Contributors to this thread:
Electronic dog collars = No P&Y
Pope & Young does not allow cats taken with the aid of electronic dog collars to be entered as fair chase. It seems most dog handlers use locating collars to track their valuable dogs. So, the question becomes, how do you get a P&Y cougar in the modern age of electronics?
I can't imagine asking an outfitter not to use the tracking collars. Or am I wrong? Do you ask them to turn them on only if necessary?
At least here in Montana. Houndsman want to keep track of there dogs because of the wolves!
"Do you ask them to turn them on only if necessary? "
One would be wise to do this if they wish to have it entered into P&Y.
How many are entered that used the collars is the question. My guess would be 80-90%
This is one of those rules that really needs to be revisited by P&Y IMO.
I have not hunted with dogs, but I believe the collars can be turned-on without the guide actually using any device to track the togs during the hunt? In other words, he would only look at the transmitter if the dogs were lost (as a safety backup). You could still rely solely on the barking of the dogs to follow the dogs and kill the cat, which is I believe what P&Y requires? In that manner, electronics are not actually being used to hunt the lion.
I have bred and run hounds since 1996. I woudlnt turn a dog loose without a Garmin collar on them and turned on from the moment they are out of the truck. You have to turn the unit on both the handheld and the collar, they need to connect to each other. Then then both the GPS hunt and the receiver (collar) connects to the GPS satellite. Safer for the dogs and the hunters in all respects to use GPS at all times.
What'd they do before gps?
I think they lost a lot more valuable dogs!
I’m sympathetic to Trial, and I think Flicker has offered a reasonable compromise for the rules.
I would guess that a lot, if not most, dog handlers would scoff at a hunters request to not use the electronic tracking. Hence, my question. Protecting their valuable dogs would be more important than appeasing a bowhunter seeking a record book entry. I could maybe see one not using the handheld unit to see if the lion will tree in a couple hundred yards, but once the dogs are out of sight, you can't blame him for wanting to monitor them.
Orion hit on the unstated part of my post. If hunters are registering lions that were hunted with the use of electronics, then they are lying on the fair chase statement.
Orinn is on track and they are used all the way and will tell you when dog is treed.
Probably not as bad though as all the guys who entered animals when they were shooting 80% let off bows and P&Y wouldn't accept anything greater than 65%
We lost dogs to all manners of hazards and accidents. Could they all have been prevented with GPS no however many could have. Furthermore we have put ourselves in plenty of precarious situations while we have tried to find and retrieve miss placed hounds. I wish I had a dollar or every hour I spent looking for dogs over the years. GPS is also a benefit to the game we catch. There is no reason to have a bear or cat treed up for an unneeded amount while we locate them, god knows it’s hard enough to get to them when we know where they are vs looking for them in hole we couldn’t hear them from.
There are still a handful of southern states that allow the hunting of deer with hounds. Typically, the hunters drive the roads, watching their Garmin screens to see where the deer are headed so they can drive there before the deer crosses the road. That way the hunter doesn't have to go far from the truck to shoot.
If P&Y or B&C revisited this it wouldn't take them long to conclude that this is not fair chase.
The recovery of 2-4 lion hounds at the end of a chase is one thing, as Stickflicker suggested. The constant monitoring of 20 hounds in an all day deer hunt is another. I don't mean to derail the thread but the use of electronics on a hound applies to a number of animals (mountain lions, bears, deer, and maybe others). I wouldn't expect P&Y or B&C to change their position.
If you hit the link to watch the youtube video skip ahead to 2:50. You will see how much technology is involved. This ain't your grandfather's sport...
In california you couldn’t use gps on dogs but they used radio collars. It was directional.
Before this they had directional antennae . Slowly turn in a circle and stop when hear loudest beep. Dogs off in that direction somewhere . If have a buddy else where’s could sort of triangulate more precisely where dog was. Now just look at screen can see the dogs location on the map, was amazed last Bear hunt, giant leap in technology . No guessing these days. No hiking or driving trying to pickup a beep the receiver .
New a hound man here back in the 90s That took him three days to find one of his hounds. I’m sure it happens a lot.
You can't use a GPS Collar to locate your dogs, but you CAN use a Tracking dog to locate your big game animal. Hmmm
^^^^^Haha, nicely put Ambush!
Folks, This is the Pope and Young Clubs fair chase rule that applies here under things that are prohibited. The entire document is on the website in the records section.
7. By the use of electronic devices for attracting, locating or pursuing game or guiding the hunter to such game,
There is no rule prohibiting the guide from attaching GPS collars and turning them on. The rule does not allow the guide to use GPS to guide the hunter to the treed animal. If you use GPS to guide you to the animal, it is not considered fair chase under today's rules. It's possible to have GPS collars on hounds when hunting and not violate the rules of fair chase. It will be very hard to get a guide to not make things as easy for him as possible but it can be done and it is done. We should all strive to consider fair chase ethics on every hunt. If you can't find the hounds without GPS then the guide can use GPS to locate them. If you locate them with GPS and then kill the animal, it's no longer fair chase. That's legal but if you do it, you can't enter the animal in P&Y.
So again basically a majority of the cougars taken should not be in the book because most of them use the gps to find the dogs
Did ambush's post get deleted?
I need GPS to find Ambush's post!
Does not make any more sense to me than disallowing deer kills if GPS was used to locate stand.
Orion, where is your proof of your statement "So again basically a majority of the cougars taken should not be in the book because most of them use the gps to find the dogs"
I have shot 2 Lion and no tracking collar was ever turned on and I know lots of hunters who have shot them and the tracking collars were never turned on.
Also personally know of at least one that was not accepted because the tracking collar was turned on.
If the collars are on the dogs they are turned on. Neither the old telemetry collars nor the GPS collars we been using the last dozen years or so can be turned on remotely.
Rock there are plenty in the book that used tracking collars, same as the let off rule lots of animals were entered and guys used more than 65% let off
I have spent many nights getting my hounds back and began using tracking collars two years ago. Coyotes kill beagles up here. I put too much time into my hounds to let them loose without a Garmin. If I ran cougars, no way without a collar.
A colllar not turned on is useless. My Garmins cannot be turned on remotely. If a outfitter is running hounds with collars turned off, what for, they are useless. There is a blinking led on the collar. Put it on the hound with the led facing downward, and the hunter will never know.
Trial, many houndsmen do it right by not using the tracking system to locate or lead them to the treed or bayed animal. They only use it to locate the missing dogs after the animal has been killed or dogs pulled off.
Orion, let me ask this again where is your proof of this? I am not looking for speculation.
Rock sorry but that is the minority most turn them on, on release or when the dogs get out of earshot. Many also use them to show "treed." Call it what you want but I stand by my original post that 80-90% of the cats entered used a gps on the dogs.
Rock you said the collars were turned off. If they are turned off you might as well leave them in the truck because they are useless and if you did loss the dog your out the collar as well because if it isn’t on it’s useless.
If you want to make yourself feel better and think you were hunting with hounds with the collars turned off, knock yourself out, If that makes you feel better . But any houndsmen worth his salt isn’t putting a collar on a hound that isn’t turned on.
So getting a valid p&y cougar is really hard these days. What has the world come to? Getting a record book Critter TV should be easier...wait...
A "the guide had the dogs collared but we never looked at it and were only gonna use it if a dog ran off" debate would be interesting... There would be zero proof whatsoever that somebody truly didn't look at the GPS Unit, and it would be impossible to tell if the dogs had tracking collars on or not after the hunt was over so long as there wasn't any tracking collars in the trophy photos that were lit up with flashing lights. Basically, there's no way of knowing if every cougar entered into P&Y used tracking collars or none of them did. If the guide and hunter both say that they didn't use tracking collars on that specific cat, there is no way to prove otherwise. Seems like an honor-system that not a lot of casual hunters probably know about or keep up with (I had never heard of the no-tracking-collar on lion hunts until the recent threads) so I can see how a lot of guys would enter them without realizing it was against the rules. If that's the case, and P&Y sticks to it and started really cracking down on it, then there could be a niche market open up for somebody to guide hunters and advertise it as no-collar P&Y eligible lions.
To muddy the waters....what is the difference between gps hounds tracking cats and humans with gps (and radios) pushing deer during drives? I do believe the Hanson buck was taken on a drive (B&C). If it was taken with a bow and the drivers were using gps and radios, would P&Y have accepted it?
Also....I had a lighted sight on my bow but it was turned off as there was plenty of light. I didn't even bother entering my big bear in P&Y, not that I would have bothered with them anyway. However the turned off light was something I wondered about. How does that square with a turned off GPS collar?
shut up.... do you know how many guys shot cats with dogs on GPS? what world are you living in...... I would never run my bear dog without one, could care less what Pope and Young said,,,,,,, most of the cats in the book were shot with dogs with collars,,,
and you know what, it was still fair chase, because a good cat hunt is a bitch
Lighted sights are attached to the bow which breaks the rule, used or not. GPS collars need to be "used" to attract, locate or lead a hunter to the game.
Why would anyone fib on the fair chase affidavit? What value is getting a certificate/entry if you cheated? Yes, I know the answer, it's just silly.
GH....I was just throwing out some variables....dogs chasing cats/bear/deer...people driving deer. I could care less about P&Y also. However for the sake of this open discussion....are the P&Y rules being interpreted in different ways? Maybe a better context is to ask if the P&Y rules are being "defined" or "utilized" differently based on the type of animal and methods used? That is why I gave the example comparing collared dogs to radioed drivers above.
Honesty plays a big role. I remember after busting my azz to get to my lion, getting that cat out of the tree, hiking out and celebrating a dream hunt after 2 attempts with the dogs and outfitter only to find out my entry could be accepted because of the collars. Sure could have BS'd to anyone and had it entered.
The hunt really wasn't about a piece of paper after all. The hounds and guide where amazing, and the scenery was fantastic.
P&Y and B&C have revisited this and have always stuck to the Fair Chase rule. If any one of you has a solution to this, please let me know.
The problem here is that the solution is either on the side of hound hunting safety or Fair Chase hunting... not much gray area to deal with. I get what both sides are saying and believe me, I wish there was an easy answer.
I shot a lion without the use of electronic tracking. The houndsman knew up front what I wanted to accomplish and I knew I might go home without a lion. That was my solution...
Orion can say whatever he wants without any facts... this is the internet. Ed F
I’m at a loss for words at some of the moronic statements... actually no I’m not.. what a bunch or moronic statements!!
It’s pretty clear what the Pope and Youngs guideline is ... GPS or telemetry collars can be worn as long as they are not used during the chase. That doesn’t mean the collars can’t be turned on just means the houndsman can’t use them to locate the dogs until the lion is taken. Makes perfect sense...
Tell me Ed did you stay within earshot of the hounds the entire time? If not how'd you know what direction to go? Did your guide have you loop around to get to he dogs quicker? Say what you want but most cats have been killed with collared dogs
I'm just a dumb ol' bowhunter that has really never kept up on all the hullabaloo over the P&Y and electronics, but, I see nothing wrong with the not using collars except to find hounds after the kill. This discussion awakens my curiosity as to the P&Y and range finders and gps to mark stands or "sites" to come back to next year?
We've never taken paying clients, but if someone who asked us to catch a lion for them asked my hunting partner not to turn the collars on because he wanted to enter a lion in the P&Y book, he be shown the track and invited to run it himself. It's not happening in wolf country.
This is a rule that should be revisited. Houndsmen have been the primary driving force for recovery of mountain lions. No group has been more vocal and proactive to protect and conserve this resorce. GPS collars provide a measure of safety for our dogs, they also help with public relations. With more and more non hunters on the landscape it’s incumbent upon us to to show this sport in the best light possible. we houndsmen are always the first line of hunting that is assulted by the antis. Lost hounds or injured hounds wandering around unnecessarily because of not using a tracking collar is silliness. Even more so for a peice of paper on a wall. No one is more pro fair chase then me, and running hounds is hell of a far chase hunt. We also have an obligation to our quarry. We should be catching our prey as quickly as possible to minimize stress on them while keeping our pack safe. Especially in the case where we are treeing cats or bears that we might just catch and release. We need to be careful that we don’t go from fair chase to no chase as our actions are out there on display.
Gerald... it’s not a question of the dogs not having collars turned on... The point is to not use them to find the dogs during the actual chase of the cat. That’s all
On one hunt the houndsman….who was 85 years old....did not have collars on his dogs. He had at least 10 on the hunt and never had issue with his dogs....but it was also New Mexico. On another hunt the houndsman used collars and actually lost a dog.
These dogs are worth a lot of money and are loved by their owner. From the guys I have met who hunt with dogs I would not entertain asking them to not use a collar because I want to enter a animal in a record book to stroke my own ego. I believe a kick in the balls would soon be heading my way.
If the intention is fair chase then let P&Y require the hunter to follow the dogs on foot from the turn out. No one mentions using vehicles, atvs and snowmobiles to cut the distance to the tree as not being fair chase. Finding the dogs with or without gps is pointless. A gps collar does nothing to shorten the chase or assist in treeing a cat. The dogs are the ones doing the work. Scent conditions, quality of dogs, distance a lion travels before being jumped and treed, and a whole host of other factors determine the success or failure of a lion hunt. The whole concept of "fair chase" as defined by P&Y is extremely relevent to the hunting of deer, elk and other game taken by stalking or ambush hunting. It's not very relevent to hound hunting. As Trial 153 mentioned, there are obligations to our quarry. IMO, if the animal is intended to be killed, getting to a tree quickly and ending the hunt is the best scenario. If it is going to be turned down, gathering the dogs and not stressing the lion for any longer than necessary is preferable. I sure that most outfitters might accomodate a hunter's request to do so, but it would only be because the customer has a certain amount of ability to "dictate" the terms, not for any artificial concept of fair chase and he would be doing so with a calculated weighing of the risk to his dogs vs. desire of pleasing his client. This might sound crazy to guys who are accustomed to thinking that bowhunting is the pinnacle of difficulty and fair chase, but when it comes to lion hunting, the actual kill is the anti-climax of the hunt. Walking up to the tree is the climax, the moment of success. That is the moment when the hunters knowledge of the area, the long distances traveled looking for tracks and the determination and grit of the dogs comes together and you have accomplished your goal. Then, the guy with the tag completes the deed. It's a coup de grace, not a stealthy stalk. It should be done as quickly and humanely as posible.
Gerald Martin that is an excellent summary of lion hunting with hounds. But, it gets very muddy when you consider that a handful of states still allow the hunting of deer with hounds. See my post and link above. The youtube video is very educational to those that aren't familiar with modern "deer dog hunting".
Ridiculous rule IMO.....so many reasons to keep a dog on GPS when they are in the type of country they are in. Some get turned around, some take off on a different track, dealing with grizz in the early season or multiple cats. The costs of dogs and their safety and knowing where they are is but one reason that its worth having GPS on a dog.
I wouldn't care one bit about P&Y before worrying about having dogs on GPS for a multiplicity of reasons.
How many of you have even looked at the P&Y score form to see what it states. It does not say you cannot have collars on the dogs nor that the collars have to be turned off. It states; "IF ELECTRONIC COLLARS WERE ATTACHED TO ANY OF THE DOGS, AT NO TIME FROM THE BEGINING OF THE CHASE UNTIL THE HARVEST OF THIS ANIMAL WERE RECEIVERS USED IN THE PURSUIT AND HARVEST" and you need to acknowledge that to be true.
On both of my Lions we were never out of earshot of the dogs for more than a few minute, we had plenty of snow to track them on if they did get out of hearing range and I was there when the dogs were turned out and followed them from the turn out point to the tree.
They won’t bother to read it, Ron......they’ll just throw out numbers and accusations without ANY factual support....as usual.
Roy I understand that but feel the need to try educating those that do not know how to research what they are trying to discuss before typing.
Hey rock, why don’t you be the first person to take your own advise about researching before typing. . Here is what you wrote below in your first post.
“I have shot 2 Lion and no tracking collar was ever turned on and I know lots of hunters who have shot them and the tracking collars were never turned on.
Also personally know of at least one that was not accepted because the tracking collar was turned on.”
"This discussion awakens my curiosity as to the P&Y and range finders and gps to mark stands or "sites" to come back to next year?"
Apples and oranges. When you're ranging an animal, you've already chased the animal to bow hunting distance. The "chase" was still fair. Using a GPS to lead you to a specific animal is also completely different than using a GPS to lead you to a place on a map.
It comes down to using electronics, whether that be GPS or radios, to find or stalk a specific animal.
I shot my 2018 lion with GPS collars on the dogs. When there's good snow, it's pretty easy to follow the hounds and not even look at GPS. Anyone who would like a cat to enter in the P&Y records needs to discuss this option before booking or going on a hunt.
Collars in now way help in the taking of a lion. They help with retrieval of lost dogs. Anyone who has hunted lions knows you fallow the dogs both by track and by sound. So what if the new collars tell you if their treed or not, that just gives you a little more push after hours of snow covered ridges. Collars signaling treed in no way means that when you get there the cat is there it may have jumped or the dogs have lost it and may be false treeing. The only way collars would help would be if you stayed it the truck and tried to get as close as possible by driving other draws. But in Colorado you have to fallow the dogs so that point is invalid.
Might be a pointless question, but why does anyone even worry about P&Y? P&Y is the least important motivation and basically a non factor in my reason for hunting.
I agree with you 110% DMTJAGER
Apparently many do... and they also put importance to Fair Chase hunting. You're right, it was a pointless question. Ed F
No law against having your own dogs and running them without electronic collars. Big expense and commitment of time but several other species require extraordinary commitments of effort, time, money, travel, etc.
Fair chase (if there is such a beast) should be in the eye of the chaser.......
I can promise you that collars on the dog does not make it any easier to get a lion. I have dogs and run cats all winter it is more for the pups and to see what dogs are doing what. Most all races can be heard with a little moving around and I don’t need the collar to tell me if my hounds are treed as long as I can hear them.
Baseball, football, golf, you name it, all have governing bodies that determine what is acceptable in their sport and what isn't. Steroids had a detrimental affect on baseball. It tainted their records and reputation. We can't allow something like that to destroy bowhunting
Without P&Y and B&C the world record whitetail would be 500-600" and belong to the guy with the most money. That's not right. Fair chase in bowhunting is incredibly important. You may not agree with all of the Rules of Fair Chase but 90% of those rules make perfect sense to everyone reading this. It's the 10% that applies to new technology that cause problems. We must adhere to fair and ethical ideals or we lose in the arena of public opinion, which is the only thing keeping us hunting today. You may not care what P&Y thinks but who else is there to ensure ethical bowhunting? If you don't like the rules, at least take the time to find out why they are there. Most people who don't care about Pope and Young's Rules of Fair Chase would be instant converts the day they shot what would be a new world record but didn't qualify because they didn't follow the rules.
Thank you Gerald Martin (you old wolf lover, lol), I am a avid bowhunter and life long houndsman. We have to keep track of the dogs here in Montana because of the wolf problem, simple as that. Using the GPS and telemetry collars is not aiding a bowhunter in anyway. I would tell a bowhunter if asked that question to follow the lions tracks then and I will be waiting for you at the tree. We as houndsmen have to much money invested in our hounds to worry about a Pope & Young rule (that needs updated, simple as that because of the wolf). Each broke hound we have has about $10,000 dollar invested in each dog with everything we do. One dog, $4000. GPS unit $1200 with one collar (collar $150 - $200, I have 10 collars), telemetry unit $1000, $125 a collar, I have 10 collars), snowcats $5000 and up. dog boxes, dog sleds, pat porters, leathes and collars. I feed 200# of dog food every two weeks.
I could go on and on. My love for bowhunting and my hounds is second only to my family, but the hounds are a part of our family. Try hunting a lion without the use of a hound. I tell bowhunters here are the rules, the dogs come first, make a good ethical shoot, that is on you. I care about fair chase, but this rule wrong. This my opinion.
I think most of you misinterpret the intention of this rule-some guides would use these collars to shorten their time invested, to maximize their profits, AND lessen the fair chase aspect of the hunt, while some will only have them on and use them if need be to find a lost dog. It's entirely up to the guide you choose and the input you provide to him. You can choose to not put the animal in P and Y or vice versa, but the club makes the rules.
No electronics? Well, doesn't that throw out using a electronic varmint call for bear?
Is there really a huge difference between being "led" to a cat as opposed to "leading" a bear to you with bait. Chances are you didn't do the background work for either hunt. But require a substantial investment in knowledge, time and money before the hunter arrives.
If we didn't allow entries where gps was used to find a stand or trail cameras were used to "scout" that big buck, we'd probably have to abolish P&Y. There wouldn't be too many entries or members. The way I see it, dogs are either fair chase, or they aren't. Putting a collar on one doesn't change it. Yeah, a guy could ride his snowmobile right to the treed cat, just like he could ride his quad right to his stand where he's been tracking that big buck walking by, with his camera.
Having said that, the rules are there for a reason, and the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Opinions are like buttholes everybody’s got one lol, but here goes mine I run bear dogs in east tenn and have done so since the old beeping collars and my dad and his dad way before any tracking collars. Do the new gps collars help in finding where a bear is headed once dogs are on him he’ll yeah, does this aid in killing the bear lol well that’s where the opinions come into place again we ran a big bore this year for 2 days the old timers told us which holler the bear was headed into when we struck the track and very easily could have killed the bear but we chased gps collars for 48 hrs and bear never did tree. So I’m sure lion hunting is very similar I will never let a dog out of the box without collar, do I think the collar is fair chase lol obviously and like other hounds men have said on here I think it’s more of a more humane way to run hounds no more left for 3 or 4 days with no food or losing half a yrs salary on a dog that just disappeared gps collars should be mandatory in my opinion.
Trial, by not turned on I ment they were not taken out or used during the chase. Yes I could have worded that better to make it clear. Bottom line is they were not used and I am not even sure if there were collars on the dogs that caught my first Lion.
Opinions are like...
Thank you Rock for adding some actual facts to this conversation.
You got that right Trey. There is no excuse to turn hounds loose with out GPS collars at this point. And using them is more fair and humane to both our prey and our dogs.
Nobody has mentioned how the non-hunting public looks at this. I'd be pretty sure they see chasing animals down with dogs as a very negative "slam dunk" hunt as it is, regardless of the reality of it. Add in the fact that the dogs are being tracked with GPS and other technology, and I'll bet the general public would say that it isn't fair chase and would really like to end such hunting. Some of you will ignorantly say that their opinions don't matter, but that is a sure way to end hunting.
Lost dogs, game treed and bayed, or fought for an extended amount of time has way worse optics then how difficult a non hunter perceives a hunt. If are are going base things on a scale of the perception of difficulty then running hounds will be so far down the list it isn't even funny.
How does sitting on your fat ass in front of a feeder rate for difficulty?
Other side of that is with gps and the gps collars we can now know exactly where property lines are weather it be going from national forest onto private and gaining permission before blundering through someone’s property. This past year we treed a Sow and 2 cubs on a piece of private property that other clubs were notorious for trampling through and even had the game wardens called on them and rightfully so, but gained permission from the the older lady on the condition that she and her grandson follow us to retrieve our dogs and it was due to the fact the with a little common courtesy and explaing what had happened up front and being able to pin point and tell her the location we needed to go that all and all turned out to be a good experience which was a first for her by hunters. Could we hear the dogs yes did we know where the dogs were without gps, pretty much but by being able to show her on the map of the hand held unit and asking for permission even though the law states in Tenn that you may retrieve your dog without weapons, I believe we gained some sort of respect doesn’t mean she going to allow us to hunt but we all left happy and no law was called.
Good for you Trey. That's the correct way to handle a situation like that. It goes a long way with landowners to know not all hunters disregard property borders.
“Is there really a huge difference between being ‘led’ to a cat as opposed to ‘leading’ a bear to you with bait.”?
Damn straight, there is...
Most obviously, a bear (for example) coming in to a bait can circle downwind like any wary prey animal. I have a LOT of philosophical disagreements with the use of bait AT ALL, but from the standpoint of an animal being able to detect and evade the Hunter, a baited bear has every oppprtunity afforded to a deer approaching a Hunter who is on a stand overlooking a good funnel.
An animal up a tree has already done everything it can do in order to escape short of resting up, bailing out, and restarting the chase.
In the least objectionable scenario, a GPS collar on a dog can save the humans both time and effort in reaching the dogs/treed animal. That decreases the animal’s potential for resting up and running again. There may not be much of a difference of the humans are trying to keep up with the hounds via radio vs auditory signal, but it’s probably safe to assume that it matters SOME.
It would matter MORE of the humans were hanging out and conserving their energy until the cat was in the tree. And MORE STILL if the hunters were to drive (or ride horseback or whatever) part or all of the way to the treed prey.
But if a “hunter” and an outfitter were willing to play it loose enough, an unscrupulous houndsman could wait for the dogs to tree the cat and radio the GPS coordinates to a helicopter service which could drop the sumbit - I mean CLIENT - within rifle range of the tree.
Hell.... throw in a higher-end drone with a cell phone strapped to it, and an “outfitter” could auction off a treed cat to the highest bidder and have a shooter on-site within hours.
I’m not suggesting that anyone here would go that far, but as a rule.... where there’s a way, there’s a will...
So yeah, there’s a difference.
Would I ask a houndsman to send a dog out without a beeper? Hell, no.
But if it mattered to me to have “my” lion eligible for the book, I’d have to be able to keep up with the dogs.
I think the only Fair Chase option here would be for there to be one guide chasing the cat with the client (using only sound) and a chase team tracking the dogs by GPS with no comms between the two groups.
That leaves the Hunt in the 18th or 19th century and the dog-management can be in the 21st. It would probably cost the client more to have the extra staff to care for/chase after the dogs, but that’s better than having it cost the houndsman extra to care for or replace a dog that got lost or mauled. And if Book Eligibility is important to the Dude, then let HIM absorb that cost.
gps collars on dogs vs non collars and deciding on weather it’s fair chase to me is crazy, personally never entered a animal to be scored by PY not because I disagree with them it’s just not for me, but when you look at the new boots, range finders, binoculars he’ll even new archery equip that allows you to enter a animal for P&Y but consider a tracking collar on a dog that tracks the animal the exact way it did 100 yrs ago and not calling it fair chase is crazy, Be about like saying in order to enter an elk person must not use any motorized vehicle one week before and after killing the animal lol man that would clear out a lot of the Trail head weekend warriors including me :)
If we are appeasing the general public, there is no doubt in my mind that we'll be eliminating treeing prey with hounds as "fair chase".
With stuff like this, it’s invariably NOT so much to do with what the technology does, but it’s about what some people will do with it.
I didn't plod through all the posts, but this is my take. First, no gps was used on my cougar hunt. It didn't make P&Y anyway, but no dogs were lost either. But the main concern is HOW they're used, and HOW to prevent abuse. Some dirt bag outfitters and complicit hunters tree a cat, THEN call the hunter. Hence the rule that hunters have to be present when the dogs are released. No one seems to question that rule. But I don't see any difference if the hunter is present at release, and then sits in a warm truck until the cat is treed, is then driven to the closest/easiest access point and guided to the cat by the gps signal. That is NOT fair chase cougar hunting. You should have to follow the track from start to finish without electronic aid. That is the problem with using collars.
If you do read through these posts you will see that almost all who are against this rule of Fair Chase are houndsman. Admittedly it's more about the hounds than anything else. They do have a good arguement but I don't see this rule changing.
I'm honestly not concerned with this debate. I am concerned with what the future will present us. There's really no limit to what we might imagine in our minds... which can become a reality in the near furure. There has to be a line drawn in the sand with Fair Chase hunting. Ed F
Trail stated "How does sitting on your fat ass in front of a feeder rate for difficulty?"
That's great point. I personally don't consider that fair chase but it doesn't violate P&Y's rules of fair chase. It's not a perfect document but it is all that we have right now that directly addresses the issue.
Why getting your name into a book, is so important to some guys, is beyond me.
I couldn't care less.
Great couple of posts straight from the horse's mouth.
Just got out of the woods with my beagle. Hare took him out of hearing in 6 feet of snow. Had one hell of a snowshoe hike getting him after getting a fix on his collar. He was 400 yards away when when I took the fix. Luckily he was really struggling in the deep snow so I was able to intercept him. He will not leave a track, so I have to go after him. He is one hell of a driving hound. Right now he is licking his balls as he almost wore the hair off them in that snow. Thank goodness for tracking collars as with the deep snow and trees covered with snow, sound deadens quick. He earned his Slim Jim today.
"The problem here is that the solution is either on the side of hound hunting safety or Fair Chase hunting... not much gray area to deal with. I get what both sides are saying and believe me, I wish there was an easy answer."
Actually there is. It's called ethical hunting. P&Y rules have nothing to do with this. It's about ethical hunting, which can only be done by ethical hunters. That's a personal choice that only you can make. Dogs can be kept safe, while still having an ethical hunt. Collar the dogs, release them and follow using your eyes, ears, and muscles. In other words HUNT. If the guide decides he needs to use the technology to keep his dogs SAFE, the HUNT is over. Go collect the dogs. I know guys like Orion could never do this. The temptation to CHEAT would be too great.
If your main concern is that any lion that you may kill will be eligible to be listed in a records book...then you may be hunting for the wrong reasons.
"If your main concern is that any lion that you may kill will be eligible to be listed in a records book...then you may be hunting for the wrong reasons."
Actually I find statements like this offensive and a bit insulting. Since there have been cave walls and burnt sticks, man has been recording and receiving recognition for the animals they've successfully hunted. Some hunters just really don't care and that's alright. But some are just envious, because they don't have one to "paint on the wall".
So maybe you're the guy that always has to gather the wood and cook the animal for the guy that killed it, while the hunter draws and recounts for his friends? Well fed, but still envious? (not directed specifically to Ollie)
Wow ziek you don't even know me nice slanderous statement. I killed my cat spot and stalk. Glassed him up on an elk kill and shot him at 80 yards after a 4 hour stalk. I'd say that is pretty eithical and a heck of a lot tougher then shooting one out of a tree. I guess when your a 100 years old you can say what you want without the fear of getting punched in the mouth. Speaking of ethics how about you one the shed laws this year.
Well Orion, we're still waiting for your evidence that "basically a majority of the cougars taken should not be in the book because most of them use the gps to find the dogs".
If you don't have evidence, we can only assume that you came to that conclusion by looking in the mirror and admitting that 'if it's what I'd do, everyone must be doing it'. Either that, or you still don't understand that you CAN use gps to "find the dogs" just not the cat. Maybe I took a leap in the wrong direction with my comment. But your assessment of the vast majority of hunters is offensive. Also not impressed with an 80 yard shot. Bet you didn't make that without using another high-tech electronic device.
By the way, those sheds were collected on private land.
Ambush, I find it offensive that some people seem to be more into hunting for personal accolades than for the thrill of the hunt.
Why does it have to be one or the other, Ollie?
Not allowing GPS is a no-brainer for these trophy listings. But I would go even further and say hounding shouldn't be considered fair chase. In fact, I believe hounding any wildlife for "recreation" should be banned for all but trained wildlife managers for valid management/research reasons. Let the name-calling, blah, blah, blah begin. There, I said it...
Why would you ban hounding before banning baiting or other much easier ways of taking your pray I’m willing to bet that you’ve never hunted with hounds Dave don’t knock it till you’ve tried it believe me as far as hunting with hounds it’s something that in many cases can be one of the most challenging hunts you can ever do gps or no gps as far a ethical I could point to several instances it can be both way more humane/ethical. Hunting with hounds is just another way to broaden you hunting experiences.
Ask yourself why you are hunting. If it's to get your name in some book, then follow their arbitrary rules. Otherwise, disregard them.
Ban all hunting with hounds? What a dumb ass statement
"Ask yourself why you are hunting. If it's to get your name in some book,......."
I'm really starting to believe there is such a thing as the "anti book" snob.
My one and only lion hunt was crazy, hard, dangerous, unbelievable fun, cat ran about 6 miles, jumped 3 times after treeing, in 2 plus feet of snow....I fell and rolled about 50 feet down a hill with my bow on my back, broken quiver, arrows everywhere. Dogs had gps collars but we followed without using them. Didn’t make P&Y anyway. One of my most fun hunts ever, ever, ever and damn I promise it was fair chase.
P&Y rules aside.....the notion we get into banning any type of dog use for hunting is it's wide umbrella. IMO we would be eating ourselves going down that road. Someone might get the idea if they could ban hound hunting, banning bird and bunny dogs would be next on the radar screen.
Agreed JL. With the right narrative, luring a bull elk in with cow calls, taking advantage of his uncontrollable urge to reproduce can be portrayed as unfair. Killing a thirst driven pronghorn while hiding concealed next to the only water source for over a mile? Tricking geese with lifelike decoys to get around their survival instincts? It's a small step to call most any method unfair.
I do not think anyone stated the only reason they hunt is to put animals into the record book. I certainly do not know anyone who has that mindset.
For myself I hunt for myself and no one else if I like the looks of the animal the presents me with a shot I will shoot it and never once worry about if it will make the record book. If I shoot something good enough that it might make the record book then I will get it officially scored, then enter it if it does make it. 2 reason for entering them; 1) to help fund the P&Y Club for all the good work they do with my entry fee and 2) because it is the right think to do for the official measurer that measured it, as he took his own time and expertise to measure it for me and entering it is the only thanks they get.
No wonder the antis do so well against us hunters. We truly are our own worst enemies. Never forget the purpose of the various record books is to " Honor the Animal"!!!! Not the hunter......Think about that guys. We could argue a lifetime about stick bows vs compounds vs crossbows; flintlocks vs centerfires ; feeders, trail cams, range finders etc. It's about what the Animal was, not about who "We"are.
"Colorado_Dave", Why would you want to ban all hunting with hounds? Hounds are the best means for controlling & managing the mountain lion population. Why would a houndsman say hey lets ban all bowhunting, I wouldn't, I am a avid bowhunter and lifelong houndsman. My family is in the mountains hunting something almost 12 months out of year. I see you stated trained wildlife managers, I can honestly say that a houndsman (a good one) knows more about what a lion or bear is doing than most biologists. you should go out with a houndsman one day and see what we put into our lives and how much we praise our hounds, they are a part of the family.
Fact. Houndsman were the primary advocacy group for mountain lion conservation and restoration in America, They still are. I have caught a few lions and bears thanks s to hard working hounds.. I have yet to kill one, and I am not sure I will either. I have killed two Bobcats with my dogs over the years, that was years ago when I was in my twenty’s. I regret killing the second one, I have caught more then I could count, and they give a good race, I am thankful for everyone of them. Nothing like a good hound locked up at the tree.
We run coyotes all winter, we get some races that so good that they will bring a tear to your eye. We kill the coyotes. There are plenty of them and they need thining. If they didn’t I wouldn’t. We kill rabbits and hares at times , enough for a couple meals a year. I would rather watch the dogs run then kill game any day of the week. But there are times that completion needs to happen, the dogs know it and we know it.
Dogs and men been partners in the hunt for thousands of years.They are loyal, kind hearted, forgive us of our mistakes. We have lot to learn yet from them.
I have run hares for two months now. I have killed one hare. I like the chase and use my longbow most of the time. It is much easier to kill a bear or hare up here without hounds than with them. Hunting with hounds is physically exhausting. We ran a bear that started in NH, crossed the Connecticut River into Vermont, crossed again into NH, crossed Dixville Notch into Errol, crossed the Androscoggin into Cambridge and Maine, and back again. We intercepted the hounds and called it a day. There is a reason guides prefer baiting up here, especially with out of shape or old clients.
" With the right narrative..."
In't that sort of like the "Caution - Hot Liquids!!" warning on a coffee cup?
The people who want to put an end to hunting re already telling non-hunters that putting out bait to attract bears is "Bear Baiting". If you don't know what Bear Baiting is, look it up, and stop to consider the implications of letting lies like that go un-challenged.
So let's not concern ourselves about educating the willfully & purposefully ignorant types; let's think about what a Hunt is.
NOT the last 30 seconds that it takes to shoot an animal out of a tree at 15 yards or so, but EVERYTHING THAT LEADS UP TO IT. And when I say "shoot an animal out of a tree", you can decide for yourself which party is up in the tree...
The whole point of The Hunt... the whole point of Fair Chase.... Is the PURSUIT.
For someone who sits for days over a bait pile (whether it was placed and maintained by himself or some other person) to condemn someone who has been led the merry chase for miles over hill and dale to complain that the animal never had a chance is flat out preposterous. Likewise, for ANYONE to equate following hounds via motor vehicle with following them on foot is equally absurd. If it's not harder or less efficient, they'd follow them on foot themselves.
And FWIW, in most/all of the states where I've ever checked the rules, it is clearly ILLEGAL to pursue any game animal by means of a motor vehicle anyway, so in my not-so-entitled opinion, that means that if you don't follow the hounds under YOUR OWN POWER (or on horseback) from the point where they start the track to where they tree, that's not only a P&Y "rules" conflict, it's POACHING VIOLATION.
You don't have to follow directly in their footprints and (just a hunch) any houndsman who would HAVE to do so in order to keep track of the dogs is not worth hiring... But by my straightforward reading of the regs, if you hop into the truck to move up along the drainage before you stop or get out and listen again... you'd better hope there's no CO along the way who figures out what you're up to. Of course, JMO, if you glass a herd of Elk 3 miles away and use a motorized vehicle to close the distance, you are equally in the wrong... but it wouldn't shock me AT ALL to that a large number of animals in the books were road-hunted, straight up.
You can say I'm taking an overly hard line on that if you want. You won't be the first whining, panty-waisted lard-ass to do so.
Just be aware that I never advocate for a standard that I don't expect to have to exceed on every hunt. I may be a self-righteous pain in the ass, but I'm not a hypocrite.
And my point is that if we here - many of whom seem to see themselves as the True Blue, Hard-Core, Die-Hard, Elite of the Elite in the hunting community... If WE HERE don't hold ourselves to standards that are a cut above the minimum required by law... or even those required by some book that we want our name in .... then how the hell can we expect any respect from non-hunters who are looking at this objectively and wondering if it's all on the up-and-up?
And if we lose their respect, how much longer do you think we're going to have the opportunity to do what we do?
"Never forget the purpose of the various record books is to " Honor the Animal"!!!! Not the hunter......"
Uh huh, yeah, suuuuure it is. ;)