Spotsy weighs in on hunting dogs
January 9, 2008 12:35 am
Back in the trailer after a hunt, Hugo, Gallup, and Tarnish watch the fox hunters standing around. The hounds are rigorously trained for fox hunting.
Some groups in the state have questioned whether the use of hunting dogs is a form of animal cruelty.
BY DAN TELVOCK
Hunters who use dogs have launched a statewide effort to defend this longtime tradition that they believe is under attack.
The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has partnered with Virginia Tech to study the use of hunting dogs. The state agency created a working group to make recommendations by November that will "provide diverse opportunities for hunting with hounds in Virginia in a manner that is fair, sportsmanlike and consistent with the rights of private property owners and other citizens."
Modern challenges of rapid growth, smaller parcels for hunting, more frequent turnover of rural land and concerns about animal rights all have created the need to review the standards and laws, according to minutes of July 17 Board of Game and Inland Fisheries meeting in Richmond. The meeting attracted about 350 people, mostly hunters.
Spotsylvania County supervisors Emmitt Marshall and T.C. Waddy won unanimous support of a resolution last night that states current laws are sufficient to regulate hunters and the use of hunting dogs.
A shortage of wardens makes it difficult for the agency to enforce the laws, the resolution states. Five other Virginia counties, including Caroline, have already passed or are considering passing a similar resolution.
"We want to stop this thing before it goes too far," Marshall said during an interview before the county board meeting.
Marshall is a member of the Berkeley Hunt Club.
"We treat dogs better today than we ever have before," he said.
The game department commissioned the study and working group to address rising complaints about hunting dogs. Virginia Tech Assistant Professor of Fisheries and Wildlife Steve McMullin leads the study.
He could not be reached for comment, but his Web page states that the use of hunting dogs has generated "substantial opposition" from animal rights advocates and private landowners who are concerned with trespassing problems.
State law states hunters whose dogs stray on private property cannot carry their guns to retrieve the dog, and they must identify themselves when asked. McMullin says on his Web page that the 900 comments received in two months on the VDGIF Web site relating to a resident's recommendation to make the law more restrictive shows the degree of controversy that surrounds this law and the use of hunting dogs. Two recent meetings in Bowling Green and Charlottesville attracted more than 200 people, mostly hunters.
Since the announcement of the study, the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance, with support from the Commonwealth Sportsmen's Alliance political action committee, has been established. The group urges hunters to unite against further restrictions on hunting dogs.
It is distributing fliers that state the VDGIF is trying to outlaw hunting with dogs, which the agency has strongly denied. More than 200 hunting clubs across the state, including at least five in this region, are shown as "alliances" with the group.
Waddy, 72, said after last night's county board meeting, that hunters have used dogs for years and he supports preserving the right.
"That's hunting," he said. "I've been hunting since I was 8 years old, and I've always used a dog."
Dan Telvock: 540/374-5438
Email: dtelvock@freelancestar.com
VIRGINIA HUNTING DOG ALLIANCE
-
hokieman
- Tight Mouth
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:49 am
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: swva
- Contact:
When hunting dogs are poached to ‘save’ them
By Cortney Langley | The Virginia Gazette
January 16, 2008
JAMES CITY
After dark one fall night, Russell Carlton’s phone rang.
“We have your dog,” a woman told him. She was with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In Charlottesville.
Carlton, who’s vice president of Oak Tree Hunt Club in rural James City, had been hunting in a 5,000-acre tract off Croaker Road, mostly swampland, when his dog got loose and ran onto Interstate 64. A traveler picked it up and decided to drop it off at the pound in her own town.
She told the SPCA there that she had tried to call the home and cell numbers listed on the dog’s collar, but nobody picked up. Carlton drove the 120 miles to get his dog back. The SPCA waived the fees, recognizing his four-hour round-trip as burden enough.
Carlton, something of a skeptic, believes the woman recognized his hound as a hunting dog and decided it would be better off adopted out than hunting another day.
Deer hunting season closed last week, ending hunters’ favorite time of year and one of the busiest times of year for James City County Animal Control and the Heritage Humane Society.
“They affect many people,” said Shirley Anderson, supervisor of Animal Control.
Anderson and her staff are often the de facto mediators between suburbanites and hunters. Property owners and hunting opponents call her agency to round up dogs on their property, or roaming the streets or the wood line.
Anderson and the staff know most of the hunt clubs in the area, and often quickly reunite the dogs with their owners. They aren’t always able to reach the hunters, though, and if the dog is in leash law territory, officers transport the dog to the Humane Society.
Beyond the stray dog issue, though, is often an ideological fight. Many people believe that to “work” the dogs in any manner is cruel and inhumane. They point to how lean the dogs become over the winter as proof of maltreatment. They claim that dogs that won’t hunt well are simply set loose at the end of the season, into the wild.
Increased suburbanization doesn’t help, according to the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries. As more and more traditional hunting land is given over to housing developments, newcomers often bring city sensibilities that conflict with rural Southern tradition.
“The first time they see an orange hat, they say, ‘Hey! People are trying to shoot deer in my front yard!’” said Holiday Hunt Club secretary Tommy Louke.
“In some of the newer neighborhoods, like Colonial Heritage and Stonehouse, those lands have been hunted for years,” Anderson agreed. “And the dogs don’t know the difference. The dogs have been hunting this land for a long time.”
Veterinarian staff have mixed feelings. When hunting dogs are hurt and taken in, some go unclaimed by hunters who don’t want to incur the bill, giving rise to a view of them as callous and irresponsible. Shelter workers are sometimes reluctant to return dogs to owners they suspect are neglectful.
“They spoil it for the good hunters who take care of their animals,” Anderson said.
Hunters rue the few bad apples. A decent hunting dog can cost anywhere from $250 to $1,000, according to Game & Inland. Then there are shots, food and shelter. Douglas Carlton, Russell’s son, goes through four tons of dog food in a year. Hunters also rent time at fox pens to exercise the dogs and get them ready for the season. A tracking system runs about $1,000, and more than $100 per individual collar.
All told, a litter of pups will cost more than $1,500 before any of them go hunting, Douglas said.
With real money on the line, hunters argue that they are the last people wanting their investments running loose in the suburbs or wandering along the interstate. Most of these owners go home at night with their dogs fully accounted for.
Newcomers, they say, don’t understand either the culture or the function of hunting.
“A dog in what I call good running shape, they think is poor,” said Jerry Nixon, who owns about three dozen hunting dogs.
Like Carlton, many have had run-ins with shelters, who often charge the hunters to re-claim their dogs or, with no photo identification, have them adopt their own dogs. James City County charges $35 for the first night and $15 each day, charges that go to defray the cost of feeding and sheltering the animals.
Three years ago one of Nixon’s puppies was picked up and dropped off at the shelter. The staff dewormed and bathed the dog, even put a little pink collar on her. When he went to collect her, he couldn’t prove she was his without photo identification.
“That put a bad taste in my mouth,” he said. “I don’t mind paying one or two nights, but to have to adopt my own dog back…” Nixon has since moved his dogs out of James City County.
The Humane Society argues that a photo is an easy and reasonable way to verify identity. They cite cases where warring couples will steal and drop family pets off at the shelter rather than let the partner gain custody.
It isn’t until after the 12th day that the animals legally pass into the Humane Society’s possession. State law alternately recognizes property owners’ right to their animals while trying to prevent cruelty. Although not inherently incompatible, which law trumps becomes fuzzy when some people classify hunting with dogs as cruel on its own.
“We’re the ones walking that line,” said Christie Peters, executive director of the Heritage Humane Society. “And it’s an interesting role that legislators may need to look at. It’s a tricky situation.”
The conflict can ultimately erupt in threats of violence or intrusion, putting the dogs and Animal Control in the middle.
Anderson said that a few years back, angry homeowners removed tracking collars from a number of hunting dogs and set them loose to punish the hunters, an act that was outlawed last year.
The rift between hunters and non-hunters has attracted the eye of the state. Game & Inland contracted Virginia Tech to study the issue of hunting with dogs after a forum on its website drew hundreds of comments in a few short weeks this summer.
That study is in its early stages. The agency will be soliciting public input during the spring and summer. More than 50 members of Holiday Hunt Club plan to submit letters in support of dog hunting.
“If it came down to not hunting with dogs or not hunting, I’d give up hunting,” Louke said.
Copyright © 2008, The Virginia Gazette
By Cortney Langley | The Virginia Gazette
January 16, 2008
JAMES CITY
After dark one fall night, Russell Carlton’s phone rang.
“We have your dog,” a woman told him. She was with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In Charlottesville.
Carlton, who’s vice president of Oak Tree Hunt Club in rural James City, had been hunting in a 5,000-acre tract off Croaker Road, mostly swampland, when his dog got loose and ran onto Interstate 64. A traveler picked it up and decided to drop it off at the pound in her own town.
She told the SPCA there that she had tried to call the home and cell numbers listed on the dog’s collar, but nobody picked up. Carlton drove the 120 miles to get his dog back. The SPCA waived the fees, recognizing his four-hour round-trip as burden enough.
Carlton, something of a skeptic, believes the woman recognized his hound as a hunting dog and decided it would be better off adopted out than hunting another day.
Deer hunting season closed last week, ending hunters’ favorite time of year and one of the busiest times of year for James City County Animal Control and the Heritage Humane Society.
“They affect many people,” said Shirley Anderson, supervisor of Animal Control.
Anderson and her staff are often the de facto mediators between suburbanites and hunters. Property owners and hunting opponents call her agency to round up dogs on their property, or roaming the streets or the wood line.
Anderson and the staff know most of the hunt clubs in the area, and often quickly reunite the dogs with their owners. They aren’t always able to reach the hunters, though, and if the dog is in leash law territory, officers transport the dog to the Humane Society.
Beyond the stray dog issue, though, is often an ideological fight. Many people believe that to “work” the dogs in any manner is cruel and inhumane. They point to how lean the dogs become over the winter as proof of maltreatment. They claim that dogs that won’t hunt well are simply set loose at the end of the season, into the wild.
Increased suburbanization doesn’t help, according to the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries. As more and more traditional hunting land is given over to housing developments, newcomers often bring city sensibilities that conflict with rural Southern tradition.
“The first time they see an orange hat, they say, ‘Hey! People are trying to shoot deer in my front yard!’” said Holiday Hunt Club secretary Tommy Louke.
“In some of the newer neighborhoods, like Colonial Heritage and Stonehouse, those lands have been hunted for years,” Anderson agreed. “And the dogs don’t know the difference. The dogs have been hunting this land for a long time.”
Veterinarian staff have mixed feelings. When hunting dogs are hurt and taken in, some go unclaimed by hunters who don’t want to incur the bill, giving rise to a view of them as callous and irresponsible. Shelter workers are sometimes reluctant to return dogs to owners they suspect are neglectful.
“They spoil it for the good hunters who take care of their animals,” Anderson said.
Hunters rue the few bad apples. A decent hunting dog can cost anywhere from $250 to $1,000, according to Game & Inland. Then there are shots, food and shelter. Douglas Carlton, Russell’s son, goes through four tons of dog food in a year. Hunters also rent time at fox pens to exercise the dogs and get them ready for the season. A tracking system runs about $1,000, and more than $100 per individual collar.
All told, a litter of pups will cost more than $1,500 before any of them go hunting, Douglas said.
With real money on the line, hunters argue that they are the last people wanting their investments running loose in the suburbs or wandering along the interstate. Most of these owners go home at night with their dogs fully accounted for.
Newcomers, they say, don’t understand either the culture or the function of hunting.
“A dog in what I call good running shape, they think is poor,” said Jerry Nixon, who owns about three dozen hunting dogs.
Like Carlton, many have had run-ins with shelters, who often charge the hunters to re-claim their dogs or, with no photo identification, have them adopt their own dogs. James City County charges $35 for the first night and $15 each day, charges that go to defray the cost of feeding and sheltering the animals.
Three years ago one of Nixon’s puppies was picked up and dropped off at the shelter. The staff dewormed and bathed the dog, even put a little pink collar on her. When he went to collect her, he couldn’t prove she was his without photo identification.
“That put a bad taste in my mouth,” he said. “I don’t mind paying one or two nights, but to have to adopt my own dog back…” Nixon has since moved his dogs out of James City County.
The Humane Society argues that a photo is an easy and reasonable way to verify identity. They cite cases where warring couples will steal and drop family pets off at the shelter rather than let the partner gain custody.
It isn’t until after the 12th day that the animals legally pass into the Humane Society’s possession. State law alternately recognizes property owners’ right to their animals while trying to prevent cruelty. Although not inherently incompatible, which law trumps becomes fuzzy when some people classify hunting with dogs as cruel on its own.
“We’re the ones walking that line,” said Christie Peters, executive director of the Heritage Humane Society. “And it’s an interesting role that legislators may need to look at. It’s a tricky situation.”
The conflict can ultimately erupt in threats of violence or intrusion, putting the dogs and Animal Control in the middle.
Anderson said that a few years back, angry homeowners removed tracking collars from a number of hunting dogs and set them loose to punish the hunters, an act that was outlawed last year.
The rift between hunters and non-hunters has attracted the eye of the state. Game & Inland contracted Virginia Tech to study the issue of hunting with dogs after a forum on its website drew hundreds of comments in a few short weeks this summer.
That study is in its early stages. The agency will be soliciting public input during the spring and summer. More than 50 members of Holiday Hunt Club plan to submit letters in support of dog hunting.
“If it came down to not hunting with dogs or not hunting, I’d give up hunting,” Louke said.
Copyright © 2008, The Virginia Gazette
-
hokieman
- Tight Mouth
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:49 am
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: swva
- Contact:
Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance
News Briefs
Powhatan, Virginia
Thursday, February 28, 2008
2008 General Assembly
The session is almost over. On balance, the session produced some good pro-Sportsmen legislation without any really bad bills passing, yet! Your phone calls and emails have made a substantial difference! We hope to increase that contact next year! We have updated the web site so that you can see who voted with and against us on all of the bills we were working. Some highlights and some comments:
SB538, sponsored by Delegate Robert D. Orrock, Sr., (R) - House District 54, is still alive, but amended to lessen its potential impact and looking for funding in a tight budget year. Call your Senator and ask him or her vote no to any budget that contains funding for HB538!
HB 1352 sponsored by Delegate R. Lee Ware, (R) - Powhatan was defeated in the House (47-52), but it sent a serious message that the Sportsmen are tired of the DGIF Board of Directors ignoring their interests only to service the will of wealthy elitists who selfishly abolish or severely limit centuries of Virginia Heritage! Please take the time to thank the delegates that supported this effort. Delegates Hogan and Saxman worked hard for passage when our bill reached the floor! Of course, Delegate Ware was instrumental in all of our efforts in the House this year. A special thanks goes out to Delegate Johnny S. Joannou (D) - House District 79 – Portsmouth for courageously standing with us on this bill. He is a longtime friend of Virginia’s Sportsmen and of the Second Amendment!
SB 263 sponsored by R. Creigh Deeds (D) - Senate District 25, after passing the Senate 38-1 with amendments, it was killed in House Agriculture Committee by a voice vote. The sponsor complained that the Senate had reduced the penalty from a class four misdemeanor to a class two, but retains the revocation of the hunting license and forfeiture of firearm or bow involved. In the House, the sponsor argued that the class four misdemeanor provisions be reinstated. It is worth noting that Senator Deeds is an announced candidate for Governor in 2009!
A complete list of bills that the Alliance followed and our positions can be found on the web site http://www.vahda.org/legislation.htm .
The Board of Directors in accordance with the By-laws has approved these positions. We encourage our members to contact the Directors with questions about the positions taken. This is your Alliance! Because of the long days at the Legislature, we do not have the time to explain to everyone that is not an Alliance member why we spoke for, worked in favor of or opposed a certain bills. As the organization develops a more extensive process will be used to develop and debate policy, but due to the fast moving nature of the legislature the Board must often decide on a course of action on short notice and the folks on site must be able to act.
Sunday Hunting
The VHDA opposes Sunday hunting as one of the quickest ways to turn the non-hunting public, landowners and all who keep at Sabbath against Hound Hunting. James Hazel, Chairman of DGIF Board from Fairfax Co., representing himself and not the DGIF Board, in an unprecedented move, spoke in favor of Sunday hunting, as did an NRA’s representative Joel Partridge and an individual from Tidewater. Senator Stolle tried to put the camel’s nose (and body) under the tent with his urban archery bill SB708, but was soundly defeated by a vote in House Agriculture Committee. Speaking against Sunday Hunting were the Virginia Farm Bureau, the Virginia Agribusiness Council, and the VHDA! We have received some complaints about our position from a few Sportsmen who still-hunt and are NOT members of our organization. Many were used to hunting on Sunday where they came from. There are no plans to seek any modification of existing law to end any Sunday exemptions that currently exist, such as the 2:00 AM Sunday provision to allow for retrieval of dogs.
Making DGIF Hunter Friendly!
House Joint Resolution by Delegate Chris Saxman (R) - Staunton: HJ 231 Game and Inland Fisheries, Board of; Board & Department to provide for citizen input in regulations; urges the DGIF Board to return to the two-year regulatory cycle and local meetings by Board members and staff to explain proposals for new regulations. It was made clear that the use of the Internet alone was not a practice favored by legislators. The staff was receptive to this request. We continue to hope that the Board will take the Resolution to heart! The Senate rules committee amended the Bill to require a report by DGIF on their efforts to implement this resolution. At the January 22, 2008, Board meeting, we were left somewhat cynical about their willingness to abandon the Internet as a method of receiving comments! They have decided to use the internet for another survey on Hound Hunting. To date the survey is neither on the web site nor in the mail! Mailing all hunters or a large sample would insure input more representative of the Hunting community.
The Hunting Dog Study!
The advisory committee members have been named. Letters have been prepared and will be mailed soon. In spite of public assurances by Mr. Duncan at a number of meetings, NO VHDA BOARD Members have been named to this committee! The VHDA is the largest hunting organization in the state and is dedicated to hunting with dogs! DGIF still has a lot to learn and a long way to go before we will ever trust them again! Please notify us immediately if you are asked to serve on the committee! Delegate Watkins Abbitt, (I) – Appomattox, one of us and one of the best friends hunters that use dogs will ever have, was asked to be on the committee, but declined.
OUR FRIENDS
Members of the House and Senate including Speaker Howell and Majority Leader Griffin of the House constantly helped us. Some folks, hope we didn’t miss too many of our loyal friends, that stand out because they dealt daily with many of our bills and were stalwart defenders of your rights are listed below:
Delegates: Morgan, Ware, R.L., Wright, Saxman, Hogan, Scott, E.T., Marshall, D.W., Lohr, Poindexter, Abbitt and Senator Ruff.
Please remember to give them special thanks!
Some thoughts:
1.Every hunter needs to be registered to vote! Many are not currently registered. If you know someone, friend or families, please get them registered to vote. Make sure they vote in every election. It does matter!
2.Your phone calls and letters made a major difference.
3.Governor Kaine has promised that next year will be the year of the environment! With the completion of the Hound study we know they will be bring legislation to take away your rights! Mr. Hazel, DGIF Chairman, told the VHDA that NO legislation will be recommended by the study! Presumably he intends to bring regulatory changes. We must be ready; they will come after us this year with new regulation or next year in the legislature!
4.Resolutions by the County Boards of Supervisors that say they oppose the study are the best way to answer to anti-dog study recommendations! The Boards of Supervisors know better than a couple of VT professors!
5.The strength that comes from large numbers of members and their families give us a voice in the Virginia General Assembly and with the Boards of Supervisors. Please get everyone that you know to join the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance. When you join on line it shows you which legislative district you are in.
Our next News Brief will deal with where we go from here. The VHDA is an organization on the move. Watch the web site http://www.vahda.org/ for news and updates. We are growing everyday!
Remember this is your organization! If you don’t want it to be like those “other” hunting organizations that let you down, you must get involved! GET IN THE FIGHT OR LOSE YOUR RIGHTS!
News Briefs
Powhatan, Virginia
Thursday, February 28, 2008
2008 General Assembly
The session is almost over. On balance, the session produced some good pro-Sportsmen legislation without any really bad bills passing, yet! Your phone calls and emails have made a substantial difference! We hope to increase that contact next year! We have updated the web site so that you can see who voted with and against us on all of the bills we were working. Some highlights and some comments:
SB538, sponsored by Delegate Robert D. Orrock, Sr., (R) - House District 54, is still alive, but amended to lessen its potential impact and looking for funding in a tight budget year. Call your Senator and ask him or her vote no to any budget that contains funding for HB538!
HB 1352 sponsored by Delegate R. Lee Ware, (R) - Powhatan was defeated in the House (47-52), but it sent a serious message that the Sportsmen are tired of the DGIF Board of Directors ignoring their interests only to service the will of wealthy elitists who selfishly abolish or severely limit centuries of Virginia Heritage! Please take the time to thank the delegates that supported this effort. Delegates Hogan and Saxman worked hard for passage when our bill reached the floor! Of course, Delegate Ware was instrumental in all of our efforts in the House this year. A special thanks goes out to Delegate Johnny S. Joannou (D) - House District 79 – Portsmouth for courageously standing with us on this bill. He is a longtime friend of Virginia’s Sportsmen and of the Second Amendment!
SB 263 sponsored by R. Creigh Deeds (D) - Senate District 25, after passing the Senate 38-1 with amendments, it was killed in House Agriculture Committee by a voice vote. The sponsor complained that the Senate had reduced the penalty from a class four misdemeanor to a class two, but retains the revocation of the hunting license and forfeiture of firearm or bow involved. In the House, the sponsor argued that the class four misdemeanor provisions be reinstated. It is worth noting that Senator Deeds is an announced candidate for Governor in 2009!
A complete list of bills that the Alliance followed and our positions can be found on the web site http://www.vahda.org/legislation.htm .
The Board of Directors in accordance with the By-laws has approved these positions. We encourage our members to contact the Directors with questions about the positions taken. This is your Alliance! Because of the long days at the Legislature, we do not have the time to explain to everyone that is not an Alliance member why we spoke for, worked in favor of or opposed a certain bills. As the organization develops a more extensive process will be used to develop and debate policy, but due to the fast moving nature of the legislature the Board must often decide on a course of action on short notice and the folks on site must be able to act.
Sunday Hunting
The VHDA opposes Sunday hunting as one of the quickest ways to turn the non-hunting public, landowners and all who keep at Sabbath against Hound Hunting. James Hazel, Chairman of DGIF Board from Fairfax Co., representing himself and not the DGIF Board, in an unprecedented move, spoke in favor of Sunday hunting, as did an NRA’s representative Joel Partridge and an individual from Tidewater. Senator Stolle tried to put the camel’s nose (and body) under the tent with his urban archery bill SB708, but was soundly defeated by a vote in House Agriculture Committee. Speaking against Sunday Hunting were the Virginia Farm Bureau, the Virginia Agribusiness Council, and the VHDA! We have received some complaints about our position from a few Sportsmen who still-hunt and are NOT members of our organization. Many were used to hunting on Sunday where they came from. There are no plans to seek any modification of existing law to end any Sunday exemptions that currently exist, such as the 2:00 AM Sunday provision to allow for retrieval of dogs.
Making DGIF Hunter Friendly!
House Joint Resolution by Delegate Chris Saxman (R) - Staunton: HJ 231 Game and Inland Fisheries, Board of; Board & Department to provide for citizen input in regulations; urges the DGIF Board to return to the two-year regulatory cycle and local meetings by Board members and staff to explain proposals for new regulations. It was made clear that the use of the Internet alone was not a practice favored by legislators. The staff was receptive to this request. We continue to hope that the Board will take the Resolution to heart! The Senate rules committee amended the Bill to require a report by DGIF on their efforts to implement this resolution. At the January 22, 2008, Board meeting, we were left somewhat cynical about their willingness to abandon the Internet as a method of receiving comments! They have decided to use the internet for another survey on Hound Hunting. To date the survey is neither on the web site nor in the mail! Mailing all hunters or a large sample would insure input more representative of the Hunting community.
The Hunting Dog Study!
The advisory committee members have been named. Letters have been prepared and will be mailed soon. In spite of public assurances by Mr. Duncan at a number of meetings, NO VHDA BOARD Members have been named to this committee! The VHDA is the largest hunting organization in the state and is dedicated to hunting with dogs! DGIF still has a lot to learn and a long way to go before we will ever trust them again! Please notify us immediately if you are asked to serve on the committee! Delegate Watkins Abbitt, (I) – Appomattox, one of us and one of the best friends hunters that use dogs will ever have, was asked to be on the committee, but declined.
OUR FRIENDS
Members of the House and Senate including Speaker Howell and Majority Leader Griffin of the House constantly helped us. Some folks, hope we didn’t miss too many of our loyal friends, that stand out because they dealt daily with many of our bills and were stalwart defenders of your rights are listed below:
Delegates: Morgan, Ware, R.L., Wright, Saxman, Hogan, Scott, E.T., Marshall, D.W., Lohr, Poindexter, Abbitt and Senator Ruff.
Please remember to give them special thanks!
Some thoughts:
1.Every hunter needs to be registered to vote! Many are not currently registered. If you know someone, friend or families, please get them registered to vote. Make sure they vote in every election. It does matter!
2.Your phone calls and letters made a major difference.
3.Governor Kaine has promised that next year will be the year of the environment! With the completion of the Hound study we know they will be bring legislation to take away your rights! Mr. Hazel, DGIF Chairman, told the VHDA that NO legislation will be recommended by the study! Presumably he intends to bring regulatory changes. We must be ready; they will come after us this year with new regulation or next year in the legislature!
4.Resolutions by the County Boards of Supervisors that say they oppose the study are the best way to answer to anti-dog study recommendations! The Boards of Supervisors know better than a couple of VT professors!
5.The strength that comes from large numbers of members and their families give us a voice in the Virginia General Assembly and with the Boards of Supervisors. Please get everyone that you know to join the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance. When you join on line it shows you which legislative district you are in.
Our next News Brief will deal with where we go from here. The VHDA is an organization on the move. Watch the web site http://www.vahda.org/ for news and updates. We are growing everyday!
Remember this is your organization! If you don’t want it to be like those “other” hunting organizations that let you down, you must get involved! GET IN THE FIGHT OR LOSE YOUR RIGHTS!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests