I wrote a great post filled with facts and hard science and the computer ate it.
I’ll try a condensed version - though I’ll probably get in trouble anyway.
It’s not always helpful to compare predator hunting to prey hunting, though dogs/hounds are also used to hunt prey animals (deer included). So are falcons. All these methods are considered Fair Chase, even if a pack is used, as the odds are the quarry will always win. Earth isn’t stopped, escape routes are not cut off, etc.
The notion of a “pack” being unfair is usually formed by people who don’t fully understand how hounds are used for hunting (even many foxhunters). It’s also used by AR groups to assert that animal are chased many miles - and to exhaustion. That is grossly inaccurate, and there is plenty of science to prove it. (if you’re interested in reading huge studies full of graphs and charts and big words).
Wildlife biologists say it best. “The word, “chase”, should be considered a measure of the hound’s effort, not the distance the animal was chased.”
Meaning - even with the use of hounds it’s the human that is working the hardest. Second - the hounds work the hardest - with his nose. Third - the quarry. The odds are always on the quarry - regardless of species. Highly selective - and mimics the role of predators in an ecosystem.
Hunting by scent means the hounds are smelling where the quarry [I]was[I], not where the quarry is. The quarry is nowhere near where the hounds are cast. Not with any species that is hunted with hounds.
It’s also highly selective. Harvest data supports that assertion. With the use of hounds, harvest data is generally lower. Harvest data and research also shows that the houndsman is highly selective - which is in stark contrast to hunters with big game licenses.
The unfortunate result of bans on hunting with hounds are being felt a few years after a ban, as the populations of hunted species have become abnormal. Increased human/wildlife conflict, increased orphaning/abandonment of young, and aberrant behavior in young males. The problems are so bad that state governments have taken steps to reverse bans.
But there is a benefit to foxhunting that isn’t really obvious to the public. And that is that it is a nonlethal form of predator management. The public seems to want predators around, without thinking of the consequences to the people who live in proximity to them.
The result is that millions of dollars of taxpayer money (and private donations) are being used for livestock guardian dogs, visual and auditory deterrent programs, hiring houndsmen to train wildlife to avoid humans, etc.
But foxhunters provide that service - free. The hunter pays dues, pays for a hunting license - and yet takes nothing. The fox avoids places where humans go - avoids the barnyard - the coop, the back yard. The fox stays wild and eats its preferred diet- not chickens, lambs or kids (baby goats!)
Whether one hunts live or drag - we still face the same challenges. Lack of open space. Closing of private land (even in areas where state law releases landowners from liability). Lack of riding ability (no offense intended!) lack of time to devote to the club.
I’d rather focus on our similarities rather than our differences - as without open space hunting and fishing cannot occur at all. But with live hunting, one could point out the benefit to the landowner/farmer and the healthy and truly wild fox population as distinct differences.
As a farmer, I open my land to hunting, but I’m not completely altruistic. The hunter does provide a service to me as well - in the form of less crop/garden damage, fewer deer to spread Lyme, and less risk that I’ll hit a deer when I’m driving.
If I just let anyone run around on my land having fun at my expense… I’d have to think a bit harder about that. In the case of a coon hunter, foxhunter or bear hunter, I’d still allow it because it still provides some service to me and the ecosystem. Same with a waterfowl hunter or upland game. It’s not purely recreation.
Nothing against drag hunting at all - please don’t think that.
