GO!

Dogs & Hunting

This is a place to gain some understanding of dog behavior and to assist people in training their dogs and dealing with common behavior problems, regardless of the method(s) used. This can cover the spectrum from non-aversive to traditional methods of dog training. There are many ways to train a dog. Please avoid aggressive responses, and counter ideas and opinions with which you don't agree with friendly and helpful advice. Please refrain from submitting posts that promote off-topic discussions. Keep in mind that you may be receiving advice from other dog owners and lovers... not professionals. If you have a major problem, always seek the advice of a trainer or behaviorist!

  
(Page 4 of 7: Viewing entries 31 to 40)  
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  
Tiller- (Skansen's- Ira in the M

I DO Exist...To- Drive You Batty
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 3, '13 2:30pm PST 
Adding that in natural behaviors, predators will source out the vulnerable...old, young, sick. Young know they are vulnerable, as I would assume the old or sick. I don't think nature is unkind...it may be indifferent. But a very sickly and broken legged animal is not made to suffer. Domesticated animals suffer far more, in a protracted sense, than wildlife does. I see a lot of beauty and grace in nature's rawness. And I am one of those not all about the predator. Wildebeests are my heart in many ways, and how they control their fates, oftentimes, is very striking.

Moreover, no predator on this earth hunts by baying in a crazed frenzy from a distance away, and it comes closer and closer. That to me is cruel. If some young, fit and determined specimen is giving his all, many predators will bail. Species of deer, gazelle, caribou and so on can actually do these showoff springs in the air in the presence of a stalking predator to show their fitness and strength and convince the predator to look elsewhere. Many predators will bail if their prey simply gives clear recognition in proud stance to recognizing their presence. Prey animals don't have zero control. They best tend to survive....give or take....and I support hunting that in some measure support that. Pit yourself against nature. That's ok.

That's why I loathe the arbitrary-ness of those hunts. I think those smart enough, tricky enough, even lucky enough....nature's laws should still get to work. When they don't....that bugs me.

Or, Trigger can point out taking out the bucks and being more comfortable about that, which is nature speak for you as they are a dime a dozen. The loss of a buck to the natural population doesn't mean the loss of any life other than his own. But a doe is the loss of a next generation. So I like that decision on Trigger's part.
[notify]
Sanka- I'll Miss- You

The ground is my- newspaper.
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 3, '13 6:44pm PST 
With anything in life practice to hone skill is pertinent. Not sure why firearms are an exception in your mind?

I wasn't saying there is no skill in shooting guns. I was saying that it's quite easy to sit still, have a deer come to you and knock it down with a few shotgun blasts, which is what a lot of deer hunters do. Sure shooting a deer 50 yards out takes skill, but if you're going to compare killing a hog close up as not having skill, then you have to level the playing field. Killing anything close up, regardless of previous circumstance doesn't take much skill at all. Which was my whole point.

A genuine question.....you tree that coon, shoot it, and it falls to the ground injured but not dead. Do you go up and kick it? Swing it around by it's tail? Skin it live?

I'm going to assume that's an obvious no......because it's beyond cruel right? Why on earth would you torture an animal like that? The pursuit by domesticated dogs and subsequent mental anguish involved with treeing, or holding, is seen the same way by many.

I'm not sure how to make that any clearer for you.


Don't get your pants in a bundle there. You are seriously comparing a dog chasing a critter to shooting a critter and then kicking it? You really think that's even a remotely close comparison? Don't go into the extremes, please.

Sure, being chased isn't fun, but I don't see it as "torture" when it's an animal meant to be chased, used to being chased, and quite good at escaping the chase. I have never seen a deer stressed out by it. Not even close. They hop and skip away without effort, leaving the dog in the dust in seconds. Why are you making deer out to be such horribly fragile creatures?

Again with the silly claims of descriptions I've never used.....

Trigger, come on now, I quoted your words. You said "There is no normal predator sequence in nature that takes that amount of time to dispatch the prey. It's got to be just an awful stretch for the animal doomed to die."

To which I replied that you should watch more animal documentaries because there are plenty of such cases. It's not a silly claim of something you never said. I've quoted your words twice on it now. What are you denying?thinking

I don't see how you can compare running around as being the same as being eaten alive in terms of absolute misery. Being chased is no where near the same as being eaten alive. Heck, cheetahs capture young and let their little ones "play" with the captured young for a time before deciding to eat it.

You can try to make it sound like deer shot with guns and bows always die on the spot happy as a clam, but that's not realistic."

Where did I ever say anything like that??


You said: "There is no stress and most times an animal will never even know it's hit before it's dead."

I'll admit you didn't say always, but you did make it out like it was painless and a majority of the time painless. I couldn't disagree more with that.

I suppose it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of YOUR life if the chickens you eat lived their entire lives in a cage the size of a shoe box...but I'm sure it mattered to the chicken.....just as it would matter if it was plucked to death before being killed as opposed to sparing it that experience.

Are you seriously going to take jabs at my eating choices and suggest that what I believe in/do is really "torture & cruelty?" A bit extreme, again. You may not like it, but again, let's be real. No way is a dog chasing prey torture. You must absolutely hate beagles and coonhounds then.

I'm still unsure how you know so much about what goes on inside the mind of a deer.

You spend time killing and feeding them. I spend time hiking and bumping into them. I never said I know what's inside their minds, but I know about their actions and reactions. I don't sit still for hours waiting for them to come by. I go out and meet them there. The deer I've seen throughout my life...I don't think I could count that high.

I don't know why you keep coming off like I'm a complete imbecile on deer simply because I'm not a hunter. Do I have to start killing things to become legitimized? Or do I have to start spending "thousands" on them? Is money the only way to one up people now? I don't need to know national population trends as I only live in one area and don't hunt. What good will that do to me? And how does knowing where deer live have any impact on this debate? Good grief, the arrogance is through the roof here.

In the end you're the only one that's going to have to answer for your actions on a legal and moral level.

And again, like mentioned several times before, I don't. Morally it doesn't bother me one bit. I've seen it with my own eyes, dogs running on deer. It is nothing like you keep imaging. Maybe the deer you hunt are just sickly, weak creatures. But here, they leave a dog in the dust in 3 bounds, and they know they can too. They're inconvenienced, not tortured.

The difference to me being that nature, and animals which have no other choice but to hunt for food, all do it out of desperation to one degree or another.

I'm sorry, but why do humans not count as nature anymore? And why do we have to stop doing natural things since the advent of the supermarket?

And if hunting now is just a sport, why allow any of it to begin with if it's so morally damaging and quite unnecessary?

Adding that in natural behaviors, predators will source out the vulnerable...old, young, sick.

Sooo, you don't like hunters as they don't go for the sick, young or old?

Moreover, no predator on this earth hunts by baying in a crazed frenzy from a distance away, and it comes closer and closer. That to me is cruel.

Cruel? Here's another angle of how I view it, a clear warning of danger rather than hearing a faint rustle and having to be on full alert without knowing where danger is. In terms of sport, that's more than fair. Much more fair than sitting still and shooting without warning. In terms of sport, that is giving the deer quite an advantage. They hear you coming. I still don't see how that can be perceived as cruel.

The loss of a buck to the natural population doesn't mean the loss of any life other than his own. But a doe is the loss of a next generation.

Last I checked, deer don't reproduce by immaculate conception. I know plenty of hunters who get ticked at the masses just taking the bucks. It DOES cause quite an issue in terms of local population.

Edited by author Thu Jan 3, '13 6:47pm PST

[notify]
Tiller- (Skansen's- Ira in the M

I DO Exist...To- Drive You Batty
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 3, '13 7:53pm PST 
Sanka, that type of hunting generally relates to treeing an animal. So cougars, bears, coons. Who cannot outrun dogs. They will tree themselves as there it is "safe." And then are held by the dogs for the hunter to come and shoot.

And I don't mind that hunters don't go for young/old/sick. I just think hunters need to keep it real to give a fair chance for the best of the generation to survive. If a deer is quick enough for a hunter, then bully on him. As hunters are now one of his natural predators, good for his general population if he breeds on. To make it so grossly an unfair proposition, and for the hunter not to pit himself against nature....nuh uh. Don't like it. Never did, never will. Might as well just go to a game farm and get your yah yahs and not pester animals working for a living. There's nothing sadder to me than an animal who has fought the good fight and made it, and then because we like to "sport" not given a snowballs chance in hell to your prey. I understand baying dogs being in the blood of some, but it has nothing to do about man against wild. It is blood sport.
[notify]



Member Since
12/31/1969
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 3, '13 8:09pm PST 
"why allow any of it to begin with if it's so morally damaging and quite unnecessary?"

lol, cause people like degrees (and simply that). I wouldn't really mind not allowing any of it besides under measures in which specific individuals are culled for some specific reason or another.

Edited by author Thu Jan 3, '13 8:11pm PST

[notify]
Bon Temps

Super hard robot- puma dog
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 3, '13 9:05pm PST 
"I do know people who run their dogs on pigs, the dogs seem to love the work, but personally I would not care to do it. These dogs aren't pets, they are coursing animals, and my interest in dogs is only as companions. The dogs are kept in a yard when not used and not chained. I have actually seen people be crueler to their sheep dogs than their hog dogs.'

Well, I only got this far before I decided to post. laugh out loud JT, my Catahoulas live in the house, eat better than I do, and play at the park/in general hang out with me - definitely pets. They go to NALC shows and win pretty consistently. They also work cattle, tree coons, and hunt hogs, all of which they love and were bred for. These are not BYB dogs - they are top of the heap working dogs that can do their jobs flawlessly - AND get to be house pets all at the same time.
I think a lot of the perceptions surrounding hunting/treeing/what have you depend on your environment. For example, cute little Rocky Raccoon is not so cute when he's just raided your hen house, eaten the eggs, and killed all the chicks. That beautiful cougar? Not so lovely when you look & see that your quarterhorse foal has been slaughtered. Feral hogs are an invasive species, and cost millions of dollars to ranch/farm/homeowners, not to mention running native species off. The most effective way to control these predators is by hunting them with dogs - and generally, the kill is made with a knife, so the dogs are not put at risk via getting shot. Oh, and I've eaten game that has been hunted by dogs, be it being bayed up or blood trailed - and since it was field dressed correctly, there was not one whit of gamey taste to it. I could keep going....laugh out loud
[notify]
Tiller- (Skansen's- Ira in the M

I DO Exist...To- Drive You Batty
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 3, '13 9:32pm PST 
Yes, but by using dogs you don't know if you've just gotten Rocky's cousin, Clem. Coons are highly habitual. Leave a trap, and then you have your culprit.
[notify]
Trigger

*Blackdog*
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 3, '13 9:33pm PST 
I contemplated responding but figured why not take one more shot at clarifying what you're turning to mud lol



"Don't get your pants in a bundle there. You are seriously comparing a dog chasing a critter to shooting a critter and then kicking it? You really think that's even a remotely close comparison? Don't go into the extremes, please."

Why YES! I sure AM! The extremes are the point!

What differentiates fair and non is exactly what I'm trying to wade through. I was trying to sort out if you had any lines you wouldn't cross. The scenario being offensive to you was my intent, sorting out your lines. How is that line for you any different than if someone drew the line at what they see as a cruel practice with domesticated dogs pursuing wildlife?

Are someone else's lines really that offensive to you simply because they don't jive with your own? Is someone else wrong just because their lines are different than yours? Who cares! You asked the question, you got loads of explanations. Whether or not you choose to consider them at this point is up to you.


"Why are you making deer out to be such horribly fragile creatures?"

Not horribly fragile. But living beings that deserve some level of respect yes. All animals should be in my opinion. They aren't playthings to be used or abused at humans will just for kicks. But apparently that point can be debated.



"Trigger, come on now, I quoted your words. You said "There is no normal predator sequence in nature that takes that amount of time to dispatch the prey. It's got to be just an awful stretch for the animal doomed to die."

To which I replied that you should watch more animal documentaries because there are plenty of such cases. It's not a silly claim of something you never said. I've quoted your words twice on it now. What are you denying?"


I'm not denying anything, rest assured. I think it's all matter of perspective. Using the aforementioned scenario with the lions on the elephant, thankfully biology usually takes over in situations like that. At the point where an animal is being consumed alive the animal will go into shock and not feel a thing until it checks out completely.

It's why people will speak of living through horrific bodily injury and be able to honestly say they didn't feel a thing until *AFTER* they got help and the adrenaline was allowed to plummet.

You are comparing an actual kill sequence that needs to be perpetuated in nature for it to sustain itself, to an unnecessary and prolonged pursuit for human fun.

Look at it like this....if I had a pet rabbit I wouldn't let my dogs bark at it incessantly. It *would* terrify the thing and there's just no reason for that. Agree or no?

Now lets say I catch up with a wild rabbit in the yard....would it somehow become humane to let my dogs bark incessantly at that? Why because it's a wild animal and preyed upon by other animals that means it should it be expected to endure that sort of stress and harassment simply because my dogs "wanna?"

(Totally pointless and only for clarifications sake....)

You can try to make it sound like deer shot with guns and bows always die on the spot happy as a clam, but that's not realistic."

Where did I ever say anything like that??

You said: "There is no stress and most times an animal will never even know it's hit before it's dead."

If shot with a gun or bow? And accurately? They die as quickly and humanely as possible yes. Most will startle at best, then continue grazing or walk off calmly, and finally tip over on the spot without knowing anything ever happened. Again this goes back to biology 101. When that sort of damage is done to heart, lungs and/or liver a living being usually has seconds to live and no time to comprehend what's just happened.

What I never said is deer shot with guns and bows *always* die on the spot "happy as a clam."



"You must absolutely hate beagles and coonhounds then."

Saying I hate beagles and coonhounds just because I don't see the point in their original purpose is like saying someone must hate bulldogs just because they don't see the point in bull baiting.

Ludicrous.





I'm still unsure how you know so much about what goes on inside the mind of a deer.

"You spend time killing and feeding them. I spend time hiking and bumping into them. I never said I know what's inside their minds, but I know about their actions and reactions. I don't sit still for hours waiting for them to come by. I go out and meet them there. "

Right....because tracking, trailing, setting trail cams and photographing, documenting, planting, tending to crops and scouting is just "killing and feeding" and "sitting still for hours waiting for them to come by." I NEVER have to hike or or bump into them in the process lol




"I don't know why you keep coming off like I'm a complete imbecile on deer simply because I'm not a hunter. Do I have to start killing things to become legitimized? Or do I have to start spending "thousands" on them? Is money the only way to one up people now? I don't need to know national population trends as I only live in one area and don't hunt. What good will that do to me? And how does knowing where deer live have any impact on this debate? Good grief, the arrogance is through the roof here."

It has nothing to do with the money, it's entirely about experience.

I disagree that letting your dogs run deer on hikes makes anyone any sort of expert. And that's sort of the claim you're making telling everyone exactly what a deer thinks, reacts and feels while being pursued.

A good comparison is someone that comes on this board swearing their dog knows full well what it was doing when it peed on the floor, therefor rubbing it's face into the urine is justified....and they know this because they've had a lot of dogs and seen a lot of dogs in their lifetime.

It goes without saying that someone who's taken merely seeing many dogs a step further into actually studying them a bit more in depth is going to know a bit more about them, no?






"Cruel? Here's another angle of how I view it, a clear warning of danger rather than hearing a faint rustle and having to be on full alert without knowing where danger is. In terms of sport, that's more than fair. Much more fair than sitting still and shooting without warning. In terms of sport, that is giving the deer quite an advantage. They hear you coming. I still don't see how that can be perceived as cruel."

A coon or bayed hog may have "clear warning of danger" that it's about to die, but at that point death is inevitable so what exactly is the point?

What do you seriously believe you're giving an animal by alerting it to it's impending death? And for that extended amount of time? There's nothing they can do to avoid or escape it, so how would that knowledge give any sort of advantage to the animal?

By contrast a hunter walking a field himself, or sitting in a blind or stand...upland game, waterfowl, rabbits, coyotes, deer etc....all have a chance to see the hunter and flee. Scent the hunter and flee. Feel the hunters steps on the ground and flee. If you think just sitting there is a sure thing think again. I don't know how many times I've been busted simply because the wind changed direction for a split second. Or I walked over a trail a critter intended to use to get to where I was at and then decided to change course. That's the element of chance. Putting a pack of dogs on an animal however removes nearly if not all of that critters advantage and any sporting chance the animal has to beat the human.



"Last I checked, deer don't reproduce by immaculate conception. I know plenty of hunters who get ticked at the masses just taking the bucks. It DOES cause quite an issue in terms of local population."

Where is that coming from??

No one's talking about *JUST* taking bucks.

I was talking about in my area, not taking does late season because a) they are bred at that point and I can't personally stomach taking an impregnated animal, b) the same buck breeding over and over and over again for much longer than that is going to dominate many of the seasoned females in their range, along with that then you end up with inbreeding. Culling bucks aged 4+ makes good biological sense as it helps to keep genetics of herds fresh. Gives more far ranging new blood buttons and forks a chance to move in and mix it up and c) we have a massive imbalance in our buck to doe ratios. Coyotes are currently overpopulated and have an easier time taking anything young, without horns as a defense or those who are heavy from carrying fawns.

At the same time the state says hunters need to take this many to help keep existing populations healthy.

Targeting horns makes sense *late season* and *here* in every way.

A piece of that sat square with Tiller, what's the point of trying to turn that logic into something ugly?
[notify]
Trigger

*Blackdog*
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 3, '13 9:39pm PST 
"Yes, but by using dogs you don't know if you've just gotten Rocky's cousin, Clem. Coons are highly habitual. Leave a trap, and then you have your culprit."

Or how about just put the dogs outside the hen house and deter them from ever entering altogether? Or build a more secure coop?

God bless less dramatic alternatives way to go
[notify]
Bon Temps

Super hard robot- puma dog
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 3, '13 9:50pm PST 
A Catahoula's general purpose is different than say a Treeing Walker, Bluetick, or Black & Tan who goes out in the woods to hunt up a raccoon, although tree them they do. A Catahoula is more of a "homestead" and/or all around dog - so when Rocky raids the hen house, you can be sure it'll be Rocky & not Clem who is taken to task because generally the dog will be there. I think that there is a cultural component regarding viewpoints on this topic - certainly not everyone who hunts with dogs is a backwoods, 7 toothed hillbilly, I can vouch for that. These folks would find the viewpoints posted here just as repellent and ridiculous as the some Dogsters find hunting to be. Does that make them right? No, of course not. Does that make the Dogsters right? No, of course not. It's simply a difference of opinion.

Funny enough.....when I first moved to Central Texas after having grown up in the Big Bend National Park area, I was APPALLED at finding out that hunters sat in blinds and waited for a deer to walk by so they could shoot it. You see, where I grew up, we had Mule Deer, and when we hunted, we walked - or sometimes used horses. There were no deer blinds or anything remotely similar. I remember being completely disgusted with the hunters in Central Texas - about how unfair and unsportsmanlike it was to just "ambush" a deer from a blind, because really, where was the hunting in that! - and I'm telling you, my attitude about "the right way to hunt" certainly didn't win me any friends. laugh out loud Certainly didn't change the way people hunt in Central Texas, either. wink

Edited by author Thu Jan 3, '13 9:58pm PST

[notify]
Trigger

*Blackdog*
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 3, '13 9:56pm PST 
Bon Temps - I've never heard anyone make the claim that you can field dress out the metabolic changes that occur in the muscle tissue when an animal is killed while in distress...interesting theory though.....
[notify]
  (Page 4 of 7: Viewing entries 31 to 40)  
1  2  3  4  5  6  7