Well stated points all, but I must disagree with many of them.
Quote:
Your concerns appear to apply under PERSONAL ethics, which have no standing in terms of implementing land management actions; none, zero, zilch, nada. So even if the “Bunny Huggers” pitched-a-fit that ”hunting with dogs is unfair to the dogs?” Without appropriate studies to support how this practice (using dogs for hunting) negatively affects the subject ecosystem, environmental interests (radical or otherwise) could pitch that fit `till their lattes dried up and it could have no bearing on a land management action. Municipal actions are similar, yet must yield to state and/or federal provisions of law.
Now I know what you (and perhaps others) may be thinking, the “Bunny Huggers” might use existing biological studies to ban dog hunting. Not hardly. The few canine in wilderness related studies available are inconclusive for the most part (C. Sime, 1999, for example), and funding for new studies is slim (actually, nonexistent). Moreover in order to restrict dogs from public lands on the basis of eco-harm, a study for that specific ecosystem MUST be done to support claimed environmental impacts.
The idea that regulations must pass scientific and evidential scrutiny to be implemented is almost laughable. We have far too many examples of regulations that make no scientific sense whatsoever not only having been passed but having been upheld by a liberal judiciary. In your own state the
northern CA spotted owl controversy, specifically designed to prevent lumbering of old growth timber, has been to and through federal and state courts for what? more than 20 years? and continues today. States doing one thing, feds doing another, and courts ordering them both to do something else? Explain to me if you can how the plethora of
conflicting laws, regulations, and court mandated actions, can
all be based on a solid scientific basis.
When the professionals on the spot (and the public) disagree, they can be overridden and often are. I attended the public hearings in Cheyenne WY on the reintroduction of large predators (wolves), and though both the public and the state wildlife biologists were strongly against it, the Feds implemented the program anyway.
Those are just two examples (among many) specifically involving wildlife management, I could write a book on ridiculous regulations from nuclear power-plants, DDT, CFCs, refineries, MTBE, etc., etc., etc. We have way too many examples of silly regulations that make absolutely no scientific sense being implemented because they were successfully sold to a gullible public by the environmental wackos/bunny huggers using misinformation.
In addition to regulatory action we have numerous examples of legislative action overriding good sense. I won't even try to identify the thousands of specific instances, we can all give numerous examples. Legislators pander to the voters whether their opinion is scientifically sound or based on emotional arguments promulgated by by a special interest group. Can anybody remember the Clinton "assault weapons" ban (the dregs of which you are still living with in CA)?
Considering the successes they've had to date, the basic premise that running hounds and dog fighting have no relationship where banning hound hunting is concerned, and that the bunny huggers are nothing much to worry about, is in my opinion misguided. The current uproar in the press over illegal dog fighting could easily be piggybacked into regulations on running hounds.
To the basic question, let me state upfront that I have never been to a dog fight (or run hounds) and of course never been involved with fighting dogs. Having said that let me go out on a limb and state that I see nothing
inherently wrong with organized dog fights.
Quote:
Allowing two domestic dogs to fight, simply to see which prevails is cruel; it serves no legitimate purpose, does not raise the spirit of man, and promotes a number of ancillary crimes. These aspects have an affect on the whole of society, making them everyone’s business. That is why we depend on law enforcement, to curtail activities that have a negative affect on society as a whole. Otherwise we have anarchy and civil disorder, so yeah; the Feds have a right and purpose for stepping in.
Mankind has taken pleasure in watching "blood sports" for thousands of years and continues to do so legally today around the world without "anarchy and civil disorder", so that argument is fallacious on it's face. Roman Caesars spent vast fortunes in animal vs animal, animal vs men, and men vs men (gladiatorial) spectacles expressly to
maintain civil order.
Given that multi-thousand year history, how did it become a "given" in the last 60 years in our particular culture that "Allowing two domestic dogs to fight, simply to see which prevails is cruel; it serves no legitimate purpose, does not raise the spirit of man"? How did it become a "given" (among some) that dog fighting (and c*ck fighting, and bullfighting) is somehow morally wrong? The same argument could be (and is) made about hunting in general and with as much authority. If PETA, HSUS, et.al. are able to convince enough of the populous that it's a "given", would that make it right or scientifically sound to ban hunting?
For that matter how do you justify the premise that an activity must serve a "legitimate purpose" and "raise the spirit of man" in order to be
allowed?
I understand that most of the infrastructure surrounding dog fighting is pretty sordid and is populated with with an element that is heavily involved in other criminal activity as well, and that it is largely controlled by organized crime.
Dog fighting was made illegal in the first place largely as part of the effort to suppress illegal gambling (non-government taxed), not for any "humane" reasons. At the time the actual infrastructure and practice (apart from gambling) was comparatively "civilized" as Bopeye related. The heavy involvement of criminal elements came
after it was made illegal. When legal, there were licensed referees, rigid rules, etc.
The sale and distribution of alcohol was fraught with violent crime for years too (as the illegal drug trade is now), then we ended prohibition. Alcohol is still just as dangerous to the user as it ever was, and there were (and are) still costs to society, but the situation is
vastly improved without prohibition.
I put it to you that the reason for the involvement of organized crime and the disgusting conditions may be
because it's illegal. If it were a legal business I expect it would be no dirtier than any other "blood sport". As Bopeye said, when it
WAS legal, the whole enterprise was a completely different affair.
Quote:
Oh the ‘give `um an inch, they’ll take a mile’ argument? That would be an inaccurate assessment, because (as I’ve stated before) in order to ban dog hunting environmental impact studies would be required;
The "incrementalism" argument
IS valid. We have seen it work in far too many cases to believe otherwise. Smoking, seatbelts, "weapons" in school (even a picture of a space gun) etc, etc, the examples of incrementally increasing regulatory and legislative restrictions are legion. Here in this thread we can see the principle at work. Do they look at decoy dogs the same as hunting hounds, how are bay dogs equated with catch dogs, etc.
The premise that environmental impact studies (or any other scientific basis) would be required to ban dog hunting is simply belied by history as well. Neither regulatory nor legislative action requires a basis in scientific fact, merely that a sufficient percentage of the gullible populous be convinced that it's a good idea at the time.
So...let me put forward a few premises (stated positions) of my own:
Allowing animals to fight each other or people to fight animals (bullfighting etc) is NOT an unethical activity. It hasn't been considered unethical for thousands of years and if not for a relentless campaign by bunny huggers wouldn't be considered so now.
Using dogs to hunt is probably the reason they were domesticated in the first place thousands of years ago. It's no more or less ethical now than it was then.
There are powerful lobbies (PETA, HSUS, etc.) who have had numerous
incremental successes in the past in influencing restrictions on the use of animals, including hunting.
The passage of those regulatory and legislative restrictions depends more on swaying an uneducated and gullible public than on a proven scientific basis.
We would be foolish in the extreme to be complacent about the efforts of the enviro-whackos/bunny huggers given their past successes at causing restrictions to our activities to be passed.
Quote:
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying your viewpoint is invalid only that such needs to be tempered with FACTS -- not speculation. Whereas to extrapolate that HSUS is taking a position against hunting with dogs, simply because hunting with dogs is pointed out foundationally in a writing dealing with dog hogging IN A RING? Well, that’s speculation lacking a clear statement of position to back the notion.
Facts? Clear statement of position? How about these statements of what the HSUS opposes (among many others including bear baiting and contest hunting) from their
web page?
Quote:
Hound Hunting
Many hunters chase bears, bobcats and mountain lions until they can be treed or cornered using packs of dogs. The dogs' collars are fitted with radio transmitters so all the hunter must do is follow the signal, then shoot the trapped animal down from the tree at point-blank range. Training exercises often involve hunters allowing their dogs to rip apart baby animals so that the dogs develop a taste for blood.
Field Coursing
Dogs are used to chase rabbits, foxes and other animals in competitions. When the dogs catch their quarry they often fight over the terrified animal, sometimes literally tearing him apart. Even if the animal is not caught, he may later die due to the fear and stress associated with the chase.
I'd say we as hunters and hound hunters in particular should be
very worried.
