# VDGIF Public Comment Meetings.



## BigBirdVA

Now is your chance to speak up. Several meetings where you can voice your opinion on hound hunting are schedules throughout VA. 

Date and rules here: http://www.dgif.state.va.us/hunting/hounds/public-comment-period.asp

The Technical Report just came out today. It clearly identifies the problems with dog hunting and gives the solutions other states have been forced to take to stop or control the problem dog hunters have created.
Report here http://www.dgif.state.va.us/hunting/hounds/technical-report.pdf
It's over 100 pages but it tells it like it is. Seems in VA only 30% of the hunters dog hunt. They would lead you to believe they are a majority, they're not. Some of us have seen that act before. If the state follows the lead the report started maybe we can fix the dog hunting problems and move on.


----------



## coxva

Thanks for the information I will definitely attend the NOVA one. I was happy to see my comments make the survey on page 13 table 7 the first comment is definitely mine verbatim. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting/hounds/content-analysis-report.pdf
Perhaps this will be the last year a pack of dogs ruin my day in the woods of Caroline County.


----------



## BigBirdVA

Just got an email from a non-hunter who is a friend of my SO. The friend is active in other areas. Seems a lot of others are planning on attending that don't want dog hunting. 

I think the technical report cleared up a lot of things.


----------



## rick64

I'll be at the NOVA meeting, probably be more Fox hunters than Deer hunters there.


----------



## ButchA

I wish I could attend a meeting, but with me working nights (3rd shift  ) and sleeping during the day, it's not easy.

I can always email my comments in...


----------



## BigBirdVA

> Today, 40% of all hunters use some type of dog while hunting and at least 30% of all hunters likely use hounds (Jagnow et al. 2008).


Straight from the Technical report. VA sold 220,000 big game licenses so that's about 65,000 people or 3-4% of the population in VA. Don't let 4% dictate or screw up what the rest of us want. If you don't go it won't get fixed. The other side is planning on a massive showing. We need to counter that.


----------



## coxva

I am taking leave to attend the meeting. The great Northern Virginia traffic gets me home around 8pm. It is worth it to at least have a voice. My father attended such a meeting many years ago and he was the only person against deer hunting with dogs. They were ready to run him out of there and lynch him. I guess they stuck together back then also. Maybe this will be the last time deer chasers inconvenience me (not likely).


----------



## ButchA

coxva said:


> My father attended such a meeting many years ago and he was the only person against deer hunting with dogs. They were ready to run him out of there and lynch him.


Sounds like me, when I once spoke out (single handedly) against the deer doggers. It was not pretty. I mean, it was like 5000 strong to just li'l ol me. So, I just said, _"Fine, fine.. I'll go west to the other side of the Blue Ridge to hunt, and you guys can wallow in your own dog hunting mess"_. 

Hey, I tried... I tried talking nice and polite and tried to explain myself, but I ended up almost getting tied up and horse whipped! 

Guys, I'm not a wuss, I'm not being a wimp, okay? I'm just saying - those deer doggers don't play nice. Going up against them alone is like David vs Goliath. High powered lawyers, state officials, and tons of documented facts and figures is the only way to put an end to the battle.


----------



## BigBirdVA

ButchA said:


> Sounds like me, when I once spoke out (single handedly) against the deer doggers. It was not pretty. I mean, it was like 5000 strong to just li'l ol me. So, I just said, _"Fine, fine.. I'll go west to the other side of the Blue Ridge to hunt, and you guys can wallow in your own dog hunting mess"_.
> 
> Hey, I tried... I tried talking nice and polite and tried to explain myself, but I ended up almost getting tied up and horse whipped!
> 
> Guys, I'm not a wuss, I'm not being a wimp, okay? I'm just saying - those deer doggers don't play nice. Going up against them alone is like David vs Goliath. High powered lawyers, state officials, and tons of documented facts and figures is the only way to put an end to the battle.


That's exactly where it's going. The Technical report has it nailed. They're awful quiet on the dog chaser lists on it. There was little in their favor in it. 

This meeting stuff is just a feel good act anyway. Even if every dogger in VA showed up it won't change the results in the report. It's just a last chance to moan the word "tradition" followed by it's only "a few rogue hunters". 
Too little, too late. :RockOn:


----------



## coxva

BigBirdVA said:


> That's exactly where it's going. The Technical report has it nailed. They're awful quiet on the dog chaser lists on it. There was little in their favor in it.
> 
> This meeting stuff is just a feel good act anyway. Even if every dogger in VA showed up it won't change the results in the report. It's just a last chance to moan the word "tradition" followed by it's only "a few rogue hunters".
> Too little, too late. :RockOn:


I hope you are right. I found it interesting that they were suggesting more enforcement officiers as a solution to some of the problems. If they were doing nothing wrong why would they need more officers. This has been a known issue for years and I hope a fair resolution comes out of it. I don't see how anything short of a complete ban of deer hunting with dogs can resolve the issue. Do you think they will have a seperate season? I can't wait to find out.


----------



## ButchA

I don't think there will be an out and out ban on deer dog hunting. But soon it *WILL BE* seriously controlled and regulated. That's my .02 cents.


----------



## Hokieman

I'd say don't get to cocky yet, these are only proposals to the DGIF that the Sac has approved to the Technical Com. It still has a long way to go and that is what we do best. I'll say again it will be won or loss in the General Assembly. On another note it is true DGIF is under staff and they should've, could've used a different approach to manage their programs, but instead they choose to study it. Looks bad on their part maybe a study will happen next too bowhunters, rifle hunters, muzzle load hunters, cross bow hunters. as each and every group has it's own problems and I could name them but hey I am a hunter and this study is BULL*****:wink:


----------



## coxva

I have never had another Bow Hunter, Muzzleloader or Still hunter ruin a day for me in the woods. I am on a 1200 Acre piece of private land and only dogs and the people that hunt with them have ever ruined a day of hunting for me. So let them do any study they want about Bow/Muzzleloader/Still Hunters. I have never come across any of still hunters trespassing. I hunt 2 days a year during firearm season because of the dogs dogs dogs and the Hunters that use them.


----------



## Hokieman

I'm happy to hear you've never had any of the problems stated above. I however have had spotlighting, trespassing done on my property both during rifle season and spring gobbler season. I was working a gobbler one morning on my own land when a trespasser got between the middle of me and the gobbler and took him. ticked me off. I found out who the guy was and approached him and made it clear to him that it was the last time. I don't have no more problems from him but I do others who are unethical hunters but I wouldn't ban the season or ask the state government to regulated it. just so I didn't have to deal with it. there is other means for correcting the problem legally.


----------



## coxva

Hokieman said:


> I'm happy to hear you've never had any of the problems stated above. I however have had spotlighting, trespassing done on my property both during rifle season and spring gobbler season. I was working a gobbler one morning on my own land when a trespasser got between the middle of me and the gobbler and took him. ticked me off. I found out who the guy was and approached him and made it clear to him that it was the last time. I don't have no more problems from him but I do others who are unethical hunters but I wouldn't ban the season or ask the state government to regulated it. just so I didn't have to deal with it. there is other means for correcting the problem legally.


You mentioned illegal acts on posted property. It is not illegal for someone's hunting dog to be on your property or the owner of the dog to retrieve it.


----------



## Hokieman

coxva said:


> You mentioned illegal acts on posted property. It is not illegal for someone's hunting dog to be on your property or the owner of the dog to retrieve it.


It is if they drive their vehicle upon your land to retrieve their hounds, and carry a weapon.


----------



## rick64

Hokie

Why do you think all of the negative issue of hunting with hounds are connected to deer being run with hounds? The houndsmen that hunt other game are tied to a lead balloon. 

Two quotes from Speeddog

Re: Hunting with Hounds in Virginia - Recommendations and Public Hearing Schedule 

We are really missing it.

There has been discussion in NC about a single season for all, starting in September and lasting until January.

Every houndsman should insist on a single season in VA. This would stop 90% of the complaints.

Still hunters, bow hunters and black powder would have no grounds for complaining that someone else was in the woods on "their" day.

Every person who hunts with hounds should write the various officials and insist on a single season.

After all, that makes if fair for all. Everyone has the same number of days in the woods.

That would also give hunters who use hounds more days in the woods.

CSSJR 
********************* " 

*next response is from a SAC member*

" Re: Hunting with Hounds in Virginia - Recommendations and Public Hearing Schedule 

Claude- I will call you tonight.
As far as a single season goes. I have actually proposed something much better than that. of course, it is only a proposal from me and has a long way to go to get to the acceptance stage. The more support I can muster from houndsmen from Va. The better the chances we have in making it real.
My Proposal. 
This would have no effect on the present approved Raccon, rabbit, or bear hound training season.
Deerhound training season
Aug 1st to Oct 1st. Open hound training.
Oct 1st to Oct 30th - deer hounds will be allowed to be trained after dark on Saturday until daylight on Monday morning and all hours of dark from Monday to Friday. (In other words, the bowhunters would have the daylight hours Monday to Saturday) 
Exception: Fox hounds being trained outside of a field trial event during daylight hours Monday through Saturday will be required to contain hounds on the approved properties.
The two weeks of Black powder season would be closed to fox and deer hounds unless it was a permitted field trial event. 
At the closure of general firearms season. Jan until March 30th. Open hound training season. 
April and May would be closed to fox and deer hound training
June 1st would reopen for fox hound training.
Aug 1st would reopen for deer hound training
No doubt that there are some that won't agree with this. So far, no one has disagreed. (36 people have expressed approval no one has expressed disapproval, but fox hunters have expressed some concerns on some issues) There has been some input on this issue and those inputs were included. I am sure there will be more. Please feel free to comment, pro's and con's. The more we can agree on the specifics, the more unified we can be in support of an idea we can all accept and promote. 
Email: *************** "

How do you think stillhunters will react to that? They're really going to gain support for hounds aren't they? 
I'm sure fox hunters will be behind Jim's plan


----------



## BigBirdVA

Hokieman said:


> I'd say don't get to cocky yet, these are only proposals to the DGIF that the Sac has approved to the Technical Com. It still has a long way to go and that is what we do best. I'll say again it will be won or loss in the General Assembly. On another note it is true DGIF is under staff and they should've, could've used a different approach to manage their programs, but instead they choose to study it. Looks bad on their part maybe a study will happen next too bowhunters, rifle hunters, muzzle load hunters, cross bow hunters. as each and every group has it's own problems and I could name them but hey I am a hunter and this study is BULL*****:wink:


If there wasn't so many dog chasers breaking the law we wouldn't need as many officers out there would we?. Again it's a self generating problem that one thing leads to the next and the next. Break the cycle at one or two points and you stop it all.


Still the big denial. Take poster boy JH. He admits to 10 years of doing it, he states the 2 adjoining clubs do it. That's 3 for 3 or 100%. His experience and admission is typical of what goes on. Now that the heat is on the story has changed. Too little, too late. 

No none of it is etched in stone for either side. The RTR is the weak link that will end a significant amount of issues if it's removed. It's also the one an end play around the legislature is possible on. You're smart enough to know what's next if the lawmakers don't fix it soon.


Typical Hackett logic in action. At the meeting they (the survey staff running the show ) said it was quite the joke that certain SAC members totally zoomed right on by the fact that this whole thing was to address and solve dog hunting problems. Instead they thought this was a great opportunity to get a chase season. The dog chasers would ride hunting right into the ground if they could. They are totally clueless. They're only 30% of the hunters. That fact will become quite clear to them one day soon.


----------



## Hokieman

The fact is Rick, outta all your complaining about how bad it is, you still fill your game tags. This doesn't sound like a everyday problem if you can do that feat. what did you kill last year 2 bucks and now a spring gobbler, where was them pesky dogs? I think you protest to much.


----------



## BigBirdVA

Hokieman said:


> The fact is Rick, outta all your complaining about how bad it is, you still fill your game tags. This doesn't sound like a everyday problem if you can do that feat. what did you kill last year 2 bucks and now a spring gobbler, where was them pesky dogs? I think you protest to much.


Missing the point as usual. I spent several days for nothing when the local dog chasers let loose their deer hounds illegally and they chased the deer right by me. My time, effort as well as expense for gas to drive there was thrown down the drain by their inconsiderate and illegal acts. 

It was 2 spring gobblers. You can't even follow me around the internet and report what you find correctly.


----------



## ButchA

Was anyone at the Virginia Outdoor Sportsman Show in Richmond last night (and/or going today or Sunday?)

http://www.sportsmanshow.com/vendors.html
http://www.sportsmanshow.com/layout.html

...and going stopping by booth #134? :wink:

I did and talked to the guys. Hokie, were you there? They asked for my opinion, so respectfully, I said, "I don't think deer hound hunting will get banned. But, I do think it will get controlled and more regulated. Everyone needs to just get along and respect one another".

I also had a good conversation about the same issue at the main VDHA (Virginia Deer Hunters' Association) booth. Nick Hall (VP of the VDHA) was at the booth and told me all sorts of things regarding the SAC, since he's on the board. Wow...


----------



## coxva

ButchA said:


> Was anyone at the Virginia Outdoor Sportsman Show in Richmond last night (and/or going today or Sunday?)
> 
> http://www.sportsmanshow.com/vendors.html
> http://www.sportsmanshow.com/layout.html
> 
> ...and going stopping by booth #134? :wink:
> 
> I did and talked to the guys. Hokie, were you there? They asked for my opinion, so respectfully, I said, "I don't think deer hound hunting will get banned. But, I do think it will get controlled and more regulated. Everyone needs to just get along and respect one another".
> 
> I also had a good conversation about the same issue at the main VDHA (Virginia Deer Hunters' Association) booth. Nick Hall (VP of the VDHA) was at the booth and told me all sorts of things regarding the SAC, since he's on the board. Wow...


I was thinking of going Sunday but booth 134 would be the last one I would stop at. Any must see stuff?


----------



## ButchA

Same stuff... Same crowd... Nothing fancy going on either for that matter. Larry Weishuhn is the hunting celebrity speaker.

I don't know how many might have gone over and ragged on booth #134, but with the police presence (Henrico Police) inside, not to mention a gazillion game wardens around, I don't think anyone would start any trouble.


----------



## Hokieman

Butch I must've missed you. I had on a VTech hat.:wink:


----------



## Moon

*Sos*

I see.

*"I'd say don't get to cocky yet, these are only proposals to the DGIF that the Sac has approved to the Technical Com. It still has a long way to go and that is what we do best. I'll say again it will be won or loss in the General Assembly. On another note it is true DGIF is under staff and they should've, could've used a different approach to manage their programs, but instead they choose to study it. Looks bad on their part maybe a study will happen next too bowhunters, rifle hunters, muzzle load hunters, cross bow hunters. as each and every group has it's own problems and I could name them but hey I am a hunter and this study is BULL*****"*

Can you believe those clowns asking for legal deer chasing on weekends or anytime after dark? They forgot to add "on anyone's property" but I guess that's a given.

We are on to you and your buddies HM. I sense some fear in your post. I do think you guys have "screwed the pooch" by insisting your tradition of trampling over private property owners' rights continue as is. You are right in one of your comments (hard to believe) "each group has its problems". Yes, and they mostly center around dogs running all over the place ruining their hunts. 

I think your fear is that you finally realize that there is a substantial number of Virginia property owners (with financial resources, BTW) that are going to not leave this alone until some sanity is brought back into deer chasing practices in this state or it's ended period. Without some genuine changing of deer chaser attitudes I think you guys should start thinking about selling some dogs, buy yourself a climbing tree stand and learn how to really hunt. Those that you can't sell, you can always do this, which seems to be another sick tradition only practiced by so called "houndsmen".


----------



## ButchA

Hokieman said:


> Butch I must've missed you. I had on a VTech hat.:wink:


I was there Friday night, since I was off work on Friday. (I couldn't really go Saturday/Sunday, as I work nights, and had to revert myself back to nightshift hours).


----------



## Hokieman

Moonkryket said:


> I see.
> 
> *"I'd say don't get to cocky yet, these are only proposals to the DGIF that the Sac has approved to the Technical Com. It still has a long way to go and that is what we do best. I'll say again it will be won or loss in the General Assembly. On another note it is true DGIF is under staff and they should've, could've used a different approach to manage their programs, but instead they choose to study it. Looks bad on their part maybe a study will happen next too bowhunters, rifle hunters, muzzle load hunters, cross bow hunters. as each and every group has it's own problems and I could name them but hey I am a hunter and this study is BULL*****"*
> 
> Can you believe those clowns asking for legal deer chasing on weekends or anytime after dark? They forgot to add "on anyone's property" but I guess that's a given.
> 
> We are on to you and your buddies HM. I sense some fear in your post. I do think you guys have "screwed the pooch" by insisting your tradition of trampling over private property owners' rights continue as is. You are right in one of your comments (hard to believe) "each group has its problems". Yes, and they mostly center around dogs running all over the place ruining their hunts.
> 
> I think your fear is that you finally realize that there is a substantial number of Virginia property owners (with financial resources, BTW) that are going to not leave this alone until some sanity is brought back into deer chasing practices in this state or it's ended period. Without some genuine changing of deer chaser attitudes I think you guys should start thinking about selling some dogs, buy yourself a climbing tree stand and learn how to really hunt. Those that you can't sell, you can always do this, which seems to be another sick tradition only practiced by so called "houndsmen".



Were sitting back and watching fools ramble. You will see the light at the end of the tunnel soon. You may not like it, but you can always buy you a pack of hounds and put some excitment into your life instead of hugging a tree all day watching a bait pile.:tongue:


----------



## rick64

Hokieman said:


> Were sitting back and watching fools ramble. You will see the light at the end of the tunnel soon. You may not like it, but you can always buy you a pack of hounds and put some excitment into your life instead of hugging a tree all day watching a bait pile.:tongue:


It's all coming out, not that it was that big of a secret anyway. The VHDA and some houndsmen are against property owner rights, Archery season, ML season and all stillhunters.

Baiting is illegal and not necessary in VA. After hounds are run across your land and the deer go nocturnal, I doubt baiting would even help.

What is legal in VA, your can run your hounds across posted land year round and then you can legally trespass, any where any time to round them back up. How many other states allow this? I would guess that more states allow baiting, than allow the RTR or running deer with hounds.


----------



## BigBirdVA

Hokieman said:


> Were sitting back and watching fools ramble. You will see the light at the end of the tunnel soon. You may not like it, but you can always buy you a pack of hounds and put some excitment into your life instead of hugging a tree all day watching a bait pile.:tongue:


Did we sip a little too much of the $25 Kool-Aid at the show this weekend? :darkbeer: :wink:


Rick64 VA is the only state left that has a RTR law. That should be a hint of where this is all going. Other states realized it was a bad law and took action. Nothing going on differently here that the doggers didn't do in other states. Expect a fix similar to what they did as well.


----------



## Hokieman

rick64 said:


> It's all coming out, not that it was that big of a secret anyway. The VHDA and some houndsmen are against property owner rights, Archery season, ML season and all stillhunters.
> 
> Baiting is illegal and not necessary in VA. After hounds are run across your land and the deer go nocturnal, I doubt baiting would even help.
> 
> What is legal in VA, your can run your hounds across posted land year round and then you can legally trespass, any where any time to round them back up. How many other states allow this? I would guess that more states allow baiting, than allow the RTR or running deer with hounds.


Rick64, Your opinion of the rules and regulations are incorrect. You can't run on lands were you don't have permission. and many don't it is the small few who use less tact or unsportsman like that do this and create problems for the ones who OBEY the laws. But to change the RTR for what a few do and ban it for all of Virginia Houndsman is slowly squeezing them to quit hound hunting. But hey you jump on that bandwagon and have hound hunting outlawed so you selfish few can have the entire woods and entire deer season to yourself. geez what azzholes.


----------



## Kstigall

There are plenty of poachers that don't run dogs. I suspect the best poaching hunters don't run dogs and still hunt alone. I've caught one guy 4 times over the last 10 years trespassing while bow hunting and I could have caught him more if I had chosen. I'm will no longer being neighborly, next time I'm prosecuting but that's besides the point. There ARE many, many archers that trespass. Unless you're on top of them you'll never actually catch them. 

I do have problems on land we own but it's about impossible to actually have a law enforcement officer standing there when they are caught. When adjoining or nearby landowners are the problem it's tough to prosecute.

A big issue I have is doggers walking their dogs down the property line. One place the doggers have access to is 10 acres adjoining us. They walk their dogs down this property line and hope to run a deer by standers a half of a mile away.

Let's be careful when it comes to outlawing any type of hunting. Every restriction is a victory for the hardcore anti-hunters.......................... and then they came for me.

I love to hear hounds run. The "true" houndsmen need to ban together and have the "jackass" houndsmen ticketed and remove them from your hunting group/club.


----------



## Hokieman

BigBirdVA said:


> Did we sip a little too much of the $25 Kool-Aid at the show this weekend? :darkbeer: :wink:
> 
> 
> Rick64 VA is the only state left that has a RTR law. That should be a hint of where this is all going. Other states realized it was a bad law and took action. Nothing going on differently here that the doggers didn't do in other states. Expect a fix similar to what they did as well.


Rick this fight isn't over by a long shot. too many things are coming up this year and jobs maybe a subject of concern.:wink:


----------



## Hokieman

Rick64,

VHDA isn't against ML, Rifle Hunters, Bow Hunters, etc. Thats bullchit. I hunt during all seasons and it ticks me off to see my own kind ( Sportsman ) single out other sportsman and be so dang dumb and give the anti's any foot hold.


----------



## rick64

Hokieman said:


> Rick64,
> 
> VHDA isn't against ML, Rifle Hunters, Bow Hunters, etc. Thats bullchit. I hunt during all seasons and it ticks me off to see my own kind ( Sportsman ) single out other sportsman and be so dang dumb and give the anti's any foot hold.


Then go back and read post #27. You are still on the VHDA board aren't you? Seems that stillhunters and the elimination of the Archery and ML seasons are a popular subject on Speeddog. 

If you want to talk about giving the anti's a foot hold, who sided with them on the SH ban? Good job supporting your own kind then, it's paying you back now:darkbeer:


----------



## rick64

Hokieman said:


> Rick this fight isn't over by a long shot. too many things are coming up this year and jobs maybe a subject of concern.:wink:


I would keep making threats to the DGIF, it seems to be working.


----------



## Hokieman

rick64 said:


> Then go back and read post #27. You are still on the VHDA board aren't you? Seems that stillhunters and the elimination of the Archery and ML seasons are a popular subject on Speeddog.
> 
> If you want to talk about giving the anti's a foot hold, who sided with them on the SH ban? Good job supporting your own kind then, it's paying you back now:darkbeer:


I won't support sunday hunting if it came to a vote, but I won't stand in your way to get it.


----------



## Hokieman

rick64 said:


> I would keep making threats to the DGIF, it seems to be working.


I sincerley feel that the current board is unable to mange our state governments wildlife and its many programs. I feel there is a need for change.


----------



## Hokieman

rick64 said:


> Then go back and read post #27. You are still on the VHDA board aren't you? Seems that stillhunters and the elimination of the Archery and ML seasons are a popular subject on Speeddog.
> 
> If you want to talk about giving the anti's a foot hold, who sided with them on the SH ban? Good job supporting your own kind then, it's paying you back now:darkbeer:


Those comments were out of respect to current study and who would be nexted on the anti's agendia. you think it will end with hound hunting. think again it won't.


----------



## BigBirdVA

Hokieman said:


> Those comments were out of respect to current study and who would be nexted on the anti's agendia. you think it will end with hound hunting. think again it won't.


Reality is most of us don't want it to end. We, no matter how many times we've been crapped on by the doggers, don't care if it's still done. We just want the laws to have bite since the doggers themselves can't and won't do as they're supposed to. Best example is you know who on SAC. It's all respect, share and can't we all get along talk now. Wasn't the case before the study. I get pizzed just thinking about all the crap I've had go down throughout the years at the hands of the doggers. I am not alone. This linking the study to the anti's is a bunch of crap. It's just a ploy to unite the doggers and build support. Dogging is alive in the other states it's allowed in, it's just under control. As it soon will be here. Hunting does just fine west of the no-dog line. Deer dog hunting is the black eye for hunters in VA. It's just getting a long overdue make over. 

I will hand it to the VAHDA, the unite together, the world is ending was a smart move. If it wasn't done you would have the rest of the doggers on you as well. Shame the survey didn't specifically identify more clearly who causes most of the problems.


----------



## Moon

**

*"Were sitting back and watching fools ramble. You will see the light at the end of the tunnel soon. You may not like it, but you can always buy you a pack of hounds and put some excitment into your life instead of hugging a tree all day watching a bait pile"[*COLOR="RoyalBlue"][/COLOR].

So you actually think the idiocy of chasing deer year round, trespassing on private property in the process, with dogs is exciting? Your buddies that shoot poor chasing dogs think that's exciting? 

My idea of excitement is being able to sit in MY tree and hunt on MY property without YOUR dogs running and yapping by me. I don't know where you got the bait pile from That IS illegal in Virginia but it's known that you guys don't pay attention to legalities. Real hunters do. I think the DGIF should go ahead and re-name your season for what it is:

"DEER CHASING SEASON" You aren't hunters and have no idea how to really hunt. Your buddies on the deer chasing site you use actually make fun of real hunting. If a dog is not chasing it across someone else's property you think THAT's not hunting. Pitiful!


----------



## Hokieman

Moon you need to realize that many hunt differently than you do. I myself rifle hunt, bow hunt and spring gobbler hunt west of the blueridge on my own property and deal with trespassers all the time. It's part of hunting but unless I could get a game warden to sit in my woods during season and patrol there is really no way to stop it and these aren't doggers either but hunters. Your not perfect and neither am I ok. stop ragging so much you crybaby.


----------



## rick64

Hokieman said:


> I won't support sunday hunting if it came to a vote, but I won't stand in your way to get it.


Wasn't it stated in committee this year that *all* VHDA members were against lifting the ban on SH? I would call that standing in the way and some would even call that anti hunting. What other groups supported the VHDA's position on lifting the ban, PETA, HSUS....

So if I say I don't support the RTR, what's the difference? And if it came to a vote, I would vote NO. Houndsmen survive without it in other states.


----------



## rick64

Hokieman said:


> Those comments were out of respect to current study and who would be nexted on the anti's agendia. you think it will end with hound hunting. think again it won't.


Where have I said hunting with hounds should end? I just think that the hunters and landowners that don't want hounds and their handlers on their land, shouldn't be forced to live with it. 

The attitude from the houndsmen that they should learn to live with it is nothing but BS and proof that they will never respect landowner rights unless forced to do so.


----------



## rick64

Hokieman said:


> I'm happy to hear you've never had any of the problems stated above. I however have had spotlighting, trespassing done on my property both during rifle season and spring gobbler season. I was working a gobbler one morning on my own land when a trespasser got between the middle of me and the gobbler and took him. ticked me off. I found out who the guy was and approached him and made it clear to him that it was the last time. I don't have no more problems from him but I do others who are unethical hunters but I wouldn't ban the season or ask the state government to regulated it. just so I didn't have to deal with it. there is other means for correcting the problem legally.


Spotlighting and trespassing are already illegal and you have a legal recourse. Should be the same penalty's for a hound and/or it's handlers that are on prohibited lands. That would correct most of the problems. 

What's up with all the name calling Hokie? Calm down and have another:darkbeer:


----------



## BigBirdVA

*Tick, tock, tick tock . . . . . .*

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/08/public-hearing-set-debate-use-dogs-hunting
Looks like NC is figuring it out too. 



> *Public hearing set to debate use of dogs in hunting*
> 
> Citing increasing complaints from landowners, game department officials in Virginia and North Carolina have been looking at ways to regulate the use of dogs by hunters.
> 
> Virginia initiated its "Hunting with Hounds: A Way Forward" study that has incorporated various stakeholders who have identified problems and made proposals. At the heart of the debate is a conflict between hunters who use dogs and landowners who don't want hunters or dogs on their property.
> 
> Virginia has released preliminary recommendations and a report. Next are a series of public hearings. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries is expected to act on several proposals in November.
> 
> "The stakeholders committee has done a fantastic job of identifying all the issues involved," said Bob Duncan, director of Virginia's game department.
> 
> Using dogs to help hunters track deer, raccoon, bear and other animals is a longtime tradition in the South. But many states, including Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, have instituted strict rules governing the practice.
> 
> North Carolina game officials are studying rules adopted in other states in an effort to come up with their own solutions.
> 
> "Conflicts escalate every year as development expands and hunting lands diminish," said Wes Seegars, chairman of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Board of Commissioners. "We all realize that most hunters do the right thing. But there are small groups of hunters that don't seem to respect the wishes of landowners, and that's not acceptable. We're hearing more and more complaints. So we have to do something about it."
> 
> North Carolina officials are considering a special license for each hunting dog and forbidding dogs on land where hunters and dogs do not have permission to be. If a dog is captured on such property, the hunter would be fined $250 for each violating animal. Continued violations could result in termination of hunting licenses.
> 
> Virginia will hold a public hearing for southeastern Virginia hunters and landowners Sept. 4 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at King's Fork High School, 351 King's Fork Road, in Suffolk.


----------



## Hokieman

rick64 said:


> Wasn't it stated in committee this year that *all* VHDA members were against lifting the ban on SH? I would call that standing in the way and some would even call that anti hunting. What other groups supported the VHDA's position on lifting the ban, PETA, HSUS....
> 
> So if I say I don't support the RTR, what's the difference? And if it came to a vote, I would vote NO. Houndsmen survive without it in other states.


I believe there were a few more orgs that opposed it as well, but you only seem to care about VHDA. Your right VHDA position was NO SUNDAYHUNTING and it may be again this year as well. I'm not going to lie to you as I see no need for hunting on Sunday.


----------



## Hokieman

rick64 said:


> Spotlighting and trespassing are already illegal and you have a legal recourse. Should be the same penalty's for a hound and/or it's handlers that are on prohibited lands. That would correct most of the problems.
> 
> What's up with all the name calling Hokie? Calm down and have another:darkbeer:


There are laws already in place that would curb such actions if there were more enforcement officer that would do their job. But hey lets condem all hound hunters east and west to get to the few who are doing this. Here I am in southwestern va hang me on the cross for abiding the law.


----------



## rick64

Hokieman said:


> I believe there were a few more orgs that opposed it as well, but you only seem to care about VHDA. Your right VHDA position was NO SUNDAYHUNTING and it may be again this year as well. I'm not going to lie to you as I see no need for hunting on Sunday.


I don't see PETA, HSUS, Farm Bureau.....on this forum and others asking for support. No need to lie about your position on SH, your gang did plenty of that before the last legislative session, I don't think anyone would believe you now if you did change your position.


----------



## rick64

Hokieman said:


> There are laws already in place that would curb such actions if there were more enforcement officer that would do their job. But hey lets condem all hound hunters east and west to get to the few who are doing this. Here I am in southwestern va hang me on the cross for abiding the law.


A cross-you have to be joking.

So all issues with hounds are because of law enforcement, DGIF, SAC, bow hunters, ML hunters, stillhunters, land owners, PETA, HSUS,.....is there anyone else left to blame?


----------



## Hokieman

Rick, your blowing this out of porportion. Yes we have unethical hunters in our ranks as well as everyone out there. What I am saying is your punishing all of hound hunters for the few who do it. should we punish all the bowhunters or ML or riflehunters for the few who road hunt, poach, spotlight, trespass? Their method is to divide and conqur and soon you will be doing some support asking. but really Rick who cares if it all ends tomorrow. I do and will fight every step of the way. take care Rick as this will be my last post. I am gearing up for archery season.


----------



## BigBirdVA

Tell me what law stops a dog running deer under the fox chasing loophole if it's on land they do not have permission to be on? 

What law stops a "hunter" claiming to be looking for dogs on your land snooping around? 

What law stops them from letting loose dogs on the edge of your land and running them across to waiting hunters on lands they do have permission to be on? 


All of these have tried and proven ways to get out. That in itself is the issue. It's legal to run foxes. They claim it's foxes. It's not a dog at large if it's legally hunting so the county AC laws are void on them. I called and spoke to a supervisor at the VDGIF. He said there was nothing they could do to stop it with the present laws. You trying to tell me he's wrong?


----------



## rick64

Hokieman said:


> Rick, your blowing this out of proportion. Yes we have unethical hunters in our ranks as well as everyone out there. What I am saying is your punishing all of hound hunters for the few who do it. should we punish all the bowhunters or ML or riflehunters for the few who road hunt, poach, spotlight, trespass? Their method is to divide and conqur and soon you will be doing some support asking. but really Rick who cares if it all ends tomorrow. I do and will fight every step of the way. take care Rick as this will be my last post. I am gearing up for archery season.


You can say I blowing it out of proportion and I counter that you ignore the problems. Your comparisons don't make any sense, poaching and spotlighting are illegal. road hunting and trespassing are illegal(except for houndsmen) You would rather see unethical hunting with hounds continue because any solution might inconvenience you. It doesn't matter how many other hunters have a day ruined because of trespassing hounds. Not to mention the landowners that are turned off to all hunters because of trespassing hounds and houndsmen. 

Have a good season


----------



## Hokieman

Rick that is untrue, I don't condone unethical hunters or houndsman who break the law. But to blame the entire hound hunting community for the few tha do it is alright with you and others. I don't agree to that either. Your wrong and the DGIF is wrong to do so. If you can't understand that then god help you.


----------



## coxva

Hokieman said:


> Rick that is untrue, I don't condone unethical hunters or houndsman who break the law. But to blame the entire hound hunting community for the few tha do it is alright with you and others. I don't agree to that either. Your wrong and the DGIF is wrong to do so. If you can't understand that then god help you.


It seems that according to the surveys there are more than just a few bad apples among the houndsmen. I know from my experience "Releasing the Hounds" on my property is the norm. Hunting from the road and their truck is the norm. Unwanted dogs hunting on my property is the norm. People coming on my property without my permission is the norm. Dogs running out of season is the norm. Dogs running on Sunday (which you are against humans hunting on Sunday) is the norm. Skinny abandoned pitiful looking dogs are left to die and run until they die is the norm. From the survey I have read not only me, Rick64, MoonKryket, Bigbirdva have experienced the same issues time and time again. More law enforcement is all they could come up with and better policing themselves. I don't think anyone is buying off on that solution.:wink:


----------



## BigBirdVA

It's only a few individuals and clubs. JH and the 2 clubs on either side of him. It must be true he wrote it himself.  


Denial right up to the last minute of the last day. They just don't get it.


----------



## BigBirdVA

Looks like HM hurt SAC Poster Boy's feelings over on the dog chaser list. Let the in-fighting begin. I was wondering when the power struggle would start. Now will arrogance win over obstinance? :fencing:


----------



## Virginia Archer

WOW, What have I been Missing out on!!:moviecorn

And butch and Hokie ya'll didn't even stop by and say hi at the RSS booth!!! That sucks.....Its always nice to put names with Faces or Vice Verses!!!


----------



## ButchA

VA Archer,

I was there on Friday night and spoke with you guys at your booth. Sorry I didn't properly introduce myself. I am the lefty bowhunter who shoots that Reflex Highlander bow.


----------



## Hokieman

I betcha he's heard that a thousand times before Butch. LOL


----------



## Hokieman

BigBirdVA said:


> Looks like HM hurt SAC Poster Boy's feelings over on the dog chaser list. Let the in-fighting begin. I was wondering when the power struggle would start. Now will arrogance win over obstinance? :fencing:


Rick we aren't fighting, Just stating facts.


----------



## BigBirdVA

HM number of complaints? I could have called at least 5 times last year alone. I can tell you I will call repeatedly on every stinking hound I run into this year. The 800 number is on my speed dial.


----------



## Hokieman

Rick I bet you'd be red flaged. You probaly call 100 times a day. lol


----------



## BigBirdVA

Hokieman said:


> Rick I bet you'd be red flaged. You probaly call 100 times a day. lol


I hear this is the last year I'll need to call. :wink: Guess I might as well get 'em in while I can. Besides we all know what happens when I don't call.


----------



## Hokieman

As a citizen and sportsman - I have grave concerns about this Study. Because after days of review, which included fact checking, review of literature cited, and inquiries made into the personnel involved.... a pattern emerged. So I went and read the Bear Management Plan. Deer Management Plan. And I continued reading. 

And folks - if y'all think this is about hunting deer with dogs you're way off base. I don't even hunt deer with dogs - this Study isn't about that. This is fatally flawed; bad science, bad writing, manipulated survey's, and animal rights. 

First, if any citizen wrote emails or letters to the SAC during the Informal Survey - those letters were not counted. The only input used in the content analysis were the letters sent to the VDGIF at the urging of one citizen. 

Second, the content analysis used inappropriate methodology to calculate the results; a method calculated to produce the desired outcome; which included artificially inflating numbers. 

Third, the literature cited was not peer-reviewed (less than 20 studies were actual peer-reviewed). This is an unacceptably low number. The "literature" that is referred to repeatedly is that of VDGIF's own Master's Theses while they were students at Virginia Tech. Theses are not appropriate literature to cite - again - no peer review. The other literature is almost solely that of the contractor hired by VDGIF to conduct market based public opinion surveys. Market based research is NOT the same as proper, objective surveys performed by social science institutions. Market based is for-profit. This company packages their data and sells it to... whoever. In this case, the contractor focuses on recreational use of land - not hunting and fishing issues. Market based research is not the same as real science. 

How does this affect hunting, and especially hunting with hounds? 

Well, several ways. First, the information contained in the Technical Report is erroneous. In cases in which other states are mentioned, you will note that it is always in the context of banning or restricting hunting, and always states in which animal rights groups have also been active in a ban/restriction. 

Oregon - The Technical Report mentions many times that use of dogs to hunt bear and cougar were banned. What they did NOT reveal was that cougar numbers quickly rose 36%; and hunting with hounds was reinstuted about 4 years ago - and biologists state, in writing, that hunting with hounds is the preferred method. 

Similar in Washington. 

They also mention that Virginia is the only state that has the Right to Retrieve. This is incorrect. Virginia is the only state that CALLS this statute the Right to Retrieve. 

Many other states have such laws; other states even allow citizens to follow game onto land, to retrieve livestock, etc. 

HSUS and PeTA have indeed been involved in this Study from the outset; and have sent thousands of letters demanding hunting with hounds be banned. Bow hunters are also in the crosshairs, as are other still hunters. HSUS has 3 full time lobbyists in Richmond, and PeTA has also been alerted about the Public Comment period. 

I apologize for the length of this post. I could go into great detail about the Technical Report; including their faulty assertion about the lawsuit with International Paper, their obvious bias for wildlife viewing rather than hunting (any hunting), etc. 

I'd be happy to answer specific questions anyone has about this report. But please know that this is not about people running deer with dogs - it is about all hunting, including retrievers (this Study applies to bird dogs and that is stated in the Technical Report). 

In the meantime, it's important that all hunters, unite for just one moment and express support for hunting - because HSUS and PeTA most certainly will expres the opposite.


----------



## Hokieman

*You think your not going to be nexted think again*

vagazette.com/news/local/va-news1_081608aug16,0,3372058.story

VAGazette.com
Bow hunt to thin deer resisted
By Cortney Langley

The Virginia Gazette

August 16, 2008

JAMES CITY

The Stonehouse neighborhood is considering a deer hunting program that has some local residents aiming to shoot it down. 

“It seems their flowers became tasty appetizers for the local deer and, of course, the only reasonable recourse in the minds of our misguided neighbors is to slaughter the hapless ruminants,” resident Brad Purvis wrote in an e-mail to the Gazette. “The bottom line is that a bow hunt in the Stonehouse community to kill deer is unnecessary. It is barbaric.” 

Admittedly, it’s a touchy subject. Most area homeowner associations are loath to publicly discuss it for fear of igniting controversy. Stonehouse association manager Ellen Clark declined comment, saying it is policy to not grant interviews. 

Yet almost a dozen local subdivisions and the City of Williamsburg participate in the state’s Deer Population Reduction Program, which provides technical advice and antlerless deer tags during early- and late-hunting seasons. 

The subdivisions enter into the agreement to protect gardens and turf, but also to lessen the threat of deer strikes, which can be fatal for drivers and passengers. 

Critics maintain that it’s cruel and unnecessary. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals suggests that nature provides the best solution and suggests sterilization as a humane course. Activists also maintain that deer often must be shot more than once before dying, and that death from buckshot or an arrow can take more than 15 minutes. Bow hunting is particularly egregious, they say, with only 50% of wounded deer recovered by hunters. 

That number is debated, but Department of Game & Inland Fisheries reports indicate that even a mortally wounded animal can travel more than 100 yards before collapsing. 

The state acknowledges that it’s an emotional issue and promotes some preventive measures, such as the use of dogs, fencing, repellents and frightening devices to protect property and roadways. 

Ultimately, though, those measures don’t fix the root problem: deer overpopulation. Left unchecked, the state’s deer population could double from its current 1 million in 2-5 years. The state considers the animals a “renewable resource” because of high fertility rates. The goal is to balance what damage and presence people are willing to endure with what deer herds can biologically endure, spokesperson Julia Dixon said. 

Most non-lethal methods are impractical and expensive, Game Department officials contend. While PETA recommends sterilization, as of February there was no federally approved fertility agent available for deer, according to the agency’s management program. Experimental birth control programs have proven difficult because many are administered through darts and bio-bullets from firearms that may be prohibited by county ordinance or covenants. The consumption of deer also concerns the Food & Drug Administration, whose officials want the deer identified and maximum consumption limits set. 

Meanwhile, capture-and-relocate programs are expensive and result in a higher mortality rate for the herds. Also, it simply moves the problem elsewhere and increases the risk of spreading diseases into new areas and herds. 

The best course, the department believes, is a combination of sharpshooting and controlled hunts. 

Locally, bow hunting is preferred as quiet and in-line with city and county ordinances. Although it is not the most effective method, the state tries to compensate by lengthening archery season and allowing participants in control programs to hunt during certain off-season times. 

While Stonehouse’s program is in the concept stage, with wildlife questionnaires recently sent to residents, Ford’s Colony has contracted archery hunts for years. 

“They told us 15 years ago we could maintain herd numbers if we took 200 per year,” said Realtec vice president Drew Mulhare. “We take 25-30.” 

Mulhare said the hunts are limited to areas that are showing a significant level of destruction or deer strikes. The hunters don’t try to take 200 per year, he said, and have never lost a deer. 

The state also requires that at least a portion of the meat be donated to Hunters for the Hungry, a nonprofit that delivers about 300,000 pounds of venison a year to charities. 

Also, the state regulates the hunts by only providing tags for antlerless deer, according to the region’s wildlife biologist Todd Engelmeyer, removing the incentive to hunt trophy bucks. 

In the end, though, the argument fails to move Purvis, who is fighting the move in Stonehouse. 

“They couldn’t possibly reduce the deer population enough to make one iota of difference,” he wrote. “It is the senseless destruction of beautiful creatures. It poses a threat to the residents and our property.”


----------



## Hokieman

*Don't kill mom or bambi*

Oh Deer, They're On The Horns Of A Dilemma
You spend time, energy and money on landscaping and flowers, on making your home a respite, a retreat. Then the deer come along and eat it all up. This happens again and again, and finally you go to the state and get yourself a wildlife damage-control permit, which means you can call up the man with the bow and arrow and have him come sit in a tree and take out the offending pests.

This is, according to your view of the world, either a simple matter of maintaining a reasonable balance between man and nature or a grievous abuse of man's power over the rest of the animal kingdom.

It's the sort of thing you can disagree about, maybe even get exercised about. But John and Carmela Peterson could not have imagined that their effort to save the landscaping outside their Great Falls home would result in all this: a letter from legendary TV game show host Bob Barker, pleading with the state of Virginia to liberate the deer "to tread their little path to the few remaining woods," and a statement by Ingrid Newkirk, founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, stating that there is hardly "anything more selfish, callous and cowardly than shooting a mother deer."

John Peterson was, in the view of some of his neighbors, preparing to kill animals who had as much right to tromp around Great Falls as the people who live on the area's two-acre lots. "None of us are farmers," says Martina Caputy, whose yard is adjacent to Peterson's. "We're not dependent on crops or anything like that. This was a senseless slaughter of the deer."

Caputy is married to Anthony Caputy, chief of neurosurgery at George Washington University Hospital. In 1999, he conducted successful surgery to unblock the carotid artery of Barker, longtime host of "The Price Is Right." So when Martina Caputy heard from the state game warden that "our neighbor had as much right to kill the deer as we have to enjoy them," she decided that she needed extra firepower on her side.

She rang up Barker, long known for lending his celebrity to animal-rights causes. From his California home, Barker dashed off a letter to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, waxing poetic about how the Great Falls deer "walk along an ancestral path that leads them to and from their sleeping place" and warning that if the state doesn't come on down and stop the hunt, "the children will be catatonic, the neighbors will be up in arms, the fawns will be orphans and the does will be dead" -- all "for the sake of a few flowers."

PETA's press operation leaped into action as well, alerting The Washington Post to the story and offering "an exclusive."

The state would not be swayed. In fact, says conservation officer Joe Landers, thinning the herd would be a public service. Landers inspected the Peterson property Wednesday and found "a lot of deer damage. His landscaping and garden were chewed down to nothing."

In fact, John Peterson says, "hunting was never our first choice." They tried deterrents, even considered a fence, but that would have required a variance from the county, which recommended that he try hunting. Peterson had hired the hunter several times before, resulting in two kills, both of which were donated to feed the homeless. (As it turns out, the Petersons are longtime PETA supporters; Mrs. Peterson once donated her car to the group.)

Although most kill permits are granted to nurseries, vineyards and farms where deer damage threatens people's livelihood, Landers says this permit was more than justified. (He adds that it's not clear whether hunting really shrinks the population: "It does not take long at all for the herd to bounce right back.")

"The herd in Northern Virginia has gotten to the point where the population is almost unsustainable," the officer says, "and we're risking having a major disease that wipes out far more deer than a controlled kill would."

Daphna Nachminovitch, PETA's vice president for cruelty investigations, scoffs at that. "That's the sound bite they usually give," she says. "This isn't a population issue, but a particular family of deer. This is Bambi. This is between the life of an animal and a few shrubs."

Rhetoric aside, animal-rights activists concede that the law is on the Petersons' side. So PETA is appealing for compassion. "The majority should rule," Nachminovitch argues. "Most of the neighbors love watching the animals. This is about the callousness of having someone with a bow just waiting to slice the mother in half and then watch it crawl into the woods to bleed to death."

"You've got to be kidding," Carmela Peterson responded when I told her that PETA and Barker were busy issuing news releases about her back yard. Assured that animal-rights people are not remotely the jesting sort, she got very quiet. But the Petersons met with neighbors, heard their concerns and decided that, as John says: "This is a real problem -- at times, we've had 11 or more deer in our yard -- but harmony with your neighbors is very important. We're not going to do the hunt."

Which Landers greets with a big sigh of relief. "Mr. Peterson rose to the occasion," the officer says. "People have pretty strong feelings about taking deer. I hope this is the end of this one."

I was hoping it might go on long enough for Barker to show up offering a fortune in fabulous prizes.

Actually, wildlife managers in many states endorse thinning the herd, and Peterson would have been entirely justified in charging ahead. But putting good relations with the neighbors first is a rare enough gesture these days that it ought to be celebrated, even if it does mean kissing the landscaping goodbye.


----------



## BigBirdVA

Typical dog hunter slant of how things are. First cougars are not deer. The rest of VA as well as the rest of the US does fine and kills a ton of deer without dogs. Cougars are a species that are difficult to still hunt. You have to compare apples to apples or deer to deer for it to count. 

But while we're on numbers here's some for you. East of the blue ridge or the dog line they kill 6.404 deer per sq mile. The no dog line they kill 5.16 per sq. mile. But they do that in a 2 week gun and the doggers get 6 weeks or 3 times the number of days. So who's more effective? Same goes for damage permits. Doggers claim their dogs are needed to hunt and keep deer numbers down. Yet deer kill permits per sq mile are higher in the dog part of VA than the no dog. Just more BS that's been harped for so long you have everyone believing it. Well almost everyone until now.

Please name a state that allows a hunter to retrieve a dog on posted lands. Saying it's so isn't the same as showing proof. Livestock is different as it accidentally got loose, not purposely set free to wander. I think if ones livestock got out 6 days a week something would be done about it. So they only looked at the ban/restrictive changes in other states? Well that's because like here in VA they already had it all to begin with. And like here they abused it. Truth is they didn't give the doggers anything in the others states, they took it away. So how can they report additions or lessening of restrictions when there wasn't any? They took it till they had enough removed to get them under control. Again denial there is a problem in your so called sport.

HSUS was involved in the no hunting on Sunday vote. How soon we forget. What you guys don't sleep together any more? Too funny, way too funny. Still typical dog hunter shift to whatever suits your needs for the moment is fine. Then you'll turn on them later when your focus shifts back to what you want. It's always about what you want, no one else. Hint of the day. That's why you find yourself in the spot you're in now.

Sure the numbers are flawed when they don't go your way. Peer review? Classic lets dissect every number in an effort to discount data. You guys had no issues with numbers when these same stats were used to allow dog hunting to continue. Now they're suddenly flawed. 

The bottom line is you guys are still in denial there is a problem and exactly how big the problem is. Take Hackets own club. He had a rule you could still hunt and not dog hunt if you wanted to. He had so few wanting to dog hunt he couldn't run a hunt and threatened to change it. If it's so in demand why do dog clubs feel the need to force members to hunt with dogs or not hunt at all on club lands? It's a dictator mentality and given the choice many would choose still hunting instead. 

So we're still on the all hunters unite line of BS. Uhhhh.... the study is called hunting with hounds. Hounds being the key word there, not hunting. What you mean to say is we really need you now that our butt is on the line. We hope to keep all we have and maybe sneak in a training season as well because we just don't get it. But after this all settles down we'll go back to our old ways and you guys can go back to being run over by us every fall like we've done in the past. Sorry but a lot aren't falling for it. This is our chance to put your kind in it's place - for good. It's been a long time coming but it's finally here and many wouldn't miss it for for world. See you at the meetings.


----------



## BigBirdVA

Hokieman said:


> vagazette.com/news/local/va-news1_081608aug16,0,3372058.story
> 
> VAGazette.com
> Bow hunt to thin deer resisted
> By Cortney Langley
> 
> The Virginia Gazette
> 
> August 16, 2008
> 
> JAMES CITY
> 
> *The Stonehouse neighborhood is considering a deer hunting program that has some local residents aiming to shoot it down. *


You have got to be one of the most ignorant people I've ever met on a forum. Do you read and comprehend English fully? Obviously not. It says considering a program. Zoommmmmmmmmm......... we go right by the line in the story that tells what it's about onto the SOS line of "they're going after hunting" or bow hunting in this claimed case. Which leads right into "join the dog chaser or you'll be next" implication. This story is about accepting an agreement in city limits to allow a urban hunt or select bow hunters into places they did not have permission to hunt to start with in order to thin deer out. It's not an attack on bow hunting in general. It's if the town or city wants to use this method or not. Sure peta and your old sleeping partner HSUS object. The program is alive and well in other places and bow season is not in jeopardy in VA. Nice try, well actually it's quite lame but I lower my standards of accepted shenanigans just for you Derrick. See I'm starting to feel sorry for you. 

Another sneak attack but as usual you have to read carefully anything the dogggers post as they're known to twist and misconstrue facts for their own agenda. Once again you prove me correct. 

Seriously did you really expect to slip that by me? I hadn't even had a cup of coffee yet and I caught that one. I think this whole hound study has taken it's toll on you. And you didn't have any change to spare to begin with. :wink:

While the tree huggers think they are doing good let Bambi hit a few Beemers or Mercedes and little Johnny get Lyme disease from a deer tick bite and see how quick they'll want Bambi gone. Takes time for them to figure it out but they do. This is nothing unusual for some to object. I bet the plan goes into effect even if it's in limited areas in the town.


----------



## Hokieman

I don't know Rick. Your the one who protests to much and have friends who are animal activist.


----------



## Hokieman

You're right, no one is going to do away with hunting. If nothing else, it's a wildlife management tool. Hunting for sport/recreation however, is another matter. 

In the conservation 'world', there has been a shift. From conservation to preservation. And there is also an increased emphasis to focus on nonconsumptive use as a source of funds instead of hunting/angling. For the first time, US Fish and Wildlife funds can be used for things OTHER than hunting and fishing. This is money that states are given to assist in funding their agencies. 

In Virginia, VDGIF's mission changed about 10 years ago; to emphasize nonconsumptive use. (kayaking, boating, walking trails, etc.) 

This is more in line with what urbanites prefer to do - not hunters and anglers. Which is ok. However, using this model hunting is not treated as a recreational activity. But as a managment tool only to be used when population reachs an excessive level, or there is a nuisance animal. 

Hunting as wildlife damage control -not as sport. 

This is the model that groups like Sierra Club or The Nature Conservancy use and promote. Leave wildlife alone unless they start causing a lot of damage - and then only allow hunters to come in and kill a few - and then leave. 

As it pertains to bird dogs - again, you face the same "issues" as the rest of us. You're just not under the microscope yet. Your dogs are not leashed, work in adverse conditions, and can possibly trespass onto private land to retrieve prey. (even if the "land" is water/marsh). One of the "complaints" people have is seeing hunters with guns. It scares them. 

Anyway - it's worth checking out some of the animal rights forums and see what they're talking about. It's also worth noting that next legislative session a local animal rights groups will be attempting to pass legislation concerning hunting dogs. (ALL hunting dogs). They do not distinguish between bird dogs, scent hounds, or sight hounds. 

The Technical Report is intended to be used as a reference. It is flawed, and so will any proposals that refer to that document. 

PeTA has a whole "fact sheet" on bow hunting. They want it banned. HSUS has fact sheets on hunting with hounds - all of which is inaccurate. The ONLY information on hunting that is being sent to VDGIF is anti-hunting. 

What VDGIF may have intended with this study is merely to establish a minimum acreage requirement for deer hounds. However, they have opened a Pandora's box and HSUS, PeTA and other groups are circling. 

Consider this also. HSUS has been focusing on Virginia because of the horrible Michael Vick case. The animal rights group I referred to is based in the same area of the state. So is PeTA. This part of the state is where hunting dogs have been stolen and their tracking collars removed. (dogs were never found). It's also where a PeTA employee was caught stealing a deputy's hunting dog. It's also where these "complaints" originated. It's all in Southside Virginia. 

There are over 7 million people in Virginia, and a smattering of complaints over the past few years. No one even knows if these complaints were legitimate. VDGIF has spent over $250,000 on this study.


----------



## BigBirdVA

Hokieman said:


> I don't know Rick. Your the one who protests to much and have friends who are animal activist.


I'm still looking for a friend in HSUS. Does the VAHDA have a AR friends list on their web site?:wink:


----------



## BigBirdVA

Hokieman said:


> You're right, no one is going to do away with hunting. If nothing else, it's a wildlife management tool. Hunting for sport/recreation however, is another matter.
> 
> In the conservation 'world', there has been a shift. From conservation to preservation. And there is also an increased emphasis to focus on nonconsumptive use as a source of funds instead of hunting/angling. For the first time, US Fish and Wildlife funds can be used for things OTHER than hunting and fishing. This is money that states are given to assist in funding their agencies.
> Even conservation groups like the Audubon society sees hunting and allowed it on their lands. A flow in the tide is expected. It's not as bad as it was and peta is not as respected as it was either.
> 
> In Virginia, VDGIF's mission changed about 10 years ago; to emphasize nonconsumptive use. (kayaking, boating, walking trails, etc.)
> 
> This is more in line with what urbanites prefer to do - not hunters and anglers. Which is ok. However, using this model hunting is not treated as a recreational activity. But as a managment tool only to be used when population reachs an excessive level, or there is a nuisance animal.
> Hunters are a minority. And dog hunting is not the best recruit tool out there either. It's the most visible and most controversial method of hunting. You would expect a different perception by non-hunters?
> 
> Hunting as wildlife damage control -not as sport.
> Too much money is generated for it to just go poof and disappear. Scare tactics at best. Boo.... I'm not scared.
> 
> This is the model that groups like Sierra Club or The Nature Conservancy use and promote. Leave wildlife alone unless they start causing a lot of damage - and then only allow hunters to come in and kill a few - and then leave.
> 
> As it pertains to bird dogs - again, you face the same "issues" as the rest of us. You're just not under the microscope yet. Your dogs are not leashed, work in adverse conditions, and can possibly trespass onto private land to retrieve prey. (even if the "land" is water/marsh). One of the "complaints" people have is seeing hunters with guns. It scares them.
> 
> Anyway - it's worth checking out some of the animal rights forums and see what they're talking about. It's also worth noting that next legislative session a local animal rights groups will be attempting to pass legislation concerning hunting dogs. (ALL hunting dogs). They do not distinguish between bird dogs, scent hounds, or sight hounds. Damn shame the other dog groups and hunters do not band together and pinpoint the particular sect of dog use that causes 90% of the issues. That's deer hound hunting. If I was a real fox hunter I would be quite upset at my problem causing friends.
> 
> The Technical Report is intended to be used as a reference. It is flawed, and so will any proposals that refer to that document.Flawed is a opinion based upon which side you're on. Actaually it left out a lot.
> 
> PeTA has a whole "fact sheet" on bow hunting. They want it banned. HSUS has fact sheets on hunting with hounds - all of which is inaccurate. The ONLY information on hunting that is being sent to VDGIF is anti-hunting.
> What's new? They have a fact sheet on ants in ones pantry. So what?
> 
> What VDGIF may have intended with this study is merely to establish a minimum acreage requirement for deer hounds. However, they have opened a Pandora's box and HSUS, PeTA and other groups are circling.
> They opened the dog hunters box. You made the box, live with it. Had the 1,000 of JH in VA listened to their fellow hunters we wouldn't be here. Look in the mirror for the problem.
> 
> Consider this also. HSUS has been focusing on Virginia because of the horrible Michael Vick case. The animal rights group I referred to is based in the same area of the state. So is PeTA. This part of the state is where hunting dogs have been stolen and their tracking collars removed. (dogs were never found). It's also where a PeTA employee was caught stealing a deputy's hunting dog. It's also where these "complaints" originated. It's all in Southside Virginia. Keep dogs on your own land, don't illegally train and 90% of the missing hounds would go away too. There would be nothing for peta to feed on so to speak. You guys feed them daily all year.
> 
> There are over 7 million people in Virginia, and a smattering of complaints over the past few years. No one even knows if these complaints were legitimate. VDGIF has spent over $250,000 on this study.Again for the learning impaired. I made a complaint. The officers as in plural told me the law is unenforceable as written. So why would I waste my and their time again? I'm not impaired. I understand it was a dead end and no point going there again. I can't always catch hounds illegally training. You know that and so do those that let them out. How can you call AC on a weekend when they're not there to catch a dog that's 2 miles away at the time they arrive or even out of ear shot? AC won't answer a complaint I give for a problem that's moved onto another property who's owner may not even be there. They can't catch them either to be truthful. We've all given up on complaining because it did no good. It's not because we didn't object we felt what's the point there isn't a way to stop it. I just hope they do something to get their moneys worth so we don't throw more money away on this issue in the future.


You know it would have been nice to have had a format where the dog hunters and other hunters could go over this and solve it among themselves. Speeddogs isn't it. I got threats immediately on there, accused of being a liar and more. I guess the survey is the only way and although it's not perfect it's all we have. And please don't say SAC. it's highly biased to the dog hunters side and you know it is.


----------



## Hokieman

The Sac, now I'm laughing.


----------



## Moon

*HM's answer for all game management*

:dog1::dog1:throw a damn'd pack of yapping dogs in the woods. I can just see it now in Willamsburg.....................hounds chasing deer through peoples' yards. Yeah, man, that'll work:icon_1_lol: HM, you need to get help, man.


----------



## Hokieman

Big Bird - I'd like to know why you are willing to throw 30% of your fellow hunters under the bus because you've got some sort of chip on your shoulder. 

No decent hunter abuses the RTR. If you've got some sort of problem in your area, then make an issue of it IN YOUR AREA. 

Every single thing all of you complain about is ILLEGAL activity. Pass more laws.... and you're still going to have illegal activity. Because those people don't care about the law. 

I'd hope that all hunters would email the SAC and express support for hunting with hounds - and express solidarity with law abiding houndsmen. 

This Study is NOT about hunting deer with dogs. And I really wish hunters would pay more attention to the fact that it's HSUS and PeTA that are really behind this Study now. You really want them after you next? Who is going to stand up for you? Will there be anyone left? 

The Study is NOT about deer hunters. That may be all you are getting out of it - but try looking at the big picture. 

I don't hunt deer with dogs - but I do have a rabbit hound. I also allow my neighbor to hunt on my farm (still hunter). We've managed to be good neighbors, respect each other, and still pursue our individual sport. And I've still managed to increase the number of quail on my land; and my livestock have never been in jeopardy. 

You seem to think that if the dogs are banned - you're going to get the woods all to yourself. It's playing right into the anti's hands. They pick us off one by one, because they know we're too busy fighting amongst ourselves to notice. 

All the LAW ABIDING hound owners are asking is that hunters send a short email expressing support for their fellow hunters. We're not asking for anyone to condone law breakers or unethical hunters. Support hunting with hounds and support prosecution of lawbreakers. 

I'd support you if the tables were turned.


----------



## Bywater

*Public spanking*

*You two little girls need to be paddled on the behinds and sent to bed without your dinner.*

First, Hokieman, please use your own words instead of mine. I am the one who wrote the last few of your posts; and those appeared on other bulletin boards. It is intellectually dishonest to claim the words of others as your own. 

Second, Bigbird, if you are representative of the bow hunters in Virginia I will never - ever open my land to them for hunting. If any of you bow hunters would like to correct this first impression, please do. Because I have been reading the very ugly words of this man on various bulletin boards, and he is not doing much for the image of your sport. Quite the opposite. 



I have been closely following the Study; but long before it even became "The Study". As I have posted on other forums, there is much more going on than hunters realize. This includes BOW HUNTERS.

All of you seem to be harping on the running of dogs with deer. Big Bird was already banned from one BB for trolling; he seems to be the worst offender. 

Unfortunately, I have yet to encounter one person on any of these forums that is a licensed attorney. In other words, all of you are wrong in your interpretations of Virginia law on this subject. 

It seems even VDGIF and their CPO's don't even know the law on this subject, which is probably why they keep saying they can't do anything about it.

However, my reason in posting is to insist that my words; my work product, be credited appropriately.

I'm not interested in the little pissing contest you two are engaged in; my only concern is protecting the rights of our hunters and anglers to engage in their sport - ALL hunters and anglers.

The Technical Report is junk - not because the subject is hunting with hounds. It would be junk if it was about archers; or anglers, or bird dogs. 

It's junk masquerading as science and it has a government seal of approval. As sportsmen, we should INSIST our game departments conduct scientifically sound studies - not market based public opinion surveys. VDGIF personnel continually quote their own Masters Theses - this is NOT considered appropriate in academia.

You two knock this crap off. You detract from the real issue - and the real issue is that VDGIF is being led down the garden path by animal rights interests - and they don't even know it. 

I had better not see my words used again - unless I give permission. And BigBird - you may want to tone it down a bit - a libel suit would cut into your hunting time.


----------



## Moon

*Bywater*

You come on this board threatening BB with a law suit Cute!

It's the deer chasing people that have gotten themselves into this mess they are in, not bird, duck, squirrel or rabbit hunters that use dogs. 

I don't think BB will lose any sleep because he can't bowhunt on your land. If you think bowhunters are a problem in SE VA you need to get a grip.

I guess if he had kept quiet about the crap that goes on in deer chasing clubs he was in he would be one of the good ole boys, huh? 

I'm one of those pissed off land owners in PG Country and it's certainly not about bowhunters or any "hunters". It's about my property continually being
run over by dogs. Whether you like it or not, the land owning public WILL have a say in this mess. Deer chasing will either change with some controll or it will end. It's just a matter of time. 

One would think that some of the deer chasers would by now have thought that maybe they really should listen to what's happening and try to do something positive about it but NO, they continue with the BS that it's only a handfull of law breakers creating all the trouble and that's exactly what that is...................BS.

My hat's off to BB for having the courage to stand up for what's right. As a land owner I have to be careful to keep my property from being vandalized (again). I can't be vocal as BB is but I also have ways to fight for my right to enjoy and use my property without nuisance dogs running over my property 7 days per week and having dog onwners standing in my driveway yelling for dogs all times of day and night from September through March and on weekends almost year round. 

It's not about the PEtA and other anti-hunters. We all know what they want and the deer chasers are the ones giving them the ammo to use agsint the rest of us. There IS a difference between hunting and chasing and I think most logical people can see that.

As to HM........he's a typical example of why deer chasing is at the cross roads of its existance in VA.


This is a photo of a deer chasing dog that did not chase too well. The owner had no problems putting a bullet in his head. Is that a "hunting" thing? Hardly!
It's just an example of what they get by with on an ongoing basis. Show me any animal abuse from real hunters.


----------



## BigBirdVA

Hey Bywater nice try. So which sock puppet are you ? 

We've heard everything under the sun from the hound hunters in regard to the survey process. We've heard everything but the truth. The SAC had their chance and they didn't address the real issues. That will be done for them by others. So the flavor of the day is the AR groups are behind it. I'll commend the various dog hunting groups for hunter unity. That Sunday hunting deal sure united us. Where was all that "your fellow hunter" good feelings then? Hokieman and his group sided with the HSUS. It isn't a chip, I've had enough. So have others and you guys just can't seem to figure it out. How in the world does the western half of VA ever get by without deer hounds? The same way the rest of VA will one day.

A libel suit is only good if the information one is stating is false. 

Banned on where? Some dog breath site? Maybe by the name I registered with but there isn't a forum out there that can keep anyone with a little knowledge from accessing it. If I wanted to post I would register under a name that's open, like say bilge-water. I'm on every forum I want to be on.

Sure the report is trash. One mans trash is another mans treasure. The report looks good to me. 

Every real bow hunter I talk to has had enough of the doggers illegally training in their season. 

Don't you have some pens to clean? 


Don't worry do one wants to take credit for your prize winning post. :lol3:


----------



## 3sheets

Bywater said:


> Unfortunately, I have yet to encounter one person on any of these forums that is a licensed attorney. In other words, all of you are wrong in your interpretations of Virginia law on this subject.
> 
> It seems even VDGIF and their CPO's don't even know the law on this subject, which is probably why they keep saying they can't do anything about it.


Perhaps you would be so kind as entertain us "know nothing" "low-lifes" with your interpretation of the law, I'm talking particularly bout VA's "Right to Retrieve". :bounce:


----------



## Bywater

Sorry to disappoint all of you. Not a sock puppet, and I don't hunt deer with dogs. Truth be told, I don't even hunt deer. I leave that to my neighbor - I allow him to hunt on my farm. And I'm not threatening BigBird with a lawsuit; I suggested that he be careful in his choice of words. It's fine to disagree with someone; even hate them. But be careful not to cross the line into libel. 

I can see that y'all think I'm one of the deer dog supporters, but I'm not. I actually don't really even care about hunting deer with dogs. In case you didn't notice, I chastised Hokieman for using MY words and taking credit for them. I'd posted those words on other forums. NOT speeddogs, by the way. Get it? I DON'T HUNT DEER WITH DOGS. There are many types of hunting with dogs that do not involve DEER. You are focusing on deer and have some sort of problem with a certain group of people. FINE. I'M NOT ONE OF THEM. And I don't have an agenda. 

I dislike slob hunters, and those who use misuse our game regulations and laws. Right now the spotlight is on those who use dogs to abuse our game laws and regs. Next time maybe it will be bow hunters. Or those who use retrievers. PeTa has a fact sheet that shows how long it takes an animal to die from an arrow wound - would y'all like that "fact" to be included in the next Technical Report? How many of your fellow hunters will rush to your defense? Or will they act the way y'all have here? 

Again, since y'all have been fighting about this issue for so long, you don't even realize that some hunters out there are sincere in their attempts to educate people about this Study. No agenda, no "side", no PAC, nothing. Not even a member of a club. Just a fellow sportsman. And some of us don't spend all our time on the Internet. 

Consider the possibility that I am such a sportsman - who just asks that everyone think about the implications of having animal rights groups in control of our game management plans. There are some legitimate gripes about deer dogs - and those need to be addressed. But not by HSUS and PeTA. And by not presenting a united front - those groups are indeed gaining control of our game departments. If you don't agree, it's because you have not been paying attention. 

In response to the questions about the law of trespass - I recommend you read AmJur - there is an entire title on trespass. I have the sneaking suspicion none of y'all are interested though. 

Again - sorry to disappoint - but I'm just a fellow sportsman who likes hunting and wants us all to be able to continue. Evidently my education differs from yours in that I am well versed in the law.


----------



## BigBirdVA

We're actually interested in the best way to solve issues in the easiest manner for all. We're also pretty tired of the whole thing too. I'll be glad when it's done and over so we can move back to hunting.


----------



## Hokieman

Bywater you've plainly spelled it out and I am asking permission to run to the ends of the earth and post it on a thousand website bulletin boards so other fellow sportsman may know what the real truth is.


----------



## 3sheets

Bywater said:


> In response to the questions about the law of trespass - I recommend you read AmJur - there is an entire title on trespass. I have the sneaking suspicion none of y'all are interested though.
> 
> Again - sorry to disappoint - but I'm just a fellow sportsman who likes hunting and wants us all to be able to continue. Evidently my education differs from yours in that I am well versed in the law.


The only law that is really applicable in this discussion is the Virginia Code. I have perused it enough to know that hound hunters are held to a lesser standard when it comes to retrieving their dogs than the rest of the Hunters and Fishermen in this state. 

Why can't the houndsmen simply be required to ask for written landowner permission in advance to retrieve their dogs (both on posted and unposted property) just like the rest of us and plan their hunts accordingly, just like the rest of us? 

Common sense would dictate that is the right thing to do anyway, regardless of the law, out of respect to the Landowner who not only pays the taxes on the property, but has had to make quite a few additional sacrifices along the way the non-landowning populace never even takes into consideration.

I guess one might liken it using someone elses words as your own, then after being caught, doesn't even consider an acutal honest (I'm sorry) apology for the original offence, but rather asks to continue using them anywhwere he so desires. :wink:


----------



## Bywater

Anyone is welcome to cross post my words but please add the disclaimer that they are not yours. Otherwise, people might infer that I belong to some group or club that hunts with deer. I am a disinterested 3rd party that just asks that people write SAC with their support for hunting with hounds. If they have issues they believe need attention - by all means I support that as well. But the actual concept of hunting with hounds - please support it. Most people who hunt with hounds in Virginia do NOT hunt deer. Yet this Study is painting us all with a very broad and biased brush. 

I don't take exception to the various methods of harvesting deer. Archery is well suited to the whole state; particularly suburban/urban areas. (how you deal with the screaming soccer moms I have no idea. Good luck with all of that:wink However, the one thing that sets me off with hunters is when they're being jackasses. And we all know that some of us are - and that is the face the public sees most often. 

We all need to be good ambassadors for hunting. 

Let's set aside hunting deer with dogs for the moment. The Study addresses all forms of hunting with dogs - including retrievers/bird dogs. 

Hunting with hounds occurs all over the state; often overlapping with different seasons. West of the Blue Ridge too - the entire state. 

What do those people do that is *working *for them as well as landowners and fellow hunters? 

The Study (and most of us) have focused on the negative - the abuses of the RTR. Understandable - and legitimate. But the rest of the state does NOT have problems with the RTR.

(in a state of over 7 million people, one or two calls to the sheriff of one county over several years about a "loose dog" does not count as a problem".)

As I mentioned before - many states have a retrieval law. It is worded differently - but it exists. And in those states, hunting with hounds is thriving. 

Again - it does not jibe with the problems in certain areas of Virginia. 

The Study was a ham fisted attempt by VDGIF to appear to be "doing something". Any of you really pleased with it? Honestly? Or did you think it was a waste of taxpayer's money. After I read it and checked some of the "literature" cited - I was appalled. I was appalled as a sportsman and as a taxpayer. It was sloppy, biased, ineffectual work. And it's cost over 250K. 

When I speak with sportsmen and landowners, I don't get the sense they're really upset with the RTR law. Not really. They're upset with the *abuse* of the RTR. I agree with them. 

The RTR is, in essence, an exception to the law of trespass. It's some sort of myth that it grants bad sportsmen protection against prosecution. It's such a myth that law enforcement hides behind it as well. "too difficult" is NOT something I want to hear from a police officer. 

There are ways for VDGIF to have sought assistance in its interpretation but they've never done so. To me, it speaks of bad leadership - upper management should know they could have worked with other law enforcement agencies, commonwealth attorney's, and others.

They didn't.

So what I am asking is that when you write your letters to SAC, that you express support for the thousands of ethical, responsible houndsmen who have gone their entire hunting careers without a complaint. The legions of us who have happy, healthy fit dogs, who take care of them, and come home with as many as they left with. 

If you have problems with the RTR being enforced, by all means suggest that it be modified to reflect that DRIVING AND FLUSHING be considered hunting for the purposes of that section. Other states have that language, why not Virginia? 

If you experience apathy on the part of game officials or other law enforcement - say that as well.

By demanding that hunting with hounds be banned or restricted - you're punishing people who have never hurt you, ruined your sport, or committed unethical acts.

By demanding that the law be enforced, reworded so that unethical people can no longer take advantage of it, and demand accountability from VDGIF, you may yet do some good.


----------



## Bywater

3sheets - 

Point taken. :wink:

I'll try and explain this without being verbose or abstruse. The law of trespass is a concept. So is the law of property rights. These are not absolutes. In the US, much of this is common law.

To a layperson, it's perfectly logical to go to the statute, read it, and voila. That's all their is. Black and white. 

The statute is merely a text. The meaning and interpretation of that text is left up to the legislative and judicial branches; who then look back, even hundreds of years, to place that law into context. With the help of lawyers who provide case law, sometimes from other states, government or countries, to assist in interpretation. They'll even go back and look at the legislative history of a law - to try and figure out what the intent of the legislature was. 

An example that we could all understand is the IRS. Let's say you and your accountant want to make a certain type of trust, or financial transaction, but your accountant looks at the laws and regs and can't figure out if you'll have to pay taxes on it. Your accountant requests a private(or public) letter ruling from the IRS.

The IRS reads the facts presented to them, (your financial transaction), realizes that these sets of facts are unique and new, and interprets the law/reg for the accountant. That ruling also has the force of law. 

But you and I do not necessarily know that.

So it is with the RTR. This law is not intended to be an encroachment upon the private property rights of a citizen. The law (concept) of trespass is complex. There is criminal, negligent and innocent trespass, for example.

In the case of hunting with a hound (any dog, including a retriever) - the state weighs the rights and responsibilities of both parties and in awfully convoluted words said this:

If your hunting dog chases an animal onto private land you can go get the darn dog and and get the heck out fast. THAT'S IT. 

The legislature realized that since people do not post their land, it is: 1) often impossible to determine who the property owner is 2) the tracts of land are so large as to make notification detrimental to the health and welfare of the hunting dog (takes so long to find the owner that the dog could be miles away by the time permission is granted) 3) the innocent trespass does not impact the rights of the landowner. The landowner is protected by Virginia's recreational use statute. 

Nothing in that statute, in any way shape or form, permits any houndsmen from doing anything except nipping in, grabbing the dog, and LEAVING.


If your child did the same thing, you'd also not be prosecuted for trespass. If you were hunting and your trash blew over onto posted land, you'd also not be arrested for trespassing.

Those forms of trespassing do not fall under this statute, of course. What I mean is that when making these determinations - they are weighed.

In the case of a child - the risk to the child merits an intrusion to whisk the child away from possible harm.

In the case of your trash - you commit a crime by littering - and you show disrespect for the landowner by leaving trash. So you walk over, pick up your trash - and leave.

Those are both trespasses. But they are not crimes. Technically they are, but they're not. 

Trespass and property rights are bundles - they are complex concepts and the law treats them that way. 

In the case of any law granting such a minor exception to trespass - what comes with it is a very grave responsibility on the part of the hunter.

What I think I'm hearing is that some hunters get the "exception" part - but not the "responsibility" part.

If I may use my little beagle as an example. When she was young she used to have a problem with deer. I was able to get her off them (she's a rabbit hound) but sometimes I just couldn't get in front of her in time. And sometimes she'd run onto posted land.

I'm in a quandry. First, no cell coverage. Second, land is posted but no phone number so the cell would be useless anyway. Third, that beagle is still running and I need to stop her.

So - in that case - do I allow the trespass to continue, while I rush through brambles, find my truck, drive 5 miles looking for someone I think might own the land? All while I can hear my beagle hollering from farther and farther away?

Or do I just cross the land - rush through brambles and get her attention - and get the heck out of Dodge? 

Answer - I cross the land. It's out of respect for the landowner as well as concern for my dog that I do it. I do not allow the trespass to continue. I stop the trespass within seconds rather than minutes or hours. It's my responsibility as an ethical hunter to retrieve my dog.

Just a hypothetical example. I'd never - ever drive or flush game, or commit any wrongdoing. Most houndsmens do in fact work with landowners, they get permission beforehand (actually what I do is let them know I'll be hunting out that way and to please join me, or let me know if they have any concerns). 

Like I said before - we've got a whole state full of great houndsmen that would never ever do anything to upset a landowner, or a fellow hunter. Call them a silent majority if you want. 

I'm just offering some food for thought, a different perspective, and again the request to consider that most of us just want to hunt with our dogs in peace and quiet. We're ethical, we love our dogs, and we respect landowners and fellow sportsmen. We have the same problems others do with newcomers to the country - who dislike the smell of manure, the noise of tractors, or hunting. I try and help educate such people - but it often doesn't work. So I just do my best to make sure my family's land isn't paved over for another Starbucks or set of McMansions. And I also try and do my part to make sure our grandkids can hunt and fish long after we're gone.

One more edit to say - I don't intend to hijack your archery discussions so I'll depart permanently unless a specific question is directed at me. (no offense - just don't think an old man that likes to chase rabbits with a 20lb beagle belongs on an archery BB)

Have a wonderful hunting season - best wishes.


----------



## BigBirdVA

Gee aren't all statues just text? A lot of text just to say criminal intent is needed for it to be a crime. That's great but that's not the issue here. It's whether the state can legally give your property rights to another. The fact that it's for recreation compounds it. It's a law, one that was changed before like back in the 50's when it added in all hound hunters can go on another's lands. That's when the deer hunters got in. Today ideas, demographics and feelings towards the hound hunter is demanding change. Throw in the abuse by the hound hunter and it's making a great case for a change. Laws can be changed and the RTR could be challenged. Your lengthy explanation doesn't change that or give grounds for a defense. The short and it's still the same is should the rights of a land owner be sacrificed for someone pursuing recreational activities? Property rights are one of the most basic and strongest rights in this country. One that will out weight all the hound hunters in the world.


----------



## Moon

*I think I need to roll my pants legs up about now*

There are recent posts here by folks that claim they don't have a horse in this deer chasing and trespassing chase. Yeah, right.

I agree with the thought that the biggest threat we hunters have is from the anti-hunters that chase deer year round with an attitude of "to hell with land owners rights" and I will tell you this, what goes around eventually comes around...................with a bang. That "ole tradition" has gone horribly wrong to the point it's not even remotely similar to what it once was.

PETA and Friends of Animals are likely rubbing their hands together now that VA's deer chasing practices have been exposed. The animal rights activists couldn't care less about my property rights....................and neither do the deer chasers so that puts them in the same boat as I see it.


----------



## Bywater

As I said before, I don't hunt deer with dogs. What you may not know is that many houndsmen look down upon those who hunt deer with dogs. Hunting with hounds is as diverse as your method of hunting, and every person has their beliefs and preferences. 

I have a stake in this because all forms of hunting with hounds were studied. That means people like me, a solitary rabbit hunter, is put in the same category as unethical hunters who use our game laws to abuse property rights and ruin the sport of other hunters. And hunters of waterfowl may be punished as well - and they never even had representation on the SAC. 

What you had was an opportunity to discuss hunting with a person who has no allegiance to a club or group. A person who spent his entire career on the very subjects in which BigBird professes his "expertise". 

This type of bellicose posturing is what prevents sportsmen from ever presenting a unified front, something that is imperative if we are to ensure the future of hunting as a form of sport; not "hired marksmen" to kill selected problem animals so the urban refugees don't have to deal with deer nibbling on their prize roses.

My purpose in visiting different BB's was to ask that sportsmen support the practice of hunting with hounds; not to ask them to defend abuses of our game regs or laws, nor to endorse some of the disreputable practices that some clubs engage in. I'm not interested in any puerile war some of you appear to have going on; leave me out of it.


----------



## coxva

I have not seen anyone post on here that they were against ****, Rabbit, Fox,Birds or Bear hunting with dogs. I think it is very easy to distinguish between the types and uses of the dogs. I do not like the fact that they lumped this study of all hunting with hounds since every problem I have experienced has been with deer hunting with dogs. I enjoy hunting rabbits with beagles and they go out one day and return with me that day. My beagles don't run out of season or on Sunday. We do not target others property or hunt from the road like trash hunters. It is unfair to lump all hound hunting together, but I have read the studies and I am not the only one to have had these experiences with deer hounds. I hope this study fixes it for everyone.......


----------



## MTNHunt

I took the summer off from looking at the forum, and I still see that the usual anti deer dog hunters are going at it strong. 

It is refreshing to read the views of Bywater, I am no way the most educated poster on here or able to analyze the laws indepth. But, I grew up knowing right from wrong, and all this fighting within the Virginia Hunting population is bad for all of the Hunters in general. Now it is all over the internet, and you can bet that the anti-hunters and animal right groups are loving it.

Sad. Sad. Sad. We need to stop and look at the larger picture. If you fight to ban something and it happens, you can bet that's not the end of banning. Let's all get along as Hunters and fight for all legal rights that we have, instead of trying to change them. :wink: Good Luck to all this Bow Season!


----------



## BigBirdVA

Bywater said:


> As I said before, I don't hunt deer with dogs. What you may not know is that many houndsmen look down upon those who hunt deer with dogs. Hunting with hounds is as diverse as your method of hunting, and every person has their beliefs and preferences.
> 
> I have a stake in this because all forms of hunting with hounds were studied. That means people like me, a solitary rabbit hunter, is put in the same category as unethical hunters who use our game laws to abuse property rights and ruin the sport of other hunters. And hunters of waterfowl may be punished as well - and they never even had representation on the SAC.
> 
> What you had was an opportunity to discuss hunting with a person who has no allegiance to a club or group. A person who spent his entire career on the very subjects in which BigBird professes his "expertise".
> 
> This type of bellicose posturing is what prevents sportsmen from ever presenting a unified front, something that is imperative if we are to ensure the future of hunting as a form of sport; not "hired marksmen" to kill selected problem animals so the urban refugees don't have to deal with deer nibbling on their prize roses.
> 
> My purpose in visiting different BB's was to ask that sportsmen support the practice of hunting with hounds; not to ask them to defend abuses of our game regs or laws, nor to endorse some of the disreputable practices that some clubs engage in. I'm not interested in any puerile war some of you appear to have going on; leave me out of it.


We can discuss it all day on here or anywhere else. What's supposed to come from it? We're not on SAC, or in the survey process other than 1 more voice in the public input part. I agree I'm sorry other hounds got lumped in with the sect that causes the most problems. I've said before if I was one of the other hound hunters I would be upset with the deer hunters. What's even more comical is SAC views this as a great time to get in a legal chase season for deer. One of them has even proposed designating Saturday night - Sunday as a chase period right up until opener of general deer. Like I said we can discuss all day it isn't going to accomplish a thing.


----------



## BigBirdVA

Results from NC deer hunter survey. Looks like they don't like the dog hunter there either. 36% say yes and that flawed Technical Report in VA said 30% were deer hound hunters. Similar % numbers in both states. I'll venture to say it was the same in all the other southern states that allow dog hunting for deer. That's why change came there. They're not the majority they think they are.


> Views on hunting techniques
> The percentage of deer hunters who agreed that the following hunting techniques should be legal were:
> • hunting over bait – 73%,
> • hunting deer with dogs – 36%,
> • hunting deer with crossbows during muzzleloader and gun season – 46%,
> • hunting deer with crossbows during archery season – 53%,
> • hunting deer with a bow during muzzleloader season – 59%, and
> • hunting deer with a muzzleloader during the week of archery season that currently
> occurs before the existing muzzleloader season – 40%.


And........


> The percentage of deer hunters who indicated the following were important as barriers to
> their deer hunting were:
> • too much interference from hunters using dogs to hunt deer – 39%,
> • hunting regulations being too confusing – 35%,
> • too much interference from still hunters hunting deer – 16%,
> • and too much interference from hunters hunting species other than deer – 16%.


Full report here. http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg04_HuntingTrapping/DeerHunterExecSum.pdf


----------



## Hokieman

BigBirdVA said:


> Results from NC deer hunter survey. Looks like they don't like the dog hunter there either. 36% say yes and that flawed Technical Report in VA said 30% were deer hound hunters. Similar % numbers in both states. I'll venture to say it was the same in all the other southern states that allow dog hunting for deer. That's why change came there. They're not the majority they think they are.
> 
> 
> And........
> 
> 
> Full report here. http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg04_HuntingTrapping/DeerHunterExecSum.pdf




Barriers to deer hunting
The most important barriers to deer hunting and the percentage of deer hunters indicatingthat these barriers impacted them were:
• not enough older age class or mature deer – 82%,
• too much illegal behavior by others – 79%,
• deer populations are too low – 70%,
• the cost of leasing land for hunting deer is too expensive – 66%,
• not having enough time to hunt deer – 58%, and
• not having access to land for hunting – 53%.


----------



## Moon

*Cox hit the nail on the head*

I'm 65 years old, grew up on a 250 acre farm in NC. We had a couple hounds that would run anything, deer, rabbits, tree squirrels, tree racoons at night and keep folks away from the house when we were gone. They ate scraps off the table and were not pened. They were only used on our property on Saturdays when we weren't quail hunting. Occasionally they'd get through our standers but not often. There were no posted signs in a 20 mile radius of our property. I never saw a "deer dog" other than ours on our property. They would always come back home by themselves. Now, compare that tradition with what is CALLED a tradition today. What we have now is a 15 to 20 year tradition of insanity, nuisance and lawbreakers and in no way remotely resembles the real deer dog tradition. 

I actually know a couple guys that chase deer responsibly and try to keep their dogs off private property and they are the ones that will be getting the shaft because of the hoards of those that couldn't give a rat's azz what they do illegally or on who's land they do it on. I think the deer dog owners that abide by the law and take others privacy into consideration are so far outnumbered that they are helpless in correcting what's wrong. Time will tell...........and it's running out

I think the reason they included all hunting dogs in their study was to ulitmately show the clear difference in the other types of dog hunting that are NOT a problem.


----------

