Adverse effects of hunting with hounds on participants and bystanders

: In the face of biodiversity crises and concerns raised about animal ethics, some societies are re-examining many human uses of animals. One activity that may once have been unobjectionable has undergone little scrutiny in most countries: hunting mammals with free-running hounds. We present two novel datasets about this under-studied behavioural interaction and hunting method. In the state of Wisconsin, USA, hounds and gray wolves occasionally interacted aggressively and human by-standers reported adverse interactions with hounds and their handlers. Such self-selected samples cannot be used to extrapolate in space or time but do provide new information. Between 1999 and 2012, 176 hounds were reported to have suffered injury during encounters with wolves. No government data were collected on how many wolves or other non-target animals were injured by hounds despite legal requirements. We describe the grouping behaviour, patterns of injury and vulnerability to attack, hound phenotypes, and other ethological data associated with aggressive wolf-hound interactions. We analyze wolf life history, seasonal life history patterns, bite locations on hound bodies, consumption of hound carcasses, and the outcomes of interactions to test two hypotheses for wolf-hound interactions. We find weak or no support for either and propose new hypotheses focusing on the behavior of hounds and handlers primarily. We also report handler and hound interactions with human bystanders. Between 2015-2021, bystanders (n=105) reported various incidents of illegal behaviour by hounds and handlers, adverse interactions with law enforcement, and other events associated with hunting with hounds. We propose reforms to policy for wildlife, hunting, and law enforcement, and reforms to husbandry by hound handlers. Abstract 10 In the face of biodiversity crises and concerns raised about animal ethics, some societies are re- 11 examining many human uses of animals. One activity that may once have been unobjectionable has 12 undergone little scrutiny in most countries: hunting mammals with free-running hounds. We present 13 two novel datasets about this under-studied behavioural interaction and hunting method. In the state of 14 Wisconsin, USA, hounds and gray wolves occasionally interacted aggressively and human by-standers 15 reported adverse interactions with hounds and their handlers. Such self-selected samples cannot be 16 used to extrapolate in space or time but do provide new information. Between 1999 and 2012, 176 17 hounds were reported to have suffered injury during encounters with wolves. No government data were 18 collected on how many wolves or other non-target animals were injured by hounds despite legal 19 requirements. We describe the grouping behaviour, patterns of injury and vulnerability to attack, hound 20 phenotypes, and other ethological data associated with aggressive wolf-hound interactions. We analyze 21 wolf life history, seasonal life history patterns, bite locations on hound bodies, consumption of hound 22 carcasses, and the outcomes of interactions to test two hypotheses for wolf-hound interactions. We find 23 weak or no support for either and propose new hypotheses focusing on the behavior of hounds and 24 handlers primarily. We also report handler and hound interactions with human bystanders. Between 25 2015-2021, bystanders (n=105) reported various incidents of illegal behaviour by hounds and handlers, 26 adverse interactions with law enforcement, and other events associated with hunting with hounds. We 27 propose reforms to policy for wildlife, hunting, and law enforcement, and reforms to husbandry by 28 hound handlers. 29


31
In the face of biodiversity crises and concerns raised about animal ethics partly caused by climate  people in their path, on the hounds themselves, and on target and non-target wildlife they encounter or 49 pursue (Grignolio et al., 2011;Gompper, 2013). Therefore, we present data on reports by self-selected 50 owners alleging harm to their hounds, following interactions with wolves. We also present self-reported 51 perceptions of human by-standers who experienced the behaviour of hounds during training or hunting.

52
We offer these two data sets to describe this poorly studied hunting method. reported to avoid encounters with hounds and in so doing approach people and major roads more 61 frequently (Stillfried et al., 2015). Some animals will stand their ground when hounds encounter them 62 (Treves et al., 2002;Wydeven et al., 2004;Backeryd, 2007

88
In brief, as a group, hound-handlers have the lowest tolerance for wild wolves in any group measured 89 thus far. There are no published data on hound-handler' encounters between by-standers and either 90 handlers or their free-running hounds. The Sierra Club Wisconsin Chapter (SCWC) began to fill the gap 91 with the survey we report here. As part of a National Sierra Club initiative, the SCWC subcommittee 92 discussed the first-hand reports members had received of by-stander experience. Because such first-93 hand reports are likely to be remarkable, most reports were adverse. The SCWC subcommittee 94 requested information from local law enforcement in the counties from which reports and also the Running head: adverse effects of hounding, p.5 of 27 both agencies that "no such data were recorded." Thus, SCWC members led an effort at gathering 97 information more broadly and systematically. We focus on the behaviour of hounds, wolves, and 98 handlers as reported by by-standers. We test two ethological hypotheses about WHI. First, the 99 predation hypothesis predicts WHI occur when wolves attack hounds for food, and second, the 100 territoriality hypothesis predicts that WHI occur when wolves defend territory or pups (Treves et al.,      Walker coon-hounds (18-36 kg). Occasionally, WHI files did not specify the type of prey being pursued.

136
In these cases, if the breed of hound was one of the five listed above, we assumed the WHI occurred 137 while pursuing the above three wildlife species. In total, we report on 176 case files. We quantified the 138 frequency of WHI among breeds of hounds. If the hound was reported as a mix of multiple breeds, we 139 used the first breed listed. We pooled breeds in an "other" category when a single breed had too few 140 WHI to meet the assumptions of the chi-squared test. No data are available on breed frequencies or 141 preference by hunters in Wisconsin, with which we could estimate relative risk by breed.
neck, and throat into one category and all other sites in another category, to test if outcomes of WHI 145 differed by bite site.

146
We compared hound group size, number of hounds involved in the WHI, and wolf pack size

194
SCWC also invited any members of the public who described adverse hounding encounters to fill the 195 online report. Therefore, respondents were self-selected with attendant biases.

196
We analyzed anonymized data stripped of identifying information by the SCWC administrators.

201
Respondents were asked how many hounds they saw during each interaction they reported. When two 202 respondents mentioned the same interaction but different numbers of hounds, LM averaged and 203 rounded up for the number of hounds.

204
About 80% of respondents used the online form to report anonymously, and 20% sent their 205 responses directly to SCWC via mail, phone, email, or in person while being assured of anonymity. LM 206 screened the sample to eliminate responses which identified no adverse incident involving hunting 207 hounds, as these respondents generally used the report format to express an opinion about the practice 208 of hunting with hounds, which we did not analyze because it was outside the purview of this survey 209 (Supplementary Material 2). We screened for multiple reports of the same incident with identifying 210 factors such as location and date. After the screening, the sample presented here appears to come from 211 independent incidents although we had no way to verify location or date.   coyotes C. latrans 4%, raccoons Procyon lotor 1%). However, we lack independent data on the animal 240 being pursued by those hounds at the time of WHI. We also lack the relative frequencies of targeting 241 each species with hounds statewide and over time. There was no association between the outcome of 242 WHI categorized as either injury or death and the prey being pursued by hunters (X 2 = 1.9, P = 0.75, df = 243 4, n = 140). The bear-hound-training period accounted for 62% of WHI, whereas the bear-hunting 244 season accounted for 28% despite being the same length approximately. Outcomes were not associated 245 with month annually (X 2 = 8.5, P = 0.38, df = 8, n = 176, Table 1). These two results suggest that 246 seasonality and Wolf reproductive timing did not predict injury or death of hounds, which undermine 247 both the predation and territoriality hypotheses. We lack information on the frequency with which WHI

254
Notably, the Plott fatality frequency of 95.4% was higher than the average 81.2% (Table 1)

290
Of 80 deaths with data on consumption of a carcass, 49% of hound carcasses were partially 291 consumed. Of those 80 hounds consumed by wolves, 71% occurred July-August and 27% in September-

292
October. When we combine the former timing of WHI, site location of bites, and the consumption data 293 above, we can test two hypotheses about the cause of WHI. The timing of WHI presents equivocal 294 evidence for both hypotheses. Higher frequencies of WHI occurred during the hound training period in 295 July and August than during the autumn black bear hunt in September and October (Table 1)  Husbandry, such as avoidance of rendezvous sites and use of bells on collars were difficult to evaluate, 320 because of a lack of data on prevalence, use, and effectiveness of these potentially preventive methods.

321
Overall, 55 (31%) records reported whether hounds in WHI wore bells on their collars, with 20 (36%) 322 wearing them and 35 did not (64%). But we have no data on the use of bells among hounds that did not 323 enter the WHI database and the majority of records did not contain any information on devices.

324
Outcomes were not associated with hunter self-reports of affixing bells to collars. Another step handlers 325 might take to protect hounds and wolves would be to release hounds only in low-risk areas. The state 326 did not systematically collect data on whether air warnings about high-risk WCAs were heeded. The WHI 327 records did not contain such information.

331
Seven respondents declined to specify location, but timing distinguished the reports from other 332 respondents' reports. The 105 respondents reported 119 separate incidents (Table 2)

344
Moreover, 31% reported threatening altercations with hound handlers, including being 345 unwillingly detained by hound handlers 'trucks on public roads, or their own private driveways. Of 105 346 respondents, 51% of respondents reported they "feel intimidated by hound handlers," and 44% feared 347 retaliation from handlers for reporting confrontations to law enforcement.

348
Finally, respondents describe being given false information by law enforcement officers, 349 including local sheriffs and game wardens, and also reported filing official complaints upon which no 350 discernible action was taken. Overall, 36% of 105 respondents believed a conflict of interest existed for 351 law enforcement officers, including game wardens, because of relationships between officers and 352 handlers, or because the officers were believed to hunt with hounds themselves. Prior research studies 353 report that hound handlers as a group contain a substantial contingent willing to break the law and flout 354 regulations intended to protect animals and more so than other groups active in wolf range 355 (summarized in SM 1). Actual poaching evidence is consistent with the above survey reports (see  3.4 Comparing numbers of hounds from WHI and survey data seems to be corroborating evidence of accuracy in reports of hound pack sizes in both datasets, as neither set of complainants was aware of the other. Given the rarity of single hounds (5%) in WHI, the 362 bystander reports of >1 hound seem unsurprising. Similarly, bystanders reported >6 hounds in 3 events 363 (8% of reports that include these data) but handlers never reported >6 in their pack after a WHI. The 364 legal limit per handler was multiple handlers may release more than 6 hounds. The topic of comparing

378
Hunting with hounds is rarely studied. Here we fill the gap partly with data on the behaviour of 379 hounds and wolves associated with aggressive wolf-hound interactions (WHI). Also, we present self-380 reported data on the husbandry of handlers and the experiences of bystanders exposed to hound and 381 handler behaviour. The shortage of data on wolf casualties makes the lack of research a concern for wildlife law enforcers and wolf interests. Our inability to find strong support for either the predation 383 hypothesis or the territoriality hypothesis, which focus on wolf motivation for WHI, suggests either a 384 multi-causal phenomenon or we lack hypotheses for the motivation of hounds to initiate WHI. The lack 385 of a seasonal pattern in our data argues against the notion that wolves are the primary aggressors; WHI 386 may be a mutual affair or may be largely initiated by hounds. Treeing Walker coonhound was the breed in Wisconsin and uncertainty about the number of wolves involved both obscured associations with the 400 fatality rates during WHI. We found a critical support for the production and territoriality hypotheses, 401 which may reflect the lack of data on which canid initiated a WHI or a mixture of motivations for WHI.

402
We report unlawful actions involving trespass, property damage, attacks, threats, intimidation and 403 harassment of by-standers or their domestic animals, perpetrated by both hounds and handlers. The 404 survey data and WHI self-reports by handlers are self-selected samples, which cannot be verify directly 405 or used to extrapolate rates, frequencies, or representativeness in space, time, or demography. also seems to need reform given that no information on harm to wolves was collected and it might be 410 impossible to verify that the handlers or hounds were acting lawfully at the time of the WHI. involves concealment or destruction of evidence, which reflects intent to break the law, has repeatedly 418 risen in incidence along with policies that permit some legal wolf-killing in several US wolf populations.

419
These findings indicate that would-be poachers profit from governmental laxity to act unlawfully or that