Sitka Mountain Gear
P&Y and electronic dog collars?
cougar
Contributors to this thread:
GhostBird 12-Nov-15
Bou'bound 12-Nov-15
skinner creek 13-Nov-15
Drop Tine 13-Nov-15
bowbearman 13-Nov-15
GhostBird 13-Nov-15
Buffalo1 13-Nov-15
Ziek 13-Nov-15
wifishkiller 13-Nov-15
Bou'bound 13-Nov-15
houndy65 13-Nov-15
Huntcell 13-Nov-15
tradi-doerr 13-Nov-15
Blacktail Bob 13-Nov-15
wifishkiller 14-Nov-15
tradi-doerr 14-Nov-15
Blacktail Bob 14-Nov-15
gobbler 14-Nov-15
tradi-doerr 14-Nov-15
RymanCat 14-Nov-15
Owl 14-Nov-15
TREESTANDWOLF 14-Nov-15
TD 14-Nov-15
GhostBird 14-Nov-15
houndy65 15-Nov-15
Blacktail Bob 15-Nov-15
Ziek 15-Nov-15
Bou'bound 15-Nov-15
wifishkiller 15-Nov-15
TREESTANDWOLF 15-Nov-15
wifishkiller 15-Nov-15
MBMule 16-Nov-15
Bou'bound 16-Nov-15
Bou'bound 16-Nov-15
tradi-doerr 16-Nov-15
tradi-doerr 16-Nov-15
IdyllwildArcher 16-Nov-15
tradi-doerr 16-Nov-15
Matt 16-Nov-15
tradi-doerr 17-Nov-15
IdyllwildArcher 17-Nov-15
Ziek 17-Nov-15
Glunt@work 17-Nov-15
skinner creek 17-Nov-15
IdyllwildArcher 17-Nov-15
elkstabber 17-Nov-15
Ziek 17-Nov-15
TD 17-Nov-15
Ollie 17-Nov-15
Jake 17-Nov-15
Bou'bound 17-Nov-15
Ziek 17-Nov-15
IdyllwildArcher 17-Nov-15
wifishkiller 17-Nov-15
Julius K 18-Nov-15
elkstabber 18-Nov-15
N-idaho 18-Nov-15
Ziek 18-Nov-15
Ziek 18-Nov-15
TD 18-Nov-15
Ziek 18-Nov-15
GhostBird 18-Nov-15
Ziek 18-Nov-15
Glunt@work 18-Nov-15
Bou'bound 18-Nov-15
wifishkiller 18-Nov-15
Ziek 18-Nov-15
N-idaho 18-Nov-15
TD 18-Nov-15
Bou'bound 19-Nov-15
Ziek 19-Nov-15
houndy65 19-Nov-15
Stekewood 19-Nov-15
Bou'bound 19-Nov-15
Stekewood 19-Nov-15
Ziek 21-Nov-15
Matt 21-Nov-15
Stekewood 21-Nov-15
Gerald Martin 22-Nov-15
N-idaho 22-Nov-15
Ziek 22-Nov-15
Ziek 22-Nov-15
Matt 22-Nov-15
kota-man 22-Nov-15
Bou'bound 22-Nov-15
IdyllwildArcher 22-Nov-15
Ramhunter 22-Nov-15
Gerald Martin 23-Nov-15
Matt 23-Nov-15
JusPassin 23-Nov-15
Bou'bound 23-Nov-15
Kevin Dill 23-Nov-15
houndy65 23-Nov-15
kota-man 23-Nov-15
From: GhostBird
12-Nov-15
Looking at Cougars and scoring via Pope & Young and wanted to discuss the use of electronic dog collars.

According to P&Y... 1) the hunter must be present when the dogs are released and 2)the use of any electronic dog tracking collar is prohibited during the chase

I know most dog handlers outfit their dogs with collars that are used to locate lost dogs and/or aid in the chase. So my question is, do most guides/dog handlers use the tracking feature during the chase as normal practice?

Are some guides more familiar with bowhunters and P&Y requirements and therefore do not use the electronics during the chase?

What is "normal practice" in the industry?

From: Bou'bound
12-Nov-15
Normal practice is to protect the dogs from harm and loss and get the cat.

I would expect unless a client was very deliberate in his directions up front, and then the outfitter could use his discretion on whether he could meet the needs of that hunter before he booked him in the first place, the average outfitter is not going to give a rats ass about a club rule and whether the client will be able to put his name in some hardbound book or not.

the above is directed towards the collar tracking side of your question. The hunter present for the release is standard......... anything less would be really bad.

all that said how many of the cats in the book do you REALLY think we taken in accordance with that hyper restrictive rule. A big minority I'll bet..........fair chase avidavit aside.

13-Nov-15
In my opinion Pope and Young has taken electronic issues to far. 90% of hunters would have a tough time following the dogs on a lion chase without tracking collars. The collars are for the most part for protecting the dogs, especially in wolf country. I have never had an archer ask to not use tracking collars and would have only turn out on a real fresh track if the client wanted to go that way.

From: Drop Tine
13-Nov-15

Drop Tine's embedded Photo
Drop Tine's embedded Photo
I have never hunted ol Pete Puma. But hunt Bear, Bobs, and Coyote with hounds. There are many times they are out if ear shot and can't be herd. Windy days they don't have to be that far out and you can't hear them. Steep terrain and Echos can throw you off as to their whereabouts.

I run GPS tracking collars on my dogs as well as the group. If you can't hear them. How do you know if they have it jumped or still cold tracking. Are they trees or Bayed up?

Seems like a unreasonable rule and to much risk to the dogs for me to not run without them.

From: bowbearman
13-Nov-15
I wouldn't turn my dogs loose without a tracking collar PEROID!! To much risk.

Aaron

From: GhostBird
13-Nov-15
I appreciate the responses & fully understand using tracking collars on the dogs. If they were my dogs, you can bet they would wear collars.

Bou, you gave an answer to the implied question... thanks.

From: Buffalo1
13-Nov-15
Andy,

Call P&Y headquarters and ask them the question.

From: Ziek
13-Nov-15
It's OK if they wear collars to help locate them at the end of the day/hunt. It's not OK to keep track of the dogs DURING the chase. It's a HUNT guys. Stop being so lazy. Hunters used dogs for years before tracking collars were available. Make sure the guide/outfitter knows up front that you want a fair chase hunt.

"...the average outfitter is not going to give a rats ass..."

Yep. He's going to use every means at his disposal to get a kill and make his client happy, and every excuse he can think of for why he took shortcuts.

From: wifishkiller
13-Nov-15
Ziek have u ever hound hunted? Running without gps or the old beep beep is just stupid!!!!!!! These dogs mean more to us then just about anything, in the hunting world.

From: Bou'bound
13-Nov-15
Ziek

You truncated my quote and totally changed the intent. Let's try this again with full clarity

"the average outfitter is not going to give a rats ass about a club rule and whether the client will be able to put his name in some hardbound book or not."

From: houndy65
13-Nov-15
My hounds will never leave the truck without a GPS collar or telemetry collar (Beep Beep), I wear both on my hounds. So here is how I feel and it is my opinion, if you care more about some club rules than you do my hounds, don't ask to go or when you do go keep your trap shout. I feed and keep 12---14 hounds all the time and feed two 50# bags of dog food a week, do the math. The only cat I have on my wall is one my wife killed 16 years ago and have had hounds all my life. This rule is a really stupid rule and should be changed, try hunting a cougar without hounds. We check where the hounds are really often for many reason during a chase. I live in wolf country, so that is my biggest concern, checking the where abouts of the hounds does not help in the hunt. We release the hounds and it may be 100 yards to 10 miles. I want to know where my hounds are and these hounds are a real investment in money and time, ranging from $1500 ------ $5000 depending on age and experience.

Thanks; Terry L. Zink

From: Huntcell
13-Nov-15
Been on hound hunts with the old beeper style directional trackers in north woods of wisconsin years back, sorta knew what direction they were and not much more. The last hunt the guys had these new gps devise the screen shows the travel route of dog on an arial photo map his exact location in relation to the roads and streams contours weather was stopped (possible treed bobcat) other dogs in area) boy it took the guessing and the hunting out of it for me. WoW

Your right those dogs can get pretty pricey hate to lose one! The guys get to sleep earlier now. Many a night driving the forest roads in the non electronic days waiting for that Damn dog to show up

From: tradi-doerr
13-Nov-15
As an a official measure for 20yrs now I have come across this issue many times, it is based on a honor system.

The way Ziek described the rules is pretty much right on, but one thing, the outfitter can have the collars on the dogs and the collars on, BUT, the receiver that is held by the outfitter/guide can not be on until after the hunt or the cat is released, and then turned on to locate and retrieve their hounds.

The outfitter/guide can not use the receiver as an aid to guide the hunter to the cat directly, the hunter must follow the sound/tracks of the dogs to the treed cat without the aid of the receiver.

Myself and those of the record keeping organizations know and understand the great need to make sure the utmost safety for the dogs is taken, and felt that not using the receiver during the chase was fair and adequate for a fair chase while in pursuit of Mnt. Lions/bears, while still giving the outfitter the ability to recover the dogs safely after the hunt.

I know, I'm sure that there are a few entrees into the books that are not from following these rules, but as I mentioned, it is a honor system.

13-Nov-15
I think this is an issue that should be looked at by the club. Current status is kind of backward in my opinion. Like lighted knocks were.

I have very limited experience, but when a hound man has several dogs out there each worth over $5,000, he isn't likely to put them at risk during the chase just to comply with an arbitrary rule by P&Y. Something can happen to/with those dogs during the chase as well as after the chase when it may be too late to do anything about it.

From: wifishkiller
14-Nov-15
Houndy, you gave me flash backs to my first dogs I bought. lol I was scared every time I turned loose. Bought those dogs to kill a lion, still have never taken one. Kinda a crime to shoot one and be done running. Those first dogs are gone now but man the money involved, makes me cringe.

From: tradi-doerr
14-Nov-15
"Something can happen to/with those dogs during the chase as well as after the chase when it may be too late to do anything about it." This was taken into consideration as well, and at any point during the chase if the outfitter/guide feel that something is astray with one/more of their dogs they have every right to use their GPS to aid in helping their dog/s, or to see if a dog has gone astray, this is just common sense.

But while in the pursuit if the cat/bear are to be considered for the record books the receiver can not be used to locate and direct the hunter to the treed cat/bear.

14-Nov-15
I see both sides of the argument for and against. However, from the hound’s man perspective, and I've witnessed this myself, how would he know if a dog was getting ready to cross a highway for example if his dog collars weren't turned on?

Likewise, the easiest lion hunt I have ever done, by far, was when my guide let two dogs go to see if a lion that had killed an elk we found was nearby. I actually saw the lion go up the tree and the hunt was over in a matter of minutes. No electronics used at all.

By far the hardest lion hunt I've done was with the use of electronic collars and two- way radios to communicate between two hound’s men. I traveled 6 gps miles on foot to catch up with the second guy before dark. He had the lion in the tree.

The one hunt resulted in a P&Y eligible lion and the second did not. The second hunt was by far the more challenging and in my opinion a far more Fair Chase situation than the first hunt. I could barely walk after killing that second lion and I didn’t make it out of the wilderness until well after dark that night.

From: gobbler
14-Nov-15
I'm a member of PY and have taken 1 lion and 2 bear over dogs . I never turned them in. I can see the side of PY but I see the hounds men side too. If the dogs are good they are really valuable and is the hounds mans lively hood. That's how they feed and take care of their family. I would never ask one to turn off their trackers or GPS collars and put the dogs at risk just so I can get a sheet of paper. The trophy is good enough for me. JMHO

From: tradi-doerr
14-Nov-15
There are so many different scenarios to this issue, that's what makes it complicated at times. Very good point gobbler, if it isn't important then don't worry about the record entree. But rules are rules if you do want to enter your trophy.

I'm still trying to figure out how having the receiver on is going to help you keep the dogs from trouble when they are even a 1/4 mile ahead of you, and you are on foot?

Like I stated before, if a receiver is needed in the case of safety issues for the dogs or hunter by all means use it, but you can't lead the hunter to the treed cat/bear, I know you guys know what the rules mean by this.

I hope to get out this year to chase cats, probably with dogs! best of luck to all the cat hunters this year!

From: RymanCat
14-Nov-15
Some of them that are strictly gun guides have no idea what P and Y is or stands for. It's up to the hunter to know not the guide.

From: Owl
14-Nov-15

14-Nov-15
Bou is correct and yes the club should look at it.

From: TD
14-Nov-15
" put his name in some hardbound book or not."

maybe they can slip me into the paperback instead???

From: GhostBird
14-Nov-15
Good discussion guys... and the very reason I started this thread.

From: houndy65
15-Nov-15
Walking the track out may a lot more hours in some cases. So using the receiver to cut the time in half or maybe even quarter is great amount of time in the country we live in, wolf country. So we houndsmen would go of track to get to the hounds quicker. This does not change the hunt, the hounds are the ones doing the work, we owe them the gratitude to get to them quickly. These hounds are not like other pets (my opinion) they are hunters like us, when you get to the tree they come to you to get praise and a pat on the head.

15-Nov-15
Yeah, like I said initially I see both sides of the issue, but I think I favor a change in the P&Y rules allowing GPS collars to be used during the chase. I personally don't think that would change significantly, maybe a little, the Fair Chase aspects of the hunt. On balance, I think it would do more to promote Bowhunting, provide a better Bowhunting experience, and protect the guide's dogs.

From: Ziek
15-Nov-15
Been gone a few days.

Yes, I have hunted cougar with dogs, not extensively, but enough to have a pretty good idea of what's involved. We followed them on dry ground and in snow, at elevations between 7,000 and 10,000 feet. On dry ground we were seldom out of earshot of the dogs, and then only for short periods while we climbed to higher terrain. Without snow it's not that difficult to move fairly quickly, IF you're in shape. With snow it's often a tracking job. Not always as easy as you might think, but still mostly tracking since it's slower going. In snow, one of the guides was far ahead keeping track of the dogs (man was he in shape) while the other guide and I lagged a bit behind.

And it's not just an arbitrary "club rule". It's about fair chase. The whole point of hunting with dogs is about following the dogs. If all you do is release them, track where they go electronically, and take whatever shortcuts you can to intercept them, it's not much of a hunt, and it sure isn't fair chase.

I understand the concern about dog safety, but that's not a reason to shortcut what the hunt should be. If at any time the guide is concerned about the length of time he's been out of contact with his pack, or where they might be headed, the hunter should retire from the field while the guide collects his dogs.

Bou. I truncated your quote to highlight what I thought was relevant - "average outfitter". Maybe you should look for one that is above average.

Blacktail Bob. Your anecdotal "evidence" is telling. In reality, your "hard hunt" should have resulted in having to continue hunting. The electronics made the difference in killing the cat, NOT fair chase hunting.

From: Bou'bound
15-Nov-15
Should I be allowed to drive a four wheeler ten miles into a swamp and walk 100 yards to my dear stand or should I have to walk the whole way to the stand. If I use a machine ,technology, that makes it less of a hard hunt should that preclude book entry.

From: wifishkiller
15-Nov-15
A big reason most of us run with gps is making sure our dogs are accounted for. Most guys that don't have hounds and just went on one or two hunts don't see what it takes to get those dogs to that level.

There are more coyote races then I care to admit. A few deer elk rabbit and just about anything else a pup might like. I only have a few dogs these days since moving to the front range, so it's easy keep tabs on them.

Plus if they are running towards private, Indian land, roads, I use a tone button on a collar to call them off. Easier said then done, it's like taking a ball away from my lab. Then standing there with the chuck it but not throwing it lol

It's about being responsible more then anything. It's not like dog hunting is understood by everyone.

15-Nov-15
Zeik, then how is " Fair Chase" defined by running down a Mt.Lion with dogs, without collars.

Still seems like its not " Fair Chase" doesn't it?

Waiting in a tree for a Mt.Lion seems like fair chase or in a ground blind perhaps.

We all know what those odds are.

The ruling is antiquated.

From: wifishkiller
15-Nov-15
Not to defend Ziek, since his post bothered me a lot. He might be referring to the outfitters that find tracks dump dogs, look for more tracks and dump more dogs. Then see what happens, and go to the tree once the switch flips? This is not the norm on cat hunting!!!!!

From: MBMule
16-Nov-15
To further muddy the waters, how about this hypothetical?

You turn out 4 dogs on a cat track first thing in the morning. By mid-afternoon, that cat has thrown 3 of the 4 dogs for a loop, but there's still one dog that you can't find. You've been following his tracks all day and can't hear him. A couple of hours before dark, the outfitter checks the GPS since time is running out to get him back before dark. You see he's several miles away, so you head back to the truck and you drive closer to go try to get the dog. When you finally catch up to him just before dark, he has the cat treed and you shoot it. As far as you and the outfitter knew, you were just going to retrieve a dog before dark, and unbeknownst to you, he had finally treed the cat that he'd been chasing the entire day. What would Pope and Young's opinion be on this situation?

I'd be interested to know Charlie's opinion on this, or maybe another knowledgable Measurer or official.

From: Bou'bound
16-Nov-15
They be OK with it.

From: Bou'bound
16-Nov-15
Ziek

You truncated my quote and totally changed the intent. Let's try this again with full clarity

"the average outfitter is not going to give a rats ass about a club rule and whether the client will be able to put his name in some hardbound book or not."

From: tradi-doerr
16-Nov-15
MBMule, if you came to me to see if your cat could qualify as fair chase and to have it measured, my one question is this, 'did you have the receiver on while you located the dog/s?' if it was, I'd say no it wasn't fair chase, as the receiver was used to locate the dog, and you still had intentions on hunting, this would disqualify it for the record books.

It's all about ethics, and just how honest one wants to be when it comes to trophy hunting and entering your trophy.

In the 20yrs of being an OM, it amazes me when a guy/gal wants to bend the rules of fair chase, or actual measurements just to put their name in the book. Kind of a dishonest service to oneself don't you think?

Here is a scenario, say the outfitter/guide lets the dogs loose on some tracks. the hunter & outfitter/guide sit in the truck and watch the GPS tracker to see if the dogs stop for any period of time, when the dogs stop moving the guide takes the hunter the shortest/easiest route possible to the dogs/treed cat, using the GPS receiver, and usually by vehicle, and then by foot, this is not fair chase as the rules sit. The hunter has to be in pursuit right behind the dogs to make it fair chase when using dogs and the receiver turned off, It's pretty cut and dry.

From: tradi-doerr
16-Nov-15
Bou'bound, you are correct, it's about the money and getting the client their cats the easiest way possible, with the least amount of out of pocket expense doing so.

This is what makes qualifying Mnt. Lion sometimes complicated, and with animosity towards outfitter and the record clubs because the hunter wasn't informed of fair chase rules.

16-Nov-15
"Should I be allowed to drive a four wheeler ten miles into a swamp and walk 100 yards to my dear stand or should I have to walk the whole way to the stand. If I use a machine ,technology, that makes it less of a hard hunt should that preclude book entry."

It's a good point, but sorta apples and oranges. You don't have a tracking device on the deer. Theoretically, a guy could release dogs without collars on a cat that ran parallel to a road and follow the dogs in the truck. Once treed, the cat would be considered fair chase even though the guy drove to the site of the kill. Even if that would qualify for the book, I wouldn't consider it fair chase personally.

One could dream up a million scenarios on both sides of this debate that would muddy the waters, but the spirit of the rule is trying to prevent video-game-type hunts and/or lazy hunts where the "hunter" does nothing more than sit in a truck and wait to go make a kill. The purpose of the rules are so that the animal has a chance and that the "hunt" is actually a hunt and not an execution.

That said, I agree with Bob that the rule should be looked at. A better reading, IMO, would be to say that, if gps collars were used, that the hunter must follow the dogs from the time they were releassed and if he was still at the site of where the dogs were released when the dogs treed the animal, it would not qualify as fair chase. That's not chasing, that's sitting on your ass.

The Club wants to discourage the mindset where the kill is paramount and the hunt is a side note. It also doesn't want the record book sullied by "cheap kills." It's very difficult to make a rule set that takes into account every single hunting scenario. Lines have to be drawn somewhere; it's a big game bowhunting club. If there were no fair chase rules, the Club would not stand for anything and would not be a group of like-minded sportsmen.

From: tradi-doerr
16-Nov-15
+1 idyllwildArcher

From: Matt
16-Nov-15
"If there were no fair chase rules, the Club would not stand for anything and would not be a group of like-minded sportsmen."

Agreed, but then P&Y should stop suggesting its record book "provide(s) great insight into the....management, health and trends of North America’s wildlife populations and bowhunting opportunities" by virtue of the exclusion of legally taken trophies that do not meet its fair chase requirements - no?

This seems like one of those instances in life where you can't have it both ways.

From: tradi-doerr
17-Nov-15
To better clarify possibility's, I had explained to MBMule in a case of difficulty determining fair chase, in a case that MDMule described. I would measure the cat/bear skull, then add notes for the club directors on the details and let them make a final decision on fair chase, some cases need more than one opinion. But, the rules are clear, that a receiver is not to be used during the chase while the hunter is in pursuit.

Matt, because each states manage the wildlife differently from one another not all fair chase rules are mirrored from the state laws, but from what a group inside the organization deems fair chase, these decisions are never taken lightly, and all aspects are considered, even when new technology's are introduced.

I'll step out on a limb here, "If you don't like the rules of the club, don't enter your trophy". Or submit to the club your concerns to see if anything could be done or changed. Best of luck this season!

17-Nov-15
Matt, perhaps that point has some merit in the case of mountain lions. Are the majority of mountain lion bowhunt kills not enterable due to the fair chase rules? Perhaps that'd be evidence that the rule should be changed. The fine line is keeping up with changing times without selling out the spirit of hunting and avoiding sliding down a slippery slope.

P&Y just made huge changes in it's fair chase rules in order to keep up with the times. It's not like these things don't get looked at and changed at times.

I don't think your point extends to ungulates though. The rules reflect most modern bowhunters ethics and represent the vast majority of NA big game hunting, so your statement is sorta throwing the baby out with the bath water when you mention the book.

From: Ziek
17-Nov-15
"Should I be allowed to drive a four wheeler ten miles into a swamp and walk 100 yards to my dear stand or should I have to walk the whole way to the stand. If I use a machine ,technology, that makes it less of a hard hunt should that preclude book entry."

NO. You don't have to walk naked from your home in the lower 48 all the way to Alaska in order to hunt caribou. And your question is just another permutation of that ridiculous argument; that if you accept ANY technology beyond what a primitive aboriginal would use, you should accept ALL technological advantages.

But more to the point. The safety concerns are being way over emphasized while the unfair advantage is being downplayed by some.

How can you possibly help your dogs that are heading too close to a highway when you're sitting a mile or more away looking at an electronic map?

"I use a tone button on a collar to call them off."

Yeh, right! The hounds I've seen won't even sit and stay without physical restraint when you're standing right next to them, and you claim to control them with a collar? Maybe with a taser attached. Even you admit the unlikely success of attempting that.

Or how would you know that wolves are tracking your dogs, again if you're not following RIGHT behind them? If you're concerned that you've been out of contact with the pack for too long or any other legitimate concern, call the hunt off for the day, turn on the tracker and retrieve the dogs.

To the point of fair chase there are these quotes, all of which actually admit and highlight why it's NOT fair chase:

"90% of hunters would have a tough time following the dogs...

If you're not in shape you shouldn't go on the hunt. Since the dogs already do ALL the hunting, the ONLY challenge of a cat hunt is being in good enough shape to do it.

"If you can't hear them. How do you know if they have it jumped or still cold tracking. Are they trees or Bayed up?"

There are SUPPOSED to be unknowns while hunting, That's why it's called hunting and not killing. You get those answers when/if you catch up to the dogs.

"... boy it took the guessing and the hunting out of it for me."

Accurate observation.

"So using the receiver to cut the time in half or maybe even quarter is great amount of time in the country we live in, wolf country. So we houndsmen would go of track to get to the hounds quicker. This does not change the hunt,"

How could truncating the chase by half or even less NOT change the hunt? Again, if you feel the dogs have been out too long, end the hunt and go get them.

How is putting a tracking collar on dogs that, if they're successful, any different than tracking a collared elk or sheep? The collar and the prey end up in the same location. And in the case of collared dogs they contain the prey until you arrive (at least most of the time) so it's even more unfair.

"...that the hunter must follow the dogs"

I also thought about this compromise. The problem is that the tracking info gained does, by itself, cause unfair advantage. For example, if the dogs never catch the cat or the chase ends too far away, the hunter need not expend any energy. In other words he only needs to hunt if there is a good expectation of success. That is NOT true fair chase hunting.

There are ways to address the safety concerns without compromising fair chase ethics the way the rule is currently written. So the real argument is more about the efficiency and success rate when complying with the rule.

From: Glunt@work
17-Nov-15
Might as well change it. Just remember, if you keep adding water and ice to a good scotch, eventually you find that the whole point of pouring the good stuff is lost.

17-Nov-15
Ziek, your statement regarding the behavior of hounds is un founded. You must of went hunting with some want to be houndsmen. I use my e-collars to call my dogs back for a pile of reasons ei: chasing the wrong type of bear, wolves in the area, heading for a highway. Unless the collars are on you don't what is happening. I have done several hunts for pope and young cats without collars, it doesn't even need to be a mature female to make the minimum score.

What about timed feeders for deer? how about donuts for bear. Game cameras is a big one, targeting a specific buck or bear by checking your photos using a phone. Where is the line drawn.

17-Nov-15
"I also thought about this compromise. The problem is that the tracking info gained does, by itself, cause unfair advantage. For example, if the dogs never catch the cat or the chase ends too far away, the hunter need not expend any energy. In other words he only needs to hunt if there is a good expectation of success. That is NOT true fair chase hunting."

Don't you think that the hunts where something is killed are the ones that influence the rules the most, not the hunts that don't result in a kill? The point is to make the effort to kill significant and fair. Not to increase the work someone does on non-successful hunts.

If the fair chase rules said that the hunter had to be chasing the dogs from the moment the dogs were released, he'd still be chasing - up until the point where he kills an animal or calls the hunt off. If the hunt is called off, the animal lives...

What you described when you said this:

"... if the dogs never catch the cat or the chase ends too far away, the hunter need not expend any energy. In other words he only needs to hunt if there is a good expectation of success."

still insinuates that the hunter is sitting in the truck and is something different than what I was talking about when I proposed changing the rule to having to persue the dogs from the moment they were released.

You have some good points though Ziek. I really wonder how a tracking device would really save a pack of hounds if they were attacked by a pack of wolves. You'd assume that the wolves would rip through the pack in just a couple minutes and it wouldn't matter. I always wondered why houndsmen who run in wolf territory don't run a couple kevlar vested pit bulls in the pack to give them a chance.

From: elkstabber
17-Nov-15
Tradi-doer did an exceptionally good job of explaining the P&Y rules.

From: Ziek
17-Nov-15
Skinner Creek. So you let your dogs out of their crates at the beginning of a track and just tell them to sit and stay until released? If so, I'm impressed, and would love to see that because you must be one in a million. If they're not that biddable, I don't see how you could reliably control them at extreme distance with just a collar. I also wonder how often this would even be a concern. Certainly there are times when a busy highway might be close by, but I would think that in the vast majority of cases, only snow-covered two-tracks, and back roads would be encountered where you're more likely to see a lion than a vehicle.

"...still insinuates that the hunter is sitting in the truck..."

I never attributed that to anyone in particular, just that under any new proposal that would be acceptable.

The guide on a hound hunt already has more influence over the outcome of the hunt than in any other type of hunt. Giving him even more tools is not the answer. In fact, I'd rather see a new requirement that the guide cannot precede the hunter to the treed/bayed cat. He could get close enough to observe for "safety" reasons, but could not influence the actions of the cat staying put. If the hunter can't get there before the cat bails, the chase continues. This would just be an extension of the rule that prohibits unscrupulous outfitters from treeing a cat before the hunter is even called. And the press release that P&Y has tightened up the fair chase requirements for hunting with hounds would be good PR, as well as good policy.

"The point is to make the effort to kill significant and fair."

I would reword that to "give the quarry fair opportunity to escape".

Another way to put it is to quote Jose Ortega y Gasset. "A good hunter's way of hunting is a hard job which demands much from a man: he must keep himself fit, face extreme fatigues, accept danger. It involves a complete code of ethics of the most distinguished design;...", and "as the weapon became more and more effective, man imposed more and more limitations on himself...", and "...one does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted."

Too many current hunters are all to eager to use anything and everything to make hunting easier; the list is just too long for me to type. We should be trying to get back to the basics, to hunt for the reasons most of us chose bowhunting, as apposed to gun hunting, to begin with. For the challenge of getting close, spending more time afield trying to accomplish something special, to become better hunters. The easier we make it, the cheaper the experience becomes.

From: TD
17-Nov-15
Guessing some folks have never spent all night or even the next several days looking for lost dogs.... there is no "sport" nor "fair chase" in that. It just sucks.

Nor do those units have unlimited range, for the most part just a bit more than a good walkie talkie. As with the radios, in many cases the range is quite limited. Without checking constantly you have no idea if they are about to go over the ridge and out of range or where to relocate to reacquire the tracker. Any way you slice it, turning off the tracker puts the dogs at higher risk to some degree or another. Maybe the risk is acceptable to that houndsman, maybe not, his call. Not acceptable to the hunter or the club, maybe they should risk their own hounds. Their own livelihood.

If it came to reducing the risk of losing my hound or entering something in a book with a club because that somehow violates some rule.... not the LAW mind you, a private club rule.... well, they can do what they want, not any loss to me. I don't need to enter an animal that badly. (And yes I am a member.) I'll choose the dogs over the club every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The "hunt" is exactly the same. The hounds either tree or do not tree the cat, the collars make no difference, are of zero aid. That they have it treed for a few minutes, half hour, hour or 6 hours...... or you spend the rest of the night and the next day looking for them is really the difference here.

If a hunter is to "cheat" it has been done many many times LONG before there were collars.... tree a cat, call in the hunter and get him to the cat asap. Shoot the cat. It's not the absence of some tracking device that makes it a "fair chase" hunt.

From: Ollie
17-Nov-15
I wonder how anyone killed a mountain lion prior to electronic tracking collars? Maybe no one did!

From: Jake
17-Nov-15
Ziek, it really is very easy to call a dog back. Any dog. Way easier to teach it to come back to you when there is a beep in its ear. It only takes about 20 minutes to teach a dog that if it doesn't get turned around and headed back to its owner when it hears that beep its going to get shocked and its going to hurt really bad.

"Yeh, right! The hounds I've seen won't even sit and stay without physical restraint..."

Now we see why you were able to keep up with those dogs! Kidding of course. And I'm not arguing for or against your main point by the way.

From: Bou'bound
17-Nov-15
"I wonder how anyone killed a mountain lion prior to electronic tracking collars?"

the same way they killed deer without treestands and cameras on every three fenceposts in the area

the same way they killed bears before baiting

the same way they killed caribou before float planes

the same way they killed muskox before snowmobiles

the same way they killed moose before ATVs

the same way they killed antelope before pop up blinds and windmills

they did not kill as many................

honestly the camera thing for deer is a much bigger issue. it is comical now what "scouting" has become. people no long go to the woods to look for deer sign, they go to their camera to pull a memory card. it's a joke.

the lion thing won't change because there are probably 50 a year, MAX, put into the book. nobody really hunts them and only a fraction that do would care about entering anyway..............

but deer........that is a whole different thing........10000 times as many people hunt deer as compared to lions and the money and the attention they generate for the club it material so all is fair with those animals.

From: Ziek
17-Nov-15
"it really is very easy to call a dog back. Any dog. Way easier to teach it to come back to you when there is a beep in its ear. It only takes about 20 minutes to teach a dog that if it doesn't get turned around and headed back to its owner when it hears that beep its going to get shocked and its going to hurt really bad."

Then the problem is solved. Rig it to beep on a timer in case he's out of range at the end of the day and just wait 'til he shows up. No need to have it on all day to retrieve them. ;-)

Bou'bound. We agree on some things, especially game cameras, although I think your list is over reaching on many points.

17-Nov-15
I know that my 2AM July pictures of does and bucks in velvet sure have helped me kill a lot of big deer come season opener. I almost feel guilty, like the deer are just waiting to die by flash - except that they change their habits weekly...

Apples and oranges again. Cameras are not a tracking device and are of little value when you go afield to hunt. They do not direct you to an animals exact current location like a GPS device. They may tell you what's in the area and you may be able to pattern early season, but they're worthless for the bulk of hunting/killing that's done: the rut.

Bou'bound, the P&Y Club could raise a million dollars for cancer and you'd find something negative to say about it.

From: wifishkiller
17-Nov-15
Headed out in the morning to find a cat, I'll try to make it PY legal....

From: Julius K
18-Nov-15
I know in Maine I have talked to guys that have bear dogs with GPS collars. They often see which way the bear is headed, and try to cut them off using logging roads. They get set up in the road, bear comes out and bang.

I do think there are people who will always use technology to its fullest ability. Or I guess you could say "abuse it."

But, I do think their are some guys whole only have a gps collar on their dog to ensure they can find them at the end of the day, and always follow their dogs in the woods on foot.

From: elkstabber
18-Nov-15
In Virginia hounds are used to chase deer. The combination of Garmin GPS collars, CB radios, and lots of public roads makes it common practice to have club members with the Garmin screens direct other members to cut the deer off as they are crossing roads. It's standard practice. It's currently 100% legal and about 30% of Virginia's deer are killed this way every year.

The hounds typically have numbers and aren't even named. Suffice to say that they aren't trained to commands and don't come when called.

I'd like to thank the B&C and P&Y folks for defining fair chase.

In order to continue our tradition of hunting we need to always look at the image that we are presenting to the nation's nonhunters. Tracking collars on hounds is a difficult issue. Again, tradi-doerr has done an excellent job in clarifying P&Y's position.

From: N-idaho
18-Nov-15
ziek you have never owned a hound have you. a well trained hound can be called off and controlled with proper training. it can save there lives as many cat tracks are found near highways and other busy roads. if you don't like hound hunting with collars buy and raise some hounds and do it your own way and enter all the cats you kill in the py book, which is just for bragging rights anyway. time to get off your soap box.

From: Ziek
18-Nov-15
N-idaho.

I have a better idea. Hound hunting should ONLY be allowed if you hunt behind your own dogs. As it stands now, the "hunter" has very little invested in the "hunt" (besides $), and allowing full time collar use would only make it more so.

And like I said, it has nothing to do with record book entry, it has everything to do with fair chase. If you can come up with a way to use them for "safety" reasons without ANY abuse, I'm listening. Hunting with hounds has been going on for a lot longer without collars than with, and safety is just being used as an excuse to influence the outcome of the hunt. If safety is really that much of an issue when releasing hounds, it shouldn't be allowed to begin with.

And no, I haven't trained any hounds, but I have trained and hunted 6 Labrador Retrievers. A much more biddable breed. And I know how unreliable control can be when they have their nose 10 feet behind a running rooster's tail. And I've watched other's dogs just hunch up and grit their teeth as they ignore the collar. I've also been to field trials where the best trained dogs ignore the handler. So I know that this "safety" control is way over blown. It may be possible in some cases but not generally.

Safety is being used as an excuse to improve kill ratios just like proponents of game cameras want you to believe they have NO effect on the hunt. If that were true, why do they spend so much money on them. And why do I read articles where the hunter HAD to borrow more cameras from a friend in order to "hunt" a particular deer. (And similar crap). Users only believe they don't help when trying to justify their use.

From: Ziek
18-Nov-15
There is a solution to address both issues, but it would have to be regulatory to have any effect. And I know how many of you feel about more regulations, but if you believe in fair chase, there is no down side. If you comply, there is no jeopardy.

The hunter and guide(s) start out on the track as soon as the dogs are released. They can not have any electronic receivers with them. No radios, cell phones, sat phones, computers, NONE. They can carry a Spot with transmit only functions to be used in an emergency, and to contact the outfitter for pick up location when they come out. The guide could also have a tracker on him with no beeper or other incoming communication capability. They have to follow the track to it's end or abandon it all on their own with information garnered on their own. (Hard copy maps and compass?)

The monitor can track the hunt/dogs and relocate however he wants from a distance as the chase progresses. He has NO contact with the hunters. He could pick up the dogs at any time he sees fit and wait for the pursuers to arrive.

There would have to be significant penalties, like loss of outfitter/guide/hunting license, for violations.

From: TD
18-Nov-15
How about P&Y keep it in the club and not impose their "ethics" on the world. If you don't follow their rules you don't enter the animal in their books. Simple. I'm fine with that. Gosh... some folks even go so far outside P&Y as to shoot them out of trees with guns.....

If I hunt with an outfit that uses trackers and doesn't want to turn them off and lose contact with their livelihood so I can enter something in a record book.... I just won't deal with P&Y and enter it.

There.... even more simple..... fixed in fact.

You do know how it has been done many many times long before any tracking systems right? Hunter sits in nice warm cabin. Houndsmen tree cat, go get hunter. Hunter shoots cat. Tracking systems have nothing to do with "making it too easy". I'm sure there are more than a few on here that would love to show folks just how "easy" it was for them on their hunt, trackers or no trackers.

People are assuming because they have a tracking system they use it to "cheat". I have news for them. I can assume they are lazy and cheating with no tracking system being used at all. All with the same brush.

Once again. It's the hunter. But I guess as long as they didn't use any evil electronics like trackers or cameras and used good old fashioned hired help (or even free labor as there really is no difference), all is good.

From: Ziek
18-Nov-15
"You do know how it has been done many many times long before any tracking systems right? Hunter sits in nice warm cabin. Houndsmen tree cat, go get hunter. Hunter shoots cat."

And that has been outlawed in most, if not every, state.

"People are assuming because they have a tracking system they use it to "cheat"."

I'm not assuming anything. Many have related how the trackers ARE being used. Not just for safety, but to direct the hunter.

I know the OP was asking in relation to P&Y, but this issue goes far beyond just a club's rules. We simply can not just accept every new technology intended to make the outcome of a hunt more in favor of the hunter, without critical review. If we as hunters don't do it, it will be done for us, either by majority vote or by game managers who manage wildlife for EVERYONE, not just hunters. Pope & Young used to take a very pro-active approach in this regard, but they are now more interested in becoming more popular rather than trying to influence fair chase hunting, and what few rules they have left are under constant attack.

From: GhostBird
18-Nov-15
... so, a few observations from the discussion.

1) A guy wants to book a cougar hunt with a reputable houndsman and it seems most, if/not all, use tracking collars. Unless the guide agrees to not turn on the tracking unit from the time the dogs are let loose until after the kill, then it will not pass as "fair chase" with P&Y.

2) The same guy would like to enter his cougar in the P&Y record book if it qualifies. How in the world is this guy supposed to even book a "fair chase" hunt without vetting the guide and asking for a "P&Y fair chase" hunt at the risk of pissing off said guide before the booking even takes place. Some guides may be fine without using the tracking units during the chase if asked, but I bet the majority would not even entertain the idea.

It seems like finding a "P&Y fair chase" cougar hunt would be a challenge given the current rules and the state of the sport of hunting with hounds.

From: Ziek
18-Nov-15
GhostBird

I don't think you will have that hard a time finding a P & Y compliant outfitter, despite some of the posts here. Just make a polite inquiry when you first contact them. If you rate outfitters based only on their advertised success rate, you may discover why some may be significantly higher than others. Also, you ALWAYS should fully vet a proposed guide. If they get pissed with any question you pose, or suggest they won't tell if you don't, you need to hang up immediately and find a professional outfit.

From: Glunt@work
18-Nov-15
If I was looking for a lion hunt without tracking being used, I would discuss it with the potential houndsman. If he actually got "pissed off" that a client would inquire about that, he's probably not someone to book with regardless of the tracking issue. That would be odd behavior. If he says "nope", or that he thinks its a silly rule, or that he thinks P&Y isn't a good organization, thats fine.

I think there are houndsmen that would accommodate that request. They know what areas would be better or worse suited for running without tracking devices. I would expect most of them to reserve the right to switch it on if a situation arises. That should be discussed up front along with a dozen other ouffitter/client issues like lodging, game care, transportation, wounding policy. etc.

From: Bou'bound
18-Nov-15
zeik

did you really say this issue could end up impacting a vote by the general population potentially?

I think that the general population would be plenty upset, if they were predisposed to being upset by such things, if they saw a treed cat hunt and the chaos that is associated with that regardless of how the thing ended up in the tree.

From: wifishkiller
18-Nov-15
Good reason TO use GPS was today, that wind was intense! Couldn't hear the dogs after a few hundred yards. Track got blown out and we ended up stumbling back to the truck.

Maybe I'm looking at this in a different way but why does every care how someone runs their dogs? I really don't think it would be hard to book a hunt, for a PY cat. All you would have to do is ask the handler. In most of the country away from people your good to go.

Also most guys with dogs don't kill cats on a regular basis to begin with.

Me personally I love watching the GPS, there is nothing better seeing a young dog figuring it out.

Yes back in the day they killed a ton of cats without anything, they also lost dogs.

From: Ziek
18-Nov-15
Bou. They've already taken baiting and hounds for bears away from us in Colorado by basically convincing the non-hunting public that it was unsporting. What's so surprising about the antis coming back again with trumped up claims, aided by a kernel of fact related to cougar hunting? Do you really want to give them a reason to be encouraged again? By the way, plenty of hunters also voted with the antis during the bear issue.

How come no rebuttal/comments on my last proposal? If outfitters who wanted to track their dogs non-stop all did it voluntarily, and were backed up by hunters insisting on it, we would have no issue and no reason for new regulations.

From: N-idaho
18-Nov-15
tracking collars due make it easier to find your dogs but they don't help the dogs tree the lion. doesn't a release aid for a compound bow make it easier for the hunter to shoot accurately, yet it is accepted. a scope makes it easier to shoot a rifle accurately. I do not think a simple little collar makes it none fair chase any more than the rest of technology. the only true fair chase then should be someone who makes their own bow and arrows from nothing but materials from the forest, wearing only leather skins for clothing.

From: TD
18-Nov-15
IMO this is no "issue" at all. This is honestly the very first time I've ever heard ANY objection to houndsmen using tracking systems and it was about if P&Y accepted the entry. Apparently they don't, but maybe under some conditions? Fine. So don't enter it. Or find someone who will turn them off if it matters to you. Simple stuff in my view.

Other than that I've never heard anybody even bring it up. They book a cat hunt, hopefully with a great outfitter with great hounds that have a shot a treeing a cat. Very rarely a DIY thing. It's a hunt carried out almost exclusively by people who rely on their hounds to make a living. It's a HUGE deal to lose one, much less waste a bunch of valuable and very limited time, resources and energy (read "sleep") driving around for hours on end looking for them. All the while on the hunters clock. We helped run hounds on bears when I was a kid. To say it was a problem was an understatement. It sucked big time.

In all honestly.... mostly sounds like a solution out looking for a problem..... while inserting more problems for hard working people who have finally figured out a way to help cut their losses.

From: Bou'bound
19-Nov-15
ziek

you and I share the same belief on the anti's and the fact that oougar hunting is a poster child commercial in waiting to bias voters if this goes to a ballot initiative. there is nothing about a 30 second spot on TV of dogs harassing a panting lion that is then shot out of a tree that will play well.

my point was that such is the reality of the final act of that hunt regardless of collar or not. no non /anti hunter is going to look at that hypothetical commercial and say I am fine with that practice so long as the dogs are not wearing tracking collars, but if they are collared I am opposed.

non hunters will be opposed either way.

From: Ziek
19-Nov-15
N-idaho

"tracking collars due make it easier to find your dogs but they don't help the dogs tree the lion."

But if they do tree the lion, then by definition it helps the hunter find the lion, often by the most expeditious route, not by tracking the chase. And if they don't tree it, the hunter need not expend any energy. He only "hunts" if there is a high probability of success, which is NOT the definition of fair chase.

As to the rest of your post, I already addressed it earlier. (copied for your convenience).

"NO. You don't have to walk naked from your home in the lower 48 all the way to Alaska in order to hunt caribou. And your question is just another permutation of that ridiculous argument; that if you accept ANY technology beyond what a primitive aboriginal would use, you should accept ALL technological advantages."

TD

"It's a HUGE deal to lose one, much less waste a bunch of valuable and very limited time, resources and energy (read "sleep") driving around for hours on end looking for them. "

I addressed the safety concern, and suggested a way for you to use the collars. So your main concern is efficiency at the expense of fair chase, NOT safety, which has been my argument all along.

Bou

I agree that anti hunters will be opposed no matter what. Most of the no-hunters I talk with have no issue with bow hunters, even when they don't agree with rifle hunting, precisely because they view it as more fair/sporting to the animal. Even many hunters feel that way, me included. It's the main reason many of us bow hunt to begin with. But with all the hi-tech gadgets and increased bow performance, that perception is starting to change.

From: houndy65
19-Nov-15
ZIEK, YOU, " The hunter and guide(s) start out on the track as soon as the dogs are released. They can not have any electronic receivers with them. No radios, cell phones, sat phones, computers, NONE. They can carry a Spot with transmit only functions to be used in an emergency, and to contact the outfitter for pick up location when they come out. The guide could also have a tracker on him with no beeper or other incoming communication capability. They have to follow the track to it's end or abandon it all on their own with information garnered on their own. (Hard copy maps and compass?)

The monitor can track the hunt/dogs and relocate however he wants from a distance as the chase progresses. He has NO contact with the hunters. He could pick up the dogs at any time he sees fit and wait for the pursuers to arrive."

You my man are dreaming, there is no way any houndsman or outfitter is going to do this. You are the kind of person any of us dread taking on a hunt. I am very pro fair chase, what i said in another post is the the hounds are the hunters. We just walk to the tree to harvest a lion. Monitor, really, we have $1000's of dollars invested into dogs, equipment,vet bills and not counting all the feed. The P&Y club needs to rethink their policies on this subject. So for archers like yourself to think that you question the houndsmen or outfitter on our methods of getting to the hounds is a load of crap.

Sure their have been a lot bad apple out there, but the majority of us are hard working guys that love to tree lions and bobcats all winter.

this was all my opinion, nothing againest anyone.

thanks terry L. Zink

From: Stekewood
19-Nov-15
"Most of the no-hunters I talk with have no issue with bow hunters, even when they don't agree with rifle hunting, precisely because they view it as more fair/sporting to the animal."

How is using a bow to shoot a treed cat more fair/sporting to the animal than using a rifle?

From: Bou'bound
19-Nov-15
it's more difficult to shoot a bow accurately than a rifle, but in the end a guys shooting until he runs out of ammo or arrow so the end result at that point will be the same

From: Stekewood
19-Nov-15
That's kinda what I was getting at Bou. When an animal is ambushed or must be approached until in range, bow hunting certainly is more fair/sporting, but it seems that with a treed or bayed animal, the hunt is basically over and the hunter is simply dispatching the animal. Since it's more difficult to shoot a bow accurately, why use it?

Seems sort of like choosing a bow to put your horse down out on the back 40. Not that there's anything wrong with that either if that's the only weapon one uses, but I doubt many would choose that option. :-)

From: Ziek
21-Nov-15
Stekewood. Again, I'm not arguing for just the sake of the P&Y rule. I'm arguing for fair chase no matter the weapon used. The general public is sure to see tracking a cat by satellite less fair than actually tracking it on the ground, and rightly so. It wasn't just bowhunters who lost in our bear hunting referendum, it was ALL hunters. ALL hunters should take note of P&Y's rule.

houndy65. You're probably right. But why not? Again, I'm betting it's for the same basic reasons some guys "hunt" behind high fences.

From: Matt
21-Nov-15
I am surprised there are many (if any) houndsmen that would conduct a hunt in accord with P&Y's fair chase rules given the cost of the dogs and the potential for loss (or even the time it takes to find lost dogs and the impact that can have on a hunt).

From: Stekewood
21-Nov-15
I understand where you are coming from Ziek, and there's no doubt that the collars can make a hunt a more efficient, but I cant see the collar being a significant factor when it comes to a non hunter trying to decide if the hunt is fair or not. Unfortunately in today's world the fact that dogs are being used automatically qualifies it as unfair in the eyes of virtually anyone that doesn't hunt.

22-Nov-15

Gerald Martin's embedded Photo
Gerald Martin's embedded Photo
I'm definitely not an outfitter, but I can tell you how it goes down with the guys I hunt with. Like most guys who run hounds we just want to see the dogs get to be rewarded for their efforts by chewing on a cat or two each year. I live in a special draw area for lions and each year we take one or two guys who are friends and have drawn the tag for free. We spend our money for gas, dog food, equipment, time off work, etc. and are happy that someone gets to harvest what is for many a once in a lifetime trophy.

I'm sure that being an outfitter might be a bit different in what he is willing to do because a client is paying a significant amount for a hunt, but the rules are hard and fast for those who hunt with us.

Dog safety is paramount. We don't turn out in areas where there is fresh wolf sign. The tracking collars are on just as soon as the dogs are released. We want to know where the dogs are at all times, not due to road safety, but as an effort to get to a tree quickly once the dogs tree. Most dogs killed by wolves are killed when they are barking treed for a long time without humans around. We have never lost a dog yet, but have had wolves come within 100 yards of us while we were at the tree.

Shocking as this may be since it's Bowsite, we only shoot lions with a rifle. All of us are bowhunters for other animals, but face it. The lion is in a tree. The person pulling the trigger is just the one who finishes the process. The dogs did the hunting and upon getting to the tree the hunt ends. If it is a lion that is going to be killed, we want it killed as quickly and humanely as possible, for the lion's sake and for the dog's sake. The one bow shot lion that we did allow ended up with a wounded lion, a hurt dog and and two .44 mag rounds to finish what had been started.

I know many people want to kill a lion with their bow and if they are paying an outfitter for that privilege, he is obviously going to accept a bit more risk than we are willing to take. It's going to be up to each person who releases his dogs as to what he will allow, but those are the rules for a guy who hunts with us.

Personally IMO, if being hung up on not being able to have your name entered in a private club's listing of who's who, or only being willing to shoot a lion with an arrow instead of a rifle, keeps you from enjoying the whole process, from finding a track and watching the dogs hit the ground and finally walking up to a lion in a tree, then perhaps you are hunting for the wrong reasons.

At the end of the day it's not about dollar value of a hound's life. How do you place a value on a four legged friend who you have raised from a puppy, trained it to hunt and made good memories with? My friend who owns the dogs turned down an $8000 offer for his dog, because as he said, "She's family. How do I know how that guy will take care of her?"

From: N-idaho
22-Nov-15
good response Gerald martin. also antis don't care what type of hunting we are doing, they want it all gone, not just baiting and hounds. once they get hounds and baiting then it will be bow and arrows and then it will be all hunting and then it will be your guns. this type bickering between hunter is exactly what they want.

From: Ziek
22-Nov-15
"...once they get hounds and baiting..."

So why make it easier to help them take that next step? But that argument is only ancillary to my main point. Using electronic tracking removes the hunt from fair chase ethics.

I understand the concern about protecting the dogs. But if that can't be addressed without seriously compromising fair chase, then perhaps it's time to reconsider using hounds for sport hunting lions. In other words, lion hunting with dogs would no longer be made available according to the same management goals and licensing requirements of other big game; basically take as many as possible while maintaining population objectives. Hounds could only be used to keep lion numbers from over-populating, by special control hunts. Fair chase hunting is PARAMOUNT in modern sport hunting. Too many corners are already being cut undermining this basic tenet.

This is a very similar issue to the no hunting the same day airborne rule in Alaska. It was common practice for many northern species, until outlawed because abuses (landing close, shooting, then taking off, as opposed to landing setting up camp, then hunting), violated fair chase principles.

Gerald, your rifle only rule is not typical. In fact, many gun hunters choose a handgun, even if they typically don't use one for other hunting, when pursuing lions. I've heard numerous stories about atrocious shooting from these "sportsmen". On the other hand, I released one arrow at my cat from a recurve. He came out of the tree backwards and never even twitched when he hit the ground. Perhaps if you saw that kill, you would have a 100% positive attitude about using a bow rather than 100% negative. (Hint, your one negative experience is not statistically valid). You can also tie the dogs out of harm's way before the shot is taken to help keep them safe.

Also; "...keeps you from enjoying the WHOLE process, from finding a track and watching the dogs hit the ground and finally walking up to a lion in a tree,..." (emphasis added) Seems you left out a WHOLE lot of the middle of the process that the collars make irrelevant, in that statement.

From: Ziek
22-Nov-15
Let me try this another way. I understand the satisfaction the dog owner gets from simply watching HIS dogs work a track and successfully treeing a lion. But a true sportsman should have more invested in the hunt than simply watching YOUR dogs released, then proceeding to the treed cat by the most expeditious means, and taking a pretty anticlimactic shot. I would sure feel cheated if that were all that was involved. In fact, I would decline the hunt, as would many sportsmen I know. Many already feel conflicted by using dogs for cougar hunting. Alienating many sportsmen by using unfair tactics is sure not a good way to preserve a way of hunting that is already under attack.

From: Matt
22-Nov-15
"I understand the concern about protecting the dogs. But if that can't be addressed without seriously compromising fair chase, then perhaps it's time to reconsider using hounds for sport hunting lions."

IMO you are grossly overstating the impact tracking collars have on the effort required to be successful. Certainly there are situations where they can greatly reduce the amount of effort required, but on balance I do not think you are being objective.

From: kota-man
22-Nov-15
My .02 is that the club should look at some kind of change. Whether one likes it or not, technology changes our sport and the club needs to continue to be open to change. GPS and cat hunting are here to stay. You can have an easy cat hunt without GPS or you can have the kind of hunt I had and bust your a$$ for 16 days using a GPS.

Let me tell you about my 16 day "fair chase" cougar hunt: My hunt was at a time when the GPS tracking collars were just starting to be used. The houndsmen I used were "old timers". The first hunt the old antennae thing with the beeps was used at the end of the day to find the dogs. No other method or means was used. It was a bit of a "gong show" at the end of the day sometimes and would've been very convenient and safer to have GPS tracking collars.

My second houndsman was also an old timer and used the GPS receiver on and off throughout the hunt. He knew of my desire to put my cat in the book if I got a good one and only used the reciever when needed. Sometimes that was during a chase and sometimes it was after to gather the dogs.

The day I shot my cat we cut a track near a wood block, cut the dogs loose and saw the dogs chase the cat out of the wood block and heard them tree the cat on a ridge no more than a 1/4 away. The receiver never left the seat of the truck and was never turned on. I hiked out and shot the cat.

Here's my point: Some of the chases I went on WITH the reciever were a whole lot more "fair chase" than the situation when I actually killed the cat, but I was fortunate and able to enter the cat. Had we used the receiver and killed the cat I would not have entered it but been just as happy. I'm with Matt, if the club wants data from cat hunts, they need to allow the use of GPS receivers. My hunt is just one example of "grossly overstating the impact tracking collars have on the effort required to be successful". There is no way a younger generation houndsman is going to put his dogs out without the collars on and receiver going and with the investment they've got out there, I don't blame them.

This one is a "slippery slope" and I see both sides of the argument, but IMO this club rule needs to be revisted.

From: Bou'bound
22-Nov-15
can anyone look up how many cougar entries were added between the current edition of the book and the previous and how many years that period of time covered. I would, but don't have the two most recent books

22-Nov-15
Good post kota. Similar story line to Blacktail Bob's.

Ziek certainly has a point. And that is preservation of the "fair" in Fair Chase.

Still, I wonder how much the chase is changed with these devices if the hunter trails the dogs from the time they're released till the end of the hunt.

You either have to say that the dogs are "fair" or that they're "not fair." If the dogs are fair chase, then you're still letting the dogs do the hard part, gps or not.

Then you have the chase part. If you're chasing, you're chasing. If you're sitting in a truck, that's not chasing. That's waiting.

IMO, if the dogs are "fair" and you're engaged in a "chase," then that's fair chase.

As was the same along the lines of the newest changes to the Club's change in definition to fair chase to include the allowance of cameras and lighted nocks (the right move, IMO, even though I don't use them), it's not about the technology that determines whether or not the chase is fair. It's about how the technology is used, just like when Ziek used the example of air planes. Air planes can be used to access the game, game that would otherwise not have really been possible to access. But you can't spot from them and then land and make the kill. The technology is ok, so long as it's used in a way that doesn't diminish the hunt, aka the chase.

From: Ramhunter
22-Nov-15

Ramhunter's embedded Photo
Ramhunter's embedded Photo
Hunted lions with dogs and a guide in 2004. Went out nine different days looking for a good track to run. We ran my lion for close to 5 miles in the snow, dropping down 500 ft into a canyon to find the dogs baying at the tree.

My outfitter had GPS collars on his dogs, but they were only there if we were going to call off the hunt and then get the dogs, but never needed them. We simply followed the tracks in the snow for the duration.

I felt this was one of the most fun, and greatest hunts I've ever been on. It was absolutely fair chase, everything about it. Electronics were not used, and never considered during the hunt. I was there before daylight every morning looking for tracks. I was there when the dogs were released and did my best to keep up with the guide to get to the dogs hours later. One perfect arrow to the heart after a great and lengthy chase, and it was all over.

Mark had the collars on his dogs so we could find them only after calling off any hunt and only in the event that we couldn't find them by listening and tracking, which is what we always did, we never turned on the collars. I understand the desire to have a less labor intensive way to find one's valuable dogs when loss and after the hunt is called off, but this technology is not needed to be successful, and as Ziek has pointed out guys have been hunting lions with dogs years before this technology was available.

Lion hunting is hard work. Sorting out the tracks in the snow, pursuing the chase up and down the mountains. The cold, the sweat, the sound of baying hounds and the sight of that beautiful cat in the tree at the end of a long chase. Why would anyone want to short-cut such a wonderful experience. Easy is not EPIC - My wish for all is to make the most of every hunt and make them all epic hunts!

Ramhunter

23-Nov-15
Original quoted by Matt "IMO you are grossly overstating the impact tracking collars have on the effort required to be successful. Certainly there are situations where they can greatly reduce the amount of effort required, but on balance I do not think you are being objective."

Well stated and I couldn't agree more. I want to be quite clear that I personally don't care what the P&Y clubs rules are, nor do I care whether they change them or not. It's your club, make the rules you wish.

One thing you are forgetting Ziek is that the dogs either catch the cat or they don't. The dogs I hunt over are pretty smart but they sure don't know how to read a gps in order to short circuit the fair chase process. Once dogs tree a lion, they will stay there for hours, even overnight if they know the cat is in the tree.

By and large the use of gps units only allows the dog handler to get to the tree faster. It doesn't help keep a cat in a tree or help the dogs catch the cat. Why would you equate the use of what is essentially safety equipment with making a hunt unfair chase? I sure don't mind if you want to lose your dogs to wolves or leave them out overnight if you want to do that to your dogs. I also don't mind if you want to forgo a safety harness when you use a technological device to climb a tree for added advantage over a deer's natural senses. (does that technology void fair chase?)

I understand in part some of the concern you and the club have that changing technology can undermine fair chase ethics and values and the resultant loss in opportunity that can bring to all hunters in the end. What I don't understand is some of the arbitrary decisions that are rendered as to what constitutes crossing the line from fair chase to unfair advantage in relation to technology. As long as you advocate for those restrictions solely for inclusion or exclusion from club listing, I have no problems with that even though I feel that in many ways the P&Y club has rendered themselves irrelevant to many hunters.

I'm not a member and probably never will be so take what I say for what it's worth. The restrictions the the club uses to define and limit "fair chase" are valuable to all of us hunters when those restrictions are recognized by most as being essential to preserving and teaching what is recognized as "fair chase." Those restrictions that are based on the values of curmudgeonly minded grumps, who reject out of hand any technology they are not familiar and comfortable with, will only serve to alienate the club from the average hunter to the detriment of the longevity of a fine organization.

From: Matt
23-Nov-15
"Mark had the collars on his dogs so we could find them only after calling off any hunt and only in the event that we couldn't find them by listening and tracking, which is what we always did, we never turned on the collars."

To expand on my prior comment, on the one lion hunt I have done, the dogs all had GPS collars - as they should IMO. But the guide didn't carry the antenna used to locate the dogs. It stayed in the truck and only came out after dark if there was a lost dog. Based on my understanding, my lion wouldn't be P&Y legal. But it would be an insult to all of us for someone to try and explain how the dogs having GPS collars on them when the guide didn't have the means to locate them diminished the fair chase aspect of my hunt.

From: JusPassin
23-Nov-15
I spent hundreds of hours behind hounds back in the 60's before all the electronic crap was invented. We still managed to get er done. Just sayin.

From: Bou'bound
23-Nov-15
just sayin what?

From: Kevin Dill
23-Nov-15
I don't think it's necessary to be on one side or the other of this face-off. If P&Y's position is no electronic monitoring or tracking collars, then I'm fine with that ruling. It doesn't affect me. If a houndsman is adamant that he will use electronics on his dogs, that is also fine by me. It doesn't affect me.

It seems to me that some endeavors don't deserve to be affected by electronics and technology, yet we are so deeply linked to technology that escaping it completely is impossible...or nearly so. To an extent, (considering the day and age we live and hunt in) it seems almost irresponsible to turn out a pack of hounds without some way of tracking and monitoring their location. Times and norms keep changing...which makes me further wonder whether a day will come when chasing game animals with hounds will be considered déclassé....and eventually fade away. In my area (rural Ohio) you can no longer find but a tiny handful of guys who own and run foxhounds or coonhounds.

From: houndy65
23-Nov-15
Try harvesting or treeing a lion without dogs. I want to say treeing a coon with hounds is a lot different from treeing lions. I am old enuff that back in the day there was a time I did not use tracking collars either, but the first chance I got I bought electronics. So all this electronic crap and gps crap is a life saver to all the money spent in todays hound world. I do know that back in the day if all the old timers could had beep beep collars or GPS collars on their hounds they would off.

From: kota-man
23-Nov-15
JusPassin...30 years ago, I sat at this very desk with no computer and still "managed to get er done" as well...Not anymore.

  • Sitka Gear