I should have worded it more on hunting restrictions instead of firearm restriction in the US. The HSUS has been a major pain in our rear end and because of them hunters have lost opportunities. Our recent hound hunting bill spearheaded by the HSUS literally ended hunting for thousands of Houndsmen. These hunters either had to move out of state, sell their hounds, or retrain their dogs to hunt other game. It's really sad but the anti hunting groups ar working day and night around the globe to shut things down for us.
Not familiar with what happened in California; but I do know here in Alberta, hounding ended because the politicians want to keep deer-hunters happy. Yes, anti-hunters contributed to convincing the non-hunters that hounding is inhumane, but it was the deer-hunters who slew the houndsmen by making the stance only still- and stalk-hunting were ethical.
Hopefully the same thing doesn't happen in British Columbia, because I see more and more so-called "locavore" hunters posting on forums saying they disagree with hounding. Wouldn't be surprised if hounding became banned once the locavore hunters and anti-hunters gang up on the old-timers.
Not sure how to feel because it's the recent locavore movement which reversed the decline into an increase of hunters. But the other hand, it is also bringing a lot of people who want to debate about ethics to the table.
Only because Ontario had to legalize hounding a few years ago when the "ethical sportsmen" couldn't cull 10% of the population as required by the government's quota. Then people started complaining about problem-bears.
I think one study showed stalking harvests only 1% of the population, when most states require 5-10% to keep them under control: http://www.meepi.org/bears/bearreport.pdf
I would hate to think how our problem-bears would increase if baiting is not allowed here.
Yeah spot and stalk alone cannot effectively control bear population. It's definitely evident here in Cali. Since hound hunting closed, the number of problem bears increased by three times and it's only been almost two years.
Looking at the "case studies" on that website, namely: Oregon, Washington and Colorado; I am under the impression hunting participation is higher in those states than say... California. Same for why Montana doesn't need hounding.
The only explanation I can think of for places like Maryland and Connecticut is urbanization and fragmentation which would limit bears' carrying capacity anyway. But West Virginia did ban bear-hunting and limited hounding for a long time until the bears came back; and now Plotts are a tradition there.
But the other states obviously need hounding or baiting for numbers of different reasons.
Anyway, regardless of public land access, we still see how rural people prefer one type of dog while urbanites prefer another type.
Scandinavia is still mostly privately-owned, but they still see the decline of one hunting group and the rise of another, even though hunters' registrations have not dropped. Urbanization changes the demographic.
But we don't have the hunting clubs like they do in Scandinavia which collectively pay the rent for the usage of private properties.
Well, we sort of do in the eastern part of the continent, but the squirrel-dog hunters told me they're being outbid by deer-hunters and pheasant-hunters from the big cities; and those hunters don't want dogs scaring their bucks or interrupting the birds' nesting. The properties they used to hunt 15, 20, 30 years ago are no longer accessible because of stronger trespass laws, and the only squirrel-dog folks left hunting are who own their own property; or they live close to public lands.
Otherwise, the landless squirrel-dog hunters pretty much gave up because they don't have the financial means to compete with big-game hunters or pheasant hunters in securing leases. When they were children, anyone could hunt across anyone's property. That's no longer the case anymore with posted property-lines.
I know a few people who ended up buying retrievers because it's easier to join a hunting club centered around pheasants and waterfowls than it is to secure a lease for squirrel-hunting.
But even then, I notice a big difference between urban hunters and rural hunters. The rural ones have more beagles, more curs, more hounds. The urban ones tend to have more gun-dogs. The former tend to have properties or live close to areas where they don't have to commute; the latter group pays for access and fill their time with classes and workshops.
One of my co-workers on Vancouver Island told me how much he pays to join a hunting club for exclusive rights to ducks, and how much they have to contribute per year to stock pheasants. It was mind-blowing. But he's a programmer with lots of money.
At least he only have to drive half an hour from his house. I know a Karelian Bear Dog person from the same area who have to travel at least 2 hours to be able to find an area to let the dog loose on bears because all the property-owners are either neo-hippies, live-off-the-land type or they're asking for monetary exchange. Not sure why that person choose to live in the city though. It would be a lot easier if she lives in Port Alberni or some other town famous for hounding.
Ironically, the old-timers told me that access didn't use to be so difficult when they were younger. No one asked for compensation, nor did the real estate industry snapped up all of land surrounding the city. So if one want to hunt, it's either to pay or travel further. In some cases, it's the latter because the the real estate turned all of that hunting land into residential areas. What used to be a ten minute bike ride turned into an hour drive.
Comments
Not sure how to feel because it's the recent locavore movement which reversed the decline into an increase of hunters. But the other hand, it is also bringing a lot of people who want to debate about ethics to the table.
http://fairbearhunt.com/media/editorial-real-sportsmen-don’t-need-bait-hounds-or-traps
Only because Ontario had to legalize hounding a few years ago when the "ethical sportsmen" couldn't cull 10% of the population as required by the government's quota. Then people started complaining about problem-bears.
I think one study showed stalking harvests only 1% of the population, when most states require 5-10% to keep them under control: http://www.meepi.org/bears/bearreport.pdf
I would hate to think how our problem-bears would increase if baiting is not allowed here.
Looking at the "case studies" on that website, namely: Oregon, Washington and Colorado; I am under the impression hunting participation is higher in those states than say... California. Same for why Montana doesn't need hounding.
The only explanation I can think of for places like Maryland and Connecticut is urbanization and fragmentation which would limit bears' carrying capacity anyway. But West Virginia did ban bear-hunting and limited hounding for a long time until the bears came back; and now Plotts are a tradition there.
But the other states obviously need hounding or baiting for numbers of different reasons.
Scandinavia is still mostly privately-owned, but they still see the decline of one hunting group and the rise of another, even though hunters' registrations have not dropped. Urbanization changes the demographic.
But we don't have the hunting clubs like they do in Scandinavia which collectively pay the rent for the usage of private properties.
Well, we sort of do in the eastern part of the continent, but the squirrel-dog hunters told me they're being outbid by deer-hunters and pheasant-hunters from the big cities; and those hunters don't want dogs scaring their bucks or interrupting the birds' nesting. The properties they used to hunt 15, 20, 30 years ago are no longer accessible because of stronger trespass laws, and the only squirrel-dog folks left hunting are who own their own property; or they live close to public lands.
Otherwise, the landless squirrel-dog hunters pretty much gave up because they don't have the financial means to compete with big-game hunters or pheasant hunters in securing leases. When they were children, anyone could hunt across anyone's property. That's no longer the case anymore with posted property-lines.
I know a few people who ended up buying retrievers because it's easier to join a hunting club centered around pheasants and waterfowls than it is to secure a lease for squirrel-hunting.
But even then, I notice a big difference between urban hunters and rural hunters. The rural ones have more beagles, more curs, more hounds. The urban ones tend to have more gun-dogs. The former tend to have properties or live close to areas where they don't have to commute; the latter group pays for access and fill their time with classes and workshops.
One of my co-workers on Vancouver Island told me how much he pays to join a hunting club for exclusive rights to ducks, and how much they have to contribute per year to stock pheasants. It was mind-blowing. But he's a programmer with lots of money.
At least he only have to drive half an hour from his house. I know a Karelian Bear Dog person from the same area who have to travel at least 2 hours to be able to find an area to let the dog loose on bears because all the property-owners are either neo-hippies, live-off-the-land type or they're asking for monetary exchange. Not sure why that person choose to live in the city though. It would be a lot easier if she lives in Port Alberni or some other town famous for hounding.
Ironically, the old-timers told me that access didn't use to be so difficult when they were younger. No one asked for compensation, nor did the real estate industry snapped up all of land surrounding the city. So if one want to hunt, it's either to pay or travel further. In some cases, it's the latter because the the real estate turned all of that hunting land into residential areas. What used to be a ten minute bike ride turned into an hour drive.