or injured by bears and bears being repeatedly bitten by dogs. Even houndsmen websites talk about the fun of a “baying” bear. Only a third of bears tree, in most studies, meaning some get away, others stand and fight the dog. These depraved individuals simply like to watch animals fight.

John:

You are the poster child for the observation made by Francis Bacon (recognized as father of modern science) over 300-year ago. “…the quilt of the senses are either of two sorts, either they destitute us or deceives us.” In other words our biases and perceptions compromise our ability to make robust inferences regarding the natural world.

You have simply provided insight to how you perceive animals respond from the use of hounds to chase bears (including hounds, bears and non-target wildlife species), but you are either unaware, or have purposefully avoided referring to the large body of scientific evidence that is in conflict with your perceptions.

In all known studies the presence of dogs produced adverse responses in wildlife. Prohibiting the use of dogs for bear hunting will have a positive effect on wildlife use of these areas. Any notion that hunting with dogs has no effect on non-target species is naïve and incorrect. Dogs can and do have rather pronounced affect on numerous species including killing of young of black bears, bobcats and other species including cougar kittens. Off-leash and off-trail hounds are unpredictable and cause stress and flushing behavior in many wildlife species including deer, birds, and small mammals.

For example all recent studies that have quantified impacts from dogs in open space areas – usually dogs allowed to roam off-leash, have demonstrated significant adverse affects on wildlife, both target and non-target wildlife. Responses of wildlife to human recreational activities (including roaming dogs) include short-term responses that produce measurable physiological responses (e.g., heart rate, stress indicators, hormonal changes, etc.), changes in behavior and activity budgets, and changes in space and habitat-use, not to mention longer-term responses such as lowered reproductive success and productivity, adverse changes in survival and mortality rates, changes in distribution or occupancy rates, and reductions in species richness and species diversity. The unpredictable travel patterns of dogs off-leash extend the zone from which wildlife species are impacted by the presence of dogs. More recent efforts have continued to document the affects that domestic dogs have on a variety of wildlife populations worldwide including as disease vectors, predators and competitors.

For example, a number of research projects that have used hounds to capture their subject animals (bears, bobcats, cougars etc.) have reported mortality of cubs or kittens, and the loss of hunting dogs from either being killed by the predator or suffering injury or dehydration during the chase. Do a google search of hound hunters and you will see amble pictures (they post them with pride mind you) of bears being attacked by a pack of dogs, seriously injured dogs (one site showed the a couple of dogs suffering from a face full of porcupine quills and thought it was cute). It turns out that houndsmen are often their own worse enemy.

I am also aware of one houndsmen in Texas that was capturing cougars for a researcher who took three dogs he thought worthless and untrainable and shot them dead in the desert. Did I see it, no, but I took him at his word when he personally told me the story.

So anyone who believes that the animal being pursued are not stressed, is simply foolly themselves – of course they are stressed, it is absolutely silly to think otherwise. Why else would wildlife managers suggest chasing some animals with hounds as aversion training? That is the classic duh outcome. And while dogs show a propensity to “enjoy” the hunt, they are mistreated by many houndsmen (and it is not a small number) and some are seriously injured or killed during the hunts.

States that have banned hound hunting seem not to have much problem reaching their recreational harvest objectives. Oh and by the way. You can make up what ever reason you like about states banning hound hunting, but for example Montana goes out of its way to advertises the fact they are a fair hunt state for black bear – they in fact are rather proud of the fact.

Rick

There really is nothing better than putting a bullet thru the head of a exhausted scared crazy animal to make a man feel good about hiself. I get a tingle just thinking about it. Right ON JOHN!!

Lilpeter, I am going to assume you wear marino wool, probably organic and sold by Patagonia. Dogs are used to control those sheep by the way. And when they get older, they are killed.

Now in your mind there is a difference in the actions you finance, but dont participate in? How is that lilpeter? As long as you stand at a distance its okay?

John:

You are right, shooting an animal you stressed out is one thing, but houndsmen do not all catch what they chase, do not always shoot what they catch, especially during chase only season, and evidence is clear free roaming dogs stress non-target wildlife.

Researchers in England found that hounds used to hunt wild boar and hare adversely affected non-target roe deer by resulting in shifts in spatial behavior (e.g., larger home ranges and higher use of protected areas or reserves). Home ranges outside reserve areas were five times that of home ranges within reserves. These authors noted that roe deer selected, safe, but suboptimal habitat. Deer would concentrate into the preserve area during the hunting season resulting in increased impact from browsing. And lower fecundity rates.

Also from “Black Bear Harvest Research & Management in Montana: 2011 Final Report” and I quote:

Use of dogs to hunt black bears or grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) was prohibited in Montana in 1921. Black bears were first classified as a predatory animal, but in 1923 were designated as a big game animal. The harvesting of cubs, or females with cubs, was prohibited in 1947, followed by a prohibition of the use of baits in 1948. With these regulations in place, black bear hunting became more of a fair chase sport in Montana. The original fair chase creed from the Boone and Crockett club is defined as “the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging, wild North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animal.”

Changes have been made to MFWP’s black bear regulations to maintain the concept of fair chase, especially as hunting equipment became more sophisticated. Regulations were implemented to restrict, for example, the use of two-way communication radios; motion-tracking devices, night vision equipment, recorded animal sounds, and automatic cameras.

Your perception does not match reality.

Rick

John: I have no problem with hunting, particularly as it relates to deer, game birds etc. I do not support predator hunting as few ecologist do.

More wildlands and wildlife are protected by non-hunters. Hunters are involved in single species management (Ducks Unlimited, Elk Foundation) and often these groups promote management that is contrary to broad bio-diversity goals.

For example the Nature Conservancy has by itself preserved over 119 million acres of land. Add up all of the land conservancies around the country and world, and while the work of these hunting organizations is important, it pales to the efforts to conserve and managed landscapes for broad conservation goals.

While we will most likely agree on many aspects of protecting natural landscapes, yours is one that is steeped more in a utilitarian perceptive, mine is not.

Here is a recent publication for food for thought. Other papers over the years have also provided evidence that hunting has had profound affects on the genetics of the hunted species.

Surprising New Find: Hunting Harvest May Reduce Size of Trophy Horns and Antlers

A team of scientists has just completed a comprehensive analysis of 108 years’ worth of data on the size of horns and antlers among 25 trophy categories in North America and discovered that, over the past century, size of trophy horns and antlers for most species has declined slightly.

The team of six biologists — from Idaho State University, the University of Montana, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the California Department of Fish and Game, led by Dr. Kevin L. Monteith, now at the University of Wyoming — analyzed 22,000 records of trophy categories of big game from North America, including mule deer, mountain sheep, and moose. Publishing their results in The Wildlife Society’s newest Wildlife Monographs, the authors found a small (less than 2 percent) but consistent decline in horn and antler size across most trophy categories over the past century.

Rick

Oh, I forgot, im rooting for the bears…