The Virginian-Pilot
©
RICHMOND
The state game department on Thursday accepted a list of 11 proposals designed to curtail conflicts between land owners and outdoorsmen who use dogs to hunt game.
But many in the crowd of 145 gathered at a public hearing Thursday in Richmond said the proposals had more bark than bite.
"I think the goal was to find peace among the groups, but all of the groups seem deeply disappointed in the process and the proposal," said Tom Evans, representing the Virginia Deer Hunter s Association and two other pro-hound hunting groups. "This has produced no obvious gain and has done nothing more than sharpen the conflicts."
None of the proposals - the result of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' 15-month-long "Hunting with Hounds in Virginia: A Way Forward" study - will become law immediately, nor will they become an immediate part of new hunting regulations.
Instead, each proposal will be studied individually and put out for public comment before any further action is taken. C.T. Hill, the game department board chairman, ordered wildlife officials to classify each proposal as administrative, regulatory or legislative as part of the review.
At the root of the issue is the state's "right-to-retrieve" law, which enables hunters who use hounds to go on private land to get their dogs whether they have permission or not.
Department officials cited growing complaints from landowners and hunters as a reason for the study.
The study used facilitators from Virginia Tech and spent approximately $70,000 of a multi-project, $250,000 contract with the university. The study produced a 114-page technical report on the state of hound hunting in Virginia. Facilitators also assembled a group of interested parties. The 18-member Stakeholder Advisory Committee then drafted Thursday's proposals, and a statewide public comment period was held.
The committee's recommendations include:
- Improve law enforcement of current regulations and laws.
- Improve record keeping on violations and complaints to the game department.
- Increase funding for law enforcement.
- Increase penalties and fines for violations of current regulations and laws.
- Establish training seasons for deer hounds.
- Increase department oversight for the practice of hunting from or near public roads.
- Modify Virginia's "right-to-retrieve" law to require hunters to make a reasonable attempt to contact landowners and require landowners to properly post their land.
- Require better identification for hunting dogs.
- Create an education and training program for hunting organizations, hunt clubs and other relevant stakeholders.
- Establish a code of ethics for hound hunters.
- Hold violators of laws and the future ethics code accountable.
Some of Thursday's speakers said the study did little more than anger hunters and enable opposition groups.
"You've awakened the mass of Virginia hunters," said Kirby Burch, a lobbyist for the recently formed Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance, which claims 35,000 members. "This study has brought out the most radical animal rights organizations and put them in the fight against hound hunting."
Most speakers at the hearing objected to the proposals, but there was some support, too.
"I had no idea that I would find myself involved in so many controversial issues," said Jim Hackett of Richmond, a hunter and a member of the study's advisory group. "It was eye-opening. We've been given an opportunity that other states weren't. So if we don't take this opportunity to help preserve our sport, we'll have to settle for what happens when it gets handled by other people."
Opponents of hound hunting have vowed to take the right-to-retrieve law to the General Assembly, where several past bills to overturn the law have failed.
Hunters said they feel like that effort is gaining too much steam and aren't sure the study was the best way to prevent legislative action.
"I come from four generations of hound hunters," said Jacob Hudson of Charlotte County. "We're all very frightened that something is going to happen to our sport. Most hunters take great pride and care for their dogs and respect others.
"This seems like a slippery slope because of what a very small percentage does differently."
Lee Tolliver, (757) 222-5844, lee.tolliver@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
What a waste!
Times have changed, time for the laws regarding deer hound hunting to change also.
A landowner's right are paramount. If they don;t want dogs on their land it should be unlawful for them to be there, period. If your deer hounds run across posted land you should be held accountable. I know that's tuff to prevent but its not the land owners problem, it's YOURS!
Someone said if you don't want dogs on your land build a fence. How about you build a fence to keep them on your property of off mine?
RTR Law, see #2 above. If I don't want you on my land and your hounds crosses onto posted property, you just lost your hounds, suck it up Buttercup! Keep them off my property and it won't be a problem. Having a hard time controling where they go? Find another hobby or buy more land!
Hound training season. They should be able to do that as long as they are in a legal season, existing or newly created but most of all it has to occur on THEIR LAND! Heck, they can run til their hearts are content, just stay on your land. That includes your hounds also!
Joe the hunter
I have hunted with dogs and without dogs. I have hunted since I was five. I have killed many deer with a bow and gun. When I was five all clubs got along and would not run dogs in archery season and would not run dogs in spring gobbler season. Now clubs turn dogs loose just to ruin a archery hunters hunt or a turkeys hunters hunt. Why because the bow hunter is better and so is the rifleman. Everybody I know that has switched to still hunting and archery hunting only has increased their kills 75 percent. This includes switching to shotguns without dogs in Southampton County. Their goes we can't control the population of deer without our dogs.
How many marriages are ruined because of dogs? How much does a dogs hunters family sufffer? How much gas is wasted on dogs?
I love to hear the chase I love to bow hunt. Dog hunters give in a little or you will no longer be. The bow hunter and the rifleman will take over if you dont.
dogs
you're exactly right E...J I used to hunt with dogs too. It has changed for the worse over the years. At least need to regulate strictly or ban it altogether. I LOVE TO STILL HUNT.
land owner rights
Land owners have rights to. How about the financial loss of dogs running deer.lost crops,land rent for still hunting,horseback riding in peace, nails in paths, tree stands destruction, gates torn down, posted signs removed, paths and fields rutted up. Enjoyment of ones land as they see fit is at jeopardy. Other domestic animals have to be fenced if dogs are to be used for hunting let the land be fenced by the dog hunters. 20% of all dog hunters hunt illegally,80% condone it. I hunted with dogs for years.
Why is this so hard?
Simply ban hunting with dogs and make it a $2,500 fine to do so. Any idiot using dogs pays a big fine, and the state makes money. Done.
This Why I Don't Hunt
The only true hunters left where I live are bow and still hunters. Dog hunters do little more in southern Suffolk but turn out their dogs and chase them with pickup trucks. They use tradition as their mantra, but their argument is a fallacy. Pickups, CB radios, and tracking collars are hardly part of the tradition. I was born and raised in rural Suffolk, so I’m very familiar with the rural way of life and its traditions. I don’t hunt anymore because of what the “sport” has become. “Come-heres” from non-rural areas need to be more understanding of rural life; however, many younger hunters simply have no respect for tradition, the sport, or the landowners. Face it, dog hunting is on the way out, and I’m not sure if that’s really a bad thing.
henry, check your facts first
Under the RTR law, dog owners are NOT permitted to carry guns or bows-and-arrows, nor do any hunting when retrieving their dogs from private property. I believe this extends to the weapons even being in their vehicles. After all, a landowner's property is private, and therefore the landowner has the right to say whether weapons can be brought on it. The next time they show up, IF they even have the courtesy to ask permission, REQUIRE them to park off your property and to prove they are not carrying weapons with them. If they are carrying weapons, or are parked on your property, call the police or sheriff and have them arrested, or a tow truck and have their vehicles towed. After all, it's YOUR property. Then file a civil suit against them.
Keep the dogs on a leash
I know that this is a silly suggestion but tough! If you don't like it buy your own property and put a fence up.
Mainly, I just can't imagine that I would react well if someones' trained attack animal wondered onto my property. I bet I would find it enough of a threat to consider at least calling animal control.
How many times do we have to see on the news that people didn't expect the cute little puppy would just flip out and kill a little kid before we realize that they are unpredictable animals that should be always, always 100% of the time caged, leashed, or adaquetly fenced in. And never trained to attack if there is a chance that any person except their master or a trained professional will come into contact with them.
caspar has a point
I have seen "No Trespassing" and "POSTED: No Hunting" signs where the "No" has been shot out, usually at close range. I have also seen trees cut down that had these signs posted on them. No one but a disrespectful trespassing "hunter?" would do these things.
Besides, IMHO anyone who uses dogs to do their dirty work is just lazy. I do not call them "hunters", I call them "shooters".
they came with guns and we could smell beer
Let's see, under the RTR law any group of hunters with guns can come on to any property as long as they say they are trying to retrieve their dogs. I say it is time for this practice to end. Or at the very least when encroaching upon a property when retrieving dogs the hunters should be unarmed. That alone would prove they weren't hunting on private property without permission. If you think that just because their is a large piece of property you have the right to trespass with guns just because you are looking for your dogs, then fine you won't mind if a group of hunters that you don't know suddenly show up in your yard with guns supposedly looking for their dogs. The bottom line is the RTR law has allowed hunters to hunt anywhere they please without regard to property rights. A property owner has the right to control what happens on his property. Most hunters do respect property rights but the those that don't mess it up for the rest.