bladeracer wrote:For me it goes against the very principle of hunting
You say that like the "principle" of hunting is a specific and universally accepted thing.
(The following comments are partly in response to this, the original post and hunting in general. Not having a go at you or anything BR)
People hunt for a variety of reasons; Some to destroy pests, some purely for the challenge, some as a combination of recreation and food gathering, some as a food source literally for their survival.
At the end of the day you're trying to accomplish a task, in any avenue of life it would be at least nonsensical, if not foolish, to deny yourself an advantage or tool to better accomplish it.
If a hunter/hound master is going hunting for food specifically, that is "I am going out in the hope of returning with food" why wouldn't he use his dogs? Why would he decrease his chance of success by not using them?
There are folk who live in the northern parts of the world who need to fill their meat lockers with deer before winter cuts them off from the world for months, who will literally starve if they fail. It would be foolishness of the highest order (and potentially fatal) not to use every advantage at their disposal. Be that dogs or otherwise.
A rifle hunter can argue that using dogs isn't sporting. By that logic you should accept the assertion by a bow-hunter that using a rifle isn't sporting. Anyone who can hunt with a spear would be equally right in saying hunting with a bow isn't sporting. If you accept the first assertion you have to accept the rest going down the chain until you're talking about wrestling them with your bare hands and teeth.
I'm not advocating the use of dogs here, or otherwise, but "principles" are a personal thing, not a practical one. And principles have to give way to realities at times.
You're needs and what
you find acceptable may not be applicable to people in other situations, or hunting for other reasons.
There is more than one kind of hunting out there.