Greyt moves: Adopting fast dogs, unemployed
By Gina Spadafori
December 22, 2009
.
Image by Greyhound Rick, whose Flickr photostream of greyt dogs in action can be seen here.
Greyhound racing is something I never think about much, except when I write to promote the adoption of ex-racers. The sport has never been legal here in California, at least not in my lifetime, and I’ve never taken the opportunity to see it elsewhere.
That last thing? Getting harder every year, with tracks closing for good one by one, most recently Phoenix Greyhound Park, which had been open since 1954.
Animal advocates, driven by regular reports of unwanted track-bred greyhounds illegally disposed of like trash, a bullet to the brain and a mass grave for the body, no doubt had some impact on the sport’s dwindling popularity. But more likely it was just a matter of the changing times. It’s easier if you want to gamble to go to an Indian casino, zone out and push a button on a slot machine — hell, that’s so easy you don’t even have to go to the effort of pulling a handle anymore.
Winning a bet at the races — horse or dogs — is about luck, sure, but it’s also about study, and nobody much can be bothered about that when the promise of effortless wins — even if the house is the only one who really wins — seems a better deal. People actually do make a living betting on racing — not me, I don’t gamble, horse racing is not about that for me — but I don’t know anyone who can say the same about the lottery or casinos. The “gaming industry” is all about sucker bets, a de facto government-sponsored tax on the poorer among us, for the most part.
In a way, it’s a shame about greyhound racing, because the industry long ago cleaned up its act in significant ways (excepting the rogue operator here or there), working more or less happily with adoption groups to get failed racers into forever homes as pets. (And by the way, they make great — oops, I mean greyt — easy-going companions, quiet, sweetly funny and low-energy almost all the time, unless given the opportunity to open up and flyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.)
Horse racing, of course, is also in trouble, and for many of the same reasons. (And without nearly as much effort to find homes for its “losers,” who are, as horses, infinitely harder to place.) But while horse tracks are also closing, the industry is still blessed with the patronage of the super-ultra-mega-richer-than-God rich (greyhound racing is a blue-collar game) and the continued popularity of its marquee events like the Kentucky Derby and its stars like Zenyatta (at right, with her jockey, Hall of Famer and Nice Guy Mike Smith) or the late Barbaro (can anyone name a famous greyhound race or a top-winning greyhound?).
The horse-racing industry will survive, albeit likely in a much smaller way and, I hope, a more humane one. That’s a short-odds bet, although of course nothing is certain in this world, not even an odd-on favorite.
Greyhound racing? It’s a goner, on life-support now.
Greyhound Rick’s photos, so rich with affection for the dogs and the people of the Arizona tracks, have made me think that when the last track goes and the last racing greyhound becomes a “40 mph couch potato,” something valuable will have been lost — another group of dogs with a job. (And yes, I do know there’s a very small group of people who really do hunt with sighthounds, but they’re probably not a heckalot bigger than the number of those who really do hunt with terriers. Gundogs — retrievers, pointers, spaniels, setters — are probably by far tops in terms of sheer numbers of real working dogs, but believe me, that’s just a guess undoubtedly skewed by the fact that I know a lot of people who hunt gamebirds.)
But then, sighthounds themselves aren’t exactly popular, even as pets.
The whippet is the top breed on the AKC registrations list, at No. 61, if you jump over the Rhodesian Ridgeback, only arguably a sighthound, and the Italian Greyhound, which is really a lapdog. Even the dog-show folks aren’t that taken with sighthounds, aside from the Afghan, who can be Barbie-dolled into a top attention-getter. Most sighthounds look extremely uncomfortable in a show ring, showing something on their faces that’s rather like the expression most people have when enduring “those” medical tests involving the probing of nether regions.
The scarcity of really fast dogs with double-suspension gallops is one thing that just made me wince when Christie decided to move back home to San Francisco from her rural property, with the now-departed Rebel in tow as the end of a well-respected breeding program. I’m happy to know she’ll have a Deerhound again some day, but it’s unlikely she’ll ever resume an active breed-preservation program, at least not unless she gives up the city.
But what of the racing greyhounds? My neighbor has a greyhound, Lizzie (that’s her at right), a sweetheart from top show lines who has never stretched out at full gallop — that’s right, never. A long-retired show-bred sighthound who has never been off-leash in an area big enough to run.
Why not? Because … she might get hurt.
It makes me hurt to think about it. Preserving our heritage working dogs — especially the rare ones — is about more than breeding and showing them. It’s about working them, or at the very least, showing they can do something like the work they were developed to do.
Which is why I find myself today mourning the loss of a dog track — a strange feeling that I’m actually surprised to have — even as I encourage dog-lovers to snap up these lovely hounds to fill your couches and your hearts.
But by damn, once you have a retired racer, don’t take advantage of their willingness to veg out for the rest of their lives. Go, please, and find some place to let them fly.
They deserve to do so — and you deserve to see them do it. You’ll never, ever regret or forget it.
A few years back, I went to the Greyhound races in Arkansas - just across from Memphis - it was a sight to behold. I’ve helped search for a few lost greys with my Scent hounds. I love the breed and beauty of Greys.
My neighbor across the street from me owned a Grey and she tells the story of the night he saw a cat run and took off so fast the jerk on the leash dislocated her shoulder.
Then my friend, who is in Greyhound rescue, told me about the time 13 of them left her property during a party (a gate was left open) - and I asked how far they went - only the length of a racetrack and then they stopped and milled around - they really didn’t know where to go.
Thanks Gina for the stroll down memory lane.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — December 22, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
I would honestly love to see coursing (at least rabbits, which don’t even have seasons in most states- they’re considered vermin) legalized in the US. For me, a big part of the draw of the sighthounds is almost all about the history and the function. And if I get one, I want to hunt with it- that’s WHAT they’re for. Lure coursing is fun, and I think I might enjoy it once or twice, but seems like a real lightweight compared to the magic of being out in the field with a good dog. There’s a point where you’ve done everything you can to set up a good day, you’ve trained, you have the right gear, and duck for dinner would be really nice- all you can do now is wait for the birds to turn up. I would love to ask someone who foxhunts if there’s a similar magic between the time everyone mounts up and the first cast is made. As much as I love agility and obedience- it’s not there with either of those.
My spitz is a wonderful companion and couch dog (albeit an active one), but I suspect when we return to rural life - which will probably happen during her lifetime- she’ll take up the breed’s ancestral job as visitor-announcer and vermin hunter with a great deal of joy.
History IS important. It’s not just about a breed that looks like what it has always looked like- it’s being able to do the job. Were the dogs of the past better at it? Maybe, maybe not. (I don’t think there’s ANY group of people who work or live with animals who don’t compare any present critter to the great ones of the past, and once an animal passes out of fact and into memory, well, of COURSE their record is untouchable and they learned faster and performed better than the real dog right in front of you.) But doing it at all is what matters.
Comment by Cait — December 22, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
I would love to ask someone who foxhunts if there’s a similar magic between the time everyone mounts up and the first cast is made.
Comment by Cait — December 22, 2009
I think we know someone who can answer that.
Glenye?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 22, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
While I thoroughly enjoyed your piece, Gina, I do have a small quibble.”…and the Italian Greyhound, which is really a lapdog”. Gina Spadafori @ 2:49 pm
Unfortunately due to the weather conditions, this is the only surviving video of any IGs at 2009 LGRA Nationals Flemington, NJ Oct 17. It was not the IG High Point where Snoopy von Edison SGRC 12 (and the only dog of any eligible breed to have earned that many Supreme Gazehound Racing Championships) was taking part. Snoopy won all 3 high point races, and won the day. He is also likely to end 2009 as LGRA Dog of the Year for the 3rd time.
Yup, when it comes to LGRA, NOTRA and ASFA/AKC LC, IGs are lap dogs….they lap the racing sports right up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUQNQsyrLPU
Comment by Anne T — December 22, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
I sit corrected. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 22, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
LOL, she asked me to check this for sighthound accuracy, so I guess I should sit corrected. Sorry for my big dog bigotry!
Comment by Christie Keith — December 22, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Hi, all! Cait, to answer your question, yes, there is a similar magic. Very much so. I think part of it is the unknown: is scenting good or bad? Is there any game or not? Are the hounds ready? What will they tell you? If they do find something, will they be able to puzzle out its path under the conditions you have on that particular day?
I think a lot of people, even those who foxhunt regularly, don’t realize how much training and preparation a huntsman and the kennel staff (sometimes the same person, but not always) put into the hounds months before hunting season opens. All that work adds another element of magic and drama to a hunt, especially the first few of the season, because the people closest to the hounds are holding their breaths to see how individual hounds perform and also how they work together with the pack and with the huntsman. Even as the season goes on, individual hounds will provide wonderful moments of magic: a hound who has been performing badly or cluelessly suddenly “gets it” and does things right for the first time, or a timid hound does something brave, or a hound that is hard-headed suddenly turns his attention right to the huntsman in acknowledgment that he trusts the huntsman and that they have a relationship.
I’m not a huntsman myself, so I can only imagine that as wonderful as some of these vignettes are to me, and how exciting it is to follow a working pack out into the wide world and trust them to figure things out and communicate and respond—well, if it’s that interesting to me, it must be mind-blowing to the person who actually carries the horn!
Your comment about lure-coursing reminds me of a comment a famous huntsman once made about drag-hunting, in which the hounds follow an artificial scent laid down by a runner before the hunt: “It’s like kissing your sister,” he said. I can see what he means, although I haven’t minded the few times I’ve ridden with a drag hunt. You’re always guaranteed a run, but it does alleviate the great mystery of hunting. When you’re hunting, you never know whether you’ll ever find a scent, and, if the hounds do discover a fox or coyote or rabbit (whatever it is they’re hunting), the game’s path often is unpredictable and extremely difficult to puzzle out, especially if it’s windy or it crosses water or is twisty-turny through a lot of cattle. It’s much more challenging, and I think most huntsman would find it more rewarding.
I hope that answers your question! For an interesting example of some of the challenges the game presents in foxhunting, you might read our the story of Harlequin, one of our retired hounds, at http://houndwelfare.wordpress......old-watch/. For a little about the “personal” dramas we see with individual hounds, you might try Grindstone’s Hound of the Day report at http://houndwelfare.wordpress......rindstone/
Obviously, I can go on all day, but I will stop here before I get tiresome!
Comment by Glenye Oakford — December 22, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
I wonder how “magical” it is for the fox.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 22, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
Cait, coursing jackrabbits with sighthounds is legal in the US. Cotton tails and other rabbit species generally do have a season and are not suitable prey for sighthounds.
There are still many folks with cold bloods, hot bloods, lurchers, staghounds, and other sighthounds out running jackrabbits. My greyhounds are all experienced open field coursing dogs. They love going out to find some jackrabbits to run.
Comment by WorldTriad — December 22, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Well, this is something that we could discuss until the end of time and never resolve. If the fox could think about it, I’m sure he would be conflicted about all the mice, voles, etc., he kills as well.
But of course he doesn’t think about it, and we do. Sometimes I think it’s probably a lot easier to be a fox.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 22, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
Christie & Gina, your corrective sits are duly noted and appreciated!:-)
Comment by Anne T — December 22, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
That would be up for the fox to tell us, presumably; the question was whether it was magical for the people following hounds. Considering how rarely they are caught (the point here in the US today being to chase rather than catch), I should think that, even if they are detected, being pursued through their home territory until they go to ground is much like the rest of their natural lives. They are rather brilliantly equipped to evade predators. But not, sadly, cars. I have seen far more foxes killed on roads than I have ever seen caught out hunting in America.
Comment by Glenye Oakford — December 22, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
ps: A fascinating book on hunting with sight and scent hounds and with hawks as well is “The Art of Medieval Hunting: the hound and the hawk” by John Cummins.
Comment by Anne T — December 22, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
I should also make clear here, in case anyone is in doubt, that foxhunters do NOT bring foxes to a meet and “drop them in front of the pack.” People sometimes seem to be under that misapprehension. That’s strictly verboten (although catching foxes and releasing them on your land well before a hunt was considered acceptable in George Washington’s time, and, in fact, he did this from time to time). If your hounds pick up the scent of a fox and find it to chase, then you’ve got a chase. But you’re working over natural land, and sometimes hounds find game and sometimes they don’t.
Comment by Glenye Oakford — December 22, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
As long as people are honest about the consequences of these “breed preserving” sports they are promoting: that is, other animals get killed. (And generally, not eaten a reason that at least provides the “utilitarian” justification.) Other, largely innocent, animals get killed for our pleasure. So far, I read: rabbits are only vermin (in a previous blog here, someone contended that they don’t feel pain); foxes are rarely killed. The fact that rabbits, or foxes, or groundhogs or whatever, may have short lives which often end in a predators mouth, or that humans kill more rabbits etc through habitat destruction cars etc, are NOT honest justifications for dog-generated killing in my opinion.
If you accept that it’s ok to send dogs out to kill other animals, for whatever reasons, it seems to me that you should have some explanation for which animals can be targeted and which cannot.
What’s the difference between killing a fox (or a possum, or a raccoon or…) in the process of preserving a dog breed, and killing a feral cat to preserve an endangered bird species? I know which one generated outrage here and I still don’t understand why.
Comment by EmilyS — December 22, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
I grew up at the greyhound track. My Dad taught me how to read a racing program, how to handicap a race, and placed bets for me while I was still a grade school kid. Watching those dogs run was awesome.
Sadly, I never got to place a legal bet as our local track closed long before my 21st birthday.
I hate to think about the fates of the dogs at the end of their racing days, but watching those dogs fly was a high point of my childhood.
Comment by schnauzer — December 22, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
What’s the difference between killing a fox (or a possum, or a raccoon or…) in the process of preserving a dog breed, and killing a feral cat to preserve an endangered bird species? I know which one generated outrage here and I still don’t understand why.
Comment by EmilyS — December 22, 2009
You’re not stupid by any means, Emily. You really can’t work this out? C’mon. We’re not that stupid, either, as to think you don’t know the difference. And not even TNR advocates demand leaving feral cat colonies in sensitive habitat, by the way.
And as I’ve said many times: I’m perfectly honest about this essential fact — we are all, each of us, food for others in the end. And not even vegans get off the hook — animals die so they can live.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 22, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
Do you drive? If so hundreds, even thousands of bugs die spattered on your wind shield. Not to mention the small animals you crush under your wheels with every mile.
Support wind power. Kill birds.
Swat a mosquito? Take an antibiotic? You kill things.
But on a happier note, even if you or your dogs don’t kill the bunny that’s eating your veggies, the bunny will die, sooner rather than later.
Sad. But there it is.
Comment by schnauzer — December 22, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
And yet, we have the ability to make the choice not to kill solely for pleasure. Which still strikes me as utterly repugnant, and no more defensible than any other blood sport … most of which *also* have long traditions.
Comment by Eucritta — December 22, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
Emily, your argument is all over the place.
For instance, yes, I think that populations of some animals, including unowned cats, should be relocated or otherwwise non-lethally managed to protect endangered species, and I don’t think endangered animals should be hunted, either. I refuse to accept you have to trade off the lives of one for the other.
Furthermore, killing ferals to protect birds is stupid, because there is zero evidence that works and much that it does NOT work. So what possible reason could there be to design and implement programs to do just that, even if you don’t give a damn about cats? Being against that doesn’t mean anything other than that you’re not stupid, really.
Last, I am quite sure NO ONE on this blog said that rabbits don’t feel pain; do you mean a commenter said that? We’re certainly not responsible for what our commenters say, Emily. Don’t make it look like Gina or I said such a stupid thing.
Comment by Christie Keith — December 22, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
EmilyS, the purpose of foxhunting isn’t to preserve a hound breed, although certainly foxhound breeding is sustained by the fact that foxhunting exists; no doubt foxhounds would continue to exist as a breed without hunting, but they would be show dogs only or pets, not working hounds (plenty of people keep beagles even if they don’t hunt with them). Depending on where the hunt is, the purpose of hunting generally primarily is to serve the local landowners or farmers by, for example, as in many midwestern hunts, keeping coyotes on the move so that they do not pack up and harass or kill farmers’ cattle or sheep (and, as a by-product) the local cats and dogs in the area. In England before the ban, the goal of foxhunting was to kill foxes as a service to farmers whose sheep and poultry were killed by them (foxes having no natural predator in England). Farmers who find themselves with a coyote problem will resort to other methods to kill them if there isn’t a hunt around, so the coyotes are in mortal danger whether or not we’re there with hounds. Other h=animals are too, if the farmer decides to employ poison or traps instead.
Secondly, I wasn’t raising the fact that foxes are chased and killed by predators in America as a justification for hunting. The question was whether foxhunting was as “magical” to the fox, so I was instead speculating on the fox’s experience of being pursued, and whether being pursued by hounds was somehow qualitatively different from being pursued by a predator, not somehow using it as a justification for hunting.
Thirdly, and lastly, I think we’ve provided the reasoning you have asked for regarding what animals are targeted and why. Beaglers traditionally have chased rabbits and hares (as opposed to other animals) because rabbits damage the landowners’ gardens and crops, and, rather than lay poison or traps, which would also end up hurting or killing other animals, the landowners call on the local hunt to come in. Coyotes are hunted for much the same reason (killing cattle and local pets), as are foxes (see above re poultry and sheep), in those areas where they are actively hunted. Landowners traditionally have made the request, and the hunt has come in. And that’s how the issue of what gets hunted got made over the centuries.
In times and places where the focus is less on the hunt than on the chase and hound work, many either have turned to drag-hunting or actively tried to prevent a chance of killing.
And, interestingly, in hunting’s history, there was a time when stag-hunting was the big thing, and it was done in part to provide food for the landowners and the hunt staff.
And I certainly would never, by the way, suggest that any animal can’t feel pain. Of course they can.
Comment by Glenye Oakford — December 22, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
“If you accept that it’s ok to send dogs out to kill other animals, for whatever reasons, it seems to me that you should have some explanation for which animals can be targeted and which cannot.”
by Emily S.
Yes, it’s okay to send dogs out to kill certain animals. It’s okay to kill some animal species while protecting others. It’s okay to raise animals to kill and eat them. It’s okay to raise animals purely for our pleasure - the vast majority of horses, cats and dogs.
I own a dog, but I kill (or attempt to kill) any mouse that comes into the house. I kill mosquitoes, but put ladybugs outside unharmed. I have eaten deer, elk, boar, emu, bison, lobster, crab… but wouldn’t (most likely) eat dog, horse, cat or rat.
My explanation of which animal species (or individual) is which? If the animal is more beneficial to me alive vs. dead, then it lives. If it is more detrimental alive, or more beneficial dead, then it dies.
Hypocritical? Welcome to the human race. We ALL make decisions like this; and I have no guilt over the ones I make. You don’t agree with foxhunting, and that’s fine. But you do not get to tell the rest of us what WE should think about it. Personally, I would give my eyeteeth to see a hunt ride out - and I’m also aware that many, many, many hunters are conversationalists, and put their time and money into protecting our wild spaces, unlike those who simply emote about it.
Comment by K.B. — December 22, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
Glenye, I’ve walked with foxhounds on an exercise walk and was really impressed with the degree of control that the hunt staff had over them- I can keep my guys in a group together when we’re at the farm, but it isn’t near as effortless or as cohesive, and my guys are supposed to be ‘easy’ to train! :P Someday I’d like to spend more time around them, but I don’t have a clue how to start (Okay, in theory, I know where to go ask, but I haven’t ridden seriously since HS)- and I know I can’t afford it right now. :P Someday, though.
Comment by Cait — December 22, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
We were very fortunate when we first got Savanna to be living next door to a large, fenced park/field, where hardly anyone ever went. We would take her there, turn her loose, and she’d run figure 8s for about 5 minutes and then she was done. If I ever get my Pyrenean Shepherd or another Greyhound, I’ll probably get a Springer for my bike. What I really wish, though, is that the parks where we like to hike and mountain bike allowed dogs.
Comment by Kim Thornton — December 22, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
Such sweet, beautiful animals. My whippet needs about 12 sprints a day, after which he heads straight to the couch - on his back, legs up for the rest of the day. Last line sums it up well, watching a grey or whippet run up close is incredibly breathtaking.
Comment by Brett — December 23, 2009 @ 5:57 am
Cait, I think sometimes it looks more effortless than it actually is! And hounds generally are bred for “biddability,” so that helps, at least in theory! But the degree of trust and communication that a huntsman has with the hounds is something that has always interested me, and it is amazing to watch.
If you want to look into becoming active, one good first resource is the Master of Fox Hounds Association at http://www.mfha,com, which will at least help you find hunts in your state. With some looking around, you might find it’s easier to do on a shoestring than you thought!
Comment by Glenye Oakford — December 23, 2009 @ 8:33 am
You’ve made my first New Years Resolution. I’m going to see those Greys run at least once.
Owning a dog like that and never letting it run is incomprehensible to me. Makes me think of those people who buy high dollar show ponies for their kids but they aren’t allow to ride them out of the ring.
I encourage every person with a Border Collie to take it to sheep (under instruction and with proper training sheep of course) at least a few times to give it a try. Very few can resist going more once they feel what working with a dog like that is about. And those that won’t (or can’t) at least get a real glimpse of why their dog is what it is. It’s amazing how people’s attitudes change about their pet’s quirks and habits become when they see how it applies to the heritage of the breed.
2010 should about appreciating and exploring our dog’s heritage as best we can in a positive way. It would be good for all of us as well as the dogs.
Comment by Wendy — December 23, 2009 @ 8:51 am
Christie: you say we don’t kill feral cats for depredation control because it “doesn’t work”… yet that’s a criteria I’ve never seen applied to any other depredation control including the ones Glennye lists. Actually I suspect that it would work, in the same way that many depredation hunts work… temporarily. No farmer/rancher believes that chasing/killing the current problem species on his property (whether those are rabbits, foxes or deer or whatever) will solve his problem permanently. And there’s a ton of evidence that, for example, random mass killing of coyotes (as opposed to targeting the specific offending predator) does not solve the predation a particular rancher suffers on his particular sheep.
But: if it DID work, would you support it? I don’t think so. But why not? If problem cats should be removed nonlethally, why shouldn’t problem foxes, rabbits, coyotes…?
In any case, live coursing is rarely about predator/vermin control, and as Glennye notes, a lot of hound hunting activity is not about pest control at all. Terrier “work” isn’t primarily about vermin control either. These forms of dog activity are also not about hunting for food. There is little, if any, “utilitarian” purpose to them.
Obviously “deerhounds” were created to chase deer, which we no longer allow. In a previous discussion, someone proposed that this SHOULD be allowed. If hounds can course rabbits, why can’t they course deer?
Do you agree with KB’s essential point: we humans can make any choice we want to kill any other animal we want to, because we can. Because the purpose of other animals is to be useful to us, and if they’re not, we can kill them at will. (BTW, KB: I’m not telling you what to “think”. But society does, I’m sure you know, have laws that limit what you can “do”. These laws, increasingly, limit what individuals can do with/to the public’s wildlife. I’m sure you obey all these laws… because laws are for everyone, right? Even those who experience the undesirable behavior of offensive animals)
So Gina, Christie: I guess I remain stupid, because other than KB’s “if it bothers me I can kill it”, I haven’t read why we use dogs to kill rabbits, foxes, groundhogs, badgers, possums, raccoons, etc etc. with no limits and with no concern for the innocent but not to kill deer, cats, other dogs, etc etc.
And understanding that bringing this up may cause Gina once again to accuse me of supporting dogfighting (which do I really have to say I DO NOT??): if you want to preserve a dog’s breed heritage when that heritage involves lethal interactions with other animals, and you don’t have some explanation for why those lethal interactions are OK, but dogfighting is not: what makes you morally superior to the dogfighter?
Comment by EmilyS — December 23, 2009 @ 9:37 am
Greyhounds were also used to hunt wolves.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — December 23, 2009 @ 9:43 am
And understanding that bringing this up may cause Gina once again to accuse me of supporting dogfighting (which do I really have to say I DO NOT??)
Comment by EmilyS — December 23, 2009
OK, so yesterday you said we wrote that rabbits don’t feel pain. (Wha?) And now, you think I spend my time accusing you of supporting dog-fighting. (Huh?)
Emily, you actually do bring a lot to the discussions here, and on balance I appreciate your contributions. But really, sometimes I have to wonder which one of us forgot to take our medication.
And I’m REALLY good at taking mine.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 23, 2009 @ 9:50 am
Christie: you say we don’t kill feral cats for depredation control because it “doesn’t work”… yet that’s a criteria I’ve never seen applied to any other depredation control including the ones Glennye lists.
I guess you’ll have to take that up with Glennye, then. I’m not here to defend other people’s arguments. Just mine.
But: if it DID work, would you support it?
What you’re positing is this: If there were NO CHOICE to save an endangered species other than to kill large groups of animals, would I support it… but that’s not the case, Emily. It’s like saying, “If someone held a gun to your head and said, either your son or your daughter must die, pick one.” It makes for a nice drama but since that’s NOT the choice, why on earth do I have to pick one?
Do you agree with KB’s essential point: we humans can make any choice we want to kill any other animal we want to, because we can.
I don’t interpret KB’s essential point in that way, but let’s take what you asked at face value: Can we kill because we can?
Uhh, duh. If we can, we can. We can spray the world with machine gun fire if we want. We can poison the town well, beat our wives, and cheat on our taxes. We can also give to the poor, foster homeless pets, and pick up litter on the beach.
What you’re really asking is what we should do, as if there were one set of morals and values we can all put on and then, well, we’re okay.
And I don’t see the world that way. My view on what is ethical or right or optimal has changed over my five decades of life. Where I am on many of these issues today is not where I was ten years ago, and is not where you are today.
Which is not an argument for utter moral relativism, but an acknowledgment that there are no simple or even straightforward answers to the kinds of questions you’re asking here — or not asking, really, but lobbing like hand grenades.
And that’s the thing, Emily; it doesn’t feel like you want to have a discussion of these complex moral issues and where we’re all coming from, something that might actually get a reasonable person to consider his or her own position anew, but just a big old game of “gotcha.”
I’m not interested in the gotcha game, but if you want to talk to me about what I think and feel, than ask me about ME and MY positions, and stop throwing every argument and defense you’ve ever heard or read and then asking me to defend it.
So Gina, Christie: I guess I remain stupid, because other than KB’s “if it bothers me I can kill it”, I haven’t read why we use dogs to kill rabbits, foxes, groundhogs, badgers, possums, raccoons, etc etc. with no limits and with no concern for the innocent but not to kill deer, cats, other dogs, etc etc.
The use of dogs to hunt and to control predators is part of the traditional relationship between dogs and humans. That is why we do it. But again, what you’re asking for is not an explanation, but a justification. And yet again, I can’t explain or defend what other people think and do, only what I think and do.
I make no distinction between killing a deer with poison, a gun, a dog or by destroying the deer’s habitat — nor indeed, by changing the ecosystem so totally that deer breed without check, and become a pest species. I treat them all the same. The things I consider are like this:
Are you a bloodthirsty bastard gloating at pain and death? Then I have a problem with you.
Are you a compassionate hunter who strives never to inflict unnecessary suffering? It’s not my way, but yes, you and I can share a world.
Are you a developer who gets no closer to hunting than eating at a trendy restaurant that serves wild game, but whose projects have destroyed sensitive habitat and a hundred species of lizard — and you don’t give a damn? Thumbs down from me.
Are you the daughter and granddaughter of ranchers, trying to preserve an agrarian way of life in the face of creeping suburbia and agribusiness, while being responsible about the animals and land that are in your care?
Are you a jackass gunning down wolves from a helicopter?
The answers to many of those questions can’t really be known from the outside, Emily. I’m not the thought police and can’t crawl into other people’s heads and determine what they know and how they feel. But if I could, those are the things that would matter to me.
Life always ends in death, and depends on death. Death is, ultimately, part of life. I eat dead animals, and when I’m gone, living animals will eat me. Microbes die when I brush my teeth. Deer died when my ancestors settled the hills outside San Francisco, and when my dogs’ ancestors coursed in the Highlands. I’m here because of death, and I’m threading that needle as best and as thoughtfully as I can.
If you want to make that into a game of “gotcha,” you’ll have to play it by yourself.
What makes you morally superior to the dogfighter?
Dogfighting is the Hitler of the dog issue wars. Everything comes down to that, every question of dog breeding or selling puppies or docking tails or cropping ears or hunting or aversive training methods or using dogs in war and crime fighting: asking “what makes you morally superior to the dog fighter” is just like saying, “ZOMG! Obama! Hitler! Bush! Hitler!”
In the history of the world, Emily, there have been dogfighters who loved their dogs and carried them home from fights in a baby carriage. And there are sons of bitches who laugh when someone’s family pet was torn limb from limb. I’m not in this world to decide to whom I’m morally superior, but I’m fairly sure I could have a conversation with that first guy, and the second is a sociopath who needs to be locked up to protect society.
Now I am supposed to make the obligatory, “Well, I don’t support dogfighting,” so that anyone who stumbles across this and chooses to ignore every other word I have written about dogfighting and focus just on these few words in a comment on someone else’s blog post doesn’t get the wrong idea about me. I resist and resent that, while accepting it’s the reality.
So here it is: I have a very hard time with any form of sport or entertainment that brings harm to any animal, and especially those animals that are most human-like in their social structures. I find it painful to think of hunting, or butchering, or watching two dogs harming each other while other people bet or cheer.
But within that macrocosm, Emily, there are individuals who experience the world in a different way than I do. Some of them are, in fact, connected to the cycle of life in ways that I, with my car and my computer, will never be.
The why and the how matter to me in judging what I do, and they matter in judging what others do. But while I can know my self, I can’t truly know other people, so I rely on my own evaluation of what their motivations and methods are, and do my best to leave room around my ethical judgments for other people’s business.
Do some things cross so far over the line that the gray disappears for me? Yes. And yet, even that line has shifted many times in my life.
And in the end, we’re left with doing the best we can to understand how we live in the world, and how we share it with people different from ourselves, and what we learn while we’re here.
That’s as good as it gets, however much you might prefer to rule the universe.
Comment by Christie Keith — December 23, 2009 @ 10:37 am
Every time Emily starts in on this, I ask her whether she is a vegan, and whether her pets are.
And every time she pretends not to have heard.
So consider it asked.
Comment by H. Houlahan — December 23, 2009 @ 10:51 am
I see no moral problem with dogs hunting or used to track and hunt - personally, I don’t take my dogs anyplace where the prospect of them being significantly hurt is high. And I don’t believe a true dog lover would put their dogs in danger.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — December 23, 2009 @ 10:54 am
I realize this is hard to swallow in a world where we dress our kids in bubble wrap and have them carry GPS to their organized, supervised activities, but …
If you’re alive, you are risking not being so.
I have a feeling my dogs are at greater risk rolling down four lanes of Interstate in a high-speed vehicle to the training grounds than they are actually working. Me, too.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 23, 2009 @ 11:10 am
Well I suppose it all depends on what we mean by risk….and one needs to consider this: where “the prospect of being significantly hurt is high.”
Catahoulas were used for boar hunting and tusks can do a lot of damage.
Coonhounds treeing bear and going after cougar - only the fast smart dogs survive.
I assume the risk when driving my dogs - but I wouldn’t send them out to “work” or hunt if I thought the risk was high that they would be hurt. But that is me. I don’t send them out to play where there are foxtails either.
I am not saying I would not let the dogs work ever but not if the risk was high.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — December 23, 2009 @ 11:20 am
The SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) is actually having a resurgence of sight dog racing events - and it’s a joy to watch them. Neither of my dogs will do this, but it’s a joy to watch.
Comment by Georg — December 23, 2009 @ 11:29 am
http://coyoteinfo.typepad.com/.....ticle.html
Using dogs to hunt large prey is not such a good deal for the poor dogs.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — December 23, 2009 @ 11:40 am
http://www.hsus.org/wildlife_a.....nting.html
I bought my main Coonhound from a hunter and he told me the dogs that aren’t smart and fast are dead.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — December 23, 2009 @ 11:50 am
I can’t imagine a sighthound who is physically capable of running not being allowed to. I’ve had the pleasure of sharing my life with two retired racers: the first loved nothing more than to run full out with other ‘hounds. My only regret with my current nearly-blind boy is that I will never see him fly (his blindness is progressive and probably started when he was a pup, and even before he was diagnosed he had no interest).
Comment by Shalea — December 23, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
Comment by Snoopys Friend — December 23, 2009 @ 11:50 am
I bought my main Coonhound from a hunter and he told me the dogs that aren’t smart and fast are dead.
It’s the ultimate test of natural selection. Only those who are good enough to go on get to go on.
I am put in mind of the criticisms of show ring judging of dogs. A practice which is - ultimately - yet another form of natural selection.
Some argue that the show ring is actually the most *unnatural” form of selection. Which may or may not be true, but the end result is the same - only those who are good enough to go on get to go on.
So - is it only a matter of degree? The dogs are put to a test. The ones that are good enough get to go on - whether to “go on living” or “go on to be used as breeding stock” - the end result is that those are the dogs whose genetic material is represented in successive generations.
Why is there such a difference in reaction to these two examples of “natural selection” at work? In the first example, the dogs who fail die. In the second example, the dogs who fail do not procreate. Which one is more “acceptable” than the other? And how and where does one draw the lines?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 23, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Well by all means, let’s use HSUS and some random animal rights website as our definitive sources on hunting with hounds.
Comment by H. Houlahan — December 23, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
How many dogs have you bought from hunters? How many hunting events have you been to? If you think these hunting dogs are not hurt then you are living in lala land.
Why do boar hunting dogs wear leather vests? For good looks?
How many ex-bear hunting dogs do you own? It doesn’t surprise me that you would make a snarky comment. You do snarky really really well.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — December 23, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
There’s so much publicity about rescuing dog fighting dogs but little concern over the plight of most bear and cougar hunting dogs (not bird dogs). They are left outside, chained or in pens, receive little vet care, and their lives put in danger on each hunt.
They are teased and abused and abandoned in the wilds. It is a sad state of life for these dogs. Most are Coonhounds.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — December 23, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Snoopys Apostrophe-Challenged Friend, you seem to want the props that come from being the handler of a working dog without, you know, actually demonstrating that your dogs work, or using a real name, or being in any way verifiable.
The appeal to authority is always bogus, but when the “authority” is anonymous, it is merely laughable. Your attitude towards risk is very telling.
You cite what “everybody who joins CARDA” is told, but you aren’t a member of CARDA. You make reference to tracking lost animals, but who knows if that is fact or fantasy?
My own, real SAR dogs share risk with me. It’s my job to determine what is an acceptable risk for both of us. But there is always risk.
There’s risk, danger, conflict in stock work. Even a ram or a buck can kill you or a dog, and a cow can do so easily.
There’s risk when I open the back door and the dogs dash down the hill to drive off the predators that have come for the chickens.
I don’t consider the dairy farmer from whom I bought my first English shepherd to be abusive to either dogs or cows, though some of the former have been badly injured while working the latter. I don’t consider the breeders from whom I’ve bought German shepherds — breeders who select and train for police work — to be abusive, though their dogs are put in harm’s way as part of their jobs. Perhaps you would consider police work and stock work to be animal abuse. So you probably shouldn’t buy a dog from such a person.
If I thought a person was an animal abuser, I wouldn’t buy a dog from him.
You apparently consider the hunter from whom you bought a coonhound to be abusive towards his dogs. Good work! So you support dog abuse with your money then? And conversing with this scion has made you an expert on North American hunting practices.
See, I am a hunter.
I am keenly aware of the ways in which HSUS, PeTA, and Random Animal Rights Whackos characterize MY hunting practices, and the degree of disconnect with reality that this agitprop represents.
I have actually gone coursing with sighthounds, in the Central Valley of California, where there is suitable habitat for that kind of hunting. I witnessed no animal abuse, and no vicious hounds tearing any screaming anything to bits. I did witness some of the most magnificent athletes that artificial and natural selection ever produced. I met lovely, thoughtful people who care tenderly for their hounds and are keenly concerned for the welfare of the prey species. And I participated in a human-animal relationship so primal, so essential, that I pity all who either never have this opportunity or who have fallen so far from our human core that they would not recognize it for what it is.
Debating hunting with someone who gets her information about it from animal rights’ websites is like discussing sex with some glassy-eyed teen zealot with a silver ring on her finger.
Comment by H. Houlahan — December 23, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Thank you, HH. Your last 2 paragraphs are oh so eloquent! :-)! I doubt EmilyS will be back here to post on this thread, since new ones have been added to divert her from this particular topic.
Comment by Anne T — December 23, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
ps: Just discovered Dan Gauss has various sites on FB. You all remember Dan and his witty comments prior to the election? His come on on my page was Cowboy and Sandia open coursing a jack. Given this thread, I couldn’t help but become a fan.
Comment by Anne T — December 23, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Catahoulas were used for boar hunting and tusks can do a lot of damage.
Coonhounds treeing bear and going after cougar - only the fast smart dogs survive.
The extremely common OBESE pet dog — all that extra food they are luved with slices a few years off their lives, and greatly increases their risk of orthopedic and other health problems.
Ya know, there’s probably nobody reading this blog who uses catahoulas on wild boar, or uses coonhounds on bear or cougar. But I’ll bet there’s a whole bunch of pet owners here who have luved Fluffy or Fido into high risk obesity.
Herding dogs who work cattle — relatively high mortality rate, that job. It makes for strong selection pressure for lightning fast reflexes, with instant stops and turn on a dime agility. That selection pressure is probably the reason why my English Shepherd SAR dog didn’t fly off a cliff after his tennis ball when I unknowingly flung one there. Some of the SAR dogs I know probably would have been dead in the same situation. The wonderful field bred retrievers, working bred GSDs, and the really nice APBT in my SAR training group — there’s a good chance that any one of them would have sailed off that cliff. So, yesiree I’m a fan of breeding dogs for cattle herding.
[Note to self: topo maps of redwood forests are somebody’s wild a** guess]
And come to think of it, I know some nice catahoula and coonhound SAR dogs too, whose working genetics didn’t appear out of nowhere.
Anyway, I’m not opposed to boar hunting, bear hunting, cougar hunting, cattle herding, or K9 SAR. Overfeeding pet dogs — now that I’ve got a problem with.
Comment by LauraS — December 23, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Oops, I missed this one:
I don’t send them out to play where there are foxtails either.
Let’s see. Among the SAR dogs I’ve trained with: 1 is dead from foxtails, 2 were retired due to chronic health problems caused by foxtails, and most have required trips to the E-Vet due to inhaled or ingested foxtails — my dog twice, and Coal has had 5 such trips.
Comment by LauraS — December 23, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
wonderful field bred retrievers, working bred GSDs, and the really nice APBT in my SAR training group — there’s a good chance that any one of them would have sailed off that cliff.
Comment by LauraS — December 23, 2009
I would have bet my house that the late, great Queen Heather would have sailed right off that cliff. Maybe not for a tennis ball, but certainly for a water Kong. Field bred? Drive? Single-minded focus? You bet.
Christie saw a coulda-been-fatal involving Heather and a rip tide on a beach in Sonoma County, Calif. Heather thought she could beat the Pacific Ocean. We couldn’t believe we got her back alive.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 23, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
My GSD, Sophia, woulda been a goner on that cliff.
One reason I like my English shepherds so much. Plenty of drive, but well-governed by a functioning brain.
Anyone remember the pertinent scene in She Devil?
And yeah, the ability to turn on dime, honed by generations of selection-by-hamburger.
Comment by H. Houlahan — December 23, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
Gee whiz, I hardly know where to begin, but I guess I’ll start with the one point I can make that no one can argue with: my name only has one N!
Regarding whether or not hunting game “works,” a hunt’s best authority on that are the farming landowners who request that the hunt cross their land regularly in order to prevent, for example, coyotes from packing up. I’m not a wildlife scientist myself, but I do know that the cattle farmers in our area would be a lot less likely to allow us to cross their property and put hoof-shaped divots in it if they didn’t feel the hunt was providing at least a small service to them. Certainly, in England, farmers felt the hunts there—before the ban—were very useful in keeping the fox population from getting out of control. And, again, those farmers will use other methods that are far less discriminatory about “the innocent,” as you put it, if hunting of one kind or another is not allowed. Poison and trapping puts pretty much everything at risk in the area; hunting with hounds does not.
I don’t know how EmilyS got the idea that I said “a lot of hound hunting activity isn’t about pest/vermin control.” If you’re live hunting, you’re doing it as much to aid your landowners as anything. If you’re drag hunting, you’re not hunting anything.
Also on the “huh?” list: I’m not sure where you’re typing from, EmilyS, but deer hunting with hounds still occurs. It’s still a significant form of hunting in France, very much along the traditional lines, and in the US people often use hounds as they hunt deer, although—and I hasten to say that I’m not an expert on US deer hunting—I think most of that is using the hounds to flush the deer to guns or bows. Again, I am not an expert there. I do know about the French, though: classic mounted stag-hunting, with hounds.
EmilyS writes, mistakenly: “why we use dogs to kill rabbits, foxes, groundhogs, badgers, possums, raccoons, etc etc. with no limits and with no concern for the innocent.” There are, in fact, quite a number of limits. We hunt in particular seasons, for example. Hunters are licensed, for another example. “Concern for the innocent” is one reason we’d rather hunt/pursue than leave farmers to lay traps and poison. Foxhunters are not really into wanton slaughter, as EmilyS seems to believe—and it would be helpful if she understood at least the rudiments of foxhunting before attempting to sound like an expert critic (like the existence of hunting seasons and off seasons, licensing, laws that prevent interstate trafficking of wildlife so that people can’t just bring a fox or other game willy-nilly from anywhere into their area to hunt it, and other limits EmilyS is clearly unaware of).
I understand if people are against hunting. I don’t even blame them. It’s their choice, and people have their own reasons for things. I’m more of a bleeding heart than EmilyS would ever believe, myself. But, for heaven’s sake, it’s only logical to understand your subject before you embark on a critique of it.
Comment by Glenye Oakford — December 23, 2009 @ 6:28 pm