Photo courtesy of Nara U.
Using dogs to hunt deer has always been very contentious in North America.
In the United States, the only states that currently allow the practice are in the old Confederacy.
And not all areas of those states allow it.
In North Carolina, for example, deer hounds are allowed in certain counties in the eastern part of the state, but it is both highly illegal and frowned upon in the western part of the state. The same goes for Virginia.
I believe the only Canadian province that still allows deer hunting with dogs is Ontario, though I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.
Using dogs to hunt deer was the most effective way to wipe them out, especially if the deer were running in heavy snow, which explains why it was frowned upon in the northern states and celebrated in the South.
The dogs that were used to hunt deer were sort of proto-coonhounds, beagles, and foxhounds.
These were the same sort of dogs that were used as “staghounds” and “buckhounds” in England.
I’ve always failed to see why people can use dogs in hunting other game, but not deer. Certainly, for those folks who depend upon hunting as a large part of their sustenance, using dogs makes sense.
Likewise, given the glut of deer we now have in much of N. America, hunting them with dogs seems like a good way to increase the harvest and thus help reduce the overburden.
Finally, a respectable percentage of shot deer evade the hunter, only to bleed out in isolation later. Allowing the hunter to use dogs to at least track gut-shot or otherwise injured animals would guarantee a quicker and more humane death.
I suspect my attitude in this regard will offend some, buts that’s my take on it.
I suspect a lot of it has to do with the discrimination against large scenthounds, massugu. A lot of sportsmen have watched huskies and large scenthounds chase deer to death during the off-season. So, the knee-jerk reaction is to ban all dogs in a deer-hunt.
In Finland, a scenthound bred for chasing deer cannot be more than 12 inches. All other types of dogs are not allowed to be used. Also dog cannot be used on moose unless it was bred for baying and holding the moose still.
Sorry, 28 centimeters– 11 inches. I was habituated into taking the shortcut of dividing the centimeters by half.
Don’t know if they are still active, but some years ago there was an organization in NY state that used dachshunds for tracking wounded deer. They didn’t chase, just tracked after the deer was shot. According to my friend in dachsies, the dogs were very successful and saved a lot of game from being lost.
You can use leashed tracking dogs in many states. Those dachshunds are also in with a bunch of other breeds that do this work.
Deer Search, Inc. is still offering their services to hunters without a dog. Now, blood-tracking dogs are legal in 22 states. It seems like the European model of conservation hunting is finally being intergated into North American society, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, lots of hunters are resistent to these changes because they think European way of hunting is white-collar, and not blue-collar.
i don’t know why Americans think that the European way is elitist since a lot of European hunters outside of United Kingdom are lower- to middle-class.
Din’t ya know Dave, its cause they speak them furrin languages–that makes ’em dumb, shifty and untrustworthy. Don’t ya recall how we showed everbody how dumb ol’ John Kerry was–cause he speaks French in addition to English. (An’ we showed them Frogs too, coudn’t find nothin’ called “French Fries” fer the longest time–cuz we renamed ’em “Liberty Fries.” I guess we showed them a thing or three.)
It’s considered a cardinal sin here for a dog to run deer. With or without a hunter. Yet some of the same yayhoos who will shoot a deer-chasing dog have been caught spotlighting deer beside the highway.
Same with West Virginia, except there were always a few renegades who did it all the time. The old farmer my grandpa got his place off of wouldn’t own a dog that wouldn’t run deer, and he always shot deer with dogs, even though it was illegal.
Hunting any species with dogs became illegal in Britain only a few years ago, via the Hunting With Dogs Act, 2004, I believe.
Our current prime minister, promised his bloodthirsty faithful that he would repeal this Act, when he came into office, but I sense he now has more important work to do in the increasingly hopeless task of trying to save us all from advancing poverty.
However, on this now lesser matter, there are now too many deer in the Bristish countryside eating up all the undergrowth, especially sapling trees and so whatever it takes to reduce the overpopulation of deer may have to be considered.
These days, I tend to plant stuff they don’t eat, since we are open to deer populated woodland, But as I said before, they even eat ivy and I’m shocked to see they also eat yew when it’s suppose d to be poisonous.
The entire reason why estates had gamekeepers was to prevent overpopulation like this. But it’s a type of environmental management that is too harsh for many suburban bleeding hearts nowadays. Then again, animals starving to death isn’t all that pleasant to think about either.
Pai, wolves would do that for free – nobody has to cry for a weaken, starving deer.
He’s too busy putting most of us in ever advancing poverty, making his extremely rich friends even richer and getting the general public to blame the already very poor for it as a deflection technique. And all the Daily Mail readers are happily dancing along to Iain Duncan Smith’s “All benefits claimants are undeserving scroungers thieving off decent working folk” mantra. Forget that most of the benefit bill goes to pensioners who’ve worked all their lives and spent over 4 decades watching blue and red rosettes squander their taxes. Or people with jobs on such pathetic take home pay for a full working week that they have to claim housing benefit to afford a roof over their heads. But no, according to them it’s all workshy scroungers, people faking disabilities and single mothers with 10 kids. Send them to work for free in supermarkets and chainstores for their Jobseekers Allowance! Conveniently forgetting that people who were working for a wage are laid off so now claiming benefits themselves. Poundland in particular should have the motto over the door “Where everything is worth a quid, except for the people serving you”.
*has fit of apoplexy falls off soapbox*
The laughable thing is it’s 100% legal to chase foxes with hounds. As long as a hunt make sure they shoot the fox or use a big enough bird of prey before the hounds catch it and kill it, no law is broken. Why bother repealing it when the Government have the best of both worlds in public support and the the Hooray Henrys getting their weekend exercise? Bit of a pointless shambles, but the general public like it.
You got it!
Elizabeth
They love yew! All my yew bushes are trimmed to about 5′–the upper reach of the deer. They also love Rhododendrons of any shape or size. Bottom-line is that they’ll eat almost anything if hungry enough–a nearby herbalist had to install 8′ deer fences all around her field of Lavender to keep them off–and will also snip off new plantings placed in or near their regular pathways. One plant they do seem to avoid is Rosemary–but even the hardiest cultivars of Rosemary are difficult to overwinter here.
Not the entire reason for gamekeepers. When I was a boy wandering around the woods with my mates, we would suddenly come across a display of corpses hung up in disrespectful poses. These would include Crows, magpies,rooks, hawks, foxes, stoats weasels etc etc. No deer, hares or rabbits of course, as they were edible.
This, we presumed. was to show the landowners that their gamekeeper was doing his job of killing off the predators so that their natural prey could be shot by friends and clients of the landowners. It scared us boys a bit as well, since, basically, England was and still is an almost gun-free country, except for shotguns mainly used for commercial pheasant and clay pigeon shooting.
The heyday for gamekeepers on English estates was before the first world war, from which, sadly, many of those gamekeepers never returned.
I suspect the reason for banning dogs as hunting tools (you ought to see the idiocy in the laws in California) is that somehow it’s not considered “sporting”. Of course, that view depends on if you are hunting the animals in question for food for the table because you need to or becasue you WANT to. If you need to do it, then using the most efficent, effective means is the obvious method one should prefer. if it’s because you want to, then “sporting rules” may make sense. I was recently reading an article arguing against dogs being used as hunters originally –because in the Middle Ages the hunting dogs were largely “sporting type” dogs — completly ignoring the fact that the original hunting dogs were far more likely to be used to flush game to the hunter (with spear or club in hand or using nets) or to track injured game down than to “course” game as was done several thousand years later.
Most of the legislation regarding banning dogs from use in hunting is emotional — they see “bambi” being torn apart by evil hounds.
Actually, majority of the regulations concerning hunting and dogs come from hunters themselves. It is very seldom the public has a say in the issue. There is tendency in the last two decades to sell out non-gundog owners to the politics of sportsmanship.
many of the regulations regarding dogs in hunting comes from hunters, but certainly much is not (none of the various laws just passed in CA had any serious support from hunters. They had significant opposition). But again, it isn’t about if it “works” or not. It’s about if the use of dogs is somehow an “unfair advantage”, interferes with some other hunter, makes it “too easy” or somehow inflicts some special cruelty to the prey (in CA they even argued it was cruel to the dogs as well). None of that goes to “does it WORK” — that is, do you bag more deer if you use dogs, or do you bag them faster / more easily or with less work. I haven’t seen lots of hunters supporting most of the current legislation that attempts to ban using dogs.
Obviously you have not been to forums dedicated to houndsmen or to gun-dogs. Gun-dog owners are rabid about banning the use of treeing dogs. Houndsmen constantly blame gun-dog owners for banning hounds and curs. In fact, the legislation banning squirrel-dogs, bear-hounds and cougar-hounds were often written by sportsmen themselves. It just happens that the non-hunters voted on the proposal.
Obviously you haven’t been involved in fighting some of the legislation in various states (such as the CA anti bear/bobcat hunting law — which would have originally affected herding & LGD as well). As I noted above, some arguements ARE for “I want my side of the pie” but most of the current legislation is plain “no hunting period” (including, in some bills prior to amendment, using retrievers to bring in shot birds).
California is an extreme outlier for the rest of the country.
Deer hunting with dogs was banned in most of the Eastern and Midwestern states very early in the twentieth century at the behest of deer hunters. White-tailed deer almost went extinct in those parts of the country.
The white-tailed deer is native to Midwest and Eastern states ?
Yes, but its not a sharp divide. As you move further west you start running into more and more Mulies/Black-Tails and fewer White-Tails.
All the houndsmen I know say that gun-dog owners are the ones responsible for the anti-treeing laws to be passed in Washington and California. They are the ones responsible for the laws in Alberta, and the ones who are pushing the same proposals for British Columbia happen to be gun-dog owners too.
I’ve never gone out treeing, all my hunting experience being with gun dogs (shooting varmints like groundhogs, or raccoons in the outbuildings doesn’t count.). So I gotta ask: Why would gun-dog people give a fart about treeing dogs and houndsmen? I’ve always thought that the treeing crowd and their dogs were kinda neat. Surely at least some hunters fall into both camps.
Right. please point out the hunting groups listed in the support for the CA bill that was passed: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1201-1250/sb_1221_cfa_20120829_105343_sen_floor.html . I only note that there were those in OPPOSITION -California Houndsmen for Conservation
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
California Rifle and Pistol Association
California Sportsman’s Lobby
California Waterfowl Association
Central California Sporting Dog Association
Modesto Houndsmen Association
National Shooting Sports Foundation
Outdoor Sportsmen’s Coalition of California
Safari Club International
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
. As for CA being an “extreme outlier”, I only wish it were. Similar bills have been introduced in several other states. CA is usually where they try it first, just as the MSN 1634 bill was tried first in CA and a duplicate was actually passed in Texas.
Peggy Richter
Sorry but you don’t know the history here.
You’re just reading it from a sort of libertarian paranoia from California.
In the Eastern states, it was other hunters who banned hunting deer with dogs.
I know the history. You don’t.
As you said, thats when deer were a scarce commodity. Ain’t any shortage of whitetails in the East now. Surely, deer hunters can see the utility of small dogs in the limited roles they play in the German hunting scenario.
My statement was: “many of the regulations regarding dogs in hunting comes from hunters, but certainly much is not”. I didn’t say “None” and I didn’t say none in the Eastern US. Was the UK anti hunting law supported by hunters? You may “know history” but aparently your knowledge is very selective regarding anti hunting laws.
As I noted in my previous post, yes, some laws are passed with the support of those who think it’s not “fair” to their version of hunting to let someone else use a dog (it interferes with their version, it is more effective, etc). It’s you who are making the global statements.
As for “libertarian paranoia”, well, if the laws weren’t being passed, it might be paranoia, but since they are, and are being introduced in lots of places other than CA, I don’t agree with that conclusion.
Yes, UK anti-hunting laws was supported by elitists who figured out the hunts are not illegal if they use falconry or shoot the fox before the dog made contact.
Sarcasm.
I’m particularly agape at the provision that would disallow the use of dogs in hunting “wild pigs.” (I’m assuming they mean feral hogs and not Peccaries.) Feral hogs are one of the most destructive, pernicious and just plain dangerous invasives in N. America. Why in the blue blazes is the CA legislature–which presumably purports to represent the interests of that state’s huge agricultural industry–so intent on protecting them. They need to talk to their counterparts in HI.
P.S. I can only think that, being politicians, they somehow identify with the hogs.
There is a debate about hog-hunting with dogs on forums, actually. The still-stalkers and bow-hunters are rallying against the dog-hunters in many states.
What is the most efficient way to get rid of feral hogs?
Elizabeth
I am aware of the debates in California. Still, the number of hunters who only hunt pheasants and deer outnumber those who hunt bears, bobcats and cougars.
Listing hunting organizations mean nothing. Look at the NRA, only 4 million gun-owners are a member of it, and there is estimated about 52 million gun-owners nation-wide. If everyone agreed with the NRA, why only a small fraction joined the organization?
certainly there are more hunters who only hunt pheasants and deer than those who hunt bears, bobcats & cougars. For one thing, there are a lot more of the former than the latter. For another there are more places where the former is allowed than the latter. Bears & cougars are endangered in some areas. Pheasants are actually raised and released for the purpose of hunting in some areas. kinda skews the results. It’s much safer to hunt pheasants (or any game bird) or deer than to hunt a bear. Less of a problem if you aren’t a perfect shot (the duck or pheasant isn’t likely to turn on you). More people hunt birds & deer for food whereas more people consider bobcats & cougars (and to a lesser degree bears) inedible (even though they are edible). Having been involved in the opposition to these bills (since they originally included herding dogs defending their flocks), I can tell you that some of the arguements were that the dogs would be injured in such hunts (so the way to save them was to allow wardens to shoot them if found hunting. there’s logic for you). And don’t get complacent about the bird dogs. Many of the various bills included ANY hunting and it was only opposition that got them amended to exclude bird dogs from being banned. The problem is that most folk figure once “their” issue is addressed, they no longer care if someone else’s isn’t. And there aren’t enough people who hunt wild pigs compared to those who think “Babe” is based on some kind of reality. As for the NRA, it’s a political organization and most folk aren’t into “pacs”. How many duck hunters are members of Ducks unlimited or similar national organizations? (and by the way, if you are going to say hunters supported the law, then you ought to be able to list at least one organization that did. At least some of those hunters you are saying supported these laws should have belonged to some organization or another that would have been on the support list. Or else however small the % of hunters belonging to the list I provided, it’s bigger than the % of hunters belonging to supporting hunter organizations — since none publically supported the measure).
Thank you for proving my point that hunters are the ones who end up writing the laws which get passed in the end.
We enjoy your stay at the show and please come again.
Might I just point out that in California it IS legal to deer hunt with dogs and also to turkey hunt with dogs.
As far as hunters passing anti-hounding laws well yes there are some that support it…to bad they are too ignorant to see they are just shooting them selves in the proverbial foot by doing so.
One bill leads to another and so on and so on…
I wish people could just agree that if they don’t like a particular hunting method they will just choose not to personally participate and not make laws forcing others to do the same. What I really love is when the deer road hunters think they should complain about the houndsmen or that we are lazy, really? I would love to see even 1/4 of them be able to follow my lazy ass around in the woods and probably kill a buck while they are at it. Oh well, I guess now they will just have to keep blaming the lions for not seeing any deer.
People say hound hunting is not fair chase, last time I checked it was one of the only forms of hunting that actually has a chase during which the quarry may elude the dogs. I’m still not sure what is fair chase about sniper firing on an animal 200 yards away…but the end result is the same an animal dies and is eaten so while I don’t participate in ‘spot and stalk’ I won’t tell someone else that they can’t.
That being said I am a ‘hound hunter’ and attended almost every SB1221 hearing, I did not see anyone but the usual female, self righteous, underfed, ignorant of hunting laws, usually white people at the hearings in support of the bill.
I’m not sure how I found this blog but I have been enjoying it!