Spring Bears With Hounds Proposed

[westbranch]

Just curious which units are closed to hounds because of grizzlies? I’m sure the Island Park area is, but anything else? While I’m admittedly not very familiar with Idaho, Montana has a lot more grizzlies in a lot more of the state. Not really an apples to apples comparison.

Unit 1 in the Panhandle has no baiting or hounds.

 

[Trap]

Just curious which units are closed to hounds because of grizzlies? I’m sure the Island Park area is, but anything else? While I’m admittedly not very familiar with Idaho, Montana has a lot more grizzlies in a lot more of the state. Not really an apples to apples comparison.

Agreed some parts of Montana there is more grizzlies for sure. The only one I am familiar with hunting that is closed is unit 1 which runs roughly bonners ferry to Canada. Also part of island park unit 62 and 62a and portion of 61. All the rest of the otc units in Idaho are open and there’s a few with a good number of grizzlies. Even if they open grizzly dense areas most hound hunters will avoid it to protect the dogs

 

[archerynut21]

I don’t think many on this thread know how hard it is to actually be a houndsman. We spent 50 days looking for cat tracks this year, in an area with “good” numbers, and treed 6. Only one was harvested. And heaven forbid us “lazy road hunters” have to hike up 1500’ of elevation in 3 ft of snow and then have to lose it and gain it again just to get to the dogs. Then add in the lions that escape easily because they can go through terrain (read cliffs) that hounds aren’t meant for. On the bear hunting side of things, a bear can go for 25 miles and not tree. They walk or run. The big bears just walk a lot of the time. They don’t give a damn. Then add in the wolves. Which you constantly have to be aware of even in units with “no wolves”. So if you do find a lion track in the winter you go and run the canyons you can around it and look for wolf sign. It takes a tremendous amount of time to take care of dogs and hunt them. They are like family members. If many of you went you would see it’s not what people think it is. But it is almost spiritual to hear those dogs baying and pursuing game. Like some have said most animals are only shot with a camera. Which is true. If you get a chance to chase some dogs over hill and dale you should go. It’s a great experience. Personally I enjoy lion hunting more than bear. The cats of the west are about as neat of a creature as you can find. Above all the safety of our dogs is top priority. It seems easy but once you do it you will see. Get in good shape, you’ll need it. There are very few people who understand it. Most are against us. But we are all hunters and we should really be more United instead of getting on each other’s asses constantly. As for the opening of a hound season in Montana for bear. I’m not sure it’s a great idea. The conflicts with grizzlies and wolves will kill a lot of hounds. It won’t be good for anybody. But the true houndsmen won’t put their dogs in that kind of danger. You would have to be heartless to do that.

 

[Desk Pop]

The point that's being missed here is that the conflict with other species is likely to be high. Especially grizzly bears if they allow hound hunting in the spring in R's 1-4. Then you have dogs out possibly harassing pregnant & calving elk & deer dropping fawns, as well as other species that are dealing with young, including wolves who will rip a pack apart.

Management is more than killing one critter to benefit the other. In fact, that's the antithesis of management. I'd be fine with hounds in some of the island ranges where grizzlies aren't, but once you get west of I15 & south of 90, you're asking for trouble.

Increased incidental take of grizzly bears will set back delisting efforts, along with other dumb bills passed this session. I think most folks who are opposed to this bill (now law) are not against hound hunting in any aspect, just against a bad bill that will have unintended consequences & a management philosophy that the only good carnivore is a dead one.

Yes, wolves will kill dogs. Everyone knows that. Lion hunting is more risky in that respect because deer and elk are concentrated and so are lions and wolves.

The stuff about grizzly bears is not true. There are plenty of houndsmen that know what a grizzly bear does with hounds. They bay up. They aren't getting killed by houndsmen and although I know multiple guys who have lost hounds to wolves, I know of none lost to grizzlies. These conflicts with a pile of dead dogs and a bunch of dead grizzly bears don't happen.

A griz race is not difficult to tell on a gps handheld. A houndsmen gets in, shocks the pack off and goes home.

We don't have a different species of grizzly bears across the border.

It is one thing to not like the new law, but it is another to use scare tactics for something that has an exact parallel in a bordering state and does not happen.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Those "scare tactics" are the issues raised by local FWP biologists & game managers. So I got that going for me.

As I said, I'm not against hounds for bears. I'm against the legislature mandating a season, rather than listening to the game managers, and the conflict possibilities raised are real, according to the folks with the most knowledge of the areas in which people will be pushing for those seasons. If FWP does hound seasons in the island ranges and in areas with no or low Grizzly possibilities, I have no problem with that.

 

[MT Bound]

I don’t think many on this thread know how hard it is to actually be a houndsman. We spent 50 days looking for cat tracks this year, in an area with “good” numbers, and treed 6. Only one was harvested. And heaven forbid us “lazy road hunters” have to hike up 1500’ of elevation in 3 ft of snow and then have to lose it and gain it again just to get to the dogs. Then add in the lions that escape easily because they can go through terrain (read cliffs) that hounds aren’t meant for. On the bear hunting side of things, a bear can go for 25 miles and not tree. They walk or run. The big bears just walk a lot of the time. They don’t give a damn. Then add in the wolves. Which you constantly have to be aware of even in units with “no wolves”. So if you do find a lion track in the winter you go and run the canyons you can around it and look for wolf sign. It takes a tremendous amount of time to take care of dogs and hunt them. They are like family members. If many of you went you would see it’s not what people think it is. But it is almost spiritual to hear those dogs baying and pursuing game. Like some have said most animals are only shot with a camera. Which is true. If you get a chance to chase some dogs over hill and dale you should go. It’s a great experience. Personally I enjoy lion hunting more than bear. The cats of the west are about as neat of a creature as you can find. Above all the safety of our dogs is top priority. It seems easy but once you do it you will see. Get in good shape, you’ll need it. There are very few people who understand it. Most are against us. But we are all hunters and we should really be more United instead of getting on each other’s asses constantly. As for the opening of a hound season in Montana for bear. I’m not sure it’s a great idea. The conflicts with grizzlies and wolves will kill a lot of hounds. It won’t be good for anybody. But the true houndsmen won’t put their dogs in that kind of danger. You would have to be heartless to do that.

Well said man! I was lucky enough to tag along with a houndsman and his friend 2 years ago simply by coincidence, it was one of the most amazing things I've ever experienced in the mountains. I have the utmost respect for the houndsman and their dogs. Those dogs are just flat out awesome creatures.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I don’t think many on this thread know how hard it is to actually be a houndsman...

Who is saying it's not hard work? I believe you 100% that it's hard, meaningful, and fulfilling for dogs and owners.

...it is almost spiritual to hear those dogs baying and pursuing game.

You and I have a different interpretation of that sound.

But we are all hunters and we should really be more United instead of getting on each other’s asses constantly.

Maybe someday I'll be convinced, but I've always had a problem with this logic. If I think expanding a method of take will negatively effect a hunting experience then I'm going to oppose it. As I've said before, I believe that state requirements to keep bear meat and maintaining spot and stalk as a primary method where viable (like MT) will go farther toward building public acceptance than expanding hound hunting for bears. Many in the general public will never view hunting with hounds as an acceptable approach to fair chase, that's just the world we live in. If it comes to serious push back on bear hunting down the road, I would foresee the whole ship sinking on account of bait, not keeping meat, and pursuit with dogs well before disagreement among hunters about what constitutes appropriate opportunity.

Again, I can understand maintaining hound hunts for bears where they currently exist. That's a more liberal stance than I've had in the past, partially thanks to some who've shared their experience on this and other threads.

 

[archerynut21]

Who is saying it's not hard work? I believe you 100% that it's hard, meaningful, and fulfilling for dogs and owners.


You and I have a different interpretation of that sound.


Maybe someday I'll be convinced, but I've always had a problem with this logic. If I think expanding a method of take will negatively effect a hunting experience then I'm going to oppose it. As I've said before, I believe that state requirements to keep bear meat and maintaining spot and stalk as a primary method where viable (like MT) will go farther toward building public acceptance than expanding hound hunting for bears. Many in the general public will never view hunting with hounds as an acceptable approach to fair chase, that's just the world we live in. If it comes to serious push back on bear hunting down the road, I would foresee the whole ship sinking on account of bait, not keeping meat, and pursuit with dogs well before disagreement among hunters about what constitutes appropriate opportunity.

Again, I can understand maintaining hound hunts for bears where they currently exist. That's a more liberal stance than I've had in the past, partially thanks to some who've shared their experience on this and other threads.

I’m not saying that hound hunting bears in Montana is a good thing. I actually said the opposite. Between wolves and the interactions with grizzlies I don’t think it would be worth it for the state of Montana. And if it were to pass (I’m not sure if it did) I don’t think many of the houndsmen would put their dogs into situations that will turn out bad for all involved. There are a lot of areas I don’t even think of taking dogs here in Idaho. The areas I will go are a lot fewer than where I won’t.

 

[Desk Pop]

Those "scare tactics" are the issues raised by local FWP biologists & game managers. So I got that going for me.

As I said, I'm not against hounds for bears. I'm against the legislature mandating a season, rather than listening to the game managers, and the conflict possibilities raised are real, according to the folks with the most knowledge of the areas in which people will be pushing for those seasons. If FWP does hound seasons in the island ranges and in areas with no or low Grizzly possibilities, I have no problem with that.

I would agree that it is often not good when legislatures dictate stuff that is supposed to be done by governor appointed commissioners...but they are simply wrong on the grizzly issue.

Conflict possibilities are just that, possible. It is possible that an elk can kill a hunter which happened this year. Should we shut down elk hunting so the anti's don't use any more examples of elk killing hunters for their causes?

Montana FWP could at any time call IDFG and ask how many grizzly bears are killed by houndsmen or how many dogs are killed by grizzlies. I know of none, which doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I can tell you that something like that would spread quickly in the hound community. They have a parallel, but likely won't make the contact, or won't reveal they did only to find out hounds and grizzlies isn't the recipe for disaster they are peddling.

Again, FWP knows a lot about a lot of things, but I am telling you with certainty that a typical hound race that ends with a griz is not a big deal. I know of none that were anything but a minor inconvenience for the grizzly, hounds and houndsmen.

If FWP is peddling the grizzly scare, they are simply wrong. People hear "biologists and game managers" and think these people automatically know everything about game. Many of IDFG's "biologists and game managers" cannot accurately sex a dead lion laying whole on a someone's tailgate (that is not an exaggeration, it happens every year locally and makes our quotas yo-yo when they sex a 150 pound 'female' lion under a female lion quota and then clean up their mess when the houndsmen has to drive to another office to get someone to understand a lion's anatomy.) Point is, they aren't experts in everything relating to game.

They are essentially making determinations about something they have zero experience in. They are talking about what they think it is like to have walked on the moon because they read about it in a book. They should just ask the astronauts who have been there. Unfortunately, game departments have so alienated themselves from houndsmen none in their right mind would ever share their experience in these matters.

People can support it or not and that is their opinion. But if people are not supporting based on fiction, I want them to know. If game departments are using scare tactics that they could easily verify by using Idaho as an example but won't, shame on them.

Don't you think if griz/hound conflicts were an issue in Idaho FWP wouldn't just stand up and say, "hey, this is what has happened in Idaho." If so, it'd be case closed. They won't because it doesn't, so instead they just scare people into thinking it will by throwing out hypotheticals that people are gullible enough to believe because it says, "biologist" under their name on their shirt.

Support it, don't support it. Whatever. But let's use facts.

 

[HighWildFree]

but I am telling you with certainty that a typical hound race that ends with a griz is not a big deal. I know of none that were anything but a minor inconvenience for the grizzly, hounds and houndsmen.

Did you ask the grizz if it was a minor inconvenience?

If we weren't fighting an uphill battle to get grizzlies de-listed I wouldn't really care, but I can assure you that those folks that are doing everything in their power to ensure grizzlies are never hunted will bludgeon us with this.

I agree with Ben that if this is limited to the island ranges then it won't be an issue.

Got nothing against hound hunting, but this is just another special season at the expense of the resource. Everybody wants a slice of the pie for themselves, but eventually it gets sliced up some much, it ain't worth having.

Everybody gets all made over ballot box biology, but gosh darn they run to the legislature real fast.

 

[HighWildFree]

Hell, there's never been a recorded incident of transmission of brucellosis between bison and cattle but that's never stopped ranchers from claiming the end of the world. Are you telling me those ranchers are just using scare tactics and don't know what they're talking about?

 

[Desk Pop]

Did you ask the grizz if it was a minor inconvenience?

If we weren't fighting an uphill battle to get grizzlies de-listed I wouldn't really care, but I can assure you that those folks that are doing everything in their power to ensure grizzlies are never hunted will bludgeon us with this.

I agree with Ben that if this is limited to the island ranges then it won't be an issue.

Got nothing against hound hunting, but this is just another special season at the expense of the resource. Everybody wants a slice of the pie for themselves, but eventually it gets sliced up some much, it ain't worth having.

Everybody gets all made over ballot box biology, but gosh darn they run to the legislature real fast.

I find it funny that in your first line you are super worried about the mental well-being of a grizzly bear...

By the fourth line you're ready for protections to drop so you can kill them.

It isn't about the grizzly bears for you. It is a "not in my neighborhood" argument because you want more for you.

Don't try to disguise it with the grizzly bear thing. Just own it.

 

[Desk Pop]

Hell, there's never been a recorded incident of transmission of brucellosis between bison and cattle but that's never stopped ranchers from claiming the end of the world. Are you telling me those ranchers are just using scare tactics and don't know what they're talking about?

I am telling you that using facts to form an opinion is a good thing. I am also saying that hunters like yourself who have no idea about interactions between hounds and grizzly bears should also try to understand facts and realities rather than perceptions.

 

[Desk Pop]

I will not travel to Montana to hunt bears with hounds. This will not have a direct effect on my hunting.

I do know that there are hardly any times when more hunting opportunities are offered rather than taken away.

I wish hunters had more support for others, but so be it. I find it sad so many people won't just own their thoughts.

If you are worried it will negatively affect your hunting and aren't willing to look at it as a win for Hunting as a sport, then say it. Own it. Man up. Agree to disagree.

But hiding behind this grizzly bull crap is ridiculous and cowardly.

 

[EYJONAS!]

The action is heating up folks. I will go back and say let's see some stuff laid out on the table on what this season and opportunity "could" actually look like. I think there's a shit load of what ifs out there. I still haven't seen anything past the statement of Montana is going to allow spring bear hunting with hounds. Well what does that entail?

 

[EYJONAS!]

If nothing else, this legislative session and the accompanying threads (like this one) have reaffirmed my opinion that the vast majority of hunters are miserable, selfish assholes.

Sorry care to elaborate Randell? I feel that there's been some decent discussion between some folks on this if you can read between the lines

 

[Desk Pop]

The action is heating up folks. I will go back and say let's see some stuff laid out on the table on what this season and opportunity "could" actually look like. I think there's a shit load of what ifs out there. I still haven't seen anything past the statement of Montana is going to allow spring bear hunting with hounds. Well what does that entail?

I haven't heard anything on exactly where they will allow it.

As far as the practical side of things, because bears cannot be baited, they will be run directly from roads. Guys will "rig" bears, which you probably already know, means they drive roads with their dogs on the box or with their heads sticking out. They will drive until they get a "strike" when a good broke dog or some or all of the dogs start barking from smelling a bear directly (rare), the scent from where it crossed the road, or the scent brought up or down from thermals or wind where the bear walked within a couple hundred yards from the road. At that point dogs will be released. Usually a good broke dog or two first to get the trailed lined out, then maybe more.

Some may hike a canyon or two and free cast, but this will be between rare and non-existent in my experience. This just means they walk a good looking spot and hope the dogs light up on a track.

Many Montana houndsmen who only run lions will possibly have a hard time getting catches, at least to start with and possibly permanently without altering their pack. If they have not hunted bears, this may be a surprise to them if they are used to catching snow lions. Lions are easier to catch once jumped. Bears are not, especially if guys have dogs that have been bred for generations to only catch lions. Additionally, a good strike dog is hard to find. Most dogs will strike if a bear crossed the road five minutes prior, but if bear concentrations are low, you want a cold strike dog that can tell when a bear walked by the road, 200 yards above it, and several hours prior....then jump out, find the track, determine which direction the bear is going, then trail it, jump it and chase it down, and run it up a tree or bay it . This is a special dog.

Guys who can already catch bobcats with their hounds, have run bears elsewhere, or who perhaps have more recent bear hunting genetics in their lines will do better.

This is coming from a guy who mostly runs lions and bobcats now, but used to run a decent amount of bears. My dogs are average on a good day, so I don't want this post to come across like I have a box full of hardened, bad-ass bear dogs, because I don't.

I am excited for guys with hounds, and also excited for their hounds. They will get a couple more months where their handler puts them in the box each morning and they feel like a kid on Christmas.

 

[archerynut21]

I think you all have the misconception that there will be houndsmen everywhere ruining your favorite spots. Maybe on open roads legal to motorized vehicles and as they follow their dogs. But realistically the amount of houndsmen in the population is a fraction of a percent. There aren’t many around. And then if you hunt in very heavy wolf country there will be more than likely no houndsmen. And like @IdahoNick said, most Montana guys aren’t going to have dogs that are good for bear hunting. They will have good lion dogs. Bears are a completely different story compared to a lion. And with it still being illegal to bait they will only be on the roads. I’m not sure I’d free cast dogs in that country. Especially dogs who’ve never been on bear. I really doubt it hurts many of you spot and stalk guys who get off the roads other than maybe once in a blue moon when a bear struck off a road goes through it with dogs behind it.

 

[shoots-straight]

I will not travel to Montana to hunt bears with hounds. This will not have a direct effect on my hunting.

I do know that there are hardly any times when more hunting opportunities are offered rather than taken away.

I wish hunters had more support for others, but so be it. I find it sad so many people won't just own their thoughts.

If you are worried it will negatively affect your hunting and aren't willing to look at it as a win for Hunting as a sport, then say it. Own it. Man up. Agree to disagree.

But hiding behind this grizzly bull crap is ridiculous and cowardly.

Idaho, I agree with much of what you claim as facts. I'm a FACT guy too. People try to "Perceive" things that might or might not happen. That's what much of what we do trying to figure out what certain legislation will do. We are not professionals just hunters.

I'm curious as to how happy the rest of the houndsmen are, with the opportunities that have been afforded to trappers with this legislature? Now that snares are going to be used in force, it makes me "Perceive" problems that might arise from this conflict. You know about the rise in a certain type of snare called a "Power snare"? Just wondering what your dealings with this issue in Idaho might be? BTW, I trap, and run hounds.

 

[TheTone]

I can think of once instance of an Idaho hound issue with one of the people getting torn up by the grizz. From what i remember the dogs wanted nothing to do with the bear/scent but houndsmen leashed the dogs and pursued the scent with them anyways until encountering the sow with cubs