Local houndsmen petition for state "hound hunter" permit; committee recommends referral to wildlife commission

Cody Knight, a petitioner and longtime houndsman, asked the county advisory committee to forward a proposal to the state commission to create a hound-hunter permit and related restrictions on nonresident pursuit with dogs.

Knight told the committee the permit would create “non resident zones,” require anyone handling dogs while pursuing mountain lion, bear or bobcat to hold a permit, and include harvest and pursuit reporting so biologists would have better data. He proposed mirroring Idaho’s timing for the permit and season, and suggested an over-the-counter resident permit fee of about $30 along with limits on nonresident access; he said the group initially discussed issuing about 40 nonresident permits and estimates that would generate roughly $20,000 in permit revenue.

The proposal drew multiple supporters from the public. Pete Olsen, a lifelong resident who said he has run dogs for 10 years, told the committee that additional tools—such as depredation tags—would make him personally “kill more” lions to address local predation when that is warranted. Casey Nelson, who described decades of hounding experience, said cross-border competition from nonresidents has discouraged young local hunters from learning the practice. Jesse Lattin said the petition is an example of “sportsmen trying to self police themselves” and urged the committee to support it. Lance Gomes, a resident dairy farmer, said some areas, notably northern Washoe, have what he described as “an overabundance of lions” and supported using permits to direct effort where it is needed.

Knight summarized several specific elements in the petition text: that anyone handling dogs while pursuing lion, bear or bobcat would need a hound-hunter permit (Idaho’s rule was cited as a model); that bobcat pursuit could be removed from the draft if it complicates enforcement; that master guides and sub-guides should carry the permit and permits should be nontransferable; that a harvest/pursuit report at season’s end should be required even when a hunter does not kill an animal; and that the permit season would mirror the lion season, starting March 1. Knight said the wording in the petition is not final and that he and other supporters expect to work with department staff to refine zone boundaries and exact numbers.

Committee members discussed concerns and clarifications on scope. One member noted that bobcat take by nonresidents is already restricted in statute and asked whether the proposal would inadvertently add fees for trappers; Knight replied that bobcat language could be removed to avoid that complication. Another member expressed concern that adding a permit requirement could dissuade pursuit when some units need more hunters to address predation; Knight and supporters said they expect nonresidents who value hounding to continue to come and that the permit would help focus effort into problem areas.

The committee moved and seconded a recommendation that the Board of Wildlife Commissioners accept the petition for further development and review. The motion passed on a voice vote.

The committee did not set final permit language; several speakers said the petition will be revised in workshop discussions with department staff and county advisory boards before any regulatory or statutory change is proposed to the commission.