Return to Website
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

  First
  Prev
  Reply
  Forum
Next  
Last  
Search this Forum:  
Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 93)


Author Comment    
Harry Lamb

harrylmb@aol.com


Aug 31, 08 - 1:21 PM 		VDGIF MEETINGS

I attended the meeting in Bowling Green on the 28th. It is a shame that we are going to let our sport end up dying due to the attitude let the other fellow do it. The building seated between 450 to 500 people and it was only between 1/2 to 2/3 full. Probally 300 people there. there were 43 speakers that spoke. Out of the 43 speakers 3 were against hound hunting. The right to retrieve is a very hot subject. At this meeting there were noone there connected with animal rights groups but you can bet that it is not over yet. Bob Kane sent me an email that the NRA had posted urgeing everyone to go to these meeting or at least make a comment.this is the website to read what the NRA has to say.http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4153. Please take the time to attend a meeting in your area. Or at least send in a comment supporting hunting with hounds. One key issue that kept coming up was data. The game comminission does not have enough data at this time to back up statements that they have made. But if they start collecting data and the same group of hunters that do as that want to continues don't think that that data collected will not be used to close down a sport that we all love. The mounted fox hunters made up over 1/2 the crowd there. Where were the deer hunters at?

Harry
Viagras Mom



Aug 31st, 2008 - 3:52 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

Harry
I think part of the problem is that these meetings aren't real well pulicized. We know about them from the boards, but when I mention this to many local hunters they have no idea what I am talking about.

Secondly, even though the crowd wasn't as large as expected, if there were 43 speakers and only 3 of them spoke against hunting then thats a pretty good showing. Do you think those conducting the study will take that into consideration? I doubt it. I think some people feel we are fighting a useless battle and believe this study was a simply front used as the first step to take away hunting rights. I was unable to make the meeting but have sent numerous emails/letters. However, I like many others feel I am simply wasting my time and ink and this is just a 'done deal" they are waiting to phase in.

Last, as far as deer hunters go, I know this is going to really ***** some off, but it is the deer hunters who have caused the majority of landowner complaints, yet all hunters (fox, bird, etc) are left to deal with it. For years those of us who care about hunting have begged the deer hunters to police their own but the few bad apples continue to cause headaches for everyone. Its not surprising you don't get more support from them.
Hound Heaven Kennel / Teresa/Redbird



Aug 31st, 2008 - 10:05 PM 		Re: Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

I HOPE ITS A GOOD TURN-OUT. I WAS PLANNING ON GOING BUT GOT TO LEAVE IN THE AM FOR NEW ORLEANS. EVRYONE DOG OWNER PLEASE SUPPORT. REDBIRD.
Viagras Mom



Aug 31st, 2008 - 10:57 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

pulicized=publicized lol....when I was reading the other post my error popped right out at me and it almost looked like some type of dirty word or something.
Jim Hackett



Sep 1st, 2008 - 9:07 AM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

Viagras Mom--if you sent an e mail to the SAC, please give me the name signed to it so I can make sure it was received.
Secondly- Though some people want to beleive that the end result is already determined, It is not. The end result will more than likly be in line with the SAC proposals. I am sure that there will some variations in some things but, for the most part, the should be in line.
Thirdly- Yes, deer hound hunters are the major problem and it is why the study got initiated. The problem is, many things that are being complained about today, have been practiced for generations. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century many practices are being challenged. The SAC recognized this and that is why there is a proposal to start an education program (Similar to the hunters safety course) that will educate hound hunters on the problems and controversies that we face in todays society. I am a firm believer that once everyone is educated on what is acceptable and what is not, you will start to see a cultural change in the many practices of hound hunting. (Specifically deer hound hunting) The problem that exist is, what process is going to be implimented to assure everyone receives the training? Voluntary participation obviously won't work. (as can be seen by the low number of e mails sent to the SAC) Nothing short of banning hounds totally is going to bring overnight change. The process will take a couple of years. During that time, as some clubs and hound owners quickly get on board w/ "21st Century Hound Hunting 101 " the CPO's will be able to put focus on the groups that are causing the problems. I think we will see a drastic change in 24 months. Will all problems go away? NO. But, until everyone understands that times have changed and we must adjust to adapt. We will remain in the same situation that we are in. To fix the problem is not that bad. Everyone must first admit, there is a problem and we are part of it.
Claude S. Sutton, Jr.



Sep 1st, 2008 - 9:31 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

I hate to be a grumpy old man, but Jim you are what the old folks used to call a Pollyanna.

In other words, you are living in a dream world.

You can do all of the education, make people join clubs, on and on and on, but the hunter haters will still hate hunting and will still call the game warden everytime they see a truck with a dog bed and there is no way you can please them.

At some point, the VDGIF and the rest of us have to get some balls and tell these nutcases to sit down and shut up.

Giving this and giving that and hoping they are going to love us is nuts.

They will not love us, they will not like us and they will not rest until we are history.

CSSJR
Jim Hackett



Sep 1st, 2008 - 10:46 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

For a person that hates it, you sure fit the mold a lot. Here is my point as it has been all along. If anyone thinks that the whole problem is the other people, than you are living in denial. Similar to what an alcoholic does. Hound hunters have issues, especially the deer hound hunters. AND I AM A DEER HOUND HUNTER. I am not saying we are all the problem, absolutely not. But there are things we can do to help ourselves. Stop hunting from the roads, especially from the truck, start communicating with all adjoining land owners before the season starts, learn what it is we do, that causes a negative public image. Be respectful of landowners, practice the Right of Respect before you practice the Right to Retrieve, keep your hounds in good condition, retrieve them immediently when someone calls. These are simple things but, these are just some of the things that the SAC has identified from public input. Yes, the landowners, still hunters and anti-hunters have issues as well. Some SAC proposals were made to address those issues. Regardless, when the smoke clears and this storm has passed. There will still be problems out there. My hope is to reduce that number even more and help educate houndsmen on how to adapt to hound hunting in todays society. Where you hunt, you may not be able to see where the problems are. I have been able to view issues from all over the state. Clearly, some areas are much worst than others. But, its coming, and if I don't share what I have seen and prepare the rest of you for it. The next storm will be worst and eventually we will lose the war. Try to listen to what I am saying, to follow my lead won't hurt you, it can only help improve the situation. As to date: I have recieved 656 e mails from the public and I have read each and every one. (including yours-thanks) I have been inundated with information, good and bad, true and false. There are issues and we can fix some of them. We need to show our state legislators that we are acting responsible and are addressing the things that we should.
Claude S. Sutton, Jr.



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 9:20 AM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

That all sounds good and it is good up to the point that you start talking about trading one groups privileges for another's.

The other bone of contention is the idea that all of these things are solvable by lots and lots of new legislation.

Just as gun legislation does not end murder but only hurts the person who is already living by a code of ethics, most of the rules proposed will do nothing to cure the problems. They will only hurt the already law abiding.

The suggestion that foxhunters be banned from the woods so that deer hunters with hounds can not pretend to be foxhunters has the caveat that an exception might be made for mounted foxhunting clubs because their hounds are more manageable.

That one suggestion should make every hound owner in the state of VA mad. Beagles will be put in the same category because there are deer hunters who run beagles and there will certainly be more if such a stupid rule is passed.

But worse is the idea that there is a class of hunter who is deserving to be in the woods and another class who does not deserve to be there.

I have a lot of experience with hunting from a horse. I ask you how those hounds got to be broke from deer?

Only by running a deer and being punished for it, so that means they will be running deer every now and then.

But they are going to push the rest of us under the bus to make a deal.

They already brag that they have a code of ethics, and we don't. They take care of their hounds and we don't.

And all of this comes from two members on the SAC committe.

The club I belong to has rules posted on the bulletin board and you had better follow them.

I never met a more ethical better group.

The only solution to all of this is better law enforcement. There are already laws to prevent every bad act that I have seen discussed, including how you feed your hounds.

I don't see how any responsible person could reach a decision based on the poor information used as a base for the study.

Both the technical report and the SAC report refer to the fact that the complaints referred to are unsubstantiated, not known to be valid and not even known to be sorted into the right categories.

Anyone with any courage would have gone to the VDGIF and told them point blank that with such poor information, the study needed to be suspended until adequate information could be gathered.

Shooting at a noise in the bushes. That always turns out bad.

As for all of your complaints you see because you are priviledged to be on the inside: Most of them are emails. Totally unsubstantiated. The kind of garbage Mike Cobb pointed out.

Again, you have no idea how valid they are.

The only valid information regarding violations is that which results from an investigaton by a peace officer, his report on whether it was valid or not, whether a citation was issued and if so the disposition of that charge by the courts.

Without that, you are shooting at noises in the bushes.

CSSJR
Claude S. Sutton, Jr.



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 9:26 AM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

" There are issues and we can fix some of them. We need to show our state legislators that we are acting responsible and are addressing the things that we should."

Eail: jim.hackett@dom.com

I meant to add to that: We should be showing the legislature that they need to spend more money for game wardens to better enforce laws already on the books.

Passing new laws when you can't adequately enforce the laws already on the books is not going to solve any problems.

It has already been demonstrated over and over that passing laws that are not enforceable uniformly and fairly only breeds contempt for the law.

CSSJR


Sep 2nd, 2008 - 9:20 AM
ALLAN BISHOP (JABBER JAW)



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 11:07 AM 		Re: CLAUDE SUTTON

CLAUDE.....I hope you will be attending one of the meetings and express some of the comments that you have expressed on here. You do have the eloquence needed to express the views of many huntere; but we don't have the command of the English language to express such!
And the KEY to all of this is funding of VDGIF to hire,train,& retain the CPO's and enforce the laws that are already on the books...both game and legislative!!

ALLAN BISHOP
(JABBER JAW)
Claude S. Sutton, Jr.



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 11:11 AM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

As the VGIF meetings are in progress right now, it is important that all of you who own hounds think about what I am about to write and to take action as you see fit.

First, Jim Hackett keeps telling us that we should not fight the study but roll with the punches and try to "be constructive".

Yhe problem with that is that the SAC is composed of people who are all grinding their own ax. If you think they are looking out for you, you are going to get snookered.

So go to the meetings and speak your mind.

My reason for saything the above is that I am a foxhunter.

Jim Hackett is a deer hunter. He has already demonstrated that he will take away from foxhunters to promote more chances to run his deer hounds.

Now that is fine. I have nothing against a person looking out for his own sport. I do have a problem with someone saying that he represents me when he does not. He represents deer hunters and more than that, his own interests.

I also have a problem with any hunter trading away the rights of another hunter.

There are two members of the SAC that are foxhunters. Mounted hunt club foxhunters.

They have been presented as being fair and very helpful to the rest of us.

Hello!! Wake up!

Dennis Foster is a paid employee of the MFHA. It is his job to get everything he can for the member hunt clubs of the MFHA.

I do not fault him for that. I dislike the man, but I would dislike him even more if he were taking their money and not representing them first and always.

But the point is, you can not sit home while these meetings are going on thinking anyone is representing you. Every single person on SAC has his own ax to grind regardless of what they tell you.

As for the MFHA, Foster has already made several comments to the effect that those deer hunters don't have ethics or rules like we do. They don't take good care of their hounds like we do. They don't control their hounds like we do. We don't get on land that we don't have permission to get on....

Jim probably will say that he never heard anything like that on the SAC.

Well I follow mounted club hunting and correspond with many members of those clubs and occasionally follow one of their message boards and I know what I am talking about.

I know quite a bit about mounted clubs and I can tell you that almost every club has one or more landowners in their midst that goes crazy when the hounds run across their land...so they have their problems just as the rest of us.

The point is that they are on SAC looking after their own interest and not yours. If it comes to trading all of your hunting rights to save theirs, they will trade yours in a second.

Jim says go to the meetings and be a good boy. Go along.

Please do so Jim can get his training season. But under the terms he is trying to get it, you will lose if you hunt on the outside.

CSSJR
Claude S. Sutton, Jr.



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 11:19 AM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

Allan:

You are kind, but what most people don't realize is that when a real person speaks from the heart, all decent and fair people listen.

I once had a very good friend, now dead, who could not read or write his own name.

He had more sense than I will ever have.

I am going to the meeting that will be held in the area I hunt.

I hope anyone who missed a meeting in their local area will go to one of the other meetings.

I don't want to go to meetings out of my area for the reason that I believe VDGIF would be more impressed if every area had a lot of people from that area. In other words, that would show real grass root support rather than the same crowd at every meeting, which would not show grass root support.

CSSJR
Claude S. Sutton, Jr.



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 11:27 AM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

I hope everyone understands that I am not against deer hunting with hounds and none of my remarks are meant to take away from their sport.

I am only making the point that the way things are headed right now, there is going to be a big split between hound owners that is going to equal the split between bow hunters only and hound owners.

That will be the beginning of the end of all hound hunting.

Somehow we must each of us defend the rights of all of us or we are done.

CSSJR
Derick Ratcliffe



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 12:25 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

Claude is telling you the truth. I myself have read the same messages. I feel that Jim is sincere but he doesn't represent all hunting dogs by his proposal for a deer hound chase season. Go to these meetings and express your support for hound hunting and tell them to enforce current laws that new laws aren't going to resolve anything. As its been said before DGIF will have the final say not the SAC committee.
JW Reid



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 1:20 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

Let me start by saying this~ Claude,Jim, Derrick and those of you that are being vocal for which ever avenue(s) of hunting that you are in support of fully, actually let me say this to EVERYONE that reads this..I see that there are plenty of people who are up in arms about protecting the hound hunting heritage, and I am 1,000,000% + for that as I am a houdn owner however I see a trend here that is causing some great concern not only for myself but for people that I know that hunt as well. the concerns are that people are very passionate about saving "hound" hunting but speak very little of other sporting dogs. I have spoken to a number of people about this issue, in fact it is a daily converstaion of mine in some way shape or form in regards to the survery etc.. and a great number of them in my opinion have the "BIG EYE" (term we use @ the fire house for someone who focuses on one thing and not the whole picture). They seem to only be worried about hounds, alot of them saying that the survey is named hound hunting, however they do not get that it will be all types of deer dog hunting that falls, not just breed specific to hound hunters. There are those sportsmen/dogmen that use pure setters, pointers and droppers in pursuit of deer. These breeds are no less important to hunting that a houdn is. In some areas, espcially where there is alot of urban interface, the close hunting, short ranging bird dogs are the most valued and useful tool in deer hunting and another way for sportsmen/sportswomen to enjoy the sport we all love. As I am sure we are all aware the size of the tracts of land we hunt are getting smaller at a more rapid rate each year, the use of bird dogs is the best solution for these areas.

It has been brough to my attention that alot of the bird dog guys feel like they are being left to hang on their own. That the die hard houndsmen are too busy fending for themselves. They feel like the die hards will just walk away from them to protect the hounds and this is not the feeling we should have as a group.

It is disheartening to me that we (as a collective group) seem to be so single minded in that we are only worried about the houndsmen. What about the other guys that are dogmen even though their choice in breeds may not be the same as ours.. sorta like ford vs chevy. I know I have not mentioned the beagle owners but they seem to be more inlcuded in this fight.

Maybe I am taking this wrong, but there are others whom feel the same.

We should not be seperating ourselves (any type of sportsmen/dog man) but pulling all of our wagons together.
Mike Cobb



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 1:54 PM 		Re: Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

JW, I will say this again...I was in attendence at a meeting at some Elem. School in Emporia back in January, I think it was Jan. 8th of this year when Bob Duncan stood in front of about 300-400 hound hunters and said this study addresses ALL PURSUIT HOUNDS! That don't mean just deer and fox hounds, it means rabbit dogs, squirrel dogs, turkey dogs, etc. I would venture to say that if you look deep enough, you could add most bird dogs to this list because I don't know of any bird dogs or duck dogs that won't persue a wounded bird. Some may think this is all about deer hounds or fox hounds but I heard it come from the mans mouth. Of course based on several things that I have heard come from his mouth, his mouth ain't no prayer book either.
JW Reid



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 1:39 PM 		VDGIF MEETINGS & Mr. Bruce Lee

For those of you on here who do not know this gentleman let me fill you in a little about him.

He was one of the three people to stand up in Bowling Green and speak against hunting with dogs. There was an article in the local paper (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/082008/08312008/406553) about the meeting in Bowling Green, where Mr. Lee played the part of poor victim.

The way I feel is that he is playing everyone for the fool and here is why ~ Mr. Lee belongs to a club that is a dog hunting club, he at one time was the president of the club and I am unsure if he is still an officer in thaty club or not. He also has another small group of friends as he calls them (25 members is more than a few friends to me it sounds like a club) that hunt with dogs as well.~~~~ He himself is a dog owner and has been for a number of years~~~~

He has been buying up land in the eastern end of Caroline county as well as Essex county for his own personal use. his intentions are to open a guided hunting service where he can bring his buddies and clients and let them trophy hunt. He is managing his land for trophy only herds and not managing for overall deer health. He wants to turn this area into his own money maker. He is also trying to gobble up leases from everyone he can by telling landowners how bad the club is that is on their land and how much better the landowner would be to let him and his business associates to take the lease over.

I know that anyone on here from those areas or from CAT, Sugar Hill or backwoods hunt clubs know him all to well as those are some of the clubs that he is trying to run out in order to control things.

It seems an awful lot like a wolf in sheeps clothing. He is only looking out for his wallet. If he were worried about dog hunting in general he would not have spoke up against it.
JW Reid



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 1:42 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

Allison,

I agree with you on the turnout in regards to this whole matter. I am surprised on a daily basis by the people who have no clue whaty is going on, and some of them did not even know there was a study or anything. This whole thing has been poorly advertised to the hunters in the more rural areas. I try to spread the word everywhere I go but I am only one person and can only do so much. I hope each of you take time to tell everyone you run into about this matter.
JOHN MORSE



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 1:43 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

MR. REID,
I PERSONALLY HAVE NOT SEEN THE SELFISHNESS AMONG HUNTING DOG OWNERS YOU DESCRIBE. NOT TO SAY IT DOES NOT EXIST,MAYBE I JUST AM NOT HEARING IT.
AT ANY RATE,VHDA SUPPORTS ALL HUNTING DOG BREEDS AND ACTIVITIES.WE DO NOT FAVOR ANY TYPE OVER THE OTHER.
JOIN US AND HELP SUPPORT ALL FORMS OF DOG HUNTING.
JMMJR,VHDA
JOHN MORSE



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 2:06 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

ALSO, THIS MR. LEE SOUNDS LIKE THE POSTER BOY FOR THE WHINERS THAT GOT THIS STUDY OFF THE GROUND IN THE FIRST PLACE.
WITHOUT EXCEPTION, THE HUNTERS WHO ARE AGAINST HOUND HUNTING THAT I HAVE HAD PERSONAL CONTACT WITH ARE DRIVEN BY GREED AND SELFISHNESS.
MR. SUTTON SAYS IT BETTER THAN I, BUT ANYONE WHO PROMOTES HIS SPORT AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS IS MISGUIDED AT BEST.
JMMJR,VHDA
Mike Cobb



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 2:14 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

Who among us ever thought that when trying to save this sport we would have the audacity to ask for something? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if the hound hunting community can salvage what we currently have, I will consider this a victory. I do not fox hunt unless I happen to run in a pen during the off season when invited by a fox hunting friend. I will not ask for the fox hunter to give up anything just so us deer hunters can get a legal chase season. And as far as standing up and saying this study is unfounded or un-warrented because "we are way past that point", My tax dollars paid (in part) for this study, and an employee of the state of Va., Mr Bob Duncan (who gets paid in part from my tax dollar)has publicly stated an increase in complaints against hound hunters is the reason for the study. The Technical Report plainly states that they have no clue as to the number and nature of complaints against hound hunting due to the way they are logged into the database. VDGIF published this report, and by doing so they have taken all credibility away from Bob Duncan's supposed reason for the study! And we are not supposed to let them know we know better? It has been my experience that when something starts wrong, it ends wrong.
JOHN MORSE



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 2:27 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

MIKE,
DID YOU CATCH TOLLIVERS LATEST PITIFULLY BIASED ARTICLE IN MONDAYS VA. PILOT?
HE STILL BASES THE STUDY ON AN INCREASING NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS. THEN GOES ON TO QUOTE A MEMBER OF THE VIRGINIANS FOR HOUND HUNTING REFORM.
I GUESS LYTLE AND HIS BUDS STILL HAVE THE BULLY PULPIT.
JMMJR,VHDA
Mike Cobb-Collosse Rd. Kennels



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 7:33 PM 		Re: Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

John...I usually do not even give Lee Tolliver the time it takes to read his bunk. He and Mr. Lydel are fishing buddies so I understand. His association with the anti's does not suprise me in the least. Hope to see you Thursday night, I know you will be there.
Bob Kane



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 2:57 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS - RTR Vote and Future Rule-Law Making

Mr. Hackett,

There were seven SAC votes to rescind or modify Virginia's right-to-retrieve statute. Who were the seven AYE voters?

Bob Kane, President
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
Chairman Emeritus, Sportsmen and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com http://saova.org
Derick Ratcliffe



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 3:41 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

John thank you for your post and you are correct at saying VHDA supports all hunting dog breeds.
Jim Hackett



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 5:17 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

Bob Kane- stuff it where the sun doesn't shine. I have made it very clear. I nor any of the houndsmen on the SAC supported doing away with the RTR. We were willing to discuss the possibilities of a possible amendedment to state that "Resonable attempt should be made prior to exercising the RTR" but this was met with opposition from the landowners. They want RTR totally resended. We wouldn't agree. If you count the votes, 7 for and 10 against, it is pretty obvious who voted for what. You don't need to go out of your way to try to insult me. I guess, Rick Hutson provided you that reliable information as well.
Bob Kane



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 5:36 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

You truly are a loser Hackett. I don't even know Rick Hutson. Who voted for and against any RTR change and the deer hound training season are crucial questions in the ongoing regulatory-law making process. If you can't see that and the importance of alliances, pro and con, you simply confirm you're dead weight and clueless.
Claude S. Sutton, Jr.



Sep 2nd, 2008 - 5:57 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

JWREID:

You are exactly correct.

I did mention long ago that it would impact bird dogs as there is nothing that makes an exception of them or any other dog.

I don't think hound men are ignoring you on purpose. It is more like this is a board where lots of houndmen post and that we very rarely ever hear of anything else other than an occasional comment from someone who says his Lab can run the socks off a deer.

So it is not intentional.

We want all the help we can get for MOST of us on this list are intending to help all hunters, not just one group at the expense of others.

If you have bird dog or any other kind of field working dog friends, get them to sign on here and help us out and in turn they will be helping themselves.

And get them to the meetings.

CSSJR
Derick Ratcliffe



Sep 3rd, 2008 - 6:15 AM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

Hound-hunting at issue



BY R.E. SPEARS III/STAFF WRITER/res.spears@tidewaternews.com

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 9:46 PM EDT



FRANKLIN—More than just about any other issue, hunting with dogs has come to represent the clash in Virginia between rural traditionalism and suburban transformation.

As residents of the commonwealth’s biggest cities move to the country seeking refuge from the traffic and blight that so often define urban life, they increasingly encounter traditions, value systems and even institutions that are unfamiliar.

In a place like Southampton County, where newcomers soon learn to share even the narrowest roads with tractors, the discord between new and old can lead to a backlash against “outsiders,” in general.

Strange as it may seem, the issue of hunting dogs is now at the nexus of that debate, providing discussion points on such widely disparate topics as property rights, hunting traditions and animal rights.

Twenty years ago, it would have been hard to imagine a legitimate threat to the centuries-old tradition of using dogs to flush deer from the woods.

Having seen the practice severely curtailed in other states, however, and facing a growing body of complaints here in Virginia, even hound hunters are looking for a way to compromise.



“You cannot come to this table and not be ready to give something up,” Capron resident John Rawls Jr. said Tuesday.
Rawls was discussing his service on a committee organized by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to develop a list of recommendations for addressing the growing number of concerns with hound-hunting in Virginia.

A hound-hunter himself, Rawls said his commitment to the sport has not waned in the year or so he has served on the committee. But his appreciation for the complaints of non-hunting landowners, especially from other parts of the state, has increased, he said.

“Around our area, we have very minor problems,” compared to the rural areas that surround the Northern Virginia region. Landowners in Southampton tend to be more willing to work with hunters, and hunters are more likely to treat landowners respectfully.



Both traits, he said, are important if the two groups are to learn to coexist.

“There’s a right way and a wrong way to do anything,” Rawls said. “It’s about giving and taking.”

Rawls attended a focus group meeting last fall in which he spoke out against tougher laws regulating the use of dogs to hunt deer.

Since then, he said, he has gained a broader understanding of the problems that landowners, especially those who might be new to the rural setting, have with the practice.

He has shared those concerns with other hunters, he said, advising them that if they wish to save hound-hunting in Virginia for the long term, they should look for ways to compromise with still hunters and non-hunting landowners.

He’s got a 5-inch-thick three-ring binder with comments that have been sent by email or regular mail for consideration, he’s got the results of surveys done online and on paper, and he’s got the minutes of public comment sessions that have been held.

“It’s a whole lot bigger than I thought it was,” he said of the issue.

And he’s not completely satisfied with the committee suggestions, which do little to directly address the major complaints of landowners: Virginia’s right-to-retrieve law and the need for a dog training season separate from the hunting season.

The right-to-retrieve law gives hunters the right to enter private property to retrieve wayward dogs, though they must not carry firearms or bows and arrows when they do so.

Many property owners consider the law to be an affront to their rights of privacy and free use of their property. In fact a Crewe landowner, Ben Jones, announced last week he had billed the VGDIF for 19 years of back payments “for placing his property in the public domain without compensation and for denying him the right to privacy,” according to Jeff McDermott of the advocacy group Virginians for Hound Hunting Reform.

Though the department has declined to pay Jones’ bill, asking for the payment has helped Jones keep the right-to-retrieve debate alive going into two weeks worth of public hearings around the state.

Those hearings are designed to elicit public comment on the committee’s nine “recommended strategies” and two “proposed strategies” regarding hound-hunting.

The recommended strategies, which were all agreed to by the committee, include improving law enforcement, better VDGIF record-keeping, more funding for law enforcement, increasing penalties and fines for violations, establishing statewide minimum setbacks for hunting from roads, requiring external hound identification, improving education and training for both hunters and landowners, establishing a code of ethics for hound hunters and requiring accountability of those who violate game laws or act in unsportsmanlike ways.

Significantly, the committee was unable to reach a consensus to support two proposed strategies: to repeal or modify the right-to-retrieve law and to provide a training season for deer hounds.

“A lot of people on the committee came into this with a very open mind” regarding the right-to-retrieve law, but they were met by a group of landowners that seemed unwilling to compromise, Rawls said.

He expects those two issues to be at the forefront of discussions during the committee’s last scheduled meeting in October. No matter what happens, though, hound-hunting in Virginia is not going away anytime soon, he said.

“I’m a diehard hunter,” he said. “My daddy did it; my granddaddy did it. It’s something that has just been done since forever.”

The nearest VDGIF public hearing will be held from 7 to 9 p.m. Thursday at King’s Fork High School, 351 King’s Fork Road, in Suffolk.

More information on the process and on the recommended strategies can be found at www.dgif.virginia.gov.
JOHN MORSE



Sep 3rd, 2008 - 8:51 AM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

THE STRESS OF ALL THIS MESS HAS AFFECTED MY MEMORY.I FORGOT, WHAT IS IT WERE SUPPOSED TO GIVE UP TO MAKE MCDERMOTT AND THE OTHERS HAPPY?
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DO NOT KNOW, I AM BEING TOTALLY SARCASTIC.
SEE YOU ALL THURSDAY.
JMMJR,VHDA
JW Reid



Sep 3rd, 2008 - 9:00 AM 		Re: VtDGIF MEETINGS

CLaude,

Thanks for the words..Personally I am a hound owner and hound hunter but I know alot of people who use bird dogs for deer now. They were the ones that I would get to come to this site and a few others and they would tell me that they felt like the minority (which I know on this site they are only a minority in the choice of the breed the hunt with, not their passion about hunting). Most of them did not post anything due to this feeling.

Everyone:

After going back and skipping around some of the different posts on here in the past and present, I can see where they could come away with that feeling.

People are feeling threatened with this whole study thing, and with that I see alot of bickering going on among the ranks.

While this is nothing new, the tone of the bickering is getting more heated and unwillingness to listen is showing.

If we can not put aside or personal differences and get along as a group (houndsmen) then how do we expect to recruit and organize all the different sporting dog owners to stick together. At times we look like a bunch of pre-schoolers who are whining and bickering over who's turn it is to play with a toy, or trying to point fingers as to who's fault it is that the milk is all over the floor.

If someone such as myself who is directly involved in hound hunting feels this way at times, what do you all think that someone from outside "our circle" (as some of you come off as) feels/thinks/sees when he or she hears and or sees what we are saying and how we are acting? Stop and think about it from an outside point of view... if you saw a situation such as that, would you want to jump right into it, or just turn around and keep your distance.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying that all of us are at each others throats, but at a time when we are in the spotlight and there are alot more people looking at us than some believe, then should we not be looking like a shining example of sportsmen, ones who want to find solutions, even if it means some compromise in some areas to keep our sport from becoming over regulated to the point of no enjoyment? Sportsmen who are not the law breaking, slobs that people are trying to make us out to be?
Mike Cobb



Sep 3rd, 2008 - 9:27 AM 		Re: Re: VtDGIF MEETINGS

As long as everyone looking from the outside in is smart enough to realize we all can agree to disagree as far as the hound hunting issues go. The anti's...I agree with Claude Sutton, they will never be satisfied until hunting with hounds is totally banned. Why is it that the word "compromise" really means that we give up something and get nothing in return? Why is it that we are all expected to be tolerant of people that disagree with us but they cannot be tolerant of us? Why is it that some people feel threatend because a hunter is legally standing within sight of the road wearing an orange hat but holding a shotgun and we are expected to stay out of sight because some don't like seeing hunters?
Claude S. Sutton, Jr.



Sep 3rd, 2008 - 9:18 AM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

First and foremost, this entire Way Foreward study is based on unverified complaints. They admit in their written report that the complaints are unverified, which means they can be nut cases harassing hunters or real.

Jim Hackewtt and others make a big case about all of the emails and letters they got.

The same can be said for them. All unverified. I can write about all of the cows hunters let out of my fields and not own one single cow. Who checked to see?

And we know that the anti hunters are going nuts over this study. We know that they make invalid complaints.

But let us assume for the moment that all of the RTR calls the tech report refers to are real and verifiable.

The technical report states that there were 369 calls related to trespass.

So out of 41,095 farm owners, and many many more small plot owners, timber owners, etc., we have only 369 complaints, and that over a period of 27 months; September 2005 to December 2007.

So over the period of three hunting seasons, 369 calls, or an average of 123 per hunting season.

When you consider that a certain number of these were crank calls with no basis, this is actually a compliment to the deportment of hunters. If 10% of the farmers complained, the number would have been 4,100 calls each year.

And how many small plot owners are there that are not counted as farmers? Certainly over 100.000, so a 10% complaint rate would result in 10,000 each season.

Of course, we do not have the exact numbers either of total land owners in hunting areas or the exact numbers of complaints that are valid, but the point is made that hunters have obviously behaved well and followed the law.

Every complaint I have read, the person complaining usually says that the peace officer told him that there was nothing he could do because of the RTR law.

That is not correct if an actual case of trespassing took place. What is more likely is that the peace officer decided that the compaint had no merit. No peace officer is going to ignore a bonifide case of trespassing.

If a peace officer chooses for some reason not to bring charges in a bonifde case of trespass, the property owner has the option of going to a magistrate and swearing out a warrant. However, a property owner who is only seeking to harass a hunter will not do this because of the possibility of being sued for false arrest.

So now the property owner whose sole purpose is to harass has only one option left and that is to make a public outcry, to VDGIF, to the newspaper through letters to the editor, etc.

Because neither VDGIF, SAC or the techical committee has accurate records as to how many complaints were legitimate nor what the disposition of those compalints was, it would be a serious mistake for VDGIF to make any changes to any of the deer, deer hound or RTR regulations or to recommend changes to the legislature based on past complaints. Especially since there were so few complaints as a percentage of the numbers of landowners and hunters involved.

VDGIF should wait until they have accurate records before they make recommendations to the legislature or make rule changes.

Evn if all of the complaints were valid, 123 per hunting season when compared against the huge numbers of landowners and deer hunters is an insignificant number not worth of changing hunting laws.

What I believe is that we have a very few landowners who are making multiple complaints and who are so aggressive in their behavior that they are making it appear the problem is significant when it in fact is not.

Surely Virginia does not want to let a few people ruin hunting for everyone else just because they make the most noise.

But when we are given only three minutes to speak, how can we make our point?

CSSJR
Jim Hackett



Sep 3rd, 2008 - 10:14 AM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

"If you can't see that and the importance of alliances, pro and con, you simply confirm you're dead weight and clueless" "CLUELESS" YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING? YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR THE LAST THREE MONTHS. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYONE WHO HAS DEDICATED ANYMORE TIME AND EFFORT IN TRYING TO EDUCATE EVERYONE ON THE BIG PICTURE AND BRING THE HOUND HUNTING COMMUNITY TOGETHER IN UNDERSTANDING. SURE THERE ARE ISSUES THAT SOME WILL DISAGREE WITH MY VIEWS. I DO MY BEST TO TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY I FEEL THE WAY I DO. I DO HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF SEEING A LOT MORE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE STUDY THAN ANY OF YOU. I AM NOT SO NAIVE TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING I READ. I REALIZE THAT MANY COMPLAINTS ARE NOT REALISTIC, ARE NOT REAL VIOLATIONS, ARE REPEATED COMPLIANTS FROM THE SAME PEOPLE, ARE MADE BY THOSE WHO OWN 75 ACRES AND ARE BLAMING HOUND HUNTERS THAT THEIR TROPHY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS NOT WORKING BECAUSE HOUNDS PASSED THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY THAT DAY. I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. YES. I CAN SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES. I EMPHASIS THE E MAILS SO THAT THE HOUND HUNTING COMMUNITY WILL REPRESENT THEMSELVES AND EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. JUST AS THE ANTI'S TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE E MAIL SYSTEM, HOUND HUNTERS MUST DO THE SAME. IT IS NOT ABOUT NUMBERS OR VOTING. BUT 106,000 HOUND HUNTERS SHOULD BE FLOODING THE SYSTEM. IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, THE E MAILS HAVE BEEN FLOODING IN. THE MFH ARE CLEARLY THE BIGGEST SUPPORTERS BUT THE FREE CASTING FOX HUNTERS AND THE DEER HOUND HUNTERS ARE STEADILY INCREASING. A LOT OF GOOD INPUT, I DON'T THINK THE NUMBER OF RESPONSES WOULD BE WHAT THEY ARE HAD I NOT BEEN PUSHING THE ISSUE FROM THIS WEBSITE.
SO AGIN, I DISAGREE WITH YOU, I DON'T THINK I AM CLUELESS AND I SURELY DON'T THINK I AM DEAD WEIGHT. BOB- WE HAVE NEVER MET. I RECOMMEND YOU ASK SOME THAT I HAVE MET ME PERSONALLY OR HAVE TALKED TO ME BY PHONE. TALK TO THE GROUPS I HAVE GONE AND TALKED TOO. ASK THEM DO THEY THINK THAT I AM DOING ALL I CAN TO SAVE HOUND HUNTING? I SEE WHERE I HAVE DONE MORE THAN YOU HAVE AND I HAVEN'T BEEN AFRID TO PUT MYSELF IN THE FIRING LINE TO ACHIEVE THE UNLTIMATE GOAL. VICTORY NEVER COMES WITHOUT SACRIFICE. IF I HAVE TO BE SLANDERED AND BEAT UP TO SAVE THIS SPORT THAN I WILL DO WHAT I MUST. IN THE END, IF WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS WITH THE PROPOSALS THAT THE SAC HAS MADE. WE WILL HAVE FAIRED THE STORM VERY WELL. BUT DON'T REST EASY, TRAINING IS STILL GOING TO BE A MAJOR NECESSITY IN AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID MORE ATTACKS IN THE FUTURE. THEY WILL COME, BUT WE NEED TO CLEAN UP OUR YARD AS QUICK AS WE CAN. GIVE THE ANTI'S EVEN LESS GROUND GROUND TO STAND ON.
Steve Elmore



Sep 3rd, 2008 - 10:41 AM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

To add to that Mr. Sutton, I know of three adjoining hunt clubs in Surry that called the VDGIG on each other well over 10 times between November-December 2007 and I believe twice the wardens issued tickets. And in the area I hunt the VDGIF was called on my club at least once I know of, just happened the NEW landowner did not know the boundaries of his own property. Makes me wonder how many more were clubs calling on other clubs??

Leads me to believe the Game department has contribed accusations, the origin and nature of complaints. Furthermore they throw terms of Urban Spraw around and population numbers, according to the last University of Virginia's population study, done in 2007, only one I could google up shows further misleading talk has been published by the VDGIF and also conflicts with the news paper artice I just read on here. Hunters themselves I see get on here and start making up how bad we are and reasons we need to compromise. Further to add to my confusion is wanting to ask for a training season. If any of the issues are of growing concern and are true maybe we could have more chances to have conflict with land owners, rtr.?
I think tention is so high because it appears the rotten stinch, corrupt game department, and irresponsible lack of data that surrounds this study can make your blood boil. We all try to refuse to believe this is what our country and state have become. A place were truth has no meaning.......
Claude S. Sutton, Jr.



Sep 3rd, 2008 - 10:58 AM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

Steve:

You are right on.

Plus the nervous Nellies who can't stand up for the truth.

You have got it.

But how do we get rid of this assinine study?

I have some ideas but right now I am working on another angle.

CSSJR
Jim Hackett



Sep 3rd, 2008 - 11:21 AM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

Steve- I agree that we all need stick together.
But, can you support and protect another group that is blatently breaking the law? Purposely trespassing against a landowners wishes. Hunting another clubs land when conflicts have arose in the past? Why should we stand and protect this type of behavior? Renagades got to go. This is exactly what has brought this controversy to light. These type of actions are unacceptable. These groups,especially now, must be singled out. If they can't get themselves in line with ethical hunting behavior, they need to get out of hound hunting. I am not willing to jeopardize my privilege because there are some that want to abuse the privilege and bring unneccessary ridicule on us all.
Some don't agree with a deer hound training season. The idea is to establish a legal means where deer hound hunters can exercise their hounds just like everyone else. The Tech Committee has recognized this as well. Either the SAC or the Tech Committee is going to make a recommendation. Looking at the options, who would you prefer? With an establish training season, deer hounds will be removed from the woods during the times of still hunting, thus eliminating one of the top four complaints against hound hunting. I do not want to affect fox hound hunting at all. But, how do we designate a fox hound from a deer hound? I am open for those suggestions. Remember, if the SAC doesn't, the Tech. Committee will.
Mike Cobb



Sep 3rd, 2008 - 12:08 PM 		Re: Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

Fine Jim....so in order to keep everyone in line, fill the 26% vacancy rate of CPO's (per the Tech Report), hire additional CPO's if that is what is needed and enforce the laws that are already on the books. I support that line of thought 100%. Just my opinion.
Claude S. Sutton, Jr.



Sep 3rd, 2008 - 12:05 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

Jim:

Your own numbers do not support what you have just said.

396 compalints over a 3 season period regarding RTR is not worth considering when there are huge nubers of landowners and well over 100,000 hunters coming into contact with each other daily.

I know you are going to bring up your 600 emails and letters, but they are worthless.

They did not complain to law enforcement and therefore are completely unverifiable.

I can write emails all day long telling stories about how hunters broke down my fences, let my cows out, etc., and you tell me who is going to verify that I even own cows?

Or that I even own land?

So all of those emails and letters should go to the garbage.

I have developed a different line of thought on this matter and it is this:

VDGIF has in their mission statement the following:

To provide opportunity for all to enjoy wildlife, inland fish, boating and related outdoor recreation and to work diligently to safeguard the rights of the people to hunt, fish and harvest game as provided for in the Constitution of Virginia.

I believe that mission statement is based on the law that created VDGIF.

There is absolutely no way that VDGIF can fullfil that mission statement with persons on VDGIF, SAC or the technical committee, or on any other consultant group they might hire, who are not enthusiastic supporters of hunting.

Any person who is anti, lukewarm or even neutral influences, perhaps even damaging VDGIF's ability to meet the terms of that mission statement.

Therefore, I believe that the Way Forward and all of its conclusions are invalid by the very definition of the language of the mission statement and the unqualified few who serve on those committees.

SAC, the technical committee and all of its reports should go in the trash can.

If VDGIF is to continue with a Way Forward study, it should be staffed with persons who can meet the qualifications required to carry out the VDGIF mission statement.

CSSJR
Steve Elmore



Sep 3rd, 2008 - 12:06 PM 		Re: VDGIF MEETINGS

Jim,
The program was called Officer / Teacher next door by the department of Housing and urban development. These folks are suppose to be OUTSTANDING cititzens in the community they were offered homes for 50 cents on the dollar. It did not go over to well. Over 94% of them took advantage of the system to steal.

The position was the President of The United States, the man shoved cigars up a womens croch, while his wife lay sleeping in the same house. (the white house)

Look at your newspaper and how many congressman and police officers receive dui/dwi on a daily basis.

How many college educated city and county employees are caught with their hand in the cookie jar..

Look at the Department of Proffesional Occupation(dpor) in Virginia and look at how many suffisticated, educated people are breaking the law..

But yet the Houndsman of Virginia must put order their fake badge and go police the country??? wtf

No amount of education is going to change.... All I ask is the people that get paid from me uphold the Standards of my Father's Father's Father. this whole **** study is being conducted in a communist fashion.

If it was not the case for 107,000 would be represented acording to 389 , 400 or what ever they made up.

Special interest on the State level is running the show. wake up.
Viagras Mom