Spring Bears With Hounds Proposed

[Big Fin]

If you search the threads here, you will see that this same bill was introduced 2 or 3 sessions prior and was rejected. Evidently the legislature wants to rehash these same ideas every 4-6 years.

Carry on .....

 

[Pagosa]

I think the Yellowstone Hills, the Custer (702, 704, 705), 510, the Castle Mtns, etc would be spots for black bear hunting with hounds. I would like to think someone would have enough sense to not turn loose on a grizzly track, first for the hounds sake and the grizzly, but people are stupid. There are a lot of bears in the eastern half. With bears I don’t think I would free-cast as I do with coons/cats, bc I would want them on the desired track and not running a cat out of season or off-game. Most of the time a good hound will stick with the track it strikes, but anything is probably with hounds. I hope this helps, but I have never used hounds on bear.

 

[Drake4]

What areas would you say are free of grizzlies? Genetic interchange is such a huge component of potential ESA delisting that I could really see the fringe areas being ripe for litigation. Areas like upper Rock Creek, Big Hole, Smith River, and so one.

I'm genuinely curious, absent 704 and the Big/Little Snowies, what areas you would consider Ephraim to be non-existent?

Bridgers, Pryors, Crazies, Judiths, Moccasins, Castles...just off the top of my head.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think the Yellowstone Hills, the Custer (702, 704, 705), 510, the Castle Mtns, etc would be spots for black bear hunting with hounds. I would like to think someone would have enough sense to not turn loose on a grizzly track, first for the hounds sake and the grizzly, but people are stupid. There are a lot of bears in the eastern half. With bears I don’t think I would free-cast as I do with coons/cats, bc I would want them on the desired track and not running a cat out of season or off-game. Most of the time a good hound will stick with the track it strikes, but anything is probably with hounds. I hope this helps, but I have never used hounds on bear.

The bigger issue is timing. Spring seasons means Grizz w/ cubs, as well as marauding grizz on black bears, plus the bill allows hounds to be run on black bears into the summer, which means there will be conflict with other user groups.

And let's be honest, there would be someone setting dogs loose on a grizzly track, either because they want to kill a Grizz, or because they don't know the difference.

@Randy Hodges - remember that those occupied ranges are getting larger each year. There may not be a bear in a drainage right now, but in 2 years - when it's a legislative mandate for hounds, there likely will be.

 

[Desk Pop]

Full disclosure: I am a houndsman, but I do not live in Montana nor plan on hunting in Montana with my hounds.

The biggest argument against this is: I don't have hounds and like spot and stalk so I am against it. This is fair and I get it. Everyone has their jam and wants to keep it the best it can be. But one thing to perhaps consider is Montana is growing more and more liberal and when hunting opportunities get taken away, it is incrementally (see California). They stopped lion hunting with hounds, then lion hunting completely, then even bringing a part of a lion across the state line became illegal, then hunting with hounds for bears, then hunting with hounds for bobcats, then they just tried to get all bear hunting outlawed. They succeeded on all but the last one, but will eventually win because it is California. Then they will start on the next lowest hanging fruit, whatever that is. The goal is outlawing hunting.

When they start this in Montana, and they will because bear hunting is the low hanging fruit because they are cute and anthropomorphized in our society, they won't start by saying, "let's get rid of bear hunting altogether." That is, unless there is already no baiting and hound hunting for them to start with first. Hound hunting as a new method of legal pursuit could be a buffer for that, but won't if it is not there. It is uncommon for hunting opportunities to be added rather than taken away. Consider taking advantage of this while you can. It will at least delay the time between now and when you cannot hunt bears in Montana at all. It took years and a lot of steps in California before hunters realized what was happening and started making a fuss about it to legislatures. Hunters who simply wait until their preferred method or game animal is attacked before they care are not helping the cause.

I do not agree with this whole idea that there will be these giant conflicts with hounds and grizzly bears, as with the idea that somehow Montana legislatures will be saving people's lives by not passing this. Besides that I think it is untrue that grizzlies would be killing hound hunters, the legislature would also be saving lives by outlawing anyone on public land in grizzly country, so let's not go down that line of reasoning because it won't benefit us.

Also, Idaho does not shut down hound hunting in every unit with grizzly bears. This is categorically false and misleading. They shut down some but not all. I know there are grizzly bears in plenty of units where hound hunting for bears is legal. Trail camera pictures do not lie. I think the idea that grizzlies will kill a bunch of hounds is also false, as is the idea that a bunch of grizzly bears will somehow die from hound hunting. I know people whose hounds have run grizzlies inadvertently. I would not call this common, but it is by no means rare in Idaho where people hunt them in places where black and grizzly bears live. It is not a big deal. They bay up and the dogs are either pulled off or shocked off. The accidentally killed grizzly bears are not from hound guys. I also disagree with tiptoeing around anti-hunters in hopes of getting a legalized grizzly season. Hound hunting black bears in Montana will not be a defining issue in that debate. It'll be with whatever judge(s) gets the Idaho and Wyoming cases next. I do not see how hunters really gain by lobbying to prevent an entire method of pursuit from becoming legal with the false hope that because of no hound hunting black bears Montana will somehow get a grizzly season which will produce like 3 tags statewide maybe sometime in the next decade or two.

Wolves kill hounds already. This will not change. They kill way more hounds in the winter because lions and wolves are where the ungulates are, and the ungulates are in a much smaller range in the winter. In Idaho there are many places I simply will not run hounds for lions because of wolves. The probability of an issue is multiplied because the area the deer live in is so small and concentrated, so I play it conservatively and won't hunt some units. Bear hunting is different in respects to wolves killing dogs because the concentrations are diluted because deer and elk start spreading out. Yes, always a chance, but the hound guys know that every time they turn loose so let them make that choice. The hound hunters love their dogs. They are also incredibly valuable to them, monetarily and otherwise. Maybe let them decide risk tolerance for their dogs and themselves.

Another thing you need to consider is that plenty of people are already hunting bears in the spring and fall in Montana with hounds. This is a fact, and these bad apples won't make people like houndsmen more, but the truth is that it does happen. Dogs strike a track from the box and they are turned loose on a "raccoon." Oops, they treed a bear instead. I do not agree with or condone breaking the law intentionally like this even if there is a work around from the letter of the law (how do you prove in court that the houndsman knew it was a bear and not a racoon?) Some are bold enough to actually post pictures of dead bears in Montana with a hound or two in the background with GPS collars on. Guess they were just out walking with their hounds and happened to see a bear and sniped it across the canyon and their walking companions snuck in the picture. Not good and not ok, but the reality. If it was legal it would be more prevalent, but it is still going on in Montana currently and it hasn't ruined spot and stalk from what I am gathering.

If you spot and stalk bears from roads this may impact your hunting at some point or another in the next decade. Hound guys will strike and turn loose from roads. The further in you are, the less of a potential impact. I have spot and stalk hunted bears, baited bears and ran hounds. Others hound hunting has never affected the other two for me yet. Regardless of whether or not it will have an impact, I am of the opinion that increasing hunting opportunity is a good thing, even if it doesn't benefit me the way I would like it to. As for Fin's comment on this bill being brought up continually without success, that may point to the direction that it just will not happen in Montana. As for the comments regarding bear numbers and sustainability in some areas, that is a very valid point that needs to be considered and I know nothing about bear numbers there. Like lions, most treed bears won't be shot, but some will and if an area cannot support varying methods of take without setting quotas, that is really a different debate because you are trading one opportunity (hound hunting) for losing an opportunity (the ability to sustainably hunt bears without the hinderance of a quota system.)

But do consider this: When the day comes that Montana is considering outlawing bear hunting altogether and there is a bill on the table, will the Montana bear hunters be cool with the deer hunters who support outlawing bear hunting because they don't happen to hunt bears themselves? What is happening impacts all hunting, not just your special type of it.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Full disclosure: I am a houndsman, but I do not live in Montana nor plan on hunting in Montana with my hounds.

The biggest argument against this is: I don't have hounds and like spot and stalk so I am against it. This is fair and I get it. Everyone has their jam and wants to keep it the best it can be. But one thing to perhaps consider is Montana is growing more and more liberal and when hunting opportunities get taken away, it is incrementally (see California). They stopped lion hunting with hounds, then lion hunting completely, then even bringing a part of a lion across the state line became illegal, then hunting with hounds for bears, then hunting with hounds for bobcats, then they just tried to get all bear hunting outlawed. They succeeded on all but the last one, but will eventually win because it is California. Then they will start on the next lowest hanging fruit, whatever that is. The goal is outlawing hunting.

When they start this in Montana, and they will because bear hunting is the low hanging fruit because they are cute and anthropomorphized in our society, they won't start by saying, "let's get rid of bear hunting altogether." That is, unless there is already no baiting and hound hunting for them to start with first. Hound hunting as a new method of legal pursuit could be a buffer for that, but won't if it is not there. It is uncommon for hunting opportunities to be added rather than taken away. Consider taking advantage of this while you can. It will at least delay the time between now and when you cannot hunt bears in Montana at all. It took years and a lot of steps in California before hunters realized what was happening and started making a fuss about it to legislatures. Hunters who simply wait until their preferred method or game animal is attacked before they care are not helping the cause.

I do not agree with this whole idea that there will be these giant conflicts with hounds and grizzly bears, as with the idea that somehow Montana legislatures will be saving people's lives by not passing this. Besides that I think it is untrue that grizzlies would be killing hound hunters, the legislature would also be saving lives by outlawing anyone on public land in grizzly country, so let's not go down that line of reasoning because it won't benefit us.

Also, Idaho does not shut down hound hunting in every unit with grizzly bears. This is categorically false and misleading. They shut down some but not all. I know there are grizzly bears in plenty of units where hound hunting for bears is legal. Trail camera pictures do not lie. I think the idea that grizzlies will kill a bunch of hounds is also false, as is the idea that a bunch of grizzly bears will somehow die from hound hunting. I know people whose hounds have run grizzlies inadvertently. I would not call this common, but it is by no means rare in Idaho where people hunt them in places where black and grizzly bears live. It is not a big deal. They bay up and the dogs are either pulled off or shocked off. The accidentally killed grizzly bears are not from hound guys. I also disagree with tiptoeing around anti-hunters in hopes of getting a legalized grizzly season. Hound hunting black bears in Montana will not be a defining issue in that debate. It'll be with whatever judge(s) gets the Idaho and Wyoming cases next. I do not see how hunters really gain by lobbying to prevent an entire method of pursuit from becoming legal with the false hope that because of no hound hunting black bears Montana will somehow get a grizzly season which will produce like 3 tags statewide maybe sometime in the next decade or two.

Wolves kill hounds already. This will not change. They kill way more hounds in the winter because lions and wolves are where the ungulates are, and the ungulates are in a much smaller range in the winter. In Idaho there are many places I simply will not run hounds for lions because of wolves. The probability of an issue is multiplied because the area the deer live in is so small and concentrated, so I play it conservatively and won't hunt some units. Bear hunting is different in respects to wolves killing dogs because the concentrations are diluted because deer and elk start spreading out. Yes, always a chance, but the hound guys know that every time they turn loose so let them make that choice. The hound hunters love their dogs. They are also incredibly valuable to them, monetarily and otherwise. Maybe let them decide risk tolerance for their dogs and themselves.

Another thing you need to consider is that plenty of people are already hunting bears in the spring and fall in Montana with hounds. This is a fact, and these bad apples won't make people like houndsmen more, but the truth is that it does happen. Dogs strike a track from the box and they are turned loose on a "raccoon." Oops, they treed a bear instead. I do not agree with or condone breaking the law intentionally like this even if there is a work around from the letter of the law (how do you prove in court that the houndsman knew it was a bear and not a racoon?) Some are bold enough to actually post pictures of dead bears in Montana with a hound or two in the background with GPS collars on. Guess they were just out walking with their hounds and happened to see a bear and sniped it across the canyon and their walking companions snuck in the picture. Not good and not ok, but the reality. If it was legal it would be more prevalent, but it is still going on in Montana currently and it hasn't ruined spot and stalk from what I am gathering.

If you spot and stalk bears from roads this may impact your hunting at some point or another in the next decade. Hound guys will strike and turn loose from roads. The further in you are, the less of a potential impact. I have spot and stalk hunted bears, baited bears and ran hounds. Others hound hunting has never affected the other two for me yet. Regardless of whether or not it will have an impact, I am of the opinion that increasing hunting opportunity is a good thing, even if it doesn't benefit me the way I would like it to. As for Fin's comment on this bill being brought up continually without success, that may point to the direction that it just will not happen in Montana. As for the comments regarding bear numbers and sustainability in some areas, that is a very valid point that needs to be considered and I know nothing about bear numbers there. Like lions, most treed bears won't be shot, but some will and if an area cannot support varying methods of take without setting quotas, that is really a different debate because you are trading one opportunity (hound hunting) for losing an opportunity (the ability to sustainably hunt bears without the hinderance of a quota system.)

But do consider this: When the day comes that Montana is considering outlawing bear hunting altogether and there is a bill on the table, will the Montana bear hunters be cool with the deer hunters who support outlawing bear hunting because they don't happen to hunt bears themselves? What is happening impacts all hunting, not just your special type of it.

Those are some fair, informative points and well stated. Hunting method preference aside, I think an alternative view could be, why invite the magnifying glass that allowing hunting with hounds will bring with it? If passed, or even if it gains a certain amount of steam, it seems likely to provide an opportunity for the opposition to get a major spotlight on their views in local and regional media.

As it is of course it's all spot and stalk in MT, and keeping all edible portions of the meat required. I think those two factors are better suited to maintaining what public support exists than adding a pretty controversial (at least publicly) method of pursuit. That's completely my opinion, I could be wrong. I think the medium term security of bear hunting would be well served by all states moving to require edible portions be kept. MT/WY/ID are the only bear regs I'm really familiar with.

 

[Desk Pop]

Those are some fair, informative points and well stated. Hunting method preference aside, I think an alternative view could be, why invite the magnifying glass that allowing hunting with hounds will bring with it? If passed, or even if it gains a certain amount of steam, it seems likely to provide an opportunity for the opposition to get a major spotlight on their views in local and regional media.

As it is of course it's all spot and stalk in MT, and keeping all edible portions of the meat required. I think those two factors are better suited to maintaining what public support exists than adding a pretty controversial (at least publicly) method of pursuit. That's completely my opinion, I could be wrong. I think the medium term security of bear hunting would be well served by all states moving to require edible portions be kept. MT/WY/ID are the only bear regs I'm really familiar with.

I don't think you are wrong, or that I am necessarily right, especially with the short term.

The problem is that if hunters stop supporting each other under the false assumption that they can appease an unappeasable group (anti-hunters who want all hunting outlawed) in the short term, we all lose.

Here is what I mean: You are a group of a couple thousand spot and stalk bear guys. You say to a couple hundred hound hunters, "piss off, you're hurting our cause because hound hunting is 'pretty controversial.'"

So when a hundred thousand deer hunters say to you couple thousand spot and stalk bear guys, "piss off, hunting bears is 'pretty controversial' and you're hurting our cause," you cannot really get upset about it.

Hunting bears in any way is already 'pretty controversial' to plenty of people.

 

[Desk Pop]

There's a pretty huge difference between banning an established and traditional season compared to adding a new season/method.

God forbid we advocate for more hunting opportunities.

 

[Desk Pop]

But where do you draw the line? Your reasoning would work just as well for bear baiting or even trapping. It's the exact same reasoning that has this muzzleloader bill and a host of others being shoved down our throats right now.

There are no shortage of hunting opportunities in Montana, I assure you.

I assure you that people were chasing bears with dogs in Montana long before they were sniping them across canyons 600 yards away. So at some point something was taken away that was already there.

But sure bud...I cannot see a reason why a purple state turning blue would want to have any more hunting opportunities than just what you yourself happen to use.

Honestly, when Montana becomes California you will have no reason to complain.

 

[Desk Pop]

But where do you draw the line? Your reasoning would work just as well for bear baiting or even trapping. It's the exact same reasoning that has this muzzleloader bill and a host of others being shoved down our throats right now.

There are no shortage of hunting opportunities in Montana, I assure you.

Also, talk to any biologists who deals with bears in baiting states. Baiting increases the carrying capacity and bear populations a statistically significant amount.

So even if you personally would not hunt bait, it would mean more bears on the mountain.

Would that be so bad?

 

[Bambistew]

I've never ever understood when hunters pick apart the hunting methods of other hunters, always thought we were in this all together. e.g. hunting w/hounds, hunting w/bow or gun or muzzleloader, hunting on Sunday, trapping, etc. etc. etc.

"I can't understand why you guys think it's fair to hunt cats/bears/lions with hounds"....."I don't know how you can possibly trap an animal without remorse and not think it's cruel"......"We should have Sunday off from hunting so I can go to church or the rest of the public can enjoy the woods or the outfitters can turn around the new incoming/outgoing hunters".......

Give me a f----kn break, like EYJ said, MOVE ON!

I agree. I think spotlighting should be legal. I mean why not. The animals are unsuspecting, some are even sleeping, it doesn't hurt anything.

 

[MTLabrador]

There's a pretty huge difference between banning an established and traditional season compared to adding a new season/method.

That’s where I see a huge difference. I wouldn’t support banning baiting and hounds in Idaho, but I sure as hell don’t want to see them established in Montana.

 

[mtmuley]

That’s where I see a huge difference. I wouldn’t support banning baiting and hounds in Idaho, but I sure as hell don’t want to see them established in Montana.

MOGA does. mtmuley

 

[MTLabrador]

MOGA does. mtmuley

More clients, more money.

 

[Irrelevant]

I assure you that people were chasing bears with dogs in Montana long before they were sniping them across canyons 600 yards away. So at some point something was taken away that was already there.

But sure bud...I cannot see a reason why a purple state turning blue would want to have any more hunting opportunities than just what you yourself happen to use.

Honestly, when Montana becomes California you will have no reason to complain.

People were chasing bears with dogs in Montana before there were hunting seasons too, and probably selling the hides and meat, should we go back to unrestricted market hunting?

 

[OntarioHunter]

I don't think you are wrong, or that I am necessarily right, especially with the short term.

The problem is that if hunters stop supporting each other under the false assumption that they can appease an unappeasable group (anti-hunters who want all hunting outlawed) in the short term, we all lose.

Here is what I mean: You are a group of a couple thousand spot and stalk bear guys. You say to a couple hundred hound hunters, "piss off, you're hurting our cause because hound hunting is 'pretty controversial.'"

So when a hundred thousand deer hunters say to you couple thousand spot and stalk bear guys, "piss off, hunting bears is 'pretty controversial' and you're hurting our cause," you cannot really get upset about it.

Hunting bears in any way is already 'pretty controversial' to plenty of people.

Of course we can never "appease" the PETA crowd. It's the fence-sitters we need to worry about. Let's at least keep them there ... instead of falling on the other side. Venturing into legalizing spring bear hound hunting is a good way to tip the balance. There is a good arguement for hound hunting cats to keep their numbers in check. Cats are also scary enough that I'm not worried much about the fence-sitters in Montana tipping over on that. Winter may seem like a hardship time to hunt cougars but it's probably the best time of year for them as predation is much more productive then and bears are hibernating. It fits into the scheme of things well.

I don't think hunting coons with dogs should be allowed until after bears are down for the winter. That would help curtail the current incidental unproveable poaching of bears by coon hunters.

 

[Desk Pop]

People were chasing bears with dogs in Montana before there were hunting seasons too, and probably selling the hides and meat, should we go back to unrestricted market hunting?

Not really my argument and if you read my posts you would see that. It was in reference to him saying they are adding something new so it should be treated differently than if all of the sudden deer hunters become ok with all bear hunting going away because it is controversial and makes them look bad to anti hunters. Hound hunting bears is not new to Montana. It was once legal. Now it is not.

So don't support opening a traditional and effective hunting method that allows hunters to be the absolute most selective in terms of sex and age of bears because you are worried it might make your chosen method more difficult. Way to be a team player.

 

[OntarioHunter]

That’s where I see a huge difference. I wouldn’t support banning baiting and hounds in Idaho, but I sure as hell don’t want to see them established in Montana.

I wouldn't support a ban ... but sure wouldn't oppose it either.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Not really my argument and if you read my posts you would see that. It was in reference to him saying they are adding something new so it should be treated differently than if all of the sudden deer hunters become ok with all bear hunting going away because it is controversial and makes them look bad to anti hunters. Hound hunting bears is not new to Montana. It was once legal. Now it is not.

So don't support opening a traditional and effective hunting method that allows hunters to be the absolute most selective in terms of sex and age of bears because you are worried it might make your chosen method more difficult. Way to be a team player.

I am almost seventy years old and I don't recall hound hunting bears in Montana ever being legal. Maybe someone who is older can add to that? So, for most Montanans legalizing a spring bear hunt with hounds would indeed be "something new."

 

[EYJONAS!]

Not really my argument and if you read my posts you would see that. It was in reference to him saying they are adding something new so it should be treated differently than if all of the sudden deer hunters become ok with all bear hunting going away because it is controversial and makes them look bad to anti hunters. Hound hunting bears is not new to Montana. It was once legal. Now it is not.

So don't support opening a traditional and effective hunting method that allows hunters to be the absolute most selective in terms of sex and age of bears because you are worried it might make your chosen method more difficult. Way to be a team player.

Nick, for the record I think that you have given us some great and well stated insight into this topic. Especially from a houndsman that currently lives in a state where this opportunity is a legal method of hunting bears. So thank you for that and your thoughts on this matter.