Hunting with Hounds - A Virginia Tradition an Issue

"The problem of game management is not how we shall handle the deer... The
real problem is one of human management."
Aldo Leopold, father of modern game management from 1933

If you are a hunter you¹ve no doubt heard of the current controversy
surrounding a study entitled Hound Hunting In Virginia; A Way Forward . This
effort was commissioned by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries back in September 2007 and over the following 14 months there will
be public meetings, comment periods, discussions and more intended to
scrutinize the age-old tradition of hound hunting for deer in Virginia.

Just who came up with the idea for this study and why has yet to be
answered, as no one that we here at W2 have asked has been able to tell us
where it originated. Rumors abound, though as to whom asked for the report.
Many say it's People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the
Humane Society. Others claimed it was Governor Kaine himself that wants the
study. All three of these entities were said to want to ban dog hunting.

Well, we did some checking. PETA is not behind the effort, nor is the
Humane Society. We can also say with complete certainty that Gov. Kaine is
not involved with the study.

A source at the DGIF told W2 that instead it was well-connected land
owners that prompted the study which was actually commissioned by the Board
of Directors of the Game Commission.

In the October 2007 edition of Woods & Waters we began our Special Report
series looking at the topic of hound hunting. This piece, written by W2
Firearms Editor and hunter Tom Scanlan was pro dog hunting.

To be objective, in our December 2007 issue we ran a piece by John
McDonough (a pseudo-name of a real person) that described why dog hunting
needed to be better regulated. It was anti-status quo dog hunting.

The goal of this publication has always been to bring you the information
needed to make an informed decision on issues. We have not taken a stand on
the dog hunting issue as nothing has been proposed. That will come in
November after Virginia Tech (lead by Dr. Steve McMullin and Dr. James A
Parkhurst) compiles the results of all the information collected from the
study and a consultant makes recommendations.

As far as how we've gotten to this point, with a study commissioned by "no
on", a review of the DGIF Board of Director¹s meeting minutes reveals that
the state is noting it a result of constituent concerns documented beginning
in 2006 when a survey asking opinions about Sunday hunting indicated the
strongest opposition to this proposal came from those against the use of
hounds. The state also noted there was a citizen presentation to the Board
back in March 2007 expressing concerns about deer hunting with hounds.
W2 did some further checking and this citizen presentation was by Jeff
McDermott of Gloucester, Virginia. Which raises the question "Did this one
man account for fully 25% of the DGIF¹s reason to commission the Hound
Hunting study?"

Lastly, a VDGIF web forum revealed that 928 comments on hunting with dogs
was received from 254 individuals (44% of all individuals commenting).
Bob Duncan, the VDGIF¹s point man on the study and Director of the
Wildlife Division, presented these facts in a presentation he made to the
Board during a July 2007 meeting which drew over 300 attendees, many from
Virginia dog hunting clubs. The vast majority voiced their concern that the
hound hunting study was not in their interests.

Duncan also noted the Hound Hunting In Virginia; A Way Forward study was
similar to the Virginia Bear Management Plan and the Virginia Deer
Management Plan where many types of users' concerns are heard and addressed.
Duncan told those present in July that these plans were successful and
the new plan will; identify issues associated with the use of hounds,
contain goals/objectives to ensure hunting ethics and respect of citizen
rights and identifying strategies to address some of these objectives.
In further difficult to understand language, Duncan stated "the hound
hunting recreational goal is to provide diverse opportunities for hunting
with hounds in Virginia in a manner that is fair, sportsmanlike and
consistent with the rights of private and public property owners and other
citizens."

Now that truly sounds like Mr. Duncan has the impossible task of trying
to please everyone. We all know that is not going to be possible.
The DGIF¹s goals are further complicated when you consider that the groups
expected to help form opinion on the future of hound hunting include:
"hunters who do and do not use hounds, other recreationalists (like hikers,
campers, etc.), private landowners and other citizens, local governments,
public land management agencies, animal welfare and other wildlife
interests." Try putting 10 people in a room and ask them to agree on
anything. Now multiply that by 5,000 and you get the idea.

The staff at Virginia Tech has been charged with identifying major issues
on the biological, sociological, administrative, legal, economic and
political sides of the hound hunting issue.

To accomplish this, something called Stakeholder Focus Groups will be
formed. To administer and facilitate dialogue between these groups, VDGIF
will form Stakeholder Advisory Committees. There will also be a Technical
Committee comprised of wildlife, law and other DGIF staff. Virginia Tech
will form a Facilitation Team while the DGIF will retain administrative
oversight.

Okay, so there's plenty of committees and new bureaucracy to go around and
make the process appear official and legal. Call us cynical, but we here at
W2 are curious just how much all this is costing the license holders of
Virginia.

As to the outcome of the study, we can make some educated guesses as to
what you might expect in November after the guys with the degrees are
through with the information collection process. Here¹s what we think could
happen:

1) Nothing at all will be changed except a recommendation to better enforce
current hunting regulations pertinent to hound hunters.

2) Those that hunt with hounds will be required to hunt on registered
parcels with a minimum acreage and be required to buy a hound hunting
license.

3) Hound hunters will turn their hounds loose on the consultants prior to
the report's findings and the state will drop the idea of changing anything.

Most that are following this issue are betting on option #2, and a lot of
our readers have expressed their concerns. As far as the VDGIF, option #2
accomplishes much for them. It would create another source of license income
in an era when these funds are dwindling and it would regulate the hound
hunting to certain areas where Conservation Officers can monitor, enforce
and, if necessary, generate violation/infraction monies.

As far as hunters and hunt clubs, you might be forced to register the
land you hunt, pay another license fee and keep dogs ³advised² of property
lines. Regarding the latter, I've heard some specialized Walker sub-breeds
are now reading at a first grade level.

So what are the conclusions one can draw from this scrutiny of the study
to scrutinize of hound hunting? Evidently, one man can still make a
difference these days, if the timing is right. And, if you are a hound
hunter, you might want to pay attention to how and when you can comment on
the future of your tradition, because if you don¹t and it is changed in
November, you had your chance.

A final more disturbing conclusion, in this publication¹s opinion, is the
amount of time and money that is going to be spent on the Hound Hunting In
Virginia; A Way Forward study that perhaps could be spent on other projects
like developing youth hunting programs or better educating hunters on the
existing game regulations

We will continue to follow the hound hunting issue right up to November
when the results are published. In the very near future, you can register
your vote on the matter at www.woodsandwatersmagazine.com . You can visit
www.dgif.state.va.gov and click on the Hound Hunting Study to find out how
to register your opinion.