BigGameHoundsmen.com

cab wrote:You fellows need to do some research on these wacko's like we did here in Idaho when we were fighting prop 2. They are also against bird dog hunting,retreiving, herding with dogs, guard dogs, confining dogs to chains, kennels, ect. They are anti ranching, horse ownership, county fairs, rodeo's, 4-H, captive birds and fish. Anti use of animals for any profit by humans, fishing, trapping, ect. ect. ect.
It isn't about money either. It is a religion that blames humanity for all the ills of the world and places the status of deity upon animals, just as has been done in India and that region of the world for centuries. Animals are on the top of the ladder while humans are on the bottom rung. Read some of their literature, you want believe your eyes. Statements made to the effect, "I would rather spare the life of an earthworm, than that of a human being".
Common sense is wasted on any arguement with them as they are basically void of what we would call "common sense". Look at the text books being issued to your children. Talk to some teachers about hunting, fishing, trapping, and see the reaction generated.
Let your children watch "Nickelodeon channel" and you deserve to lose your hunting rights.
The only way to defeat these basket cases, is to educate the non hunting public to their true agendia and goals. Combine that with a united front from all the sporting, ranching, farming, and outsdoorsmen, and they can and will be kept at bay. The goal is, to stop all uses of animals for pleasure and profit, through the means of "divide and conquer".
When one fails to support another because he uses the natural resources in a different mannet than you do, you are stabbing yourself in the back. The way you do it will be the next avenue that is targeted.

You have it exactly right. When they come to your state,and they will,get educated and get other sports organizations onboard,deer elk archery hunters,cause they are next.

I first read the so-called “Fact Sheet on Hound Hunting” by the HSUS a couple of months ago. When I first read it, I have to admit that I was somewhat outraged by the article. I read it over and over, and I started to think that at least a great deal of what the HSUS was saying was probably true. I’ll pause a moment here to let everyone scream and shout at me for a bit. However, before I’m crucified, please allow me to explain. The article speaks in what I like to call “possibilities” rather than in “absolutes.” The article frequently uses words such as “some,” “sometimes,” or “may” to make allow the reader to make inferences about hunting with hounds which portray hound hunting in a negative light. The article leaves out a great deal of information, thus directing the reader to come to the conclusions about hound hunting that the HSUS wants. Please allow me to demonstrate.

The article contains eighteen paragraphs and one graph. I’ll try to hit each of these in turn. Now I’m not an expert in the game laws of each state, so I’m not going to say which states allow hunting with hounds, and which ones don’t. But I will tell you what it is the HSUS is saying, and what I think they are trying to infer.

The first paragraph opens the article by saying that hounds are used to chase the animals to exhaustion so the animals can be shot while they are helpless to escape. The HSUS carefully chose how they phrased each sentence in this article. The word “exhaustion” is used, because it invokes powerful emotions in the reader allowing the reader to believe that the quarry being chased had expended so much energy while running from the hounds that it is nearly powerless to defend itself. Yes, I suppose it’s true that animals being chased could become exhausted. However, are they really any more tired than the hounds or hunters following them. True, cats tend to have smaller lung capacity than canines, and races to the tree once the cat is jumped tend to be shorter than when dogs trail bears. The article continues to say that the dogs have tracking collars which allow hunters to follow at their leisure, and we don’t have to work at finding the prey, or even follow the dogs. This says nothing about the fact that the hunters still have to follow their dogs relatively closely. It mentions nothing about some states having laws which prohibit use to tracking devices. It also mentions nothing about the fact that hunters still have to move fast enough to stay within range for the tracking devices to work in states where tracking devices are allowed. This first paragraph gives the reader to illusion that there is not work on the part of the hunter and that the hunter is guaranteed to kill the animal being pursued. The article sais nothing about the fact that many hunters are only in the sport for the dogs and to see the dogs work. It mentions nothing about hunters who do not kill animals, but rather leave the animals in the tree to I’ve another day. It says nothing about the fact that races more often than not end up with no animal treed and just a lot of cold trailing, or the hunters searching the woods until all hours of the night (or sometimes days later) searching for lost dogs. It gives the illusion that everything about hunting with hounds is easy. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The second paragraph says the “sometimes” hunters bait animals. Yes, this is true, however, it should go on to say that “usually” hunters do not do this if it is prohibited. The word “sometimes” is a generality, and it does not necessarily reflect what is normal. The paragraph continues by saying that baiting animals can pose a risk to the public, because bears can become used to the sources of food provided by people. Well of course this can happen. That’s just commons sense. This sentence is self-serving to the HSUS, because it is making the reader assume that all hound hunters bait animals to make it easier to find and chase them. It should say something to the fact that most hound hunters don’t do this, but then again, that would contradict what the HSUS is trying to get the reader to believe. When the article says that bears would be more like to raid campgrounds and break into cars, the HSUS appears to be trying give the reader a sense of danger by allowing the reader to believe that it is hound hunters who bait bears. Not too far from where I live, there’s a mountain community where the residents commonly feed the elk and deer. As a result, the deer and elk stay in a relatively small area near the homes. After a while, predators such as maintain lions started to frequent the areas, and the residents started losing their household pets to them. They then complained to the Game and Fish about the “problem lions.” The lions obviously did nothing wrong, and the people refused to see that they played the part of being the “problem.” I guess I should say here that hunters (including hound hunters) were not the ones baiting the elk and deer in this case. In fact, when hunters merely drive through the area, they are commonly chastised by the local residents who disapprove of hunting. Once again, the hunters had nothing to do with their losses of pets.

The third paragraph says that the dogs find the animal’s scent and chase it while the hunters monitor the tracking collar signals and follow at their leisure. I have never been able to follow at my leisure. Though this says paragraph is a possibility, it is not the normal case. Typically the hunters are scrambling to keep close enough to the dogs to hear them or to keep signal with the tracking device which may be used. The HSUS mentions nothing about having to keep in range or about how terrain, trees, or other vegetation limit the effective range of tracking devices. The article says nothing about batteries going dead, losing dogs for several hours (or longer), or just plain “Murphy’s Law.” The article allows the reader to assume that following or tracking the dogs is easy, like being able to put a smart bomb through any desired door or window of a taliban hide-out. The HSUS allows the reader to think that the dogs can be tracked virtually from anywhere on earth. Anyone who has even gone hunting with hounds, even on only one day, knows this couldn’t be farther from the truth.

The forth paragraph says the hounds maul or kill cubs “if” they get in the way. I have to admit that this is a possibility. But the article does not say that this kind of thing usually does NOT happen. It says the animal eventually climbs a tree to escape the baying dogs. As hound hunters, we hope this will happen every time, but like I said before, most trails end up with the dogs and hunters finding nothing. And when the article says all hunters have to do walk up and “gun down” the frightened animal. Once again, it’s never just a walk in the park just to get to the tree like the article would have you believe. The author apparently chose the phrase about gunning down the animal very carefully. It portrays hound hunting as an execution of the poor little animal. I wonder what Mr. Mike Leonard would have to say if he was placed in front of someone who expressed this kind of opinion. I know of no one who truly calls himself a hunter who displays such disregard for their quarry. The article says nothing of the fact that most hunters want to preserve their hunting resources, not squander them away.

The fifth paragraph is quotes Lynn Rogers, PhD. But it really says nothing negative about hound hunting. According to the paragraph, the subject might warrant “consideration and detailed examination. By considering and examining more, we gain more knowledge, but this quote infers that hunting bears with hounds is negative, when in fact, Rogers said nothing negative about it.

Paragraphs six and seven discuss the killing of cubs. It says that eight states allow hunting of bears with hounds in the spring months. The article says cubs “may” be killed by hounds or left to die if their sow is killed. The article again fails to say that this is not the norm. It simply leaves the reader believing that a “possibility” is the inevitable truth. It makes the reader believe that the exception is the rule.

The article continues in paragraph eight by talking about how terrible the lives of hunting dogs are. It says that the dogs are “often” viewed as nothing more than equipment rather than members of the family. Dogs are dogs...not people. I enjoy my dogs, I love my family. My dogs are an investment. I want them to be healthy and happy. They get discipline when they are “bad,” and they get praise when they are “good.” I don’t want my dogs to get hurt or sick. I think most hunters would share my view. While it is possible that some people abuse and neglect their animals, most hunters do not. As far as dogs not getting exercise or attention, I don’t know of dogs which get more attention or exercise than hunting dogs. The article also says hunters “sometimes” kill dogs which do not perform. I have to concede that this does sometimes happen. But once again, this is not the norm. The HSUS is again portraying the exception as the rule.

The article continues by saying some bears maim or kill dogs if the bears turn to fight. Once again, I have to agree this is possible, and it happens, but only SOMETIMES. Usually it does not. The article then goes on to apparently quote a bear hunter. The HSUS is trying to use our own words against us. It also talks about one hunter “casually” discussing the loss of one hunters dog. I seriously doubt the hunter casually talked about losing his dog. Written words simply can never express the emotion felt by anyone over anything. Sometimes words can get close, but a written word can never give you the entire picture. This should remind us to be careful about what we post, not because we are afraid of someone finding out what they would consider dirty little secrets, but because we don’t want someone to twist what we are trying to say. I’m sure that someone somewhere will find something in this post they can twist or distort to serve their own ideas contrary to what I intend with this writing.

The article also says dogs can be lost or killed during a hunt. Yes, this can happen. That’s why we use the tracking equipment and the e-collars. To help us find our animals and to correct un-desired behavior. Do dogs always get lost or killed or hurt by cars? No...because we take care of our hounds.

The HSUS article continues in the next three paragraphs by saying that “some” hunters try to develop a blood lust in their dogs. I would be blind if I said that it never happened, but it is not the norm. None of us truly wants a mean dog. Each point the HSUS tried to make in this section refers to “some” hunters or “some” training methods. Yet again, the HSUS is trying to portray these rarities as the normal way of doing business for all hounds hunters.

The next section discusses where hound hunting is legal. It starts by saying hunting bears is illegal in two-thirds of the states. I don’t know if this statement is accurate, because I don’t know the laws of each of the fifty states regarding hunting bears. But what I do know is that this statements is very vague. It does not tell you whether or not the legality of bear hunting with hounds is because a particular state might not have a bear population which can allow for the hunting of bears anyway. It then says that 28 states allow bear hunting, and 17 allow hunting bears with hounds. It then appears to list each state which allows bear hunting with hounds. It then lists states where hunting deer with hounds is legal. Like I said before, I don’t know the accuracy of this information, but the section says nothing about pursuit only hunts where bears are not allowed to be killed.

The final section relates hound hunting with crime. It says that dogs can be difficult to control during a hunt, and dogs may chase animals across property lines. Like always, this article deals in possibilities and not absolutes. Yes, it is possible dogs might cross private property without the permission of the landowners. But it does not mention that we take every step we can to prevent this. It also says hounds sometimes chase or harass other animals or livestock. They sometimes do. That’s why we try to break them from running off game. We want our hounds to chase only the desired game. I found it surprising to find the HSUS actually saying something in support of ranchers and farms considering they generally seem to accuse rancher and farmers of treating livestock improperly. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. But then again, some people will say whatever they want whenever they want as long as it serves their purpose at that immediate time. But then again, that could be a topic in and of its own right.

The article ends by saying hound hunting is a favorite tool for poachers. The fact is that poachers are poachers. They are not hunters. They are not hound hunters. Sometimes people use illegal means to take wildlife, but the honest hunters do not, and the HSUS is trying to end the article by insinuating that hound hunters are linked to poachers and that ending hunting with hounds will help end poaching. That’s the same argument people use to say that getting rid of guns will get rid of gun crimes. Poachers will always find a way to poach, and eliminating hound hunting will have no impact on poaching. The HSUS is drawing a conclusion here that has no basis in fact. The basis it has is only an assumption.

Look at it this way. I live in an area where thousands of people drive on the highways through my town each day. In any given week, there might be half a dozen wrecks on those highways. I can safely say that “some” people get in wrecks on the highway near my town. If the only information given to you was that “some” people get in wrecks near my town, you could easily conclude the highways near my town are unsafe. But what I didn’t tell you was about the 99.99 percent of the people who didn’t get into a wreck. That’s what this article is. It’s fluff. It tells the reader nothing about what hound hunting is like 99.99 percent of the time.

I guess my long-winded point is this. The HSUS “fact sheet” does tell some facts. The problem is that the facts are vague. The “facts” would more accurately be called “possibilities.” The article seems to be designed to allow the reader to draw a conclusion against hound hunting with no real effort to inform the reader of any substantial facts. If I was a student and turned in a paper like this to my teachers in the past, I would have been told the article was argumentative, subjective, and contained inferences supported by absolutely no definite facts.

There ya go.

Kenneth

that article. is such BS. every houndmen i hunt with, would never kill a bear cup, or a cougar kitten. also they made it sound like the only reason we use tracking collars is so we dont have to do work in finding the game the hounds treed. when really most houndsmen, use it to find there hounds, because they care abouth them, and would rather have there hound over any game.

another thing they made it sound like if a hound trys do attack a bear. that it will maul it. when in fact. if a hound does that, it is more likely that the hound will get beat up rather than the bear.

another thing is they made it sound like houndsmen, are heartless people who dont give a crap about there hounds unless. they are hunting. when in fact the best people i know are houndesmen, who care a lot for there hounds. and hunting is what hounds where breed for and love to do. hounds would rath be out in the woods trailing a animal. than sit inside. like they thong they should

I found this old post from Nov 09 and it boils my blood. The Humane Society sure is painting with a wide brush. This is nothing less than propaganda.

Just make sure ya get out and vote folks. Get the right folks in office.

I'm so sick of these people. There're usually the same folks who don't want to abide by our Constitution and consistently want to destroy our past times.

They are sick,sick people.