SPEEDDOGS

Jim Hackett

Jul 31, 08 - 9:13 AM

Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

I apologize for this being long. Most of my inputs normally are. -- As many of you have probably seen by now. The results of our last meeting have been posted on the VDGIF website. Included in these minutes are listed the results/proposals that the SAC felt were the direction we needed to go in order to address many of the issues we struggle with. You will see that the SAC proposed a Deer hound training season. This proposal failed to acquire the 2/3 majority vote. Though the end result was 10 for and 5 against with 2 abstained, The 2/3 majority was not acquired. Though most are agreed (Technical Committee and SAC) that a deer hound traing season is a good thing, we are in debate on how it should be implemented. The sticking points are the details. "When and What are the guidlines", is the devil in the details. The details were presented in a meeting held Tuesday night in Surry county with 14 clubs being represented form Prince George, Surry, Sussex, Isle of Wight, and Southhampton counties. Those in attendance reacted favorable to the proposed ideas. To carry this to the next level will depend on YOU. The support of Virginia houndsmen is imparative. I have stood in defense of our sport and have been an strong advocate of establishing a training season. Now I need everyone that cares to step up and get on board. 106,000 hound hunters are in Virginia. Barely more than 2000 filled out the survey that was on the VDGIF website. The SAC has received probably less than 300 e mails from you expressing your views on the study. Pitiful reflection of our unity to defend this sport. Whether you agree or disagree, the study is going forward. I- as a representative of deer hound hunters am blowing the buggle for the troops to muster and get on board. You need to hear what is going on, you need to hear the details of where this process is going and where it can go with and without your involvement. I offered my services to those that were in attendence of the meeting on Tuesday night, to come to your clubs and discuss the study. The offer is extended to all of those in the Tidewater area. If you are outside the Tidewater area, I can probably hook you up with one of the other hound owners in the SAC. I will give KUDO's to all of the hound owners within the committee. They have done their constituents a honorable service in their representation of our beloved sport. I have been impressed at the dedication and professionalism that the SAC hound owners have exhibited during the study. We have remained open minded throughout the process but have remained cautious and protective of the interest of all hound owners. The jury is still out on the final outcome of this study. Public support in the next two months is going to mean a lot in the final direction of where we go or how this ends up. Just because the SAC proposes something, does not neccessarily mean it wil be adopted verbatim, as we wish. You can have a big influence on that. If you want to hear more, than contact me and let's set up a date. Take the initiative, set up a meeting and invite as many as you can. There are 57,000 deer hound owners in Virginia. If only 10% were to get on board and get involved and send in their views and opinions, that would make more then 5000 e mails. Can't tell me that won't make a difference.
Lastly, I want to thank "Speeddogs" for being here. They have been a monumental tool in getting the word out and will be even more so in the coming months. Thank you for the great service to our sport.
Hounds Forever
Jim Hackett

Harry Lamb

Jul 31st, 2008 - 9:32 AM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Jim first of all I want to thank you for serveing on the SAC and trying to help protect our rights. You are right all hunters and dog owners that love to hunt with dogs need to get involved. I have sent email to dgif and was very upset with the respone that I got. I was told that the sac committee might see the email and that was not a postivie.I have sent email and letters to my Senator and Delagate and also to the governor. Rich Bush contacted me and promised to keep me informed per the request of the governor and Delegate Peace. That was the last time I heard anything from him. I do agree however that at this point all hunters need to send emails to try to support a training season. Again thank you for your work.
Harry

Steve Elmore

Jul 31st, 2008 - 10:52 AM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Jim first off thanks for you support and dedication. Our club sent money to three hound organizations and presented them each with over one hundred names and addresses of registered voters that are pro-hound. Some wives, some sisters... so on were on the list. I am sure other clubs did the same. Do the rosters of these organizations not count for anything? I ask that because you refer to such a lack of opposition (emails / survey).

Personally I thought the survey lacked in any factual scientific or valuable data. The VDGIF should just come out with a bold draft to the Govenor,State Assembly,Agricultral Comm, Senators, Delegates, Mayors and City Councils with the following:

Dear officials:

The VDGIF has conducted an in depth study on Hunting with hounds a tradition that dates back to the first colonies that arrived here. With the current increase in our population here in the Commonwealth and the views of activist and other forms of hunting we took an opportunity to address the issue once and for all.
The VDGIF takes a strong stance and encourages each and every one of you to keep this priveledge available not only for the quality of life for the Houndsman of Virginia but for every citizen of the state. The economic impact from the amount of money these hunter put into our state economy is enormous and unreplacable. The majority of hound hunters seem to be a hard working charitable class of citizens who do not take their freedoms and priveleges lightly. They are some of the best America has to offer. The departemt can not control the deer heard without the use of hounds and hound hunters. Not to mention restricting this type of hunting would be devistating to the VDGIF. These hunters account for the make up of over one third of our yearly budget. The rise in automobile collisions and local deer gone wild incedents could increase by several billion dollars a year without this group. This would translate to higher auto insurance rates for all citizens and the need to take on more animal control officers in each township. Even ristricting this sport in small amounts could overload and bankrupt every animal shelter, vetrinary office and animal holding facility in the Commonwealth. It would only be fair that any locality that passes a restriction on this type of hunting do so with a timespand of no less than 10 years before phasing in (the average life of a hound). It would be certain cruelty to remove or disengage the hounds with any restrictions to there masters. We all work very hard to preserve the wild life for generations to come and ironic this group (houndsman) is the largest embasador to wild life preservation the commonwealth has. The VDGIF pleads that all of you continue to make the best decision with out personal influence for the betterment of all and not the few. To do this you would have to be pro hound.
You know something like this by an educated person...... Then I would feel like the VDGIF has my back. lol

Jim Hackett

Jul 31st, 2008 - 3:15 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Steve-thanks for the ackknowledgement. The survey was put out on the web site without any of the SAC involvement or opinion. We expressed our dissatisfaction with the questions as well. I do not think the information received was anywhere close to what could have been obtained. (Just my opinion) We reviewed the data that was received. In short, two main things stood out in my mind. Only a little over 2000 surveys were submitted. Of that, approx 90to 92% were submitted by hunters. But, there are over 200,000 hunting licenses holders in the commonwealth. That means about 1% of the hunters even replied. Sure doesn't say much for all those still hunters who had the complaints. Of course the first thing that comes to mind is if only 1% submitted surveys, than obviously the problem isn't that big. But remember, with 106,000 hound owners, where were they? It is their heritage and sport that is being reviewed/scutinized. The low numbers of responses, scare me. The hunting clubs in Virginia are not doing their job in keeping the membership informed on this issue. There should be a political information pipeline established where clubs can get up to date information and forward it to their members. Kinda like this website.

Hank Cranford

Jul 31st, 2008 - 4:06 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

I would guess that a very small percentage of hunters have internet access or computer savvy, as it were.

Deer season starts in 2 weeks, wouldn't it be worthwhile to have a standard letter of some type , to be mass mailed to the representatives ? The letter could be distributed to all hunting clubs, then to the individual members. We pay thousands of dollars in dues, gas, feed - I'm sure another 40 cents for a stamp would be well worth it.

I know the opposition likes to mail propoganda - why can't we flood those in control ?

Just a thought.

big ordeal kennel J.DAUGHTREY

Jul 31st, 2008 - 4:10 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

I DEFINITLY THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME KIND OF MEMMO SENT TO FOLKS WHO RUN CLUBS SO THUIS INFO CAN BE PASSED ON TO THE MEMBERS AND SO ON.NOT EVERY DEER HUNTER OR HOUNDSMEN LOOKS AT THIS SITE AND I RUN A CLUB IN NORTHERN SUFFOLK AND I HAVENT RECEIVED ANY KIND OF INFO CONCERNING THESE MATTERS.(FROM VADGIF)ITS KIND OF HARD TO ACT OR RESPOND IF YOU DONT HAVE ANY INFO TO GO ON.DOES THE VADGIF SEND UPDATES ON THIS MATTER TO LICENCE PURCHASERS.SEEMS LIKE TO ME THATS THE LEAST THEY COULD DO.

big ordeal kennel J.DAUGHTREY

Jul 31st, 2008 - 4:30 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

I DO APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION THAT IS PROVIDED ON THIS SITE.THANKS!

Derick Ratcliffe

Jul 31st, 2008 - 4:48 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

RECOMMENDED: 14 FOR, 1 AGAINST, 2 ABSTAINED

Hunting with Hounds in Virginia: A Way Forward Page 1
Proposed Strategy: ID System for Hound Hunters/Hounds
HUNTING WITH HOUNDS IN VIRGINIA: A WAY FORWARD

STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PROPOSED STRATEGY: ID SYSTEM FOR HOUND HUNTERS/HOUNDS
PROPOSED STRATEGY

It is recommended that some type of hound identification be established that links hunters, hunt clubs,and dogs. External identification (vs. micro-chip) is favored because it would allow dog-owner contactinformation to be obtained by landowners, animal control, or law enforcement officials without the use of special equipment.

STRENGTHS

The primary strength of this strategy would be to increase accountability of hound-hunters by linking
them with their dogs, which could increase compliance with existing laws, promote ethical practices, and
make prosecution of unlawful individuals more efficient. Many hound-hunters currently use collars with ID tags on them, so obtaining proper identification would not be a financial hardship for most houndhunters. Mandating external identification on hounds would address issue 7.10: Intentionally releasing hounds to go onto property where they are not wanted is unethical and disrespectful. By providing a way to identify the owner of a dog running on property where it is not wanted, landowners have additional information
with which to contact and communicate with hound-hunters. Identification could also enable quicker
retrieval of hounds, reducing the duration of disruption caused by hounds on property where they are not wanted.

WEAKNESSES
Although putting identification on dog collars is commonly practiced by hound-hunters and is recommended here, collars are occasionally removed and discarded or put onto other dogs by illintentioned
individuals. This type of activity would effectively thwart any benefits potentially obtained from a system aimed at linking hounds to hunters and/or hunt clubs and stiffer penalties for removing the collar off a hunting dog may be needed as a deterrent.
Finally, although this strategy could indirectly address issues associated with “hound trespass”
(intentional and unintentional running of hounds on private property where they are not wanted), these
activities are not in violation of any laws or regulations and there are no disincentives to engaging in them.

IF THE VIRGINIA HOUNDSMEN ALLOWS CHANGE TO CHASE SEASON OR TO ANY REGULATION REGARDING HOUND HUNTING, THEIR OPENING THE DOOR FOR THE PROCESS OF REGULATING LIKE MISSISSIPPI, FLORDIA, GEORGIA. MAYBE NOT THIS YEAR OR THE NEXT BUT IF A FOOT HOLE IS GIVEN A MILE WILL BE TAKEN. DON'T GIVE UP YOUR HOUND HUNTING RIGHTS FOR FALSE PROMISES. JOIN THE VIRGINIA HUNTING DOG ALLIANCE AND SAY NO TO THESE PROPOSALS AS IT IS AN ATTEMPT AT A BEGINING TO THE END.

Mike Cobb

Jul 31st, 2008 - 10:27 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

That seems to be the hard part of this whole thing. Do we stand fast and hold the line, agree to no change no matter how small, or do we take the chance and take the first step towards some small compromise with the opposition, hoping it will be seen as a sign of us houndsmen willing to work out what differences there are on either side? From what I have seen in the proposals, the ones that are "recommended" at least, there ain't a whole lot of change from what we currently have. Some of them are actually good proposals like "better record keeping by VDGIF", "more strict enforcment of the laws" "Hold violaters accountable" , "increase funding for VDGIF so additional officers can be hired" and such. The training season change was not recommended and neither was the change/modify right to retrieve", meaning the SAC could not get a 2/3 majority either way. If they (SAC)can't agree on it I don't see that being forwarded to the Exec.committee. They hold the the key to the whole thing anyway, if what gets sent to them ain't to their liking then the Exec. committee will do what they want to anyhow I guess. I don't trust VDGIF as far as I can spit but if they make changes to the laws governing hounds, right to retrieve, etc. and the changes are made AS THESE PROPASALS ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN, then I will feel like we come thru this pretty much okay. Nobody hates change anymore than I do, but I am not so stupid as to think something ain't changing in the future. Do we give some thought to whats been put on the table and have a hand in any changes made or refuse to any change and get whatever VDGIF wants to shove down our throats? Any change in the Fox hunting season requires legislative action, as far as I know most of the remaining issues, change in up to the VDGIF board alone. Somebody correct me if I am wrong please. The main thing, regardless of how you feel either way, we have got to respond by e mail, snail mail, or whatever and let your voice be heard. If not, VDGIF will think we don't care, less than 1% completed the survey???

Jim Hackett

Aug 1st, 2008 - 10:36 AM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Thanks Mike, your right, regardless of what one may think of the study. We have been provided an opportunity to voice our opinion. If we don't participate, don't think for a minute that the process will stop. It is going forward, with or without our input. At least we can go on record as to what we want and our recommendations for improvement. If in the end, the Tech. Committee and the VDGIF board decides to do something totally different, at least the record will show that we as houndsmen stepped up recognized the challenges and issues and responsibly provided input to correct the issues of controversy. The state legislators will see that the houndsmen got involved and made a resonable attempt to better the situation. As far as the training season and the "Right to Retrieve" issues. These are clearly the two biggest issues of controversy. Though the training season failed to carry a 2/3 majority to pass. The final vote was 10 for,5 against and 2 abstained. A clear majority. Keep in mind that the Tech. Committee recommended a training season for deer hounds as well. Even though the SAC couldn't acquire the 2/3 majority, the T/C could still recommend one. The scary thought for me is that, if we do not make clear what we want and be specific, the decision made by the T/C will more than likely be something we don't want. Even if we are specific, they could make changes but, at least the record will show that the SAC supported a specific recommendation. If they change the proposal, we can stand in opposition. Any deviation from a SAC recommendation will raise suspision of a predetermined outcome. In my opinion, we are at a point of no return. For the defense of our sport, we need to agree on what will work for us and at the same time resolve some of the areas of conflict. Yes, I am concerned with the final outcome but, for sure, no input, will only surrender our opportunity to be heard. Presently, the two biggest issues are not resolve. Don't think for a minute, that this study will conclude with these two issues going forward without a recommendation. Either we make one or, someone else will. Guaranteed. Keep in mind- any comments that I make are solely my opinion, I do not speak for the SAC or the VDGIF. Do not misinturpret any statement that I may make as the opinion of the SAC. Every member has their own personal views.

Derick Ratcliffe

Aug 1st, 2008 - 4:13 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Jim your right there. This isn't going to stop until the DGIF Board regulates Virginia Houndsman like they have done in other dog hunting states. The Sac's opinion matters none. Some of the big pocket landowners out there feels that the rtr law is invading on their privacy and property rights and are not going to stop until it is abolished. not tweaked. keep cheerleading and pushing for change and make their job easier.

Rick Turner

Aug 1st, 2008 - 11:21 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Wait a minute, do you really think you're RTR is going to stand up in a court of law to my rights as a landowner to protect my rights as a landowner to protect my property. It's already been determined by a case in northern neck that a club or dog has no right to be on a property it does not own. If you think you can invade my property to collect a dog(s)
that you let go however far away, you need to know that landowerns will not tolerate this injustice without compensation from the dog owner or the club that owens the hound. You started this mess, and it's time you cleaned it up, if you don't know what's at stake then you deserve the outcome.

Derick Ratcliffe

Aug 2nd, 2008 - 10:46 AM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Rick Hutson did you know that a firetruck or a police officer may crash down your gate and enter your private property and pump all the water from your pond and leave without paying any compensation. By the way their is more illegal deer baiting from still hunters than there is breaking of laws from Hound Hunters. Stop baiting the deer to your treestand and your hunt won't be interupted when the dogs drive them by it at 95mph.

Rick Turner

Aug 2nd, 2008 - 11:27 AM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Hey Derick, where is the police car going to pump all the water to, his coffee cup? Do deer and dogs really run 95mph? Have you ever seen a feeder in the woods during hunting season? Where are your stats for law breaking claim you make? How many deer have you shot and recovered running 95mph? Better yet, how many have you shot at and NOT recovered? Since your a dog hunter do you get lost in the woods when the dogs aren't barking.Last question,(I know this is a little long for your narrow mind)can you actually kill a deer that hasen't been hand delivered to you by a pack of baying hounds.
Keep it coming there big guy, with people like you all we have to do is sit back and watch you implode!

Mike Cobb

Aug 2nd, 2008 - 11:36 AM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

RTR is currently law here in Va. Law or not, the proper way to go about retrieval is seek permission first, weather the law says you need to or not. If the law concerning RTR is modified and winds up being something like "hunters must first make a reasonable attempt to gain permission from the landowner" then what has been lost? I agree some still hunters bait, which is against the law, some will tie up hounds to keep them from being able to get back to the owner. Some are so anal about someone stepping on their property that it just makes no sense whatsoever. The point here is we have an opportunity to agree to some minor change in the RTR law, therefore showing the we as hound hunters are willing to work to get along because I honestly believe changes are coming,like them or not. Kind of like getting caught speeding and the state trooper is standing by your truck with his ticket book in hand, you can be decent and just get a ticket or you can be an ass and get the ticket for speeding as well as whatever else he can find to ticket you for. I don't want anything to change concerning RTR but like I said I am asking first (if possible)because it is right thing to do and it leaves the land owner with a better view of my actions maybe. Either way, everyone has their own opinion. Just put in your 2 cents worth during the public comment period.

Rick Turner

Aug 2nd, 2008 - 12:29 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Mike, you are correct about the RTR law. But there is a law on books that says you cannot tresspass on some ones property. So, does the RTR law trump the property rights law. I met the guy that sued a club in Gloucester for tresspassing and he won his case. When the club broke the restraining order and let there dogs out on his property again he took them back to court and the judge threatened the president with jail time if it happened again within two years. Because the case was a civil one and not in the circut court it was not set as prescedent. If enough land owners get together and file a class action suit you can see where RTR will end up. Virginia is the last state with a RTR law and due to a few bad apples I'm afraid it won'y be there long.

Derick Ratcliffe

Aug 2nd, 2008 - 6:59 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

I believe the guy that you are reffering too is now selling his house and moving back to yankee doodle land. correct me if I am wrong.

JOHN MORSE

Aug 2nd, 2008 - 7:27 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

DERICK,
I HOPE YOUR INFO IS RIGHT. CAN ANYBODY SAY GOOD RIDDANCE/?
JMM,JR

Rick Turner

Aug 2nd, 2008 - 8:31 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

I hate to disappoint you guys but he was at the land owners meeting in Richmond on Wed. Like I said before you guys think this is going to go away and all you're doing is making it worse by not admitting there is a problem and trying to fix it. Don't you get it, it's not just non-hunting landowners that are angry, it's hunters and sportsmen too! You can get mad at me all you want, but if you don't fix this you days of running hounds is coming to a close. Read the laws in the last few states that still allow dog hunting and make up your own mind.

Mike Cobb

Aug 2nd, 2008 - 11:07 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Well Rick, I'll tell you, where I hunt, there ain't a problem and that is the God's honest truth.We do right by the law, we have a good relationship with our adjoining landowners and clubs in our area. The biggest problem we have is what we call "pot hunters" or guys who have permission to hunt someones 3 acre tract in the middle of where we legally hunt. There ain't nothing we can do about it and it really ain't a big deal.Some days when we know they are in there we will just turn loose in an adjacent block instead of right there where they are.Usually the dogs wind up right back where them pot hunters are.I have deer hunted with hounds as long as I have been hunting, raising my 2 son's to do the right thing, leading by example I guess you might say. I know eventually the chances are this hound hunting will be a thing of the past but I want my kids to experience the same thing I've been fortunate enought to enjoy for the last 35 years. We can all get along....now that the state has pushed this as far as they have, maybe everyone will see we need to do a better job of policing our own ranks.I have no sympathy for any hunter who intentionally breaks the laws, trespassing under the guise of looking for a hound when all the while he is trying to man drive a piece where he can't legally hunt or turning out a boxload of dogs on some posted land,there are laws against that and VDGIF should be enforcing them and holding folks accountable instead of punishing us all, making everyone suffer for the idiocy of a few.Some of the proposals the SAC has set forth address just that.The conflicting laws that you mention there Rick, Trespassing is against the law.If you have no reason to trespass then don't. But Va's RTR law is supports retrieval for us hunters so the morons who might tie up a hound or whatever because they are mad because a dog has trespassed onto their property or scared their trophy buck away from the corn pile where the still hunter is up the tree fixing to shoot him, illegally I might add as it is against the law to bait. Now you tell me who is wrong? That hound can't read them "No Trespassing" signs but the "man(?)" who poured out that corn can read the game law. I realize we have some bad apples in our ranks but after VDGIF answered my letter questioning why this study was implemented to start with, and told me it was due to an increase # of complaints against hound hunters, then their statistical data didn't back up their claim, whatever small amount of trust I may have had in them was wiped out then and there.Now they ask me to believe they are doing this to save our hunting heritage? To allieviate any future problems and address them before things get like they are in Ga. and South Carolina? I think not. While I personally don't have a problem with any of these 11 proposals, except the one about minimum setback from the road, I still have a hard time accepting the fact that a bunch of liars are trying to change something that didn't need changing to start with,as long as the game wardens enforce the laws and hold the violators accountable.

Rick Turner

Aug 2nd, 2008 - 11:56 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Mike, you and I have found common ground. As I just posted in another stream I've hunted southeast Va for 50 years and I have always obeyed the law and taught my sons the same. 95% of those 50 years was with dogs, so I can understand the frustion on both sides when we talk about lawbreakers. Game wardens hands are tied because they can't get a conviction based on loopholes(my dogs got out or I'm running foxes). You and I both know a warden isn't going after something that is a total waste of time for him and the courts. Like I said before if we don't get this fixed ourselves the only hunting we'll be doing is on an X-BOX

Rick Hutson

Aug 3rd, 2008 - 8:02 AM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Derick how does the authorities trying to save life and property equate to a guy out pursuing his personal form of recreation? Very bad analogy.

If the RTR was so good VA wouldn't be the lat holdout on it. It's time has passed. Accept it, adapt to change and move on.

Mike Cobb

Aug 3rd, 2008 - 12:51 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Maybe we have something in common Rick but I am not advocating any change in the RTR. If VDGIF decides it must be struck down or modified, then they will do it without my approval. My theory is prosecute the lawbreakers and leave the law abiding hunters alone! Don't punish the masses for the wrong doings of a few. I like things the way they are, I obey the law as do the guys I hunt with. Therefore folks like me will be the ones suffering needlessly, without reason. When authority takes the stance to punish all for the faults of few, they are admitting defeat, and inabailty to do the job they are paid to do.

Derick Ratcliffe

Aug 3rd, 2008 - 2:44 PM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Before I give this up. I will fight!!!

§ 18.2-136. Right of certain hunters to go on lands of another; carrying firearms or bows and arrows prohibited.

Fox hunters and coon hunters, when the chase begins on other lands, may follow their dogs on prohibited lands, and hunters of all other game, when the chase begins on other lands, may go upon prohibited lands to retrieve their dogs, but may not carry firearms or bows and arrows on their persons or hunt any game while thereon. The use of vehicles to retrieve dogs on prohibited lands shall be allowed only with the permission of the landowner or his agent. Any person who goes on prohibited lands to retrieve his dogs pursuant to this section and who willfully refuses to identify himself when requested by the landowner or his agent to do so is guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.

(Code 1950, § 29-168; 1964, c. 600; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1988, c. 593; 1991, cc. 317, 327; 2007, cc. 145, 658.)

The DGIF needs to get off their behinds and enforce such laws. The problem is with the enforcement. either lack of it or not enough enforcement officers to do it. this is what needs changing.

Mike Cobb

Aug 3rd, 2008 - 8:06 PM

Re: Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Thank You Derick Ratcliffe! My point exactly.

Hurbert Small

Aug 4th, 2008 - 9:27 AM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Rick Turner,
I guess you like drama, most treehuggers do. This is a houndsman forum, not an arrogant, ignorant, northernized, it's all about me, can't see a foot in front of me because my head is Up my own ***, libral treehugging forum. People like you and your hero treehugger buddies, that are very influential like you say and got all the money in the world, but not enough commonsense to get out a shower of sh*t is what is wrong with this country. You are probably the 10 cent millionaire type in the neighborhood, the kiss ass type at work, the spineless when its time to go to war (or below the mason dixon line the chicken sh*t type), when you were growing up, you were probably the "its ok little ricky, mommy's gona powder your a**" TYPE. So there's your drama, you drama queen. Find a good treehugging forum and take off your skirt, let your hair down and stay a while "Queenie".

David Wells

Oct 9th, 2008 - 10:00 PM

Re: Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

BTT

John Eubanks

Aug 4th, 2008 - 11:04 AM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

Hurbert Small
Somebody had to say it. Some people write checks there a** can't cash. This is speeddogs not treehuggers.com this site is to help people with there problem not runoff at the mouth. I think Rick Turner should hang on to his treestand and stick to his broadside shots. Cause there ain't no room for no panzy in front of a pack of screaming walkers. Queenie

John Foster

Aug 5th, 2008 - 7:08 AM

Re: Virginia's SAC Proposal's- Positives and Negatives

I'd say Mr. Small summed that up pretty good!!

	SPEEDDOGS PLEASE USE YOUR FULL NAME OR THE POST WILL BE DELETED. INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE WILL GET YOU BANNED. PLEASE BE CONSCIOUS THAT THESE ARE PUBLIC POSTS. PLEASE BE CONSIDERATE OF CHILDREN THAT MAY BE SIGNED ON. American Invitational Champion - Norris' Danny Boy Owner Ronnie Norris
Return to Website