Arizona’s Enduring Battle Over Hound Hunting

By Janelle Leung. 

Introduction 

The use of dogs in hunting has become a legal and political battle in Arizona, pitting environmental groups against hunting associations and state agencies. At its core, this conflict is a struggle over who holds the authority to regulate wildlife management and what values should guide those decisions. The debate reflects a broader clash between modern conservation and traditional hunting heritage, with one side arguing for species preservation and the other for the preservation of a way of life.

The Administrative Battle

Environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, filed a petition with the Arizona Game and Fish Commission (AZGFD) to ban the use of dog packs for hunting animals like mountain lions and bears. The petition, which was refiled after an initial version failed on a technicality, argued that hound hunting poses a direct threat to endangered species. Though no peer-reviewed studies confirm these claims, the environmental groups cited evidence that jaguars and ocelots had been harassed or displaced by hunting dog packs and that these dogs led to the killing of 748 mountain lions and 323 black bears between 2020 and 2023. The groups claimed this practice violates hunting ethics and breaches federal protections under the Endangered Species Act. The petition also raised broader ecological and public safety concerns, describing the use of uncontrolled dog packs as creating a “landscape of fear“ that disrupts wildlife and has been linked to accusations of dog packs attacking hikers and pets.

On April 11, 2025, the AZGFD unanimously denied the petition, maintaining the legality of hound hunting. Conservationists predictably reacted fiercely to this decision. Opponents, including AZGFD staff and sportsmen’s associations, defended hound hunting as a “critical tool…of science-based wildlife management” that provides data and helps hunters be more selective. They dismissed the claims of endangered species harassment as unsupported accusations, particularly pointing out that documented encounters with jaguars were extremely rare. Conservation groups, however, called the commission’s decision “wildly out of touch.” 

The state legislature also launched a separate and significant legal effort. Arizona introduced House Bill 2552 to establish the legality of hound hunting and limit the AZGFD’s ability to prohibit the use of dogs when hunting. The bill sought to amend two sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes, A.R.S. §§ 17-231 and 17-301. The most crucial change was the addition of a new provision to A.R.S. § 17-231, explicitly stating that AZGFD “shall not prohibit the use of dogs to take wildlife.” The bill, introduced on January 27, 2025, narrowly failed a House floor vote in March 2025. The failure may be due in large part to the advocacy of conservation groups who viewed this legislative action as a “power grab to undermine wildlife protections.”

Broader Legal Context and Future Implications

The debate over hound hunting is a clash of competing narratives and values. Conservation groups focus on species protection, while hunting associations defend their practices with hunting heritage and science-based management. This is evident in their conflicting arguments about the impact on endangered species: conservation groups assert a direct threat with instances of harassment of endangered species, while hunting associations dismiss these claims as “vastly inaccurate.” Hunting associations point to California as an example, noting that, “California has enacted policies…unbalancing the ecosystem and causing a predictable decline.” 

However, the debate over hunting dogs is part of a larger trend in Arizona concerning canines. House Bill 2323, for example, demonstrates a move away from judging dogs by their breed and toward a focus on individual behavior and owner responsibility. House Bill 2323 prohibits a dog’s breed from being the sole factor in insurance policies, and clearly defines different canine behaviors. For instance, an “aggressive” dog “has bitten a person or domestic animal without provocation,” while a “vicious” dog has a propensity to attack or endanger people without provocation. By shifting the legal focus from a dog’s inherent characteristics to its documented behavior and its owner’s actions, the state adopts a legal framework that holds owners directly accountable for their animal’s conduct. Thus, we may soon see this emphasis on individual responsibility extend to hound hunting, because the law focuses on the actions of hunters and their dogs rather than on broad categorical restrictions.

Taken together, these developments show that Arizona is still searching for balance in its wildlife management policies. Arizona must navigate competing demands rooted in conservation science, hunting tradition, and perhaps even policies that relate to the everyday dog owner. However Arizona chooses to resolve these tensions will shape not only the future of hound hunting but also the broader relationship between communities, wildlife, and public policy.