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?
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.
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.
Bou, you gave an answer to the implied question... thanks.
Call P&Y headquarters and ask them the question.
"...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.
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."
Thanks; Terry L. Zink
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
maybe they can slip me into the paperback instead???
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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."
"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.
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.
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.
"...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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
"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.
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.
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
How is using a bow to shoot a treed cat more fair/sporting to the animal than using a rifle?
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. :-)
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.