Our Mission Statement
The Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance is working to secure, for posterity, the heritage of hunting with dogs in the Commonwealth of Virginia and to promote and advance the opportunities to use dogs for hunting through aggressive educational programs and political action.
Educational programs will promote hunting with dogs to the general public, the sportsmen’s community and elected officials.
Political action may include all state and local offices (excluding Federal elections) and will include lobbying the members of the Virginia General Assembly in support of the right to hunt with dogs.
VHDA Committee
Questions or comments? Email us at info@vahda.org
VIRGINIA HUNTING DOG ALLIANCE
-
hokieman
- Tight Mouth
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:49 am
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: swva
- Contact:
BEST JOB IN THE WORLD DIDN'T TURN OUT THAT WAY FOR DGIF DIRECTOR.
BY BILL COCHRAN
As a kid growing up on a dairy farm in Amelia County, J. Carlton Courter III, figured that being director of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries “was probably the best job in the world.”
It didn’t turn out that way for the 50-year-old Courter when he was appointed director of the agency in mid-October last year. On Friday, he was fired.
Courter failed to provide the innovative leadership needed to help redirect an agency rattled by controversy that had divided constituents and led to criminal indictments of three former department officials. One of those is previous director William Woodfin.
Woodfin was an autocratic leader who was harsh on subordinates, motivating them with fear and cronyism. Courter was just the opposite, a nice guy who was lackadaisical and disengaged.
Board members have been doing some positive things recently, so we can hope that they will select the right director this time, but you have to wonder if anyone of quality will want the position.
Members thought they had their man in Courter, who was chosen from 78 applicants. The day he was hired, Dr. William Greer Jr., chairman of the search committee and president of Virginia Wesleyan College, had high praise for Courter, saying the appointment “lowered the blood pressure of a lot of people.” John Montgomery Jr., board chairman at the time, used the word “thrilled” to describe how he felt about the hire, adding that the DGIF had not been pressured from outside forces to employ Courter, whose previous job was commissioner of the Virginia Department of Agriculture.
Board members had little to say following the firing of Courter. It was a personnel matter, they declared, and not open to public discussion. Personnel matters are understandably sensitive, but this is a case when a solid explanation is needed.
When newspaper reporters reached Courter at his home in Midlothian, they found some fight. The former director said the board had given him no reason for the dismissal.
“Am I bitter? Yes! I think I was doing my job, pretty much,” Courter was quoted as saying in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Sherry Crumley of Buchanan was one of eight board members who attended the call meeting, all of them voting to immediately terminate Courter’s duties and provide 30 days of severance pay.
“There were absolutely no improprieties,” Crumley told Mark Taylor, outdoor editor of The Roanoke Times. “We just felt that the agency needed to have some new direction.”
James Hazel of Oakton, board chairman, said Courter’s dismissal had nothing to do with the grand jury indictment. Co-workers described him as “squeaky clean.”
Only a few months after Courter’s hire, department insiders were talking about how he fell short when it came to planning, communication and leadership skills. Subordinates said they received little direction from their boss. During public meetings, Courter gave the appearance of being detatched.
Rather than winning back the disgruntled hunting and fishing constituency, the DGIF lost ground when its efforts to resolve hunting dog issues escalated into a quagmire of controversy among hound hunters. This is yet to be resolved.
There may have been a time when the DGIF could have survived without strong leadership. Not now. No longer can it rely on friends to line up when it needs help. On the horizon are mounting influences to change the way the agency has done business for decades. Legislation that would modify the way board members are appointed is expected to be introduced in the 2008 General Assembly.
Look, also, for the strongest effort in 30-plus years to merge the DGIF with the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. Gov. Tim Kaine advocated that the day prior to Courter’s firing. The move could receive big-time help even from some people within the DGIF. Sportsmen would have declared war on the idea a few years ago, but that may no longer be the case.
If you are searching for some good in an otherwise sad situation, there is some. One thing, the DGIF board stood up and did what it felt it had to do concerning Courter. It had dilly-dallied around with Woodfin until much harm was done. For another, it made an excellent choice in appointing Law Enforcement Chief Col. Mike Bise as acting director until a replacement can be found. Bise agreed to stay, diverting his plans to retire in January.
He may not have to stay long. The board is on fast track to name a new director by Feb. 1. That’s pretty amazing when you consider it took 16 months to name Courter.
BY BILL COCHRAN
As a kid growing up on a dairy farm in Amelia County, J. Carlton Courter III, figured that being director of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries “was probably the best job in the world.”
It didn’t turn out that way for the 50-year-old Courter when he was appointed director of the agency in mid-October last year. On Friday, he was fired.
Courter failed to provide the innovative leadership needed to help redirect an agency rattled by controversy that had divided constituents and led to criminal indictments of three former department officials. One of those is previous director William Woodfin.
Woodfin was an autocratic leader who was harsh on subordinates, motivating them with fear and cronyism. Courter was just the opposite, a nice guy who was lackadaisical and disengaged.
Board members have been doing some positive things recently, so we can hope that they will select the right director this time, but you have to wonder if anyone of quality will want the position.
Members thought they had their man in Courter, who was chosen from 78 applicants. The day he was hired, Dr. William Greer Jr., chairman of the search committee and president of Virginia Wesleyan College, had high praise for Courter, saying the appointment “lowered the blood pressure of a lot of people.” John Montgomery Jr., board chairman at the time, used the word “thrilled” to describe how he felt about the hire, adding that the DGIF had not been pressured from outside forces to employ Courter, whose previous job was commissioner of the Virginia Department of Agriculture.
Board members had little to say following the firing of Courter. It was a personnel matter, they declared, and not open to public discussion. Personnel matters are understandably sensitive, but this is a case when a solid explanation is needed.
When newspaper reporters reached Courter at his home in Midlothian, they found some fight. The former director said the board had given him no reason for the dismissal.
“Am I bitter? Yes! I think I was doing my job, pretty much,” Courter was quoted as saying in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Sherry Crumley of Buchanan was one of eight board members who attended the call meeting, all of them voting to immediately terminate Courter’s duties and provide 30 days of severance pay.
“There were absolutely no improprieties,” Crumley told Mark Taylor, outdoor editor of The Roanoke Times. “We just felt that the agency needed to have some new direction.”
James Hazel of Oakton, board chairman, said Courter’s dismissal had nothing to do with the grand jury indictment. Co-workers described him as “squeaky clean.”
Only a few months after Courter’s hire, department insiders were talking about how he fell short when it came to planning, communication and leadership skills. Subordinates said they received little direction from their boss. During public meetings, Courter gave the appearance of being detatched.
Rather than winning back the disgruntled hunting and fishing constituency, the DGIF lost ground when its efforts to resolve hunting dog issues escalated into a quagmire of controversy among hound hunters. This is yet to be resolved.
There may have been a time when the DGIF could have survived without strong leadership. Not now. No longer can it rely on friends to line up when it needs help. On the horizon are mounting influences to change the way the agency has done business for decades. Legislation that would modify the way board members are appointed is expected to be introduced in the 2008 General Assembly.
Look, also, for the strongest effort in 30-plus years to merge the DGIF with the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. Gov. Tim Kaine advocated that the day prior to Courter’s firing. The move could receive big-time help even from some people within the DGIF. Sportsmen would have declared war on the idea a few years ago, but that may no longer be the case.
If you are searching for some good in an otherwise sad situation, there is some. One thing, the DGIF board stood up and did what it felt it had to do concerning Courter. It had dilly-dallied around with Woodfin until much harm was done. For another, it made an excellent choice in appointing Law Enforcement Chief Col. Mike Bise as acting director until a replacement can be found. Bise agreed to stay, diverting his plans to retire in January.
He may not have to stay long. The board is on fast track to name a new director by Feb. 1. That’s pretty amazing when you consider it took 16 months to name Courter.
-
hokieman
- Tight Mouth
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:49 am
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: swva
- Contact:
Hound hunting debate mounts
Bill Cochran
BILL: My name is Bryan Morris and I am the president of the United Eastern Virginia Hunting Dog Association and interim co-chair of the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance. I am writing in reference to our position with the hound hunting study and the resolution that has passed the Board of Supervisors in several Southside Virginia counties.
The resolution in question merely emphasizes to the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries that these counties are in favor of hound hunting, which plays a large part in their local economies. The resolution does state opposition for the current study by the DGIF and Virginia Tech.
The reasoning behind our opposition is as follows:
The impetus for the study is a reported increase in complaints [about hound hunters], but no numbers have been reported to substantiate this claim. Mr. [Bob] Duncan, [DGIF wildlife chief], was asked about the number of complaints, and was unable to give an estimate. We would like to be informed of the specific number and nature of the complaints, which sparked this study.
The study will be expensive. We have not been told the cost, but Virginia Tech advertised the assistant’s position at $30,000 per year with full faculty benefits. We do not see this as a judicious use of our licensing fees.
The profile of the focus group members continues to change. The original proposal involved a group of hunters that used dogs meeting to identify problems and offering options or proposals before legislation was imposed. When the study was announced at the DGIF June meeting, it was to include not only houndsmen, but also animal-welfare group members, still hunters, hikers and landowners.
As opposition to the study arose, we were then told that 70 percent of the study participants would be houndsmen. Now we are told houndsmen will make up 50 percent. How are we to be certain that the methods are not being changed to insure a predetermined outcome?
Mr. Duncan has stated on several occasions that there may be no changes made or legislative proposals. This is very difficult to believe. The results of this study will most certainly be the basis of proposed legislation. The backing of Virginia Tech and the DGIF will give enough credence to any bill to guarantee its path through the legislature. The original process would have allowed for houndsmen to work with the DGIF to institute programs and practices that would not involve restrictive legislation.
The method by which individuals are picked to be on the focus group is also questionable. What insurance is there to guard against “cherry picking?” How can we insure that our interests are being protected? The results of inquiry into a bear baiting issue by the DGIF, resulted in a proposal to ban tracking collars. No matter how “well intended” the resulting proposal was ill conceived and misguided. The issue was baiting, not telemetry.
In short, the study is unfounded and costly. It has questionable composition, means and methods. Therefore, the results will be questionable. Since this study will be the basis of upcoming legislation that will have the backing it needs to easily pass the legislature, we find it unacceptable in its current form.
We recognize that there are issues to address. We want to be part of the solution and not have it imposed upon us. We urge all of our membership to be courteous and professional. Information on the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance can be found at vahda.org.
BRYAN MORRIS
DVM
BILL: The hound hunting debate has gotten out of hand every time it’s been brought up. I just wish people would understand that we are all hunters and if we don’t stick together in some fashion it will be the downfall of us all.
FREDDY MCGUIRE
Bill Cochran
BILL: My name is Bryan Morris and I am the president of the United Eastern Virginia Hunting Dog Association and interim co-chair of the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance. I am writing in reference to our position with the hound hunting study and the resolution that has passed the Board of Supervisors in several Southside Virginia counties.
The resolution in question merely emphasizes to the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries that these counties are in favor of hound hunting, which plays a large part in their local economies. The resolution does state opposition for the current study by the DGIF and Virginia Tech.
The reasoning behind our opposition is as follows:
The impetus for the study is a reported increase in complaints [about hound hunters], but no numbers have been reported to substantiate this claim. Mr. [Bob] Duncan, [DGIF wildlife chief], was asked about the number of complaints, and was unable to give an estimate. We would like to be informed of the specific number and nature of the complaints, which sparked this study.
The study will be expensive. We have not been told the cost, but Virginia Tech advertised the assistant’s position at $30,000 per year with full faculty benefits. We do not see this as a judicious use of our licensing fees.
The profile of the focus group members continues to change. The original proposal involved a group of hunters that used dogs meeting to identify problems and offering options or proposals before legislation was imposed. When the study was announced at the DGIF June meeting, it was to include not only houndsmen, but also animal-welfare group members, still hunters, hikers and landowners.
As opposition to the study arose, we were then told that 70 percent of the study participants would be houndsmen. Now we are told houndsmen will make up 50 percent. How are we to be certain that the methods are not being changed to insure a predetermined outcome?
Mr. Duncan has stated on several occasions that there may be no changes made or legislative proposals. This is very difficult to believe. The results of this study will most certainly be the basis of proposed legislation. The backing of Virginia Tech and the DGIF will give enough credence to any bill to guarantee its path through the legislature. The original process would have allowed for houndsmen to work with the DGIF to institute programs and practices that would not involve restrictive legislation.
The method by which individuals are picked to be on the focus group is also questionable. What insurance is there to guard against “cherry picking?” How can we insure that our interests are being protected? The results of inquiry into a bear baiting issue by the DGIF, resulted in a proposal to ban tracking collars. No matter how “well intended” the resulting proposal was ill conceived and misguided. The issue was baiting, not telemetry.
In short, the study is unfounded and costly. It has questionable composition, means and methods. Therefore, the results will be questionable. Since this study will be the basis of upcoming legislation that will have the backing it needs to easily pass the legislature, we find it unacceptable in its current form.
We recognize that there are issues to address. We want to be part of the solution and not have it imposed upon us. We urge all of our membership to be courteous and professional. Information on the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance can be found at vahda.org.
BRYAN MORRIS
DVM
BILL: The hound hunting debate has gotten out of hand every time it’s been brought up. I just wish people would understand that we are all hunters and if we don’t stick together in some fashion it will be the downfall of us all.
FREDDY MCGUIRE
-
hokieman
- Tight Mouth
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:49 am
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: swva
- Contact:
VIRGINIA HUNTING DOG ALLIANCE HAS AN AGENDA AND THAT IS THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE DGIF BOARD. WE NEED ALL VIRGINIA HUNTERS TO SUPPORT OUR EFFORTS AND STAND UNITED IN THIS FIGHT. PLEASE GO TO OUR WEBSITE TODAY AND JOIN IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO ALREADY. DO YOUR PART TODAY IN PERSERVING HOUND HUNTING IN VIRGINIA FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
-
hokieman
- Tight Mouth
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:49 am
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: swva
- Contact:
john M. Morse, Jr.
Dec 6, 07 - 2:57 PM VGIF Group Participant
I attended one of the VGIF Focus Group Meetings in Emporia on December 3, 2007. The meeting was comprised of 3 moderators from Virginia Tech, 17 deer houndsmen from the Southeast region of the State, and one sharp as a tack houndswoman. We were questioned in very general terms about our basic hunting backgrounds, and provided information as to "what dog hunting means to us". I can assure everyone that the overall message of how important dog hunting is to us was delievered appropriately and completly.
Despite this, I and several otehrs whom I have spoken to continue to have an ever increasing skepticism of this entire process and its ultimate goal. With this in mind, I strongly urge all supporters of any form of dog hunting to become a member of the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance, and its political action committe, Commonwealth SportsMen's Alliance. I have had contact with H. Kirby Burch of this group, and am very impressed with his depth of knowledge regarding this situtation (please refer to the post of Derick Ratcliffe dated 11/28/07 for a statement by Mr. Burch).
At any rate, I intend to work at organizing all hound hunters in the Chesapeake/Virginia Beach area. Please feel free to contact me regarding this effort.
I'm sure you agree this is worth our time, money and effort.
Sincerely,
John M. Morse, Jr.
3636 Ballahack Rd
Chesapeake, VA 23322
757-421-0822
Email: john.morse@vadoc.virginia.gov
Mike Cobb
Dec 7th, 2007 - 5:41 AM Re: VGIF Group Participant
I was at the same meeting Mr. Morse. I agree with you 100%. I found it odd how our invitation was worded concerning how "focus group" meetings worked. I believe it said they would ask us questions and see how we responded. I only remember 1 question being asked, the one you mentioned, that broke the ice and discussion got started. I hope that all who read on this board will join VHDA, make the necessary calls to your congressmen, senators, as well as the Gov. and express your displeasure with what is going on. Then write or e mail whomever your board member is on the VDGIF. I feel this is a winnable fight if everyone does what they should and let their voices be heard!
Dec 6, 07 - 2:57 PM VGIF Group Participant
I attended one of the VGIF Focus Group Meetings in Emporia on December 3, 2007. The meeting was comprised of 3 moderators from Virginia Tech, 17 deer houndsmen from the Southeast region of the State, and one sharp as a tack houndswoman. We were questioned in very general terms about our basic hunting backgrounds, and provided information as to "what dog hunting means to us". I can assure everyone that the overall message of how important dog hunting is to us was delievered appropriately and completly.
Despite this, I and several otehrs whom I have spoken to continue to have an ever increasing skepticism of this entire process and its ultimate goal. With this in mind, I strongly urge all supporters of any form of dog hunting to become a member of the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance, and its political action committe, Commonwealth SportsMen's Alliance. I have had contact with H. Kirby Burch of this group, and am very impressed with his depth of knowledge regarding this situtation (please refer to the post of Derick Ratcliffe dated 11/28/07 for a statement by Mr. Burch).
At any rate, I intend to work at organizing all hound hunters in the Chesapeake/Virginia Beach area. Please feel free to contact me regarding this effort.
I'm sure you agree this is worth our time, money and effort.
Sincerely,
John M. Morse, Jr.
3636 Ballahack Rd
Chesapeake, VA 23322
757-421-0822
Email: john.morse@vadoc.virginia.gov
Mike Cobb
Dec 7th, 2007 - 5:41 AM Re: VGIF Group Participant
I was at the same meeting Mr. Morse. I agree with you 100%. I found it odd how our invitation was worded concerning how "focus group" meetings worked. I believe it said they would ask us questions and see how we responded. I only remember 1 question being asked, the one you mentioned, that broke the ice and discussion got started. I hope that all who read on this board will join VHDA, make the necessary calls to your congressmen, senators, as well as the Gov. and express your displeasure with what is going on. Then write or e mail whomever your board member is on the VDGIF. I feel this is a winnable fight if everyone does what they should and let their voices be heard!
-
hokieman
- Tight Mouth
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:49 am
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: swva
- Contact:
Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance has grown to be the largest outdoor sporting organization in Virginia! We still have a great deal to do.
Our heritage and very culture are under attack. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has advanced the timetable for its hunting dog study. Focus groups that were to have met "after the first of the year" are already holding meetings! While they call us alarmist, they are working hard to destroy our tradition of hunting with hounds. Wardens are telling hunters every day that "they" are going to end hunting with dogs in Virginia within five years!
If you want to save your heritage: we need EVERYONE to do the following:
1. Call your two legislators and POLITELY ask them to support the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance's effort to change the selection of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Board of Directors. Tell them that you are counting on them to defend your right to hunt with dogs.
2. Get your hunt club to send us their mailing list with email addresses! Tell everyone you hunt with or know to go to our website and JOIN NOW!
3. Send Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance a donation now and ask your club to send a donation to help with this fight.
We must get our fellow hunters to help now. Please don't wait for someone else to act. It will only take a few minutes for you to phone your General Assembly members. Even more helpful would be a personal visit to discuss your concerns face to face.
The future of Hound Hunting in Virginia is up to you!
Sincerely,
THE VIRGINIA HUNTING DOG ALLIANCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Our heritage and very culture are under attack. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has advanced the timetable for its hunting dog study. Focus groups that were to have met "after the first of the year" are already holding meetings! While they call us alarmist, they are working hard to destroy our tradition of hunting with hounds. Wardens are telling hunters every day that "they" are going to end hunting with dogs in Virginia within five years!
If you want to save your heritage: we need EVERYONE to do the following:
1. Call your two legislators and POLITELY ask them to support the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance's effort to change the selection of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Board of Directors. Tell them that you are counting on them to defend your right to hunt with dogs.
2. Get your hunt club to send us their mailing list with email addresses! Tell everyone you hunt with or know to go to our website and JOIN NOW!
3. Send Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance a donation now and ask your club to send a donation to help with this fight.
We must get our fellow hunters to help now. Please don't wait for someone else to act. It will only take a few minutes for you to phone your General Assembly members. Even more helpful would be a personal visit to discuss your concerns face to face.
The future of Hound Hunting in Virginia is up to you!
Sincerely,
THE VIRGINIA HUNTING DOG ALLIANCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
-
hokieman
- Tight Mouth
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:49 am
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: swva
- Contact:
[QUOTE=J Swan;2889278]We already know where the complaints are coming from. If you, as a landowner, are not contacting your game warden with your concerns or problems, how is he/she supposed to enforce our game laws and regs?
If I witness any trouble with hunters or anglers, I call the game warden and ask that they investigate. You should too. If law enforcement is not aware of illegal activity - how are they supposed to stop it? Is it possible that your very legitimate complaints could be resolved merely by working, cooperatively, with your game warden?
This study isn't a cooperative approach. What was supposed to happen is that DGIF was supposed to examine the real issue of some hunters abusing the exception to trespass. They were supposed to come up with a tweak in that exception so that game wardens would be better able to do their jobs.
All the money they are spending on this study, including adding more full time desk jockeys in Richmond, is better spent adding game wardens. More game wardens means our game laws and regs are better enforced, and game wardens can work within community's to address any concerns that hunters, anglers and the public have.
Adding another layer of bureaucracy does nothing to solve your particular problem. You'll still have problems with illegal hunting - because 1) you don't call your game warden and 2) even if you did, there aren't enough of them. Though that should not stop you from reporting illegal activity.
I suggest that if you really do have problems with illegal hunting - you call your game warden. Oh - walking down a public roadway with a firearm is NOT illegal. If people are brandishing a firearm at you - yes, that's illegal. During hunting season, it's perfectly normal to see people, even juniors, with firearms. Even on our roads. That is not a legitimate complaint.
The reason seasons differ among jurisdictions is due to nothing more than wildlife management decisions that have to be made. Your season is longer because it needs to be. In some areas, there is a bounty on coyote. In others, there is not. Hunting season length is not decided in a vacuum - it is wildlife management. Factors such as herd size will be a bigger factor than what is happening over at your BIL's place.
Sunday hunting is another issue which comes up each year - but I don't think that is included in this study. It is legal to hunt with dogs on Sunday - but not with firearms. This is an example of how hunters are perfectly willing to compromise so that everyone is able to enjoy public lands, including hikers, joggers and bicyclists.
You seem to have the impression that hunters are the ones in control of DGIF. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just as equestrians have to constantly battle for trail use, hunters always have to fight tooth and nail for every single thing. A trail rider has to contend with complaints about horse manure on a multi-use trail, a person schooling on the xc course at a public park gets hurt because kids are playing on the xc jumps and spooking horses. Hunters have to constantly contend with shrinking land, trying to hunt safely with more and more people moving into formerly empty areas, and a gov't that thinks its mission is to create more and more regulations; while trying to control wildlife populations. Then, if that's not enough, they are constantly under attack by animal rights nuts dressing up in bear suits and wandering around the woods.
Every activity is being forced out by people who complain that their activity is more important than traditional activities. Every single time a traditional pastime/activity is questioned, let's say, hunting, hunters are immediately blindsided and placed on the defensive. Equestrians have the same trouble with use of public lands, trail systems, or other sites. Because the urban/suburban public does not generally ride horses - the equestrians needs are always shunted aside, drowned out, or ignored. Finally, horses disappear; crowded out by paved parks. Even horse farms, or working farms are being crowded out because people sue horse owners, complain about flies, the smell, the noise, don't think farms should be taxed lower than residential housing - and again, the farmer loses. If you don't think so - you haven't had anyone start complaining about your manure pile yet. Or trying to get you in trouble with zoning for no reason - just that they don't like horse people.
The same thing is happening with hunting. Then, when the folks in the suburbs are completely overrun with deer, rabid fox and raccoon, or other wildlife problems - they scream for DGIF to "do something about it".
If you're having a problem with illegal activity, and you don't call law enforcement, I fail to see how your problem is going to be resolved by focus groups. You still have to call your game warden and ask him/her to help.
Hope it all works out for you. I got 10$ that says this boondoggle doesn't help you at all.[/QUOTE]
If I witness any trouble with hunters or anglers, I call the game warden and ask that they investigate. You should too. If law enforcement is not aware of illegal activity - how are they supposed to stop it? Is it possible that your very legitimate complaints could be resolved merely by working, cooperatively, with your game warden?
This study isn't a cooperative approach. What was supposed to happen is that DGIF was supposed to examine the real issue of some hunters abusing the exception to trespass. They were supposed to come up with a tweak in that exception so that game wardens would be better able to do their jobs.
All the money they are spending on this study, including adding more full time desk jockeys in Richmond, is better spent adding game wardens. More game wardens means our game laws and regs are better enforced, and game wardens can work within community's to address any concerns that hunters, anglers and the public have.
Adding another layer of bureaucracy does nothing to solve your particular problem. You'll still have problems with illegal hunting - because 1) you don't call your game warden and 2) even if you did, there aren't enough of them. Though that should not stop you from reporting illegal activity.
I suggest that if you really do have problems with illegal hunting - you call your game warden. Oh - walking down a public roadway with a firearm is NOT illegal. If people are brandishing a firearm at you - yes, that's illegal. During hunting season, it's perfectly normal to see people, even juniors, with firearms. Even on our roads. That is not a legitimate complaint.
The reason seasons differ among jurisdictions is due to nothing more than wildlife management decisions that have to be made. Your season is longer because it needs to be. In some areas, there is a bounty on coyote. In others, there is not. Hunting season length is not decided in a vacuum - it is wildlife management. Factors such as herd size will be a bigger factor than what is happening over at your BIL's place.
Sunday hunting is another issue which comes up each year - but I don't think that is included in this study. It is legal to hunt with dogs on Sunday - but not with firearms. This is an example of how hunters are perfectly willing to compromise so that everyone is able to enjoy public lands, including hikers, joggers and bicyclists.
You seem to have the impression that hunters are the ones in control of DGIF. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just as equestrians have to constantly battle for trail use, hunters always have to fight tooth and nail for every single thing. A trail rider has to contend with complaints about horse manure on a multi-use trail, a person schooling on the xc course at a public park gets hurt because kids are playing on the xc jumps and spooking horses. Hunters have to constantly contend with shrinking land, trying to hunt safely with more and more people moving into formerly empty areas, and a gov't that thinks its mission is to create more and more regulations; while trying to control wildlife populations. Then, if that's not enough, they are constantly under attack by animal rights nuts dressing up in bear suits and wandering around the woods.
Every activity is being forced out by people who complain that their activity is more important than traditional activities. Every single time a traditional pastime/activity is questioned, let's say, hunting, hunters are immediately blindsided and placed on the defensive. Equestrians have the same trouble with use of public lands, trail systems, or other sites. Because the urban/suburban public does not generally ride horses - the equestrians needs are always shunted aside, drowned out, or ignored. Finally, horses disappear; crowded out by paved parks. Even horse farms, or working farms are being crowded out because people sue horse owners, complain about flies, the smell, the noise, don't think farms should be taxed lower than residential housing - and again, the farmer loses. If you don't think so - you haven't had anyone start complaining about your manure pile yet. Or trying to get you in trouble with zoning for no reason - just that they don't like horse people.
The same thing is happening with hunting. Then, when the folks in the suburbs are completely overrun with deer, rabid fox and raccoon, or other wildlife problems - they scream for DGIF to "do something about it".
If you're having a problem with illegal activity, and you don't call law enforcement, I fail to see how your problem is going to be resolved by focus groups. You still have to call your game warden and ask him/her to help.
Hope it all works out for you. I got 10$ that says this boondoggle doesn't help you at all.[/QUOTE]
-
hokieman
- Tight Mouth
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:49 am
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: swva
- Contact:
Howls over dog-hunting
Some fear Va. may be moving to ban or restrict sport
Monday, Dec 24, 2007 - 12:09 AM
By REX SPRINGSTON
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
The western Hanover County forest was cold and damp -- a miserable place for some people, but for hunter Emmett Gray it was heaven.
Sharing his excitement were Petey, Cindy, Chopper and Vicki -- Walker hounds caged in Gray's pickup truck and howling for a chance to chase deer.
Hunting with dogs has thrilled man and beast for centuries.
"The adrenaline when you have a pack of dogs coming to you, and you hear brush breaking, and that deer's coming. . . . The excitement is just outstanding," said Gray, a semiretired businessman.
Some say the tradition could be headed for extinction in Virginia, an assertion Virginia's game agency vehemently denies.
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries says it is increasingly hearing complaints, often from people new to rural life, about noisy hounds straying onto their land, often followed by hunters retrieving their dogs.
"I think it is safe to say that it has escalated every year for the last several years," said Mike Bise, acting director of the agency, which regulates hunting.
Much of the concern is anecdotal because the department's records are not detailed enough to show trends in dog-hunting complaints.
So the department, assisted by Virginia Tech researchers, is conducting a study to determine how serious the problem is and possibly to suggest solutions. Preliminary findings should be available next summer.
The study has some hound lovers howling.
Kirby Burch of Powhatan County, who led Virginia's parks agency under Republican Gov. George Allen, believes Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, is pressuring the game department to restrict or ban hunting with dogs.
"Our worst-case scenario is . . . they are going to end hound hunting within five years in Virginia," said Burch, who represents a group called the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance.
"Nothing could be further from the truth," Bise said. "We are only doing this because we are concerned about the future of hound hunting . . . We want to find a way to modify it if necessary -- and I underline heavily, 'if necessary' -- but we want to protect the sport."
Kaine spokesman Gordon Hickey said: "The governor is not putting any pressure on the game department" to ban or restrict the hunting.
In Virginia, hunters can go on private property -- even on land bearing "no trespassing" signs -- to retrieve their dogs. They don't need permission, but they must leave their guns and vehicles behind.
Many landowners don't like having strangers on their property, and the noisy dogs bother people and pets, said Jeff McDermottt. The semiretired investment banker lives on 40 acres on Robins Neck in southeastern Gloucester County. He represents dozens of landowners there opposed to what they consider uncontrolled hound hunting.
"It's almost impossible to turn loose hounds and not have them go all over everybody's property who doesn't want them" in that area, he said.
Some people speak of hunting with dogs as a revered Virginia tradition practiced by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, McDermott said.
"They also practiced slavery, but that doesn't make it right. Things were different in the 1700s in Virginia than they are in 2007."
McDermott favors a system similar to one adopted in Georgia in 2003. Georgians can hunt deer with dogs on leased land of 1,000 acres or more, or on the owner's land, with permission, if it's 250 acres or more. Confining the hunting to large tracts minimizes the chance of dogs straying onto others' land.
The Georgia law also requires a landowner or hunt-club representative to get a permit to hunt with dogs, in addition to the regular hunting license. The dog permit can be revoked for habitual trespassers and other troublemakers.
"I mean to tell you, it worked like a charm," said John Bowers, assistant chief of Georgia's Wildlife Resources Division. "We don't have very many dog-deer-hunting problems any more."
Even hunters are satisfied, Bowers said. "When this law got passed, the sky was falling and we were putting them out of business. There's no more talk of that."
Last hunting season and thus far into this one, Virginia's game department received more than 900 complaints related to hunting with dogs. Some may have involved hunters legally retrieving dogs on private property.
Many complaints go to local sheriffs. Because of that and other issues, no records are readily available to prove that dog-hunting complaints are going up.
"We don't have the actual numbers . . . but we certainly do have a feel for that just because of what we're hearing from our officers," Bise said.
The problems mainly involve hounds used to hunt deer and, to a lesser extent, bears, officials say. Unlike bird dogs and retrievers, which are under close control, the hounds often stray out of sight.
In Hanover, Gray released Petey, Cindy, Chopper and Vicki, and the barking dogs dashed off into the woods. Gray followed with his Browning 12-gauge shotgun.
Gray belongs to the Newfound River Hunt Club, which owns or leases 2,500 acres near Coatesville. The group rarely has a problem with its neighbors, he said.
Gray called to the dogs -- "Hike! Hike!" -- and they occasionally trotted back to learn which direction he wanted them to run.
"They're very intelligent animals," Gray said.
The question now is whether Virginians can be as smart in helping an old sport survive in a growing, modern state.
Contact Rex Springston at (804) 649-6453 or rspringston@timesdispatch.com.
Some fear Va. may be moving to ban or restrict sport
Monday, Dec 24, 2007 - 12:09 AM
By REX SPRINGSTON
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
The western Hanover County forest was cold and damp -- a miserable place for some people, but for hunter Emmett Gray it was heaven.
Sharing his excitement were Petey, Cindy, Chopper and Vicki -- Walker hounds caged in Gray's pickup truck and howling for a chance to chase deer.
Hunting with dogs has thrilled man and beast for centuries.
"The adrenaline when you have a pack of dogs coming to you, and you hear brush breaking, and that deer's coming. . . . The excitement is just outstanding," said Gray, a semiretired businessman.
Some say the tradition could be headed for extinction in Virginia, an assertion Virginia's game agency vehemently denies.
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries says it is increasingly hearing complaints, often from people new to rural life, about noisy hounds straying onto their land, often followed by hunters retrieving their dogs.
"I think it is safe to say that it has escalated every year for the last several years," said Mike Bise, acting director of the agency, which regulates hunting.
Much of the concern is anecdotal because the department's records are not detailed enough to show trends in dog-hunting complaints.
So the department, assisted by Virginia Tech researchers, is conducting a study to determine how serious the problem is and possibly to suggest solutions. Preliminary findings should be available next summer.
The study has some hound lovers howling.
Kirby Burch of Powhatan County, who led Virginia's parks agency under Republican Gov. George Allen, believes Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, is pressuring the game department to restrict or ban hunting with dogs.
"Our worst-case scenario is . . . they are going to end hound hunting within five years in Virginia," said Burch, who represents a group called the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance.
"Nothing could be further from the truth," Bise said. "We are only doing this because we are concerned about the future of hound hunting . . . We want to find a way to modify it if necessary -- and I underline heavily, 'if necessary' -- but we want to protect the sport."
Kaine spokesman Gordon Hickey said: "The governor is not putting any pressure on the game department" to ban or restrict the hunting.
In Virginia, hunters can go on private property -- even on land bearing "no trespassing" signs -- to retrieve their dogs. They don't need permission, but they must leave their guns and vehicles behind.
Many landowners don't like having strangers on their property, and the noisy dogs bother people and pets, said Jeff McDermottt. The semiretired investment banker lives on 40 acres on Robins Neck in southeastern Gloucester County. He represents dozens of landowners there opposed to what they consider uncontrolled hound hunting.
"It's almost impossible to turn loose hounds and not have them go all over everybody's property who doesn't want them" in that area, he said.
Some people speak of hunting with dogs as a revered Virginia tradition practiced by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, McDermott said.
"They also practiced slavery, but that doesn't make it right. Things were different in the 1700s in Virginia than they are in 2007."
McDermott favors a system similar to one adopted in Georgia in 2003. Georgians can hunt deer with dogs on leased land of 1,000 acres or more, or on the owner's land, with permission, if it's 250 acres or more. Confining the hunting to large tracts minimizes the chance of dogs straying onto others' land.
The Georgia law also requires a landowner or hunt-club representative to get a permit to hunt with dogs, in addition to the regular hunting license. The dog permit can be revoked for habitual trespassers and other troublemakers.
"I mean to tell you, it worked like a charm," said John Bowers, assistant chief of Georgia's Wildlife Resources Division. "We don't have very many dog-deer-hunting problems any more."
Even hunters are satisfied, Bowers said. "When this law got passed, the sky was falling and we were putting them out of business. There's no more talk of that."
Last hunting season and thus far into this one, Virginia's game department received more than 900 complaints related to hunting with dogs. Some may have involved hunters legally retrieving dogs on private property.
Many complaints go to local sheriffs. Because of that and other issues, no records are readily available to prove that dog-hunting complaints are going up.
"We don't have the actual numbers . . . but we certainly do have a feel for that just because of what we're hearing from our officers," Bise said.
The problems mainly involve hounds used to hunt deer and, to a lesser extent, bears, officials say. Unlike bird dogs and retrievers, which are under close control, the hounds often stray out of sight.
In Hanover, Gray released Petey, Cindy, Chopper and Vicki, and the barking dogs dashed off into the woods. Gray followed with his Browning 12-gauge shotgun.
Gray belongs to the Newfound River Hunt Club, which owns or leases 2,500 acres near Coatesville. The group rarely has a problem with its neighbors, he said.
Gray called to the dogs -- "Hike! Hike!" -- and they occasionally trotted back to learn which direction he wanted them to run.
"They're very intelligent animals," Gray said.
The question now is whether Virginians can be as smart in helping an old sport survive in a growing, modern state.
Contact Rex Springston at (804) 649-6453 or rspringston@timesdispatch.com.
-
hokieman
- Tight Mouth
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:49 am
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: swva
- Contact:
I repeat now is the time to call your legislators in the Virginia Senate or the Virginia House of Delegates TODAY and politely tell them that DGIF has gone to far! Tell them you want them politely to support the restructuring of the DGIF Board!
click on this link and send them an email and let them know how you feel.
click on this link and send them an email and let them know how you feel.
-
hokieman
- Tight Mouth
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:49 am
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: swva
- Contact:
This Resolution was passed by Charlotte, Brunswick, Mecklenburg
and Lunenburg Counties and is currently under consideration in at
least seven other Counties.
Ask your Board of Supervisors to help now!
A Resolution of the Brunswick County Board of Supervisors Where as Brunswick County has a tradition of hunting with dogs and specifically with hounds that is as old as the County; and Where as the Brunswick County tradition of hunting with dogs provides significant economic benefit to the county and her people; and Where as the Brunswick County tradition of hunting with dogs significantly contributes to the public safety by controlling excess wildlife populations that would otherwise increase automotive collisions, crop and other property damage, and disease control; and Where as the Brunswick County tradition of hunting with dogs, especially hounds, is practiced on the vast majority of land in Brunswick County and is a source of revenue and a major resource management tool; and Where as the Brunswick County tradition of hunting with dogs is a wholesome family oriented heritage that teaches self-reliance, individual responsibility, and the values of community and stewardship of our GOD given natural resources; therefore Be it resolved that the Brunswick County Board of Supervisors supports our Heritage of Hunting with Dogs, especially hounds, and opposes any studies or actions on the part of Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and Virginia Tech as detrimental to that tradition. Be it further resolved that the Brunswick County Board of Supervisors in support of our Heritage of Hunting with Dogs, especially hounds, hereby calls on the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to work to increase communication with hunters and their hunting organizations and to increase law enforcement of the existing laws.
and Lunenburg Counties and is currently under consideration in at
least seven other Counties.
Ask your Board of Supervisors to help now!
A Resolution of the Brunswick County Board of Supervisors Where as Brunswick County has a tradition of hunting with dogs and specifically with hounds that is as old as the County; and Where as the Brunswick County tradition of hunting with dogs provides significant economic benefit to the county and her people; and Where as the Brunswick County tradition of hunting with dogs significantly contributes to the public safety by controlling excess wildlife populations that would otherwise increase automotive collisions, crop and other property damage, and disease control; and Where as the Brunswick County tradition of hunting with dogs, especially hounds, is practiced on the vast majority of land in Brunswick County and is a source of revenue and a major resource management tool; and Where as the Brunswick County tradition of hunting with dogs is a wholesome family oriented heritage that teaches self-reliance, individual responsibility, and the values of community and stewardship of our GOD given natural resources; therefore Be it resolved that the Brunswick County Board of Supervisors supports our Heritage of Hunting with Dogs, especially hounds, and opposes any studies or actions on the part of Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and Virginia Tech as detrimental to that tradition. Be it further resolved that the Brunswick County Board of Supervisors in support of our Heritage of Hunting with Dogs, especially hounds, hereby calls on the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to work to increase communication with hunters and their hunting organizations and to increase law enforcement of the existing laws.
-
hokieman
- Tight Mouth
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:49 am
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: swva
- Contact:
Law to help dog owners gets test
December 29, 2007 12:35 am
BY ELLEN BILTZ
BY ELLEN BILTZ
A new law that makes it illegal to remove a tracking collar from a dog will get tested in Caroline County.
State game officers have charged a Caroline man with violating the new statute and believe it is the first case since the legislature passed it earlier this year.
David Schwartz, 28, of Milford, is charged with removal of a tracking collar and destruction of property, said state conservation officer Ryan Shuler.
Shuler said a legal snare trap was set up on Schwartz's property that a dog wandered in to earlier this month. The dog died, its collar was removed and later destroyed, Shuler said.
During the last General Assembly session, a law was passed making it illegal to remove a dog's tracking collar. The law was backed by the Virginia Hunting Dog Owner's Association.
Bob Kane, the group's president, said he is encouraged to see that state game officers were aware of the new statute and able to bring the charge.
"There were too many of these instances where dogs were being killed and they were never recovered because their collars were removed," Kane said.
If convicted, Schwartz faces a maximum of 12 months in jail and up to $2,500 fines on both charges, which are class 1 misdemeanors.
Ellen Biltz: 540/374-5424
Email: ebiltz@freelancestar.com
December 29, 2007 12:35 am
BY ELLEN BILTZ
BY ELLEN BILTZ
A new law that makes it illegal to remove a tracking collar from a dog will get tested in Caroline County.
State game officers have charged a Caroline man with violating the new statute and believe it is the first case since the legislature passed it earlier this year.
David Schwartz, 28, of Milford, is charged with removal of a tracking collar and destruction of property, said state conservation officer Ryan Shuler.
Shuler said a legal snare trap was set up on Schwartz's property that a dog wandered in to earlier this month. The dog died, its collar was removed and later destroyed, Shuler said.
During the last General Assembly session, a law was passed making it illegal to remove a dog's tracking collar. The law was backed by the Virginia Hunting Dog Owner's Association.
Bob Kane, the group's president, said he is encouraged to see that state game officers were aware of the new statute and able to bring the charge.
"There were too many of these instances where dogs were being killed and they were never recovered because their collars were removed," Kane said.
If convicted, Schwartz faces a maximum of 12 months in jail and up to $2,500 fines on both charges, which are class 1 misdemeanors.
Ellen Biltz: 540/374-5424
Email: ebiltz@freelancestar.com
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest