This commentary is by Rob Mullen of West Bolton, chair of the Vermont Wildlife Coalition. He grew up in West Bolton and Jericho, has a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of Vermont and is a nationally known wildlife artist. After 20 years away, mostly in New York City, he now lives with his wife and father on the remains of the family farm in West Bolton.
As a kid in the summer of 1968, taking Vermont’s brand-new Hunter Safety Course at the brand-new Buck Lake Conservation Camp (first week it was open), I was told that hunting deer with hounds is banned because it is not “fair chase” and stresses the animals.
Young and idealistic, I presumed that applied to all game species. Surprise! (Note: “hounding” is the use of free-ranging dogs to track and chase game. Nothing following applies to bird dogs, retrievers, etc., where dogs work in close cooperation with and under the close control of the hunter.)
Recently, Vermont Public Radio asked me to participate in a panel discussion of S.281, a bill in the Vermont Legislature that originally sought to end the hunting of coyotes with hounds (coyotes can be killed 24/365 with no bag limit in Vermont).
VPR’s reasoning behind inviting me was that it considered the Vermont Wildlife Coalition, of which I am the chair, as an interesting wildlife advocacy group in that we support most hunting. While it can be difficult to communicate a nuanced view in polarized debates, and the show format left some morsels on the table, I am not writing to rehash the program, but to expand on a troubling component of this situation that occurred to me afterward.
In replying to a question from the host, I mentioned the recent incident near Middlebury of a mountain biker and her dog who were attacked and chased by a pack of hunting hounds. This most recent incident added to the hounds in Craftsbury that tore up a family’s greenhouse and mauled a coyote in front of several children a few years ago, and the pair of hikers and their dog who were attacked by bear hounds in Ripton, with both the couple’s dog and the woman needing medical attention.
The point was that, with Vermont’s loose definition of control of such wide-ranging, GPS-tracked hounds, such conflicts happen, and given that tragedy was narrowly avoided, how many such events will it take before someone is seriously hurt? And for what?
Such hounding, on a good day, is a fringe activity that can only erode public support for hunting as a valued tradition and critical management tool, especially for whitetail deer, which no longer have effective predators here except for humans.
Ironically, while I grew up hunting deer here and heard coon hounds baying at night when I was little, I have yet to encounter a pack in the woods. So, until recently, like most Vermonters, I hardly ever gave the issue a thought.
Yet, reading the incident reports above got me thinking. We have three dogs in our family, and I realized that, in addition to hunting hounds running loose and the state ignoring the consequences, there was a third volatile ingredient in the bilious brew that the state is allowing to ferment.
A few years ago, our selectboard asked me to be the town animal control officer. I think of the job as being a dog advocate and owner educator more than the stereotypical “dogcatcher.” Nonetheless, I am sadly familiar with VT Statutes Title 20, Chapter 193, subchapter 3545: The right to kill domestic pets or wolf-hybrids (“domestic pet,” as defined in the statute, includes all domestic dogs).
The subchapter provides for the right to kill a dog in self-defense or in defense of another, and moreover, states: “A domestic pet or wolf-hybrid found wounding, killing, or worrying another domestic pet or wolf-hybrid, a domestic animal, or fowl may be killed when the attendant circumstances are such that the killing is reasonably necessary to prevent injury to the animal or fowl that is the subject of the attack.”
So, these are the ingredients that the state has fought to maintain (special interests and the Vermont Fish & Wildlife commissioner have, so far, severely weakened S.281):
- Allowing virtually unregulated, virtually uncontrolled packs of hounds to course at large through lands, posted or not, day or night 365 days/year, and to occasionally create threats and/or damage and injury to people, pets and livestock for no substantive purpose.
- Dismissing damage, injury and trauma as regrettable but rare (and blithely assuming it will never get worse).
- Allowing 1 and 2 in a population constitutionally entitled to carry firearms and, under VT Title 20 §3545, to use immediate deadly force in defense of themselves, their pets, or livestock.
As a dog lover, I am not suggesting that carrying a firearm when out with your dog is the solution. That would only victimize more innocents in this sad situation, for the hunting hounds are only doing what they are trained to do in concert with their nature. Having to shoot a dog, even in emergency defense of a beloved pet, would, after the fact, be a terrible trauma for most people.
Coyote hounding in Vermont is a pointless problem that puts many at risk. There are relatively few hounders in Vermont and therefore, so far, we have been lucky. However, given the incidents that have occurred already, it is irresponsible to keep trusting to luck.
