Environmental Groups Push to Ban Dogs in Specific Hunting Practices

An environmental group is calling for a ban on the use of dogs in certain hunting practices in Arizona, citing concerns for federally protected wildlife. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition on Monday, urging the Arizona Department of Game and Fish to reconsider current regulations that allow dogs to pursue animals like bears and mountain lions.

The petition emphasizes that the hunting methods employed, which often involve casting dogs in packs, pose significant threats to vulnerable species such as ocelots and jaguars. While these animals might escape injury by climbing trees, the petitioners argue their lung capacity is no match for pursuing dogs.

Mexican gray wolves, unable to seek refuge in trees, are also at risk, according to the group. The petition further claims that the presence of hunting dogs poses risks to hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts.

In addition to these concerns, the petitioners have highlighted the ethical implications of using modern technology. They argue that hunters utilizing satellite signals to track their dogs from a distance undermines the fair chase doctrine. This principle, established by the commission, aims to ensure an ethical and balanced approach to wildlife hunting.

Such arguments echo past decisions made by the commission, including bans on drones and trail cameras that facilitate hunting. The commission has also prohibited the use of “smart rifles,” which rely on laser systems to determine firing capability.

The petitioners, Russ McSpadden and Colette Adkins, draw parallels between the current practices and previously restricted methods. Historically, traditional hunting required more physical engagement, with hunters following dog trails on foot. Current methods, however, enable hunters to monitor dogs from afar using GPS technology, compromising the essence of fair chase.

McSpadden and Adkins point to several states that already prohibit dog use for hunting bears and mountain lions, classifying such practices as contrary to sportsmanship. Arizona has similar restrictions for other legal game, including deer and elk.

The petition invokes a state law mandating that the Department of Game and Fish respond to rule change requests within 60 days, either by rejecting the proposal or initiating a rule-making process. The commission now faces the challenge of determining what constitutes fair hunting practices versus unfair advantages gained through technology.

While advancements in technology can enhance hunting capabilities, the agency must discern where those innovations cross ethical lines. The guidelines suggest that any technological aid enabling a hunter to secure wildlife without engaging directly in the field raises concerns about fair practices.

This issue continues to garner attention as stakeholders weigh wildlife conservation against hunting traditions. Whatever the outcome, it reflects ongoing tensions in balancing recreational activities with the need to protect endangered species.