A man had a lot of hunting dogs, but is not allowed to take them out. They're noisy and the town will probably force him to put them down. But (assuming) the mayor wants his help to track down one of her (undeclared) bull that has escaped. But she then she betrays him and [spoiler]denies it and blames the sheep killed by the bull on the dogs[/spoiler]. Right from the beginning it was clear he should have kept proof of this conversation but whatever. It's a real love story between a man and his dogs, every moment before/during/after the action transpires that (though he definitely seems to have a favourite). But it wouldn't have hurt to make the story itself more interesting. Would have loved a more revenge ending. Catching her lying at least, up to going crazy and hunting her down for the death of some of his dog. Even capturing her and launching the dogs on her. There's this moment where he orders the dogs to stay until he allows them to eat, it would have been a great primer for a gruesome ending. But no, nothing. We see the bull so it was not just a trap. Not sure how dark the ending is. Does he [spoiler]release the dogs because he knows they are condemned[/spoiler] ? Does finding the bull means he has proof (and so he is the one that [spoiler]condemned the dogs by releasing them when they could have been saved[/spoiler] ? What does the final barking mean ? Is he happy they are free ? Or does that mean they followed him and so can be saved ? Why is he not killing the bull ? He wants to keep it as proof ? By pity ? Does it want it to create more damage to punish the mayor ? There can be very dark explanations, but not sure they were intended beyond the love for nature and animals (and also, the love of hunters for nature is a nice tale, but dubious at best in reality).