Cougar Hunting With Dogs: Oregonian editorial

[clambo]

I've never been a fan of chasing deer or bear or really much of anything else with dogs. No real reason other than that was the " value " that I was taught as a kid. However, I do not feel it applies to Cougar. Yeah, I know they can be called in but if you really want one the only thing that is ever going to work is dogs. I have shot 3 in my life all with hounds and it's plenty sporting, trust me. Nothing like an all night marathon through the woods with flashlights to define fair chase.
In my slightly older age I find plenty of hunting practices that I don't want to be a part of....but fact is those cats are getting to be a problem, someone's gotta hunt them, and they are a very majestic trophy. Very tasty as well.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

One legislator from Eastern Washington had a great idea. Since the majority of the legislation written in WA is designed for King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, he thought that shipping wolves to those counties so they could share in the joy of having them would be great. I think we should do the same with big cats, since the bleeding heart types seem to be centered in the densely populated areas. Ship big cats to them. Lots of them. They want the joy of seeing the big cats in the wild, let them. I think seeing a cougar in downtown Portland, high atop an office building, on the hunt would be so majestic....

 

[MinnesotaORnewbie]

This is one of those topics that also depends on how you were brought up as a kid in hunting. I personally would have no part in shooting a bear or cat out of a tree with the aid of dogs chasing it up the tree and holding it there until you arrived to shoot it out. But, I do admire the skill and work of the dog handler who has to search the forest roads for fresh tracks and the countless hours they have spent training their dogs to do the task they want completed. I was raised differently and hunted in a state that forbid it, so those two things have shaped my opinion. Great read though OP

 

[nwbobber]

Good letter. I was sitting around a campfire with a ODFW employee just after these bans were passed, he expressed his view that there would be no effective way to manage the cougar and bear populations without these methods. In fact when there is a problem with an animal, they use dogs to sort it out. So the laws just remove the effective hunting methods from sportsmen and put an increased burden on the state.

He also told me that while it is illegal to use bait while hunting bears, there is nothing illegal about carrying 50 pounds of raisins in your lunch.

 

[Spitpatch]

I appreciate the kind comments toward my letter, and perhaps even more appreciate mjbskwim's perspective from an experienced hunter unexperienced in this arena of pursuit. I would not venture to fulfill his preparation of "flaming him", but would (as hunter to hunter) advise him to give it a whirl, THEN make an evaluation.

If you are of the type (like myself) who began hunting, continued hunting, and keeps on hunting for the very PRIMARY reason of the physical rush, psychological thrill, and a primordial-core sensation that cannot be found in ANY other activity on the face of the earth, pursuit with hounds toward a large predator is the epitomized avenue toward that total immersion and elevation of the senses.

The intense preparation, training of the dogs, repeated forays with disappointment and mixed success, and finally the excruciating physical work and very real possibility that "anything can happen" at the close of the chase simply cannot be found in any other version of hunting.

I will not challenge or dispute another hunter's preferences toward our shared interest. I would only ask he keep an open mind, and if physically able and "game for the chase" to try it. There are methods and types and quarry of the hunt that I thought were not right for me. I tried most of them. Most of them became new loves. Some of them I never went back to. And now I will share this "anecdote":

Two guys in a bar. After a few drinks, one guy says, "Hey, how about a round of pool?" Other guy replies, "Nah. Tried it once, didn't like it."

Minor lull, then first guy says, "Hey, how about a game of shuffleboard?" Reply: "Nah. Tried it once, didn't like it."

Longer lull, then first guy says, "Hey, there's a dart board over there, and nice professional darts in this bar, no garbage stuff. How about a game?" Second guy is firmly entrenched: "Nah. Tried it once, didn't like it. "

Then, Second guy feels kinda bad for the first guy, so says, "My son is here in the bar, right over there. Why don't you ask him?"

First guy retorts: "Probably your only child, right?"

 

[Spitpatch]

As an afterthought, I would also offer an analogy to any experienced hunter unexperienced in hound hunting who may at first glance determine it to be distasteful:

I would wager that any such experienced hunter has gone to the field for upland game birds with dogs. Having done so myself for about 45 years, I can say that most often there is more than one dog. Most often there is more than one shooter (not the case in most hound hunts).

A Pheasant has no defenses other than running (Cougar has that), hiding (Cougar has that), and flying (Cougar, admittedly doesn't have that). Cougar can fight. (Yes, I've seen a rooster Chink rake a Llewellyn Setter to bleeding status with his spurs, but it's not really at the level of a Cougar).

So to recap the score: (Average Pheasant hunt): Three dogs, five shooters, Pheasant can fly. (Average hound hunt): five dogs, one shooter, Cougar can instantly kill anybody who shows up (not infrequently achieves this).

Pheasant hunters leisurley stroll through a field (usually level ground), quit when they're tired, refreshments nearly always available. Cougar hunters have absolutely no control of the choice of hunting ground. Cougar chooses the battlefield. No refreshments available aside from what can be carried. No rest breaks available once the chase is on. Any time spent resting can result in disaster. Yes, we DO send our dogs endeared to us just as children into the fight( while taking no rest for ourselves to arrive to assist). We do it because it is what they are born and bred for, and nothing makes them happier. Motocross Parents can probably identify as to the life and death criteria. The "kids" may be in danger, but the happiness is judged to be worth the risk.

Witness a Llewellyn Setter in a field full of Pheasant: born and bred and nothing makes him happier. Either pursuit is man in the field with a partner that was with us when we became human. It might be said that the dog was an instrumental part in allowing us to survive to what we are today. Honor the partnership in whatever modern form it takes: it is something good.

 

[Silver Hand]

If you have more bears than the forest can provide for things start to change, slowly at first but then someone may notice. It is about the balance of nature.
Cats?
Once in the road on State Forest land, I watched a lion stalking a fawn following the doe.
I have recently seen a lion in the road less than twenty five yards from my neighbors home.
Disabled, he uses a long wheel chair ramp to exit his home. I have no dogs to hunt with and am now to old to do so.
I have witnessed the changes in habitat due to the increase in numbers of animals.
It is time for a change.

<broken link removed>

Timber owners want more control of bears

<broken link removed>
Silver Hand

 

[Spitpatch]

Silver Hand brings something forward aside from the debate, but crucial to the debate if bear populations are considered crucial: Bears graze on new (baby) timber. They nip the tops out of reforestation babies. (Elk and deer don't do this unless there is nothing else: Bears consider it a delicacy.)

It is small (but significant) pieces of information like this, (held by biologists on a regular mundane basis) that demonstrate that all species need to be specifically and scientifically monitored and regulated toward Man's presence.

The granolas and PETA crowd (and unfortunately, some hunters) don't grasp this. Ya want game? Ya gotta control the kickass predators! Ya want timber? Ya gotta control critters that eat timber babies! Not extermintation, not allowance of unethical hunting practices, but scientifically verified and substantiated practices with monitoring to allow desired result.

Get the game managment out of the hands of the uninformed voter, and place it in the hands of biologists: they are often wrong, but never wrong from the start.

I would add something bouncing off of Silver Hand's comment (and I'm certain he knows this to be true): the greatest myth utilized by the granola/PETA crowd is the myth of "balance": They have this concept of an equally-stabilized scale that never fluctuates. The reality of bioligical balance in the wild is a frequent-fluctuating (sometimes to the extreme) variation, with a long-term discoverable "balance". PETA people like to think that if we left all alone, soon everything would settle to an ideal.

Mama Nature speaks in a BIG different language. For humans who spend time in the wild in North America (even a hundred years ago, and documented), most will realize in a very short span of years that flucutations in wildlife populations occurr with or without our egocentric presence. (For those needing clarification, Man ain't that bigga deal in the greater scheme of things). YES: Man is an influence. NO: as much as we like to believe we are controlling everything, with respect to wildlife populations, it just may not be true. That is not to say that our practices cannot influence what already occurrs, or that we should not make an effort.

With the big predators, we more instantly see the results of our neglect. Unfortunately we have by political and emotional process eliminated the only effective procedure for controlling Bears and Cougars in this state. Uninformed voters would have imagined themselves to be in a country with no human encroachment on wildlife habitat, and in such a situation then, logically the predators should be allowed to expand to the mythical "balance" with the prey base: under this scenario, Elk, Deer, Snowshoe Rabbits, Cottontails, and all other edible animals achieve (AND RETAIN) a precise balance with the Coyotes, Bears, Cougars, Parasites, Microbes, Bacteria and all else that are out to get them. I must grant my father here his favorite expression: DISNEYLAND!

What the PETA crowd refuses to acknowlege is the very fact that each and every one of their Members (and persons they are trying to reach) occupy space on the earth.

Good hunters don't have that problem. We know each and every day that the very place we live has displaced wildlife. We do more "damage" to local wildlife with the mere presence of our house each and every mlinute we reside in it, than any harvest of a big-game animal in the fall. We are concious. We know these things. Alongside, we are not ashamed, because we are doing MORE than any PETA person by paying attention to the wildlife, respecting and conserving it, and using it (even while we violate their living space).

I like to offer this to non-hunters: "Do you eat bread?" (They all eat bread, and are therefore presumably immune from killing to stay alive). I confidently answer, "More warm, breathing "sentient" mammals died in the harvest machine for your bread than I could ever hope to kill in my lifetime." I always assume they are so horrified they will never research my truth.

 

[salmonriverjohn]

A master of the written language, thank you.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Come on. Let me take you for a leisurely stroll through this country following a pack of hounds chasing a cougar. No sweat. They're just a mile or two down that 500' deep canyon and on the other side. Oh, and did I mention that you have 30 minutes to get there before the cat jumps and runs again?

 

[fallingblock]

Very well written letter.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if memory serves:

ODFW pays out to the tune of 300K annually to licensed hound hunters/trappers to reduce cougar populations in problem areas. This translates to ODFW taking our (every sportsman) fees and uses them to hunt something that folks will pay to do. Like any governement agency, they do not like reduced funds so naturally they raise the fees on sportsman to recoup this loss.

On a more selfish note.

I have a grave concern over the apparent lack of control over the cougar/bear population and the simple fact that we are facing another apex predator that's already well established in one corner of Oregon; the wolf.

I do not wish to change this thread to a wolf thread. I just wish to bring to light a very real concern of mine. As sportsman, we do not have a legal means to keep the current predators numbers in check. I realize we can hunt them, but the method of doing so is not meeting the yearly quota established by ODFW and we are seeing their effect our game numbers.

We as sportsman need to accept that there are multiple ways and methods of hunting: still, stand, stump, spot and stalk, hound hunting. Our numbers have been divided and we lost our unified voice. In doing so, we have given space for future eroding of our style/method of hunting by anti-hunters.

 

[salmonriverjohn]

We as sportsman need to accept that there are multiple ways and methods of hunting: still, stand, stump, spot and stalk, hound hunting. Our numbers have been divided and we lost our unified voice. In doing so, we have given space for future eroding of our style/method of hunting by anti-hunters.

That, in a nut shell is it. On point and true.