Hunting dogs or dogs hunting??

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by Nait Hadya

no, a leashed or otherwise controlled K9 is still able to contribute to your hunting success,with big game. it can alert you to the presence of game that is out of sight. so, no matter how you sugar coat it, you would in effect be allowing the hunting of big game with canis domesticus(sp). making the arguement that your horse can do the same is a moot point. a K9 can be trained to walk quietly ahead of a hunter and stop when it locates game,that is hunting big game. a K9 can be trained to parrellel a hunter;hunter on the trail, k9 in the bush. still controlled,not harassing wildlife but rather pushing the bush for the hunter. that is hunting big game. if the companion dog is in sight of the sheep it is worrying the sheep and that is hunting big game...... perhaps we should review all of sheeps proposals or was this just tossed in there to give them something to easily deny with the hope of getting something else. of all the changes that need to be made,this one is,well.....

Yes they can be trained to do what you said but as I stated there needs to be a distance from the hunter that the dog can be. Tough for a dog to heard or push when in is next to you within a certain amount of feet. If guys can train the dog to do what you stated it should be very easily to train them to stick to the hunters side, out of sight of the sheep and not causing a concern to them. There for not being an issue in any of your sheep proposals.

Perhaps you should post all the sheep proposals you have in your posession for us to reveiw.

There is ways that it will work. But when guys can only find the negative and not look for solutions then nothing can be accomplished.

Looks like certain guys just dont want this to go through and will find any small excuse on why it cant be acomplished

SG

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by sheepguide

Yes they can be trained to do what you said but as I stated there needs to be a distance from the hunter that the dog can be. Tough for a dog to heard or push when in is next to you within a certain amount of feet. If guys can train the dog to do what you stated it should be very easily to train them to stick to the hunters side, out of sight of the sheep and not causing a concern to them. There for not being an issue in any of your sheep proposals.

Perhaps you should post all the sheep proposals you have in your posession for us to reveiw.

There is ways that it will work. But when guys can only find the negative and not look for solutions then nothing can be accomplished.

Looks like certain guys just dont want this to go through and will find any small excuse on why it cant be acomplished

SG

Yeah, that's pretty much been my position from the start. There has to be clearly defined guidelines in order for something like this to be considered.

Responsible dog owners on here have already stated that their dogs are well trained and heel, stay, etc on command and and will do it anyway. Their dogs will stay with them and not wander away so, I don't understand why the same people would be opposed to having clear regs demanding the same high standards for other dog owners.

It almost seems like there is something more sinister going on when people claim that something is going to be done a certain way but they are opposed to that way becoming the set standard in a regulation.

I do find it sad that some people are looking so desperately to the Nanny State to protect us from all things. At what point do we stop enacting more laws that are nothing more than new wording of existing laws. We already had laws to deal with distracted drivers but now we have more laws. Are there less distracted drivers? We already have laws to deal with dogs harassing wildlife....will more laws prevent irrespopnsible dog owners from allowing their dog to harrass wildlife. We can wrap this blanket of redundant laws around us and all feel warm and fuzzy if we like but at the end of the day, you have people that follow laws and you people that don't and more redundant laws won't change that.

There will always be grey areas in every law.....regardless of the wording. If some of you had your way, we wouldn't be permitted to do anything. Listening to some on this thread, you'd figure that hunters are the most nefarious of outdoor user groups that can't be trusted to roam the mountains without supervision. We have laws to deal with big game hunters being accompanied by doogs if it was permitted. Explain again why we need more. Is every hunter out there just one step away from being a poacher.....

Being opposed to more redundant laws doesn't mean you are opposed to the premise of the law, it just means you are opposed to more redundant, pointless laws. The more conditions you add to a law, the more difficult it becomes to enforce. We don't want pack dogs chasing, herding or molesting wildlife.....why do we need breed restrictions, weight restrictions and distance restrictions? KISS for both hunter and enforcement officer.

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Being opposed to more redundant laws doesn't mean you are opposed to the premise of the law, it just means you are opposed to more redundant, pointless laws. The more conditions you add to a law, the more difficult it becomes to enforce. We don't want pack dogs chasing, herding or molesting wildlife.....why do we need breed restrictions, weight restrictions and distance restrictions? KISS for both hunter and enforcement officer.

I dont think we want more laws or need more laws. But I do know that without new laws being put forth to regulate the old law will not be removed and dogs will not be allowed with us. So me personaly will gladly deal with a couple redundant rules or laws to acheive the ability to have my dog out there.
And the only reason I suggest the distance regulation is because so many people have and are(even AO members) stating that the dogs can be used in other ways and purposes and have used reasons on why that dogs shouldnt be allowed out there. The distance away can regulate what said dog can be used for.
SG

[Nait Hadya]

well,well,well, let's let the big boys wade in here and cut to the chase. what is the difference between your well trained pack companion alerting you to a bear(black) in the area of your camp and hunting bears(black) with dogs? in both cases the hunters are licensed for bear. bears are in season. it is during hunting hours.

how lol much lead time will you give the bear after your companion alerted you to it's presence before you pursue it..... one onethousand two onethousand hereee i come.....

[Skinnydipper]

Originally Posted by Nait Hadya

well,well,well, let's let the big boys wade in here and cut to the chase. what is the difference between your well trained pack companion alerting you to a bear(black) in the area of you camp and hunting bears(black) with dogs? in both cases the hunters are licensed for bear. bears are in season. it is during hunting hours.

how lol much lead time will you give the bear after your companion alerted you to it's presence before you pursue it..... one onethousand two onethousand hereee i come.....

Welcome to the 20th century Nait, we can't hunt ALL bears in Alberta and the ones that we can't hunt ARE of the biggest concern for most!

[Nait Hadya]

Originally Posted by Skinnydipper

Welcome to the 20th century Nait, we can't hunt ALL bears in Alberta and the ones that we can't hunt ARE of the biggest concern for most!

how does the ehtical hunter deal with this senario....then

[sheepguide]

Originally Posted by Nait Hadya

well,well,well, let's let the big boys wade in here and cut to the chase. what is the difference between your well trained pack companion alerting you to a bear(black) in the area of you camp and hunting bears(black) with dogs? in both cases the hunters are licensed for bear. bears are in season. it is during hunting hours.

how lol much lead time will you give the bear after your companion alerted you to it's presence before you pursue it..... one onethousand two onethousand hereee i come.....

LOL what is the difference between be alerting of bears and hunting bears. Do you really need someone to answer that? There is a huge difference. If a dog alerts you to a bear in the area of your camp while hunting can save you from a bad confrontation that could cause for you getting hurt or worse or from a bear that normaly wouldnt be shot getting killed because he came into camp.
And really gives you no advantage other than knowing he is in the area. You think guys will use the wait in camp till my dog alerts me to a bear in the area style of hunting? Ya that is a high percentage type of a hunt.

Your grasping at usless straws now. Your only reason for your attempt at rationality is because your scared that if restrictions on hunting dogs are enforced then you may be effected with hounds( not what anyone has suggested or wants).
SG

[whitetail Junkie]

This is one of the worst\Dumbest threads about argueing over such a stupid thing i've ever Heard of.

JMO but what a waste of some of your guy's time.

Originally Posted by Nait Hadya

well,well,well, let's let the big boys wade in here and cut to the chase. what is the difference between your well trained pack companion alerting you to a bear(black) in the area of your camp and hunting bears(black) with dogs? in both cases the hunters are licensed for bear. bears are in season. it is during hunting hours.

how lol much lead time will you give the bear after your companion alerted you to it's presence before you pursue it..... one onethousand two onethousand hereee i come.....

Nait, I'm really starting to doubt you are who you say you are. If you don't know the difference between chasing bears for hours with hounds and tracking collars and baying a bear up for a kill and fido barking when a bear comes into camp you obviously don't have much clue about hound hunting. I'm really starting to wonder if you aren't one of those anti infiltrators we are being warned about. If you truely are a hound hunter, you are the most naive one I've ever met....either that or you are just plain obtuse.

[Nait Hadya]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Nait, I'm really starting to doubt you are who you say you are. If you don't know the difference between chasing bears for hours with hounds and tracking collars and baying a bear up for a kill and fido barking when a bear comes into camp you obviously don't have much clue about hound hunting. I'm really starting to wonder if you aren't one of those anti infiltrators we are being warned about. If you truely are a hound hunter, you are the most naive one I've ever met....either that or you are just plain obtuse.

you have to deal with the truth. senario is.....

fido alerted you to a black bear near your camp. it is hunting season,you are hunting bears. it is during hunting hours. can you shoot the bear under the authority of your hunting license? bear is not a threat .does fido's bark at the bears presence constitute hunting big game. you don't have to kill game to be seen as hunting..... if you can't shoot the bear at that moment because the dog did in fact hunt big game,,,,, how long must you wait before hunting that bear?

[HunterDave]

I do find it sad that some people are looking so desperately to the Nanny State to protect us from all things. At what point do we stop enacting more laws that are nothing more than new wording of existing laws.

Allowing pack dogs while hunting big game is a new law. Any new law needs to be clearly defined and understood. Thus the requirement for an explanation of the new law. I know from numerous google searches that there are allot of examples of " A dog may be unleashed provided that.......".

We already had laws to deal with distracted drivers but now we have more laws. Are there less distracted drivers?

That is a perfect example of why any new law to allow pack dogs must be clearly defined. Obviously someone felt that cell phones, etc had become a problem otherwise it would have been a non-issue. Had people used common sense and only used their cellphones when it was appropriate to do so then there would have been no requirement for the new law. Similarly, by allowing all dogs to be classed as pack dogs without provisions you are saying that all people will use use common sense.

We already have laws to deal with dogs harassing wildlife....will more laws prevent irrespopnsible dog owners from allowing their dog to harrass wildlife. We can wrap this blanket of redundant laws around us and all feel warm and fuzzy if we like but at the end of the day, you have people that follow laws and you people that don't and more redundant laws won't change that.

So why not make a new law easier to understand and enforce?

There will always be grey areas in every law.....regardless of the wording. If some of you had your way, we wouldn't be permitted to do anything.

I think that the responsible thing to do when proposing any new law is to make it as black and white as possible and remove as much grey as possible. If I had my way pack dogs would be permitted but not without restrictions.

Listening to some on this thread, you'd figure that hunters are the most nefarious of outdoor user groups that can't be trusted to roam the mountains without supervision. We have laws to deal with big game hunters being accompanied by doogs if it was permitted. Explain again why we need more. Is every hunter out there just one step away from being a poacher.....

Hunters are no different from anyone else. There will be honest ones and there will be others. If a hunter allows an elk of a lifetime to go because his dog flushed him out and it would be against the law then cudos to him. I would suggest though that there might be others that aren't as disciplined as that.

Being opposed to more redundant laws doesn't mean you are opposed to the premise of the law, it just means you are opposed to more redundant, pointless laws. The more conditions you add to a law, the more difficult it becomes to enforce.

As explained earlier they would not be new laws they would be provisions to a new law coming into force and, if done correctly, would make the new law easier to enforce.

We don't want pack dogs chasing, herding or molesting wildlife.....why do we need breed restrictions, weight restrictions and distance restrictions? KISS for both hunter and enforcement officer.

WE? The proposal is for PACK DOGS to accompany you on a big game hunt. If a dog cannot pack then it should not be considered a pack dog. Clearly defining what a pack dog is and isn't is KISS for both the hunter and enforcement officer. If the proposal was about companion dogs, which we all know that it is, then the pack part could be taken off of the table.

If strapping a box of bandaids on a chihuahua will classify it as a pack dog then the proposal is nothing more than a joke. And, if people find it acceptable to disguise a companion dog as a pack dog, it is not a far stretch to imagine someone fitting a pack on a hunting dog that could assist in the hunt.

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I do find it sad that some people are looking so desperately to the Nanny State to protect us from all things. At what point do we stop enacting more laws that are nothing more than new wording of existing laws.

Allowing pack dogs while hunting big game is a new law. Any new law needs to be clearly defined and understood. Thus the requirement for an explanation of the new law. I know from numerous google searches that there are allot of examples of " A dog may be unleashed provided that.......".

We already had laws to deal with distracted drivers but now we have more laws. Are there less distracted drivers?

That is a perfect example of why any new law to allow pack dogs must be clearly defined. Obviously someone felt that cell phones, etc had become a problem otherwise it would have been a non-issue. Had people used common sense and only used their cellphones when it was appropriate to do so then there would have been no requirement for the new law. Similarly, by allowing all dogs to be classed as pack dogs without provisions you are saying that all people will use use common sense.

We already have laws to deal with dogs harassing wildlife....will more laws prevent irrespopnsible dog owners from allowing their dog to harrass wildlife. We can wrap this blanket of redundant laws around us and all feel warm and fuzzy if we like but at the end of the day, you have people that follow laws and you people that don't and more redundant laws won't change that.

So why not make a new law easier to understand and enforce?

There will always be grey areas in every law.....regardless of the wording. If some of you had your way, we wouldn't be permitted to do anything.

I think that the responsible thing to do when proposing any new law is to make it as black and white as possible and remove as much grey as possible. If I had my way pack dogs would be permitted but not without restrictions.

Listening to some on this thread, you'd figure that hunters are the most nefarious of outdoor user groups that can't be trusted to roam the mountains without supervision. We have laws to deal with big game hunters being accompanied by doogs if it was permitted. Explain again why we need more. Is every hunter out there just one step away from being a poacher.....

Hunters are no different from anyone else. There will be honest ones and there will be others. If a hunter allows an elk of a lifetime to go because his dog flushed him out and it would be against the law then cudos to him. I would suggest though that there might be others that aren't as disciplined as that.

Being opposed to more redundant laws doesn't mean you are opposed to the premise of the law, it just means you are opposed to more redundant, pointless laws. The more conditions you add to a law, the more difficult it becomes to enforce.

As explained earlier they would not be new laws they would be provisions to a new law coming into force and, if done correctly, would make the new law easier to enforce.

We don't want pack dogs chasing, herding or molesting wildlife.....why do we need breed restrictions, weight restrictions and distance restrictions? KISS for both hunter and enforcement officer.

WE? The proposal is for PACK DOGS to accompany you on a big game hunt. If a dog cannot pack then it should not be considered a pack dog. Clearly defining what a pack dog is and isn't is KISS for both the hunter and enforcement officer. If the proposal was about companion dogs, which we all know that it is, then the pack part could be taken off of the table.

If strapping a box of bandaids on a chihuahua will classify it as a pack dog then the proposal is nothing more than a joke. And, if people find it acceptable to disguise a companion dog as a pack dog, it is not a far stretch to imagine someone fitting a pack on a hunting dog that could assist in the hunt.

Dave you've gone on about all these conditions. Who will decide what breeds are suitable? Who will decide how much a dog needs to carry to be qualified. Who will DNA test the dogs to see they meet pedigree and who will test them to ensure they can pack sufficient weight? Who will pay for all the canine experts the goverment will have to hire to enforce these conditions? You starting to see why this is not a workable solution. The other point here is we are NOT asking for a new law.....we want an old, outdated one repealed. KISS Dave KISS. Dogs should be permitted to accompany big game hunters and dogs should not be permitted to harrass, herd or molest wildlife....end of story! Easy to understand and more importantly, easy to administer and enforce. COs aren't looking for things to keep them busy...let's make this easy.

[Rockymtnx]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Dogs should be permitted to accompany big game hunters and dogs should not be permitted to harrass, herd or molest wildlife....end of story!

Well put sheephunter.
Nait sure doesnt have much ground to stand on. Here is a guy who uses dogs to chase wildlife and greatly assist in his hunt, trying to tell us that it is wrong to take your companion along on a hunt with you.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Dave you've gone on about all these conditions. Who will decide what breeds are suitable? Who will decide how much a dog needs to carry to be qualified. Who will DNA test the dogs to see they meet pedigree and who will test them to ensure they can pack sufficient weight? Who will pay for all the canine experts the goverment will have to hire to enforce these conditions? You starting to see why this is not a workable solution. The other point here is we are NOT asking for a new law.....we want an old, outdated one repealed. KISS Dave KISS. Dogs should be permitted to accompany big game hunters and dogs should not be permitted to harrass, herd or molest wildlife....end of story! Easy to understand and more importantly, easy to administer and enforce. COs aren't looking for things to keep them busy...let's make this easy.

To answer your first bunch of questions all that you would have to do is develop a set criteria with SRD that accurately describes what a pack dog is and anyone that wanted to take their dog with them would have to get their dog certified as a pack dog. Any fees associated with certifying the dog would be paid by a one time testing fee at the dog's owner's expense. It wouldn't matter if the dog was a mutt or a purebred but it would help to prevent undesirable dogs being in the bush.

Here is the present law in the Wildlife Act:

"Use of dogs for hunting big game
45(1) A person shall not
(a) be accompanied by a dog while hunting big game, or
(b) allow a dog to pursue big game.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply
(a) to an activity that is specifically authorized by or under a
licence authorizing the control of wildlife depredation or
the collection of wildlife, or
(b) during an open season in which hunting with dogs is
specifically authorized for the kind of big game being
hunted."

A sub-subsection (c) would need to be included in subsection (2) and it would be considered a new law/regulation. Also, in article 5, "Terms and conditions" a definition of a pack dog would need to be included. If SRD got that far and decided that there was no requirement for additional regulations regarding the limitations to what a pack dog can or cannot do then that's fine.

If this is just a case of a bunch of good 'ol boys getting together and saying that it'd be nice to have a dog along for whatever reason then hell, I'll jump on the bandwagon too.

However, if people are serious about getting this proposal approved, and I think that many are, then everyone from the individual hunter right up to the bureaucrats that make the final decision, will need to be convinced that it is good for hunting in Alberta. Sorry but IMHO having a dog accompany you on a big game hunt because: a. he can carry things; b. he'd be a good companion; and, c. he'd be a good warning system for bears, is not enough firepower to get it approved.

[Tundra Monkey]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

If this is just a case of a bunch of good 'ol boys getting together and saying that it'd be nice to have a dog along for whatever reason then hell, I'll jump on the bandwagon too.

However, if people are serious about getting this proposal approved, and I think that many are, then everyone from the individual hunter right up to the bureaucrats that make the final decision, will need to be convinced that it is good for hunting in Alberta. Sorry but IMHO having a dog accompany you on a big game hunt because: a. he can carry things; b. he'd be a good companion; and, c. he'd be a good warning system for bears, is not enough firepower to get it approved.

I think the better question is why is it not allowed. I'm sure if you look back into history the intent of this law was to prevent "hounding". I believe that the true intent/spirit of the law has been misinterpreted in "modern times". If it were not so, then there would be stipulations and guidelines for Joe dog walker out there.

I agree with you HD......this should be about having a dog with you. It need not be a pack dog thing. If you want your dog to pack....let it pack. There is laws already in existence that do not allow you to harrass wildlife.....which includes your dog.

I do not think that there is a bunch of new legislation that needs to come out to make it work. Works here and we're not that far removed from you guys. Yah just gotta find a Govt. type willing to listen, use some common sense and get off their lazy arse.......ok....maybe it'll be pretty tough.

tm

Originally Posted by HunterDave

To answer your first bunch of questions all that you would have to do is develop a set criteria with SRD that accurately describes what a pack dog is and anyone that wanted to take their dog with them would have to get their dog certified as a pack dog. Any fees associated with certifying the dog would be paid by a one time testing fee at the dog's owner's expense. It wouldn't matter if the dog was a mutt or a purebred but it would help to prevent undesirable dogs being in the bush.

24:

Ya that would be simple

We don't even certify hunters so why would we certify pack dogs. So should bird dogs and cougar hounds fall under this new regulation as well?

Think about it Dave......KISS