BigGameHoundsmen.com

dhostetler wrote:Bluetickhounddog, You should clarify to all of us what your agenda is. This is a Biggamehoundsman forum, so most us on here do not think we need to justify our method of hunting so you will never get us to engage in some kind of debate of right or wrong about hound hunting. Most of the information on Humane Society's website is false, so why would you believe the article about 110 veterinarians opposing hound hunting. Where does the 83% of Californians against hound hunting number come from? Was it some kind of scam poll by the Humane Society? I don't think anybody on this forum has a delicate balance of a belief system. Most hound hunters are not delicate about anything.

mondomuttruner wrote:Best thing to do is go back to your big city and worry about all homeless people being treated inhumanely by the rats. It sickens me thinking of all the homeless people getting chased down by hunger, cold or disease. I vote we abolish all big cities so all the good citizens can live in peace in the wilderness.

mondomuttruner wrote:My point was, it amazes me people wouldn't lift a finger to help suffering human beings within their own neighborhood, many of whom they see every day but think they know everything about an animal they never saw before and have never been in the animals neighborhood. The world is changing and I'm glad I'm getting toward the end of being part of it.

Plowdog wrote:COLORADO were on the same track. This just burns my a--. People are so unaware of what we (sportsmen) are all about. Quit wearing your emotions on your sleeve and just manage wildlife. If these outfitters don't QUIT KILLING EVERYTHING they put in a tree this will happen in our state. If money is what your worried about get a real job and start respecting the sport of hound hunting. Most of you are so greedy you kill anything you can for a check. Wake of and become a sportsman and and quit looking at game in a tree as a $!

tom wrote:In my opinion all the antis have to do is set back and watch. We as hounds men are killing our own sport. We fight the DWR because they keep trying to up the number of tags they want to sell but we're the ones that pull the trigger. Groups like SFW or the mule deer foundation want all the lions dead but their not the ones who are letting clients kill kittens and females because they took on a paying customer knowing fully that they couldn't find them a mature tom or rain cats out of a tree just to put a feather in their cap. Not every one is like this but the vast majority of guys running hounds are not united in the future of our sport and they will kill anything they can and then complain that they can't find anything to chase next time. The antis can take away or give us all they want and it won't matter in the end if we don't change how we do things. They are to many guys in our sport who don't care, they take and take until one day there will be no more to take. Some day outlawing hound hunting will be obsolete because we won't have anything left to chase anyway.
I don't mean to offend anyone but as you can tell you hit a nerve, in my opinion here in Utah hound hunting is a dying sport and we are the ones killing it.

mr.c wrote:I think when you see adds on t-v about neglected and starved animals from the humane society of united states needing donations .Then you donate and they are using only a small amount for that . Then they take the rest to pass bills to take your hunting rights away .Animals need help and so do the people who like hunting. There is more then likely hunters donating by being misled .Myself I donate to my county animal shelter

Dale T wrote:

dhostetler wrote:Where does the 83% of Californians against hound hunting number come from? Was it some kind of scam poll by the Humane Society?

I got this from HSUS web site a couple of years ago, they have since taken it off there site:

California is one of only 18 states that permit the pursuit of bears with packs of dogs. The poll reveals that 83 percent of California voters oppose allowing packs of dogs to chase and kill bears – with 75 percent of voters saying they would support a statewide ballot measure to end this trophy hunting method that puts bears, dogs and other wildlife in jeopardy of serious harm, suffering and death.
Despite an increase in media coverage of bears showing up in human population areas, like the Lake Tahoe area, Californians voters say the state should prioritize non-lethal methods – like education, abatement, and avoidance – to resolve human conflicts with bears, by a margin of nearly 6 to 1.
The survey of 800 California voters was conducted statewide from April 14 through April 17, 2011. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percent. The questions and results are below.

QUESTION: The state of California recently announced plans to increase bear hunting with the expectation that hundreds of additional bears will be killed annually. Do you support or oppose the expanded hunting of black bears in California?

STATE MEN WOMEN DEMS REPS IND SO CAL SF BAY REST
SUPPORT 17% 24% 11% 12% 20% 23% 17% 11% 20%
OPPOSE 74% 65% 83% 81% 69% 67% 76% 80% 68%
UNDECIDED 9% 11% 6% 7% 11% 10% 7% 9% 12%

QUESTION: Some trophy hunters use packs of dogs to chase bears until they climb a tree, or until the dogs catch them on the ground. The dogs can be injured or killed during the hunt. Other wildlife is also killed by dogs that run loose in the woods during a bear hunt. Do you support or oppose permitting the use of packs of dogs to chase and kill bears?

STATE MEN WOMEN DEMS REPS IND SO CAL SF BAY REST
SUPPORT 14% 19% 9% 9% 18% 18% 14% 8% 17%
OPPOSE 83% 76% 89% 89% 77% 80% 83% 89% 79%
UNDECIDED 3% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2% 3% 3% 4%

QUESTION: California is one of only 18 states that permit the trophy hunting of bears with packs of dogs. Would you support or oppose a ballot measure to prohibit the use of dogs to hunt bears?

STATE MEN WOMEN DEMS REPS IND SO CAL SF BAY REST
SUPPORT 75% 65% 85% 83% 67% 70% 75% 84% 70%
OPPOSE 14% 20% 8% 11% 15% 19% 12% 9% 20%
UNDECIDED 11% 15% 7% 6% 18% 11% 13% 7% 10%

QUESTION: Bears sometimes come into conflict with people. The vast majority of these reported conflicts are nuisance complaints about garbage cans, bird feeders and simple sightings of bears near urban areas. Many states successfully manage bear populations and reduce conflict through non-lethal measures such as public education, trash management, and game officials using rubber pellets and loud noises to frighten bears away, instead of killing them.

Do you support or oppose California placing priority on policies that promote non-lethal methods to reduce conflicts between bears and people?

STATE MEN WOMEN DEMS REPS IND SO CAL SF BAY REST
SUPPORT 81% 75% 86% 87% 75% 78% 82% 85% 77%
OPPOSE 14% 19% 10% 9% 21% 14% 15% 12% 14%
UNDECIDED 5% 6% 4% 4% 4% 8% 3% 3% 9%



When you start a question with a misleading statement you can get what ever answer you are looking for, welcome to the world according to HSUS!!

406hound wrote:Bluetickhounddog,
I am with dhostetler. What is your deal? As I read through this thread, I get the impression you do not live the same life as the houndsman that have posted on this site because you aren't one. That being said, what is your agenda? It seems that you have intentionally struck a nerve and in my impression, it was not done so with the intention of uniting houndsman against imminent attacks on out sport, or more appropriately, way of life, but rather to dig at a festering wound and see what kind of rhetoric you can draw from it. For what purpose is the question.

BrandonCombe wrote:Bluetickhounddog I am always up for a discussion about hound hunting regardless of what side you stand on but would like to have an idea on who I am dealing with and I'm sure many others who have been part of this discussion would to. so a few questions for the man behind the screen name bluetickhounddog.. do you own hounds? If so what game do you persue? Do you have a name? Noticed you did not have any thing under location. My name is listed as is my home state I have nothing to hide. Do you? I am looking for a straight answer as you have not given one on this topic and last but not least what are you looking to accomplish from this thread exactly and what do you suggest is done regarding this topic. I mean no disrespect just interested in learning a little about the person who generated this thread.

406hound wrote:I only can wonder how many people like bluetickhounddog, if that's your real name" are sniffing around on these sites? Point taken, baying up a bear is terrible, a dog fighting a coon on the ground is inexcusable, and you are not a houndsman. We should all be very vigilant of what we allow the world to see of us. I don't post videos of "alone time with my wife" for the same reason I don't post, text, email, or in any way allow videos or pics that could "be sensitive to some viewers", it is not for the world to see.

Grzyadms4x4 wrote:He's right the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If we all started passing out fliers on car windshield, sporting good stores, etc. on how when you ban hound hunting the USDA or Forest Service comes in with snares and kills 'em all. Graphic pictures would be a plus. Extol the virtues of hounding such as selective harvesting(not killing cubs, kittens or females), walking away from the tree etc. it might help a little. We all bitch and moan to people we meet and know about 2A issues, Obama, etc. and some write their representatives about this or that, but if public opinion, no matter how misguided or stupid is against you, we're screwed. It is time for a informational campaign to counter their disinformation campaign.

dhostetler wrote:The problem with ballot initiatives are they are very susceptible to big money manipulation. With hound hunters being overwhelmed by millions spent in false advertising by anti hunters.

You California hunters should all gang up and file a class action lawsuit against whoever testified falsely during your recent loss of hunting privileges. I would love to see them try to substantiate there false claims under oath. Fire needs to be fought with fire.