TheTroutBum.com

It's important to have access to a trained dog. Even a perfect hit roe-deer can run quite a distance, ecpesially if it's full of adrenalin and on the run. Without a dog the roe-deer may be hard to find if it has crossed the tracks of other roe-deers or ran through rough an bushy terrain (The roe-deer on the picture was shot too far away from its vital organs as you may see, and did run some.).

When hunting roe-deer, we're in a large terrain with very few others. But even if the terrain is large we try not to disturb them to much and use small Dachs dogs in the actual hunt. The Dachs is slow and are not capable of chasing - just following some minutes behind. Very efficient when hunting - the slower the better.

I've also hunted roe-deers with vorsteh - which is a lot of fun - but they are just too quick. The roe-deers get nervous and sometimes just run "straight out", meaning they don't go rounds, but just head for the horizon...

A couple of 2001 tracking stories: A mediocre hunting season - some roe-deers, grouses, fox and a reindeer (It's only december when I write this, though). Ulv had to track a fox I shot and a roe-deer I THOUGH he had to track.

A Fox: I was sitting beside a tree with Ulv as usual (in the middle of the week, in the middle of "nowhere"), when a fox came running fast out from a dense wood (far away from the barking dachs which was on the track of a roe-deer). It was a dense and difficult place and I only saw the back of the fox, so I just followed him with my rifle scope to see if I might get a better view of him. No need to risk anything - a fox is a respectable animal, as all other animals, and I don't want to send of a shot just to...I've hunted too long to do that kind of things.

But. Suddenly he ran across some meters of open space and I gave it a try. The fox clearly hit well, ran into the dense bushy area, and I stood there and watched him (with a sad look upon my face, I guess), because he was hit too well to run that far (but you know how far an animal can run after a shot if he's "on the run") Anyway, I could see by the way he ran that he was hit, so when the two hunters with the dachs passed by I told them that they could just walk on by back to the rendez- vous and wait. I waited by the tree for a while with Ulv and then put on his harness - and started tracking.

Ulv's nose dropped to the ground about where I had shot at the fox. Then he guided me about 70 meters into a dense wooden area where the fox suddenly had turned 3-4 meters and laid down under a bush. I garantee that I had never found the fox without the help of the dog - so dense was this area (you who think you can track as good as a dog, get real - or watch a good tracking dog in action ;-)) Luckily, the fox was already dead - a fine specimen - and a true roe-deer killer as well. In both Sweden and Norway, there seems to be too many foxes and they're really tough on the roe-deer and hare populations, so there is a nescessity to shoot some of them. A friend of mine, which is an experienced hunter as well and honestly have nothing against the fox (who has?) say that in his area the larger experienced foxes kill about 80% of the roe-deers during their first year. I think the red fox are among the most adaptable and effective animals in the Scandinavian fauna and I really respect them for being so perfect in their habitat. On the picture you can see the fine red fox.

A roe-deer: I'd sent Ulv away with the dachs and the hunter who was going to search the area. And just as I'd selected an opening in the terrain where I'd thought the roe-deers might come running - there came two of them. And fast! I saw the first one in a split second, let it go and shot the second at 5 meters range in full speed (the yearling) with my rifle. I was sure it was a good shot, but he ran away out of sight. Ulv came out from the woods about 10 seconds later (remember what I've said about hunting roe-deers with Vorsteh earlier - and the Groenendael is even much faster.) I managed to stop him and put on his harness. And I didn't care to wait for an hour or more, because I was sure the roe-deer laid in the woods somewhere in the nearby. Dead. So I sent him on the track with a "finne" command. It was so dense that I wouldn't start without him, but the roe-deer had only ran for about 30 meters or so, so Ulv found him right away. But you never know...

On the other hand: In my opinion, one should use a tracking dog even when you are "sure that you've missed". Every time. Every time. Every time. I don't know if this is basic in i.e the US (correct me if I'm wrong: E-mail me), but a good tracking dog should also be able to track even a healty animal for a long distance and this makes you able to follow and assure that you did not hit it at all. An animal might not start to bleed at once and might not show any sign of a hit as well. So make it a rule for yourself: Track even if you are sure you didn't hit it.

There is a lot of hunters in Norway and there's a reason why all Norwegain tracking dogs have to go through a second test: Not only the important blood tracking, but also a long distance tracking of a healthy roe-deer, moose or deer. All of us who are into tracking dogs are responsible hunters that not only track because we want to find our pray, but also because we don't want any wounded animals to be left in the woods.

For further info in the US on tracking and regulations, please visit deersearch.org, Jolanta and John Jeanneney: www.deersearch.org

Any questions, stories etc. please visit TrackingDogs MessageBoard and share it with others - it's always interesting to hear about others experiences.

Sure smells good...

-----------------------------------------------------------------