
by Alana Linsay Stevenson, M.S.
There has been a moratorium on coyote hounding via Act 165. The Fish and Wildlife Board and Department were instructed to address control of hunting hounds for the moratorium to be lifted. Not surprisingly, the Board’s recommendations to regulate themselves fell significantly short of any improvement.
The Board’s solution to hounders lacking control over dogs was to require that hounds wear remote shock collars with GPS.
Remote collars won’t control hunting hounds and Fish and Wildlife should no longer be granted the entitled privilege of policing themselves.
Remote training or shock collars can be marketed by many names. They are manual, radio controlled systems that enable you to deliver a shock to a dog’s collar from a hand-held transmitter.
The hand-held transmitters have multiple toggles to set for individual dogs. Hounders usually hold these while wearing thick gloves which makes handling them cumbersome. There is great potential for hounders to deliver mistimed shocks since one transmitter is used for multiple dogs. Of course, when the hounder stares at the transmitter, he is not keeping an eye on the hounds. If the hounder can’t see the dogs, it negates any efficacy or point to the collars.
A GPS collar does not control hounds, nor is it a training substitute. Electronic collars are unreliable in wooded terrain. According to the manufacturers of these collars, to get the full range out of any system there should be nothing between the transmitter and receiver. Hounders release dogs into the woods to chase bears and coyotes out of their native habitats. The forests and mountains of Vermont, where coyotes and bears prefer to reside, are anything but flat and open.
With regards to “recalling” hounds (dog training lingo for coming), they are transported in ‘dog boxes.’ Once released, they have no point of reference as to their starting location. Their direction and behavior is determined by the animal being chased. Hounders routinely change direction in their trucks while pursuing the hounds, so the hounds have no set location to return to.
A ‘shock’ itself provides no information to a dog other than causing pain or discomfort. Since shock is a punishment, for it to be effective in training, three criteria must be met – consistency, timing, and intensity. For timing, the shock must be administered within, at most, a second or two of the behavior. Since hounders do not see their dogs, this timing is impossible.
Individual dogs respond to shock differently on any given day. How they respond varies according to the dog’s energy level, emotional state, frustration level, pain threshold, distractions present and environmental conditions. Hounds are mostly out of sight and often not in proximity to each other. They are in a constant state of motion and exhibit multiple behaviors at one time, which varies between dogs. One hounder being able to control multiple dogs on one transmitter is extremely unreliable.
Predatory aggression and prey drive are the hardest behaviors to control training wise. If anyone has experienced a dog fight, you are aware of how frenzied it can be. Sic’ing a bunch of dogs on a coyote or bear is a form of dog fighting. Hunting hounds are caged, kenneled, or tied on chains 24/7, transported in ‘dog boxes’ in the back of pickups, and then let loose to chase down and attack animals. They are in high state of arousal and are not capable of being trained in this state.
The use of e-collars is contraindicated for animals with aggression. The use of shock increases a dog’s propensity to bite, as well as biting intensity and severity. It can elicit redirected aggression and aggression in dogs with no prior aggressive history. This is one reason why professional animal behavior and veterinary organizations are against using them.
Hounders consider the basic requirement that they be within visual or verbal control of hounds a ‘defacto ban’ and foul play. Of course, to most dog owners and rational people, this would seem a minimal expected requirement. Companion dogs are not allowed to chase wildlife or attack animals and people, so why should hounders get a free pass? It’s challenging enough to control one dog with predatory aggression off-leash, no less a pack of them.
People, dogs, and domestic and farmed animals have been repeatedly attacked and seriously injured by hunting hounds, as have non-target wild animals such as deer.
Not only was a couple and their dog viciously attacked by hounds in Vermont in 2019, a veterinarian and her dog were chased and attacked in 2021 for over two miles while mountain biking. All four hounds wore remote GPS collars. Every time she’d slow down, the hounds would jump on her dog to attack him again. Her dog was attacked over ten times. She and her dog eventually ran onto a porch of an empty cabin. She yelled for help while trying to prevent the hounds from climbing the porch. About fifteen minutes later, a hounder pulled up in his truck, grabbed the dogs and threw them into the dog boxes in the back of the pickup. He refused to give his name and quickly drove off. There were no consequences for the hounder. The attack was only revealed by VT Fish and Wildlife upon a public records request.
The bottom-line is there are no laws protecting citizens from hunting hound attacks.
H. 323 is a bill that, if passed, will ban coyote and bear hounding. Banning the hounding of raccoons, foxes and bobcats should be added to this bill. The reason is that these animals are considered ‘large game.’ Multiple dogs are used on large game since these animals can cause injury to the hounds while trying to defend themselves and offspring. Fox and coonhounds are the hounds of choice because they are larger, more aggressive, and relentless.
Hounding needs to be banned for public safety. The majority shouldn’t have to suffer so a few can engage in an activity that is inherently cruel to hounds and wildlife and dangerous to Vermonters and companion and farmed animals. The hound “training season” is simply a cover for an extended season.
It is not right that the only recourse for people who are attacked or whose animals are injured and killed by hounds is to file individual lawsuits and litigation. It’s not right that hounders from out of state can ‘train’ their dogs in Vermont and then leave with no repercussions or consequences for their behavior.
Support H. 323 to ban bear and coyote hounding. Call your legislators to request the bill passes through committees and is enacted into law in 2024. If you’ve had personal experiences where you have been impacted or harassed by hounders, or your animals have been attacked, please contact your legislator and write a formal complaint. Legislators have to hear from you.
Author is an animal behavior and training specialist.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary









Below are a few issues I found with Ms, Stevenson’s article.
“Companion dogs are not allowed to chase wildlife or attack animals and people”, and yet they do. Free ranging domestic dogs are shot chasing deer by Game Wardens evey year.
“Banning the hounding of raccoons, foxes, and bobcats should be added to this bill. The reason is that these animals are considered ‘large game’. No they aren’t. Foxes, coons, and bobcats are classified as “furbearers”. Look it up in the Fish and Wildlife Hunting guide book.
“Hounding needs to be banned for public safety.” There it is, the until now not stated real agenda. Ban hounding ! For all of you that bought the line that they are only after coyotes, “fool me once”! Rabbit hunting beagles are not mentioned. Once again a part of their agenda best not mentioned ?
“It is not right that the only recourse for people who are attacked (by Ms. Stevenson’s own claim one in 2019, and one in 2021) or whose animals are injured, and killed by hounds is to file individual lawsuits and litigation.” How many people are attacked by uncontrolled domestic pet dogs every year ? Google it. You will find several attacks by domestic pet dogs every year in Vermont, and a few that involved children, and other pets, that were fatal. You have an exponentially better chance of being attacked by an uncontrolled domestic pet than you do a hunting dog.
These animal rights people have no problem coloring their talking points with less than factual claims . Don’t take their claims as factual, do your homework, some are exaggerated, and some are pure hokum.
Also, google coyote attacks on children and pets.
As someone that uses a shock/gps collar on my dog for training and hunting year round, iam 100% confident, the author of this piece has no idea what they’re talking about. Banning hounding will lead to a ban on all types of hunting utilizing canines. As usual in our state’s proposed legislation these days, people like this author are acting/speaking out of pure emotion as opposed to deep knowledge of the subject at hand coupled with some critical thinking. Atleast talk with someone that is heavily experienced and has a deep understanding regarding the use of dogs in hunting utilizing gps/correction technology as well the science and tradition of hounding. It’s clear this author has an uninformed bias.
A self-promoting, urban, cat psychologist with no veterinarian training from Bookline, Mass that is ruled by emotions. Yeah, that stacks up well to Vermont F&W’s degreed biologists that have spent a lifetime afield delivering one of the healthiest wildlife systems in North America.
Time to declare this for what it is. A culture war fueled by emotional rants of dysfunctional cat hoarders.
What state did you just move from? Move back.
I’ll 2nd that motion. all those in favor say aye……..
And people have problems with Bears no, just wait til you can’t use dogs to hunt them
The irony of this particular issue seems to fly in the face of the fact that some dog owners lock up their pets in crates while at work or all night, have microchips implanted into pets, inject them with coof vaccines, and shove multiple pills down their throats because the vet said so. Animals and humans are expendable, malleable, and controllable at the will of the despots. The virtue signalling is all that matters anyway.
The author knows very little about e collars. I use one very effectively in thick woods bird hunting. They provide information about the dog’s location and allow me to control the dog. Very seldom do I have to use the shock option and at very low stimulation level. The author needs to get some education and leave the emotion in the litter box.
The proposed regulation Ms. Stevenson refers to will rely solely on shock collars for “remote recall” of hounds for control, that is, those hounds that are out of voice and sight range of their owners.
In search of “factual” information, show me an actual demonstration where a hound was out of sight and voice command on a hunt and the owner pushed the magic “recall” button and the hound returned.