by Will Staats
The recent decision by LCAR on the proposed rules for trapping and hunting coyotes with hounds leaves much to be desired and calls into question where the real motive lies behind this unfortunate outcome.
Clearly this has been a process fraught with implicit bias, emotion and misinformation and driven by groups with time, plenty of money and undue influence. LCAR’s requirement that coyote hounds would need to be confined to a leash during a hunt is symptomatic of how this process resulted in a decision that runs counter to the legislative intent of the original bill.
This is a totally unrealistic imposition on hunters and is simply designed as an end run to achieve what the anti-hunting factions desired – a total and outright ban on this activity. This was never the intent of this legislation, and this decision represents a failure to have a fair and unbiased process.
There is no compromise here. This is not a reasonable and sensible law designed to mitigate real or perceived problems with this activity but instead has simply resulted in a total and outright permanent moratorium on this type of hunting.
To be clear I do not hunt coyotes with hounds. However, I am a wildlife biologist who has relied on hounds to achieve wildlife research goals and mitigate human wildlife conflicts. I also own three beautiful lovable hounds that I use during the winter season to track bobcats.
What is of grave concern is the precedent this decision may set for all hunting dogs and equally disconcerting represents yet another attempt by so-called wildlife advocacy groups to chip away at our hunting culture. But this is what the anti-hunting groups have sought all along.
It is instructive to review some of the misinformation that likely contributed to LCAR’s flawed decision. In a recent letter written by an animal behavioralist the writer attempts to describe hunting dog behavior. It is abundantly clear that the author does not understand hunting dogs, hunting dog behavior nor the process of hunting with dogs.
As a wildlife biologist I have been involved with animal behavior and hunting dogs for over 40 years and the inaccuracies and misrepresentations in this letter reveal ignorance and obvious unscientific bias regarding this management tool and hunting methodology.
While I won’t address each of the erroneous points in this letter it attempts to paint a picture of dogs gone wild and uncontrollable driven by a blood thirsty fever beyond any human recall and “impossible to control”. Were that the case, we never could have used these highly trained dogs in our research efforts. Nor would we ever be able to retrieve our dogs during or after a hunt.
In the author’s mind our dogs are caged up all year until released on game. But for every hound owner I know their hunting dogs are part of the family. Each spring my hounds and I walk over 300 miles together searching for moose antlers in the mountains and they are my constant companions throughout the year.
This letter makes the baseless claim that dogs cannot distinguish one animal from another, which is simply untrue. Our hounds hunt by scent and not sight which allows them to be trained to a specific quarry. My hounds and the hounds I have used for research are specifically trained to pursue only the desired species identified by scent only. They are driven by the ability to distinguish the smell of their quarry at the exclusion of all other animals in the woods.
During a typical day hunting in the winter my dogs will cross dozens of animal tracks ranging from fisher to moose, all of which they pay no attention to.
Interestingly the author defends rabbit dogs. This can only be considered blatant speciesism. I guess hares, considered a “Keystone” species by biologists and ecologists, don’t rise to the stature of bears and coyotes. This is ignorant of the fact that some hare hunters now breed beagles with bigger hounds resulting in longer legged dogs that can negotiate the deep snow more effectively.
The author grasps at anything that will paint a portrait of blood thirsty dogs running uncontrollably through the Vermont woods. My dogs and the hounds that I have worked with for decades are among the most easy-going friendly dogs you will ever meet. I would challenge the author to compare statistics of dog attacks by breed and I suspect it would reveal that many breeds of domestic pets have a far worse behavioral track record than hounds. If my hounds jump up at you, it’s to lick you out of love!
The author continues to cite the two isolated incidents that occurred several years ago in Central Vermont. These incidents, while unfortunate and traumatic for all involved, are far from the norm and represent a tiny fraction of the thousands of hunts that occur each year.
No one was bitten, however, and in both instances involved an altercation between a domestic dog and the hounds. In 40 years of working with hunting dogs these two episodes are the only instances in Vermont I have ever heard of!
My dogs have never attacked a farm animal, a bobcat-colored dog, or other dog breeds that look like bears (a ridiculous supposition) or inflicted any property damage whatsoever. We hunt remote swamps and bogs in the Northeast Kingdom during the winter generally far from any other human or human habitation and I typically snowshoe some 400-500 miles a winter following my dogs. We bother no one.
What isn’t acknowledged is how hunters want and need to know exactly what their dogs are doing at all times. We love our dogs and care about their welfare.
Today we are lucky to have advanced technology that records where the dogs are and what they are doing. GPS tracking and training collars are in effect an “electronic leash” that is safe, effective and allows control over hounds unlike what I have witnessed with household pet dogs that do far more damage to wildlife, property and occasionally bodily injury. We can call dogs off game that is in a tree or on the ground with this tool and do so when we desire to terminate the hunt.
GPS allows us to view a real time map on the control unit which records exactly where the dogs are, where they have been, and the direction they are going.
On the rare occasion that we temporarily lose satellite coverage the map recorded in real time on the GPS enables hunters to rapidly move to the last recorded location and quickly reestablish direct communication with the dogs. Rarely have I used the electrical training stimulus feature on these units but instead our dogs are trained to respond to an audible tone which is used to call them from entering places where they should not be or that is potentially harmful to the dog including thin ice, busy highways, private property, dangerous ledges.
GPS tracking collars saves time, gas and occasionally the lives of our dogs and have proven a very effective technology for our wildlife research. They have proven to be an indispensable tool and virtually all hunters owning hounds now use them and would not consider hunting without this technology.
The anti-hunters love to troll social media to find the worst of the worst examples of all kinds of hunting. But they don’t point to the recent video featured on YouTube showing bear hunters immediately calling off their dogs from private property with the aid of GPS tracking collars.
I sincerely wish legislators would take the time to listen to those of us that have used these dogs for a lifetime. But sadly, it is apparent that some members of LCAR turned a deaf ear to the hunting dog owners of this state who are the only ones that possess first-hand knowledge of how this process works.
The inflammatory rhetoric and misinformation that continues to be perpetuated by the anti-hunting groups has created an atmosphere of fear among the hunting community and has prevented any useful or meaningful debate. The constant barrage of hate mongering directed at hunters has created a hostile environment and a real and present danger for hunters here in Vermont. We have been threatened, verbally abused, our tires slashed and physically assaulted!
Vermont Fish and Wildlife Biologists have been ridiculed, marginalized, bullied, sent horrific degrading emails and have expressed concern for their own personal safety while attending public meetings due to the presence of certain intimidating anti hunters.
Yet VTFW biologists are the hard-working dedicated experts that we pay to safeguard our wildlife. Are the anti-hunting groups somehow more qualified to manage our wildlife resources?
So where does this end? Will all hunting dogs be required to use a leash during an active hunt? Will this include bird dogs which are often out of sight of the hunter? Rabbit dogs? Retrievers used for waterfowl hunting?
In the minds of the anti-hunters, it’s clear where they want it to end. They will never be satisfied until all hunting dogs are banned from the woods. That hunting in all its forms end. They have made clear that hunting with dogs and trapping are “low hanging fruit” in their crusade. Next will be bow hunting, then moose hunting, and the rest will follow. This is not hyperbole on my part or fear mongering. They have signaled this time and time again.
Let’s be clear, the anti-hunting community stands to lose nothing if further restrictions are imposed on hunting dogs. But Vermont men and women who hunt with dogs will lose their ability to secure wild food, the ability to hunt as a family, to lose their beloved dogs, to lose their very way of life. Their right to interact with the natural world in their own way.
Vermont touts its remarkable tolerance for all cultures, and I am proud of my state and embrace this philosophy entirely. But for some reason this philosophy has failed to extend to our hunting and trapping culture.
I am proud to be a hunter and trapper. Our VTFW department and Vermont hunters and trappers are the real advocates for wildlife. Hunters and trappers have collectively given billions of dollars to wildlife conservation. Let’s stop this outright assault on Vermont’s hunting culture and work together to achieve meaningful protection for our wildlife resources by protecting the remaining wildlife habitat in our state. I would urge LCAR to reconsider their decision, listen to hunters and their own VTFW experts and take a much more sensible and balanced approach to the issue of hunting dogs.
The author is a wildlife biologist and woodsman living in Victory, Vermont. This letter was sent to the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (LCAR).
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary
Thank you for following this. Unfortunately, LCAR has blinders on and caves to special interests again.
VT Fish & Wildlife, according to the above article, very clearly appears to be offended by “inflammatory rhetoric” and “misinformation”. And they are equally as appalled by being “ridiculed, marginalized, bullied”….
Golly, then I suppose VDC AND VT Fish & Wildlife are again today just as offended and appalled by anonymous (how convenient) pro-trapping hunters on this site such as NEKpatriot who, when confronted by FACTS such as my statement that it was these hunters who annihilated the entire population of cougars from the state of Vermont by the early part of the last century — merely gets met with the typical sexist, misogynistic personal attacks of being “old” and not being able to find a “desirable” mate – Lol! Surely the equivalent level of outrage must be reverberating within the hunting community as your headliner infers that “Tolerance Should Extend” to all.
Hmmmmmm……apparently not “tolerance” though by said hunters from the NEK (not surprisingly) nor from numerous other male posters on here who are apparently just as threatened by facts, by women, and by any VT residents who happen to hail from other states within this nearly 250 year-old UNION – wherein personal and highly asinine attacks, much like vomitus, are expelled from their mouths on a routine basis.
And btw, my husband still awaits to hear how you arrived at inferring that HE is “undesirable” and I’m still waitin’ to learn how you claim to have any type of knowledge as to my own personal background?
So, in the end, how can the above-referenced hunters and Fish & Wildlife ever dare to expect or anticipate civil discourse when they themselves are right on VDC in print engaging in each and every one of the identical, distasteful, and moronic tactics hunters on here employ against those who dare to hold a different opinion than do they.
Two-Thirds of All Vermont Citizens remain Opposed to Trapping.
Fact.
Reality.
Thank you for this piece! I have watched the love of trapping shape the life of someone I love. Done right, it is a wholesome, necessary activity. As a sitting state legislator I will fight to the end to keep trapping legal in Vermont.
Thank you Representitive Peterson .
Bravo Mr. Staats ! I wish I was as eloquent as you ! You state exactly my points relating to these ant-hunters though. These attacks on our traditions are not limited to a few now well known types of hunting . If allowed to win on any of these fronts, that will not satiate their true objective . They do not believe in wildlife management as we hunters, fishermen, trappers, loggers, and foresters and other users of a renewable resource see it . A lot of them believe that nature will balance it’s self, and man ought to leave itto it’s own devises. A great many of them are truely of a disney like belief in regards to wildlife . That Bambi, Flower, and Thumper sit around the campfire and share stories. Some of them believe that because they find killing to be sickining, be it because of weak stomachs, or a perceived higher morality of some sort that they posess the high ground, and therefore “bloodsports” should be outlawed . Regardless, they are a real threat to our traditions, and the culture of rural America. They need to be shown the door, and told under no circumstances to not let it hit them in the ___ on the way back to where ever they come from !
Most Sincerely,
Pat Finnie
Much as I believe in the morality of veganism, it simply can’t work in this planet.
You claim that veganism is somehow a “moral” choice yet you believe those who oppose the cruel barbarism of trapping are “Marxists”???
Looks like you require researching the topic of trapping by reading right online just a small portion of the material National Geographic, for but one source, has put together that details the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of non-targeted species – some ENDANGERED species – killed by traps set across the USA annually and reading further about the local incidents of resident’s pet domestic dogs and cats brutally killed in these devices set by these trappers in their effort to violently capture and cause the often prolonged death of beautiful wild mammals such as Bobcats so they can sell their skins for profit – most in overseas trade as the fur market in the USA is now virtually non-existent. How’s that for “morality”?
Watch out for Woke Marxism. There are often attacks on tradition, simply for the sake of breaking up societal norms.
Right……. The two-thirds of VT men & women who oppose trapping are “Marxists”, just like they are also the same ones who have undergone abortions(????!!!) according to a poster on here yesterday and are also women who are too “aged” to be of any significance and are also females who cannot attract mates(????!!)
Again, the blatantly sexist and generally incohesive attitudes of the male posters on here are actually characteristic of genuine Marxists – those who believe that older individuals offer little validity or standing in society. Marxism Fact. Reality.
vermonthistoryexplorer.org/timeline1850-1899
November 24, 1881
“On this day, Alexander Crowell shot and killed the last catamount in Vermont. In the wild, catamounts ate deer and other animals. But in the 1800s, farmers had cut down many trees and turned forests into farms. Without the trees, there were not as many deer as before. The catamounts started eating sheep that lived on farms. The farmers and hunters killed the panthers to protect their sheep.”
So was it “hunters” that led to the demise of Catamounts, or farmers trying to defend their flocks of sheep, and themselves ? Remember at this time there were few “forests”in the state of Vermont . If you have ever seen pictures of the state at this time you will realize that it was one big sheep pasture . The concept of sport hunting was not a “thing”. People killed wildlife for food, or to protect their food, and some killed for money (commerically). I am unaware of any species that has gone extinct because of sport hunting . I am aware of and proud of the fact that Sportsmen and Women are the reason for the comeback of so many species that were on the road to extinction . At about the same time as the last Catamount was shot in Vermont . The Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department has a history that starts back in 1866 when the Legislature appointed a Board of Fish Commissioners . A decade later (1876 five years before the last Catamount was shot) this Board was given authority over game birds and mammals, and in 1892 the Board of Fish Commissioners was renamed the Fish and Game Commission.
Patrick, thank you for submitting the clarification of sport hunters vs. ranchers/farmers. Those of us that have traversed Vermont’s ridgelines remain amazed at the near endless miles stone walls defining the extent of cleared land. Writings tell of walls built at the rate of only10 ft/day when clearing pastures. A task akin to the Augean Stables. Like the pyramids, perhaps attributed to aliens a thousand years from now?
As you mentioned, it was hunters that established and financed wildlife mgmt based on the science of degreed biologists observing and collecting data afield. Result being, one success story after another. Proving themselves by our deer herd, bear, wild turkeys, brook trout, and fur bearers.
I guide visitors from around the country that are dumbstruck at the proliferation of beaver ponds here in the NEK and elsewhere in Vermont. In remote areas being the heart of an ecosystem for trout, waterfowl, mink, otters, muskrats, and moose. Once near extinction from unregulated harvest, Vermont sportsmen have been the driving force to manage sustainable beaver population and the diversity resulting.
Conversely, animal rights advocates have contributed NOTHING to wildlife conservation. Intent only on championing a cause to promote their own, selfish, self-esteem. Oblivious to the FACT the 10X the number of fur bearers taken by trappers are crippled and flattened by cars. “By golly, I’m an advocate for animals!” (Except the ones I run over.) FACT.
Wait…..what happened to your primary consideration in the matter of women (specifically) who advocate for animal welfare as of last night’s post – that being a woman’s “age” and her “ability to attract a partner”???
And if you truly cannot discern any difference between someone unintentionally running into an animal crossing a public roadway and your very purposely extinguishing their life by painfully seizing one of their bodily appendages in a steely-jawed trap set by your own hands as that animal suffers for hours or days until they finally expire, all so you can enjoy this “sport” of bloodlust with other self-anointed machismo males and/or to eventually sell these animal’s hides for a relative pittance whilst proclaiming you are involved in such utter acts of cruelty for the “betterment” of society – you likely don’t possess the keenest of judgement. FACT. REALITY.
And your senseless comment that would again apply to the near TWO-THIRDS of the population of VT who remain opposed to this violent, cruel, barbaric sport or “tradition” of trapping in referring to their opinion, their perspectives, and their personal sentiments as being products of haughty self-esteem is nothing more than yet further incoherent blather when faced with the fact that you were justifiably criticized for utilizing harassment and antiquated sexist insults in a feeble attempt to silence the freedom of speech of those who continue to fight for what they believe in and used these identical tactics as outlined in the above article that accuses the animal rights activists of supposedly engaging in.
And while your printed words on VDC give testimony to the proof that you engaged in such personal attacks, it would be interesting to know if any of the alleged incidents as described above were officially recorded by any individuals or organizations in the form of police reports? After all, if VT Department Fish & Wildlife officers were physically threatened, that should have been documented within a criminal report and possible arrest records.
Two-Thirds of Vermont Citizens Oppose Trapping.
Whether the extinction of the cougar in VT was caused directly or indirectly by hunters, it was certainly directly caused by human animals meddling with the natural environs. Hence, an apec predator was vanquished and now it is claimed that yet more intervening measures such as reducing bear populations must be taken for “public safety” concerns.
Most importantly though, the above article’s comments very conveniently dont address the fact that many of the hunters here on VDC are guilty of exactly what the author above is claiming that trapping opponents are doing = harassing, insulting, attacking, berating, etc. those who think differently than they do and are simply using their right to free speech to convey. So…apparently there is nor was any justifiable defense for such attacks by the trapping enthusiasts.
My advice then is if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
The bottom line on this debate between those who choose to harvest and those who don’t is making peace with mortality. The hunter is definitely portrayed as less than human and judged harshly as lawless, unethical and heartless. I’m here to tell you straight up that the view is racist, and totally wrong. 99+% of hunters, trappers and people who fish follow the law and have a profoundly deep appreciation for the life they take. Along with the joy of a clean harvest, you best believe there is sorrow and often tears.
We have choice around this issue. The hunters would put their season aside if a non hunter expressed an interest in wanting to learn. The non hunter activist not only disagrees with the life style, but unlike the hunter, wants to end it entirely. That’s NOT okay and is discrimination of the highest degree.
You want to know what else constitutes discrimination of the highest degree and ISN’T OK either? In the event you missed it yesterday, that would include a couple of male pro-trapping posters who specifically targeted female posters on VDC who dared to oppose trapping and proclaimed in writing that any/all such females are typically “old”, unable to attract “desirable” partners and accused them of undergoing abortions. Yes, abortions(??) Although obviously some unhinged, frenetic ramblings from those who are blatantly intolerant of others’ opinions, are discriminatory against women, and cannot seem to manage civil discourse – I believe at this point that trappers might wish to consider the old adage regarding the pot calling the kettle black because of such offense.
And insofar as your characterizing all trappers as having a “profoundly deep appreciation” for the life they take, I presume such doesn’t include those trappers who neglect, with some regularity, to check their traps in the allotted/recommended time and who leave their dead and often decaying prey in the woods still attached to the steel jaws that snuffed out their lives as evidenced by videotape footage and still photographs obtained from the scene and presented to VT legislators by animal advocates.
So agreed…..discrimination is objectionable and often abominable, and being capable of conversing like adults and refraining from harassing others as though children in a schoolyard brawl might be the better tact to take —- especially when attempting to garner support for your cause amongst the legislators who shall eventually make potential changes in the laws governing your sport.
Ask any sheep farmer what they think of protecting coyotes.
Why are we bickering over torturing animals? Clean kill, or go to the supermarket. Not all traditions ought to be revered. How would you like to be trapped?
On another note… did you know that sadists are often also masochists?
Bravo, RGB. Accolades for you. Highly extraordinary response. Well thought out. Deserves acclaim! (I agree with you RGB, but just thought I’d join in with the rest of the good ‘ol boys here in dispensing overzealous amounts of grandiosity for effect as well.
Again, it’s a LIFESTYLE and part of our DNA, this pursuit of nature. Taking it away from a native population because you don’t like it ? You don’t legislate away a persons lifestyle.
Pretty certain that “trapping” is not in anyone’s DNA. But perhaps you might want to speak to a geneticist today. But speaking further of “tradition”, psychologists have determined that the human mammal is genetically predisposed to kill one another (Psychology Today October ’16) – at a rate seven times higher than any other mammal. What’s good for the goose…………