From a Life Magazine article called “Death of a Bobcat” (3 December 1945).
There is a whole photo montage of these hounds baying up a bobcat ion Oregon.
The title of the article sort of gives away the ending.
Yes. Old Spot dispatches the bobcat.
So if you’re a little sensitive about dogs killing things, I would suggest that you not go to the link to the Life article.
Such an article would not appear in a national magazine like Life today.
If it did, there would be a very negative tone to the whole piece and either the HSUS or PETA (People Euthanizing Thousands of Animals) would be quoted.
This bobcat suffered very little in its life– no more so than any wild animal would.
Its death at the jaws of a dog is no more horrific than if it had been killed by a natural predator, which in Oregon at this time, would have been the cougar.
In terms of the amount of suffering the animal experienced in its life, it suffered far less than most farmed animals– certainly less than the bobcats and lynx that are farmed for their fur.
Today, if Old Spot were still alive, he would be deemed a vicious animal, even though he was most likely a friendly old Walker hound that had no more interest in biting someone than he would in driving a car.
Dogs and humans have become “more domesticated” since then– at least in the eyes of too many. The same too many who have spent their lives too far away from the natural world. The natural world is violent by necessity. It is not moral in its violence either. It is simply violence– poetic and sweet in its timelessness and amorality. For it will be the same when our species, the species that actually has power to destroy the whole of animate creation in a nuclear holocaust, becomes extinct.
Too many people think that predatory behavior by either is inherently evil. Too many people believe that hunting is a form of sadism. And to hunt with dogs is somehow analogous to Michael Vick’s dog fighting escapades.
It simply is not.
The bobcat had ample opportunity to avoid the hounds. Perhaps it could take to the trees or double back on its trail to fool the hounds. Hounds are not infallible in their sniffing. If they were, every hound would bag something every time he gets taken out. If the hounds are timorous, a bobcat can bluff its way out of the situation, or cat could box some ears and send the dog back home in disgrace.
Dog fighting has as much to do with this type of hunting as the Roman circuses did. Gladiatoral events aren’t about fair chase. They were always about guaranteed pain and suffering. That is not the case in a fair chase hunt with hounds. There is always a very good chance that the prey will escape.
Bobcats evolved to experience some level of predation. They are mesopredators, generally living on diets of rabbits and small game. Some, like the ones in West Virginia, do eat a lot of deer. Before colonization and European settlement, the bobcats had to worry about both wolves and cougars. Now, they worry about nothing. A coyote might take a kitten here and there, but they have no real predators once they reach adulthood.
Hunting these cats allows something like natural predation to occur. Numbers get checked a bit.
Hunting them with hounds also put the fear of God into all the bobcats that escape the dogs, teaching them to avoid people and dogs at all costs. Bobcats can become nuisances around poultry, kids, and lambs, but if they are hunted with both dogs and people, they learn to stay away from us.
That reduces conflict between agricultural enterprises and wildlife– always a positive thing for those of us who truly appreciate nature.
To defend hunting is not to say that one is a Republican or a conservative. I am neither of those things.
But one thing I do resist is this sort of “cultural imperialism by yuppies” that is being waged in the post-materialist West.
If such a thing were done to traditional hunting cultures in other parts of the world, the very same people would be crying foul. How can Israel ban hunting with Salukis? That’s so disrespectful to the Bedouin culture! How can the government of Brazil ban aboriginal hunting? That’s cultural imperialism!
I agree with those sentiments in both of those cases, but I apply the same standard to my own society.
And for that, I probably won’t get a lot of plaudits from some sectors.
But it is morally consistent.
One cannot obsess over the life of every animal. Having different standards for different species appears to be something like racism. The analogy is false, of course, for we do recognize that some animals have value as individuals (dogs and cats) and others have value as species (livestock and wild animals). Humans have always categorized animals in such ways, and we have good reasons for doing so.
The animals we love have intrinsic value as individuals because they do not exist a ecological or biological entities. They exist within the frameworks of our societies.
Livestock also exists within human society, but the purpose of their existence is also fundamentally different. They have been developed to be a food source. Not every person can be a vegan and thrive. Not every person wants that lifestyle. Thus, we have to have a different category for livestock, and livestock must exist. There will never be “animal liberation.” If humans were like gorillas in their dietary needs and desires, maybe.
The animals we keep for vivisection also have an important reason for being. There are simply no alternatives to vivisection in every circumstance, and if I have to choose between a cure for Alzheimer’s and cancer and the lives of any animals, I choose the cure. The danger in choosing otherwise is to diminish the value of human life, which we recognize has value simply because each of us understands and values our own existence. When we diminish the lives of our fellow humans, we diminish the value of our own existence. Thus, if we are to truly value ourselves and others, we have to accept that some vivisection has to happen– and we must categorize these animals differently.
Wildlife also has a distinct category for a good reason. Wild animals exist beyond our strictures. There was a time in human history when we viewed wild animals according to the value or cost they provided to our civilization. Fish stocks were valued because they provided cheap and readily accessible protein. Wolves were hated because they killed livestock– a cost to our society. Now, we view these animals differently. We still have those metrics, but those metrics are checked and distorted by our conscious effort to preserve wildlife. I do not view this development as a negative aspect at all, but it is still a far cry from valuing these animals as individuals. Nature never valued these creatures as individuals. The ecosystems in which they exist values them in what they provide to the whole. The species matters, not the individual. Thus, when we rationally discuss managing wildlife, we think about ecosystems and species, not individual animals. If we did, we would be wasting a lot of time and energy, and we’d run into conflicts: Should we cull the introduced arctic foxes on the Aleutians to save the seabird colonies? If we value the foxes as individuals in the same way we value dogs, we cannot value the ecosystem at all. The foxes would have the same right to exist on the islands as the seabirds and could not be killed.
Because we have different values for different animals and have very good reasons for doing so, there are very good reasons why we view different animals differently. It is entirely rational– and entirely acceptable from a moral sense.
Some animals are more equal than others for a very good reason.
And we should accept it.
Wonderful post–I feel exactly as you do on this issue!! :)
Same here; wonderful post, Scottie!
nope you’re wrong.
Pit fighting dogs ALWAYS had a chance to “escape” .. by turning away and then failing to scratch (return to the fight). In the old days, the referee would stop the fight right there.
You’ve incredibly romanticized the way animals die in the wild… especially a predator like a bobcat facing a dog. This is not some bunny being (allegedly) grabbed by a coursing dog and killed with a “humane” shake and “feeling no pain” (according to the defenders’ ridiculous notion). This is a fight to the death, obviously with lots of pain and suffering. To what end? Oh yeah, that vicious bobcat is decimating the hunter’s chickens and we humans are too stoopid to figure out how to protect our livestock from predators. Or maybe he wants to make a buck off the pelt.
You can justify a human killing another animal humanely for food (which includes most responsible hunting and very little livestock production techniques). You cannot morally justify a human using another animal to kill another for entertainment.
However hard you are trying here.
You have no idea about rabbits. They die of heart attack quite easily. I say this as someone who have rabbits as pets, and had a Vallhund and a Shiba pursue them. However, I have no qualm with it because the rabbits they pursued are invasive species released by idiotic pet owners.
The same go for people who let their dogs loose on black and grey squirrels here in British Columbia– again, invasive species.
People do chase cougars here with coonhounds though; and they do chase bears with hounds, and bay them with elkhounds. Even just as sport (as long they still have a permit on them or a tag.) Why? Because if they don’t, we end up with the same problem as California and Oregon: animals unwary of humans.
Bleedin’ heart dog owners are of the worst sort. They claim to love bears, hawks, cougars and lynxes. However as soon their little Chihuahua Fido or their Labrador Marley gets mauled by a predator, they scream: “something oughta be done!” Um… what just happened to the hunters you voted against five years ago? Now you’re just wasting tax-payers’ money on officers who end up doing the same freakin’ thing!
I will never forget how a hippie wanted Red-tailed Hawks culled because one of the hawks at the rehab program she worked at ate her Yorkie.
And how about rats? I think they also die of heart attacks. I saw two of them die suddenly when they got caught between my German Shepherd (female) and Doberman (male) that I had some years ago. Each of the rats tried to escape from one dog only to run into the other at which time they ran into fits, the hind legs kicking, but the front body having no life left. My dogs had not even touched them. In fact, both dogs seemed surprised at the prey throwing in the towels and they not having used their prey drive to the fullest.
Not enough strife on the blog lately?
There are some weak arguments in this article, which, otherwise, is a good one.
“If such a thing were done to traditional hunting cultures in other parts of the world, the very same people would be crying foul. How can Israel ban hunting with Salukis? That’s so disrespectful to the Bedouin culture! How can the government of Brazil ban aboriginal hunting? That’s cultural imperialism!”
Traditional cultures ensured sustainable development and sustainable hunting. When Salukis are allowed to hunt in the Arabian deserts, the Governments there also ensure that the prey does not become endangered. This is not true with North America. We have, in a total disregard to nature, destroyed our precious resources. Only two hundred years ago, the buffalo roamed our prairies and Passenger Pigeons flew our skies in billions. Carolinian Parakeets were lost to ladies fashion and agriculture, many species of songbirds were lost to invasive feral cats, American Chestnut Tree was lost to Chestnut Blight. The list is non-exhaustive. Even some of the names of our Governmental agencies are deceptive. US Forest Services, for example, has nothing to do with providing forestry services or developing forests. Its objective is to lay down roads for heavy machinery of the contractors to reach forest sites earmarked for lumbering.
In this context, therefore, we have to be extremely cautious on allowing hunting of any wildlife. Hounds can and should be used for only scaring the Bobcats away, not for treeing them and shooting them down, except by restricted licensing. It is a win-win situation for farmers / dog owners and their dogs, and the cats.
Hunting for recreation is one of the main generators for revenue for the conservation of ALL wildlife. Virtually all sport hunting societies, like Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, and Pheasants Forever, are major conservation NGO’s. They work tireless to preserve habitati– not just for the target species.
I don’t think we have to be cautious about hunting wildlife. We just need science-based management programs– which prevent profligacy anywhere in the system for whatever reason.
But we have to allow hunting. True tree-huggers actually hug hunters. Otherwise, it’s just moralizing.
What killed the Carolina parakeet and others is not the same as regulated sport hunting or sustainable hunting for fur or feather. Bad forestry practices do not make all forestry bad. Much of the Eastern US is reforested from sound forestry management practices.
It’s when you allow hunters and trappers whoever else to kill as many as they want and to take as much as they want that problems arise. We shouldn’t have market hunting in the United States– and that’s been banned for a very long time. In West and Central Africa, bush meat hunting, which is market hunting, is allowed to go unchecked in many region.
That causes extinction.
I don’t reject any kind of hunting outright. If it can generate revenue for conservation and/or mitigate some management issues, I am all for it.
BTW, what is not traditional about mountain farmers and their small packs of hounds?
Hounds have hunted game in my part of the world since the eighteenth century.
Most game species are not extinct at all. They are thriving. We have more foxes, bobcats, and raccoons than ever existed here.
No disagreement there. I am all in for hunting through hounds, terriers and retrievers. This is traditional and sustainable to me. I have said this a number of times before on blogs here and elsewhere. As a dog person, I want the dogs to be employed in their traditional capacities :-).
If we are to protect our hounds like English and American Foxhounds, Coonhounds, and many terriers, etc., we have to provide them with traditional hunting avenues. I am against over-killing (or market killing) to extinction on false pretext such as all Carolinian Parakeets were agricultural pests, Golden Eagles were vermin, etc. So when we allow hunting, we have to ensure it is correctly coded as hunting the species that the ecosystem cannot support due to its high numbers, not because it is a pest or vermin.
Some animals cannot be hunted sustainably.
I would argue that the whale species are on this list.
But most common species, like bobcats, certainly can be.
Bears in Romania are doing very well, even though the Communist forestry programs that once protected them for the dictator’s guns are now set up solely as sport hunting venues. In fact, Romania’s brown bears are the salvation for the European brown bear. And the only reason why they survived is that they were preserved for sport hunting purposes.
There are also dedicated preservation societies towards this end. Actually, some of these societies are encouraging use of Romanian Shepherd dogs to preserve the bears and the traditional culture. For the three handsome Romanian Shepherd dog breeds, please see the three links:
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/mioritic.htm
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/carpathian.htm
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/bukovina.htm
The bear was preserved solely as a game animal. The communist dictator of Romania, Nicolae Ceauşescu, loved to shoot bears, and the entire Romanian forestry department under communism was dedicated to conserving bears for him to shoot.
When communism died, they still maintained the bears a game animal. And they have sent the bears to other parts of Europe to restock them. Had Ceauşescu not been a bear hunting fool, it is unlikely that the European brown bear subspecies would have survived. At the very least, it would have lost an important source for these bears, which once roamed over the entire European continent from Portugal and Britain to the Urals.
Suhail wrote: Traditional cultures ensured sustainable development and sustainable hunting.
==some did, some didn’t. One of the theories about the disappearance of the mega mammals in the Americas is overhunting by that “traditional culture” of Amerindians. Ditto for the Austrailian mega fauna and Aborigines. The track record for “modern hunters” such as those in the US and elsewhere is actually pretty good since it is usually controlled and monitored by Government agencies, who put a limit on the “bag” in any given area. One of the biggest problems with preserving African mammals is the “bushmeat” trade – often conducted by those pursuing “traditional” hunting for the pot.
Suhail —When Salukis are allowed to hunt in the Arabian deserts, the Governments there also ensure that the prey does not become endangered. This is not true with North America.
== it isn’t? Then what are hunting permits? I’m sure I’ve read a lot of news stories about individuals being charged or convicted for poaching or even taking excess game. And two hundred years ago is, comparatively speaking, a long time in regards to our knowledge and ability to conserve wildlife. It was Teddy Roosevelt (an avid hunter) who created one of the first parks with the intent to do so – Yellowstone. The N. American record compares well to the current decimation of tigers, rhinos, elephants, etc in other countries where there is money or even food to be gained by hunting. Yes, our past is bad. So is everyone’s (Beaver hunting took off in the Americas precisely because of the near extermination of them in Europe. How many wolves are left in areas other than Russia?
Suhail — “Hounds can and should be used for only scaring the Bobcats away, not for treeing them and shooting them down, except by restricted licensing.”
==I’m happy with a required license/permit to ensure that no one goes overboard with any hunting venue. Having had bobcats in my own livestock, I’ll have to state that if it comes in my property and kills my livestock, I have no qualms about killing an animal that isn’t endangered.
Peggy Richter
Peggy:
You are moving too much between various timelines that I am referring to. for example, you are equating the traditional timeline of Arabian deserts (from ages ago till now) to that of North America from last century to now, the latter certainly having improved. Try comparing our respective traditional performances from two hundred years ago.
You wrote: “some did, some didn’t. One of the theories about the… “bushmeat” trade – often conducted by those pursuing “traditional” hunting for the pot.”
You are citing some obscure theory whereas an overwhelming consensus among scientists, and the same is reported in various scientific journals including well read National Geographic, is the weather change. Bushmeat trade has become a problem because thanks to the colonialists, the affected wildlife has been reduced to below critical mass. Second problem is that the culture is no longer traditional because the hunting is done by guns and the region is impacted by wars.
You wrote: “The N. American record compares well to the current decimation of tigers, rhinos, elephants, etc in other countries where there is money or even food to be gained by hunting. Yes, our past is bad. So is everyone’s (Beaver hunting took off in the Americas precisely because of the near extermination of them in Europe. How many wolves are left in areas other than Russia?”
Current decimation of tigers, rhinos, elephants cannot be attributed to traditional culture for there was significant influence of colonial hunters in the recent past and influence of foreign medicinal markets now. African and Indian wildlife co-existed with respective traditional cultures till the time colonialists came in. OTOH, our past is particularly bad because we decimated a much greater population of wildlife within a relatively smaller duration.
You wrote: “I’m happy with a required license/permit to ensure that no one goes overboard with any hunting venue. Having had bobcats in my own livestock, I’ll have to state that if it comes in my property and kills my livestock, I have no qualms about killing an animal that isn’t endangered.”
No issues here, except that it is probably you who are in Bobcats’ territory rather than the other way round. Secondly, have you considered keeping at least two LGDs to protect your livestock? LGDs in Eastern Europe and South Africa are ensuring security of the livestock as well as of predators in the area. Since you love dogs, do consider a combination of LGDs and hounds and put them to good use. In the end, they will be happy and you will be happy.
I agree about the LGDs! We have a 13-year old anatolian shepherd and we’re getting an anatolian puppy this weekend. They are wonderful dogs!! And they will keep your livestock very, very safe. :)
LGDs require a dog permit. When one is limited to a set number of dogs, having a LGD just for bobcats doesn’t make a lot of sense. As for being in the “area” for bobcats — sure, I’m in America, in the West, so yep, I’m in their area. I’m NOT in a suburban area. I didn’t move into an area “recently developed”. And I see no reason why having a LGD makes the bobcat any less dead than if I do it.
I’m familiar with the climate change arguments regarding the American & Australian fauna. I’m also familiar with the evidence that Aborigines fired the brush to manage their land, that American Indians managed their land to promote desired wildlife vice undesired, that terraforming occurred in the Amazon and “pre colonial” hunting practices in Hawaii – all of these had significant impact on various native species of animals. It’s true that people who are “low tech” & low population will have less impact on wildlife than those with high population and more effective weapons. But that is irrespective of their cultures. There’s no evidence that Chinese culture preserved wildlife better, or that Egyptians or Romans did either. Their impact was based on numbers and technology. It just so happened that guns were developed in Europe, and more modern medicine meant more people at the same time. Exploitation of people & animals by “outsiders” is pretty much a historical fact based on whomever wins the battles. I expect that the Neanderthals would have preferred none of those H.Sapiens came from Africa at the time they were trying to deal with their climate change issues. The Neanderthals couldn’t compete with those “colonists from outside”.
I still don’t see that modern American hunting rules make for extinction of anything.
Peggy Richter
With all due respect, LGDs very rarely engage with predators–they use the minimum amount of force necessary, which is almost always just barking. Most predators will move on to easier prey rather than fight a dog. Also, if you shoot a predator, it is only a matter of time before another one moves into the area. LGDs allow livestock to survive and thrive in areas where there are predators without killing anything.
I don’t know about dog permits–we don’t have anything like that in Washington state. However, the peace of mind you get from a good LGD would be worth it to me. :)
Kate has made a very good point. The predator in the area has already fought for its territory and is keeping its rivals away. He / she now knows not to hunt for flock, because they are guarded by ‘strange wolves’ friendly to ‘my’ meat. This is a learned behaviour over a period of time. Everyone is happy. Now if you kill this Bobcat, another novice will move in. Without any learning, he / she will try to sneak in and take some ‘fresh meat’. This will be dangerous for him as well as for the guard dogs. It will take that much time for this new member to learn to accept the fact that he cannot make a meal out of sheep or what have you that easily.
Uh, no. The bobcats that show up in my area are the young (usually males) who are looking for new territory. They only show up in my area in “El Nino” years when the desert has enough rain to result in a rabbit population explosion. In the 30+ years I’ve lived here, I’ve had to kill 2 bobcats. Not enough to justify a LGD. Moreover, “barking” doesn’t go over well with neighbors. I’m in an Ag zone, but that doesn’t mean that I can have barking dogs. I’m glad you don’t have a dog limit law in your particular area of Washington. That is NOT the case in a lot of the country. I have friends who have LGDs and recognize their talents, but they are not the solution for everyone.
Incidentally, the local coyote pack has never given me any trouble.
Peggy Richter.
[…] Old Spot vs. the bobcat (retrieverman.wordpress.com) […]