Use of Dogs for tracking downed or injured big game

The privilege to have dogs running at large for the purpose of big game hunting is one thing. And I guess the pros and cons of it and how much (it at all) you should pay for this can be debated. Where one sits on this debate would depend on if one is into drives or rather solitude stand hunting (so the discussion might be different by WMU as some might not be overly suitable for drives using dogs).

However, the need for a dog licence to track wounded game is ridiculous! The reality is that the average hunter gets ONE deer tag. We are not talking about a professional tracker.
Not tracking with a dog, because you missed getting a dog licence that year, is highly unethical and that person should get charged for letting the meat spoil. That is something a CO should enforce.
There are jurisdictions where you get charged if you are engaged in hunting and cannot prove that you own or at least have access to (within reasonable time) a suitable dog for tracking!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cass

Good luck explaining to the CO that the law doesn't matter and common sense rules when you're caught tracking a deer with an unlicensed dog.... Not sure what part of that is the common sense part....

---

Common sense to me is following the law and avoiding Q&A with the CO.

Me as well Werner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

The privilege to have dogs running at large for the purpose of big game hunting is one thing. And I guess the pros and cons of it and how much (it at all) you should pay for this can be debated. Where one sits on this debate would depend on if one is into drives or rather solitude stand hunting (so the discussion might be different by WMU as some might not be overly suitable for drives using dogs).

However, the need for a dog licence to track wounded game is ridiculous! The reality is that the average hunter gets ONE deer tag. We are not talking about a professional tracker.
Not tracking with a dog, because you missed getting a dog licence that year, is highly unethical and that person should get charged for letting the meat spoil. That is something a CO should enforce.
There are jurisdictions where you get charged if you are engaged in hunting and cannot prove that you own or at least have access to (within reasonable time) a suitable dog for tracking!

---

Well we could go all the way with this - and make dogs mandatory for all hunting, and while were at it adopt the tag use laws that Alaska has - if you draw blood that's it for your tag - you find your wounded animal or your tag's no good. Not sure how the tag use could be enforced. (Ted Nugent got busted for that one).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

Well we could go all the way with this - and make dogs mandatory for all hunting, and while were at it adopt the tag use laws that Alaska has - if you draw blood that's it for your tag - you find your wounded animal or your tag's no good. Not sure how the tag use could be enforced. (Ted Nugent got busted for that one).

---

Although I would be absolutely in favour of seeing the "drawing blood concept" reflected in our regs, I would most likely represent a minority on that one. The "access to dog" requirement is pretty much out of question, considering the ROI on a single tag. However, it wouldn't be impossible if we'd had a large enough volunteer basis (people with dogs you could call up if you need to for a very limited fee).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cass

Good luck explaining to the CO that the law doesn't matter and common sense rules when you're caught tracking a deer with an unlicensed dog.... Not sure what part of that is the common sense part....

---

Common sense is twofold:
First, you don’t want to get charged, because in the end nobody will ask if you were ethically right or wrong.
Second, if those rules don't make ANY sense (other than a money grab), we should advocate to have them thoroughly reviewed.

Our regs are convoluted and should be simplified as it happened recently in some states. Reality is that we still have to overcome religious stipulations (aka Sunday gun hunting), WW2 left overs (caliber restrictions) and a whole bunch of other (at the time) well-meant requirements as well as municipality imposed restrictions and fees (and the fact that we even have them in the first place).
And, that’s only for the administrative/general part. If you look at the actual resource management and the multi-tier structure; i.e. native, commercial, taxpayer, it’s a whole different discussion.
However, before getting even involved in any such discussions, we need to openly agree that the status quo is not acceptable. And that lack of the latter (which some may also call common sense) is what upsets me.

I ywas wondering about the draw blood cut your tag idea when a few guys were posting about shooting two or more turkeys with there bows and never finding them .but carry on hunting .were do you draw the line .Dutch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchhunter

I ywas wondering about the draw blood cut your tag idea when a few guys were posting about shooting two or more turkeys with there bows and never finding them .but carry on hunting .were do you draw the line .Dutch

---

I think Werner is right as he mentioned this one together with the dog requirement in one post as they are interrelated.
Say if you had a suitable dog and would make a real effort (using the dog and other means) to search for wounded game (be it small or big game), chances are you'll find it. If not, carry on.
However, that opens up a lot of other issues; e.g. dog training/qualification, access to other properties in pursuit of wounded game, dispatching of game after legal shooting hours, dispatching by other means than permitted arms for big game, holding of game by dog (dog is off leash), etc.
It’s really a concept I like, but differs from the current (which very unfortunately rewards poor marksmanship).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cass

Good luck explaining to the CO that the law doesn't matter and common sense rules when you're caught tracking a deer with an unlicensed dog.... Not sure what part of that is the common sense part....

---

When we had a CO camping at our doorstep last deer season, one of the first things he asked to see was our dog licenses, before he even asked to see our licenses. (Of note - he had absolutely no use for our PAL's however, and when we got to shooting the afterwards he said it's a federal law and he refused to enforce it.)

I haven't read the entire thread, I've just skipped over it a bit but - licenses are required for deer/moose, and a separate license for bear. From my understanding, a dog NEEDS to be licensed for the animal it is tracking as well - even if not "running" that animal.

Just in case somebody would like to continue entertaining the idea of tracking as a service:

As an example, I found some statistics of a small group who’s offering it as a professional service (unfortunately not in English). Keep in mind that the statistics include vehicle collisions as well.
http://www.nachsuchenprofis.de/index...istik-20092010
“Kontrollsuche” means verifying that the animal was not wounded or at least not substantial enough to allow or warrant tracking
“Erfolgreiche Nachsuchen” means successful
“Fehlsuchen” means unsuccessful tracking
I found in another article how much the guy charges:
Cost for travel 0.5EUR/km (or membership fee), 20EUR for a check or if unsuccessful, 30EUR for successful tracking (game weight below 50kg), 50EUR (game weight above 50kg).
Again, just an example as the fees seem to be all over the map depending on who is offering tracking as a service.
Do the numbers and you’ll see that it is not overly lucrative ..
By the way, in case you wonder the breed of dogs is a Hanover Hound. Supposing, they are not for sale to the general public to avoid show dog breeding – which happened to way too many hunting breeds.