Trespassing Dog Hunters!

[yoderjac]

I live in an area of Va where the dog hunters are unethical. My land is situated in such a way that they really can't put on drives and cut the deer off. They are gradually losing their land rights which makes me happy.

Several years ago VDGIF and UVA or VT (can't remember which) did a study on dog hunting that included focus groups and public input. I participated on one of the focus groups. Dog hunters have a strong political lobby in VA and in the end, no significant changes were made to the regulations to address the issues.

Dog hunters may have shot themselves in the foot. They have a strong lobby in the state legislature and they rely on that to protect them. The long-term problem for them is that there is a way around the state legislature, a ballot initiative. Land owners have a property rights argument that the state is allowing private individuals access to their lands without their consent. The large cities and northern Virginia are trending more and more liberal and PETA types have a lot of influence. If these two groups of folks form an alliance, they could go around the legislature and prohibit dog hunting all together. This would be a loss for the ethical dog hunters we do have. And we do have them. I met many of them along with non-hunting property owners dealing with dog hunters in the focus groups.

I don't believe that dog hunters as a whole are any more or less ethical than deer hunters in general in VA. There is a lot of baiting, poaching, and other illegal activity that goes on. The difference is that the nature of dog hunting makes the unethical and illegal activity much more visible to the general public. It really hurts the image of hunting. Dog hunters need to police their own ranks and ensure they are more ethical than the general hunting population because of the visibility.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[ToddG]

I some times wonder if losing the dog hunters would be good or bad. If dog hunting is outlawed, we will be a much smaller group and hunting in general may be next. There is safety in numbers. I try not to judge others on their hunting methods as long as it's legal.

Several years ago VDGIF and UVA or VT (can't remember which) did a study on dog hunting that included focus groups and public input. I participated on one of the focus groups. Dog hunters have a strong political lobby in VA and in the end, no significant changes were made to the regulations to address the issues.

Dog hunters may have shot themselves in the foot. They have a strong lobby in the state legislature and they rely on that to protect them. The long-term problem for them is that there is a way around the state legislature, a ballot initiative. Land owners have a property rights argument that the state is allowing private individuals access to their lands without their consent. The large cities and northern Virginia are trending more and more liberal and PETA types have a lot of influence. If these two groups of folks form an alliance, they could go around the legislature and prohibit dog hunting all together. This would be a loss for the ethical dog hunters we do have. And we do have them. I met many of them along with non-hunting property owners dealing with dog hunters in the focus groups.

I don't believe that dog hunters as a whole are any more or less ethical than deer hunters in general in VA. There is a lot of baiting, poaching, and other illegal activity that goes on. The difference is that the nature of dog hunting makes the unethical and illegal activity much more visible to the general public. It really hurts the image of hunting. Dog hunters need to police their own ranks and ensure they are more ethical than the general hunting population because of the visibility.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[yoderjac]

I some times wonder if losing the dog hunters would be good or bad. If dog hunting is outlawed, we will be a much smaller group and hunting in general may be next. There is safety in numbers. I try not to judge others on their hunting methods as long as it's legal.

Yes, my point exactly. Personally I would have preferred more regulation on dog hunting to preserve it but reducing conflicts. For example they could have set some minimum amount of contiguous acreage with written permission to hunt before releasing dogs. Dog hunting is well suited for places with large tracts of rural land with a homogenous population, but not well suited for places where land has been broken up into many smaller tracts and owned by many different folks with diverse views. The counties where it is legal were once very rural with large tracts. Sprawl has changed that bringing dog hunters into more conflict with property owners.

The primary reason I wanted to see dog hunting better regulated was to preserve it in places where it is appropriate. Instead, it may stay legal longer in some areas, but the conflicts may reach a threshold where it is outlawed altogether.

Thanks,

jack

 

[hookinembig]

I believe if dog hunting was eliminated hunters may be able to regain some of their credibility. Yes you would still have some idiots trespassing and doing other illegal things out there but hopefully with the quality of over all hunters improving the public perception would improve. From my personal experience and other close friends experience in dog hunting clubs most of them are there to socialize and drink not actually hunt - by running dogs this gave them a excuse to drive around and cut off the dogs and not have to actually hunt. Take away the dog hunting majority of the clubs would go away because most dog hunters are to lazy to do man drives which are more effective if done properly and there is no way majority them could sit in a stand for a couple of hours. With the clubs gone land prices would decrease which is great for true hunters, deer population would increase, the ability to grow bigger bucks would increase, trespassing would decrease dramatically and reduce public complaints. Yes the actual hunter numbers would decrease dramatically so we would be a smaller group/voice but this may not be a bad thing. I would rather have 5 great hunters with good ethics then 5000 hunters with bad ethics. We would be out of sight out of mind for 95% of the population.

 

[yoderjac]

I believe if dog hunting was eliminated hunters may be able to regain some of their credibility. Yes you would still have some idiots trespassing and doing other illegal things out there but hopefully with the quality of over all hunters improving the public perception would improve. From my personal experience and other close friends experience in dog hunting clubs most of them are there to socialize and drink not actually hunt - by running dogs this gave them a excuse to drive around and cut off the dogs and not have to actually hunt. Take away the dog hunting majority of the clubs would go away because most dog hunters are to lazy to do man drives which are more effective if done properly and there is no way majority them could sit in a stand for a couple of hours. With the clubs gone land prices would decrease which is great for true hunters, deer population would increase, the ability to grow bigger bucks would increase, trespassing would decrease dramatically and reduce public complaints. Yes the actual hunter numbers would decrease dramatically so we would be a smaller group/voice but this may not be a bad thing. I would rather have 5 great hunters with good ethics then 5000 hunters with bad ethics. We would be out of sight out of mind for 95% of the population.

How often do you see late night commercials with soulful music and puppy dog eyes put on by the animal rights crowd asking for donations? There was a time when hunters and anti-hunters were equal in number. As demographics change, that is beginning to change. I would rather have 4900 ethical hunters including dog hunters than 5 ethical hunters or 5000 with bad ethics.

Any elimination of a hunting group is a win for the animal rights folks. Divide and conquer is actually part of their strategy. Hunting, regardless of technique, can be done ethically or without ethical integrity. Our concern as hunters should be to educate and regulate our own ranks to improve our overall ethic rather than eliminate segments of hunting. If a hunting method can be done ethically, it should be regulated to ensure that rather than eliminated. There are many forms the regulation could take with dog hunting, but we missed an opportunity a few years ago and it may come back to haunt dog hunters first and the rest of us in the long-run.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[hookinembig]

I agree that regardless of technique hunting can be done ethically and with integrity. But the unethical ones like the ones who broke my gate and trespassed won't obey the law. If they don't have the dogs because they are banned to run they probably wouldn't hunt at all which is okay with me or if they did hunt they wouldn't have had a reason to trespass because they wouldn't be chasing dogs. The only way you will ever get the VDHA(Virginia Dog Hunter Alliance) to agree to changes like they implemented in Georgia is if they are threatened with a complete ban. Georgia has the following rules in place since 2003 - 1) Property owners or lessees desiring to hunt deer with dogs on their land must first obtain a WRD-issued permit; 2) Permitted property must contain at least 1,000 contiguous acres(This would help out a lot); and 3) All dogs and vehicles used in deer hunts on the permitted property must be identified with the permit number. This type of legislation would help but it wouldn't stop the people I mentioned above because they don't care about the law in the first place. If they eliminated hunting with deer dogs this would allow law enforcement to single out the people still running dogs and breaking the rules.

I also want to thank you guys for the peaceful back and forth discussion it is great. And helps me see others points of view.

 

[yoderjac]

I agree that regardless of technique hunting can be done ethically and with integrity. But the unethical ones like the ones who broke my gate and trespassed won't obey the law. If they don't have the dogs because they are banned to run they probably wouldn't hunt at all which is okay with me or if they did hunt they wouldn't have had a reason to trespass because they wouldn't be chasing dogs. The only way you will ever get the VDHA(Virginia Dog Hunter Alliance) to agree to changes like they implemented in Georgia is if they are threatened with a complete ban. Georgia has the following rules in place since 2003 - 1) Property owners or lessees desiring to hunt deer with dogs on their land must first obtain a WRD-issued permit; 2) Permitted property must contain at least 1,000 contiguous acres(This would help out a lot); and 3) All dogs and vehicles used in deer hunts on the permitted property must be identified with the permit number. This type of legislation would help but it wouldn't stop the people I mentioned above because they don't care about the law in the first place. If they eliminated hunting with deer dogs this would allow law enforcement to single out the people still running dogs and breaking the rules.

I also want to thank you guys for the peaceful back and forth discussion it is great. And helps me see others points of view.

I've got no problem with those and even stricter regulations. Our dog hunters are faced with a total ban but don't recognize it. In my opinion, by the time they recognize it, the pendulum will be swinging with too much momentum for them to stop it and a ban will take place. A well worded ballot initiative would eliminate access to prohibited lands by simply making it unconstitutional for the state to grant access by any private party for a private purpose to the private lands of another. This would put it in terms of property rights. It would pick up all the landowners who were upset when the pipeline companies sent surveyors out as a precursor to proposed pipelines. No landowner would vote against any amendment that strengthened property rights. It would also pick up support from all the "greens" that don't want more pipelines. If anyone explained to the animal rights folks that this would reduce dog hunting, they would be on board.

Simply invalidating the dog retrieval exemption to the trespass laws would go a long way toward reducing the problem. Even without a specific amendment to the Virginia constitution, I think one could make an argument that the exemption that grants access to posted lands by a private party for a private purpose with no significant state or public policy interest is an illegal taking by the government. I think the hard part of being successful in such a suit would be demonstrating harm. If you are not damaged or the law allows for compensation for any damages, I'm not sure you have standing to challenge the law.

I will say, I really understand your strong feelings on the subject. I was in the same position as you several years ago. After really thinking it through and being involved in some of the dog hunting focus groups, I'm convinced there is a place for dog hunting in VA, just not in areas where the land has become highly segmented with sprawl. This is one area where I disagree with the position VDGIF currently takes.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Bill]

Haven't read much more than a few posts but I think Jack is on to something with not allowing one to trespass to retrieve a dog. I had a problem with coon hunters in MO. MO law says a dog can't trespass but a person can and retriveing your dog is a trespass offence. Had some locals give me the,"we were just getting our dogs" excuse once. Called the sheriff. Problem solved. They've never done it again.

 

[yoderjac]

Haven't read much more than a few posts but I think Jack is on to something with not allowing one to trespass to retrieve a dog. I had a problem with coon hunters in MO. MO law says a dog can't trespass but a person can and retriveing your dog is a trespass offence. Had some locals give me the,"we were just getting our dogs" excuse once. Called the sheriff. Problem solved. They've never done it again.

The problem is that in VA, dog hunters have a very strong lobby in the state legislature and had a law passed exempting people retrieving their dogs from the trespass laws. This is codified in law, not a department regulation. The department can't change it. With the death grip the dog hunting lobby has on the legislature, they won't change it. That only leaves a ballot initiative.

The problem is that our demographics are changing and the left leaning northern Virginia areas and large cities now dominate the population. While a ballot initiative as I described in the previous post (which are state wide) would easily pass because of this demographic change, it is likely one that simply prohibited dog hunting all together would pass as well. That is what I don't want to see.

I think the way this exemption for dog retrieval got in to the law was that a lot of rural land is owned by absentee landowners. While it might be posted, there was originally no practical way for hunters to contact the owner or even know who it was. That is no longer true with on-line databases for public records. The concern was that if dogs were not recovered, they would die or go wild causing a bigger problem. So, while the original intent was probably reasonable in some circumstances, it doesn't really apply today but the law is still on the books.

Now many folks use it as an excuse to trespass. While they can't carry a firearm or use a vehicle to claim this exemption, it is easy to through a firearm in the bushes if they see someone coming. It has become a mechanism that enables both trespass and poaching in many circumstances.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Bill]

That doesn't change the fact that you had the right idea. The lobby's short sightedness may cost them the whole ball of wax.

The only starving coon dog I've ever seen was starving because his owner was a putts not because he was lost.

 

[yoderjac]

There is another thread, now locked, referencing a hunter who shot dogs. I'm not commenting on that situation specifically, but someone on that thread was flabbergasted as to how anyone could ever shoot a dog. I remarked on that thread how the ethics can be so varied based on time and location. I mentioned how hunting deer with dogs is a tradition in VA but when I was a kid you were almost ethically obligated to shoot a dog chasing deer.

For the poster who couldn't imagine anyone shooting a dog, consider this. When I was young, deer population were decimated. In my part of the state, seeing deer was rare and seeing an antlered buck was even more rare. At the same time, dogs were dogs. They were not family members sleeping in the bed with kids and eating expensive dog food. Most were kept in the yard with a dog house and chain or fence. Sure there were a few indoor dogs but that was not the rule. At the same time, there was no real spay and neutering programs, and some folks disposed of unwanted dogs by simply taking them to the woods and letting them run free. Packs of dogs would chase and kill deer at a time when they were rare. Today, I doubt the ethic is the same in PA as it was when I grew up. Deer populations were out of control until Gary Alt tried to change regulations and force PA into modern management techniques.

I'm not suggesting this is at all the same as the situation described in the other thread. But I am saying that the idea of shooting a dog really depends on context. Today, coyotes are now classified as a nuisance species in VA. Folks here have the same attitude about coyotes as folks did about wild dogs chasing deer in PA when I was a kid.

While I would never shoot or harm a deer dog on my property, I have been known to take them to the shelter. I don't remove any collar or tags, so if they are properly tagged, the shelter will contact the owner. At least the owner who released the dog where it could run onto my land is inconvenienced a bit and some shelters may charge him.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[JFK52]

As an absentee land owner, I had trespassing problems on my land when I first bought it 25 years ago. Because of that I put all my gate posts in cement and welded shut all the nuts and bolts that affixed the gates to the posts. I use a hand formed chain to lock the gates to the posts that costs me a lot of money. I use Abloy or other top end locks that are impervious to most buttheads. I put huge rocks next to both ends of the gate so that someone could not simply drive around the gate. I would suggest that you bolster your first line of defense so that people can not just drive onto your land. Since I did these improvements to my land, I have not had a single vehicular trespassing incident.

 

[hookinembig]

We have contacted the proper authorities and we hopefully be able to reinforce the gates with some of the recommendations above today. Hopefully this will solve the problem. Saturday should be a decent indicator because its a doe day and the deer dog running army will be in full force and they will be using the brown its down mentality. Hopefully some of the young bucks will make it through the season if they just hold tight on our land.

 

[pointer]

Ballot initiatives for issues involving hunting and natural resource management in general are a double edge sword on a slippery slope...

 

[ToddG]

Ballot initiatives for issues involving hunting and natural resource management in general are a double edge sword on a slippery slope...

I agree. As large tracts of land are lost to urban sprawl or being split off into smaller lots to sell, it will become more difficult for dog hunters to locate the land leases they need to sustain their style of hunting. The dog hunting in my area appears to be decreasing each year. I think the leases are getting to expensive for them or are just not available.
We have a lot of leases being taken by people from Pa and they are willing to pay a premium price.

 

[yoderjac]

Ballot initiatives for issues involving hunting and natural resource management in general are a double edge sword on a slippery slope...

I agree completely. That is why I had hoped dog hunters would support more regulation of dog hunting to reduce conflicts and the likelihood of one happening. Unfortunately they were short sighted in my opinion.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[hookinembig]

The dog hunters may have less land but it doesn't appear they are running dogs any less in our areas. After talking with the game warden most clubs have more people and dogs and less land. The impression I received from him was that they are pretty reckless when it comes to running their dogs on someone else property and it happens more often than you think when you are an absentee land owner. So if you are having issues please report it to the proper authorities so they can work on the issues. Game cameras in the proper areas can really open you eyes. Also just a heads up if anyone leases land from plum creek timber which used to be meadwest vaco the blue locks that are on their gates where never switched out when plumcreek bought them out and many people(trespassers/thieves) in our area have keys to those blue locks so just keep that in mind. People may be on your land and you don't even know it because they have a key as well.

 

[yoderjac]

The dog hunters may have less land but it doesn't appear they are running dogs any less in our areas. After talking with the game warden most clubs have more people and dogs and less land. The impression I received from him was that they are pretty reckless when it comes to running their dogs on someone else property and it happens more often than you think when you are an absentee land owner. So if you are having issues please report it to the proper authorities so they can work on the issues. Game cameras in the proper areas can really open you eyes. Also just a heads up if anyone leases land from plum creek timber which used to be meadwest vaco the blue locks that are on their gates where never switched out when plumcreek bought them out and many people(trespassers/thieves) in our area have keys to those blue locks so just keep that in mind. People may be on your land and you don't even know it because they have a key as well.

I think you are spot on. The only thing I would clarify is that what you say applies to an element of dog hunters, not dog hunters as a group. I'm as guilty as anyone of sometimes applying the characteristics of the worst and most visible to the entire group.

One more aspect that I'll make note of is "group think". We see this in riots and other situations. People in general have tend to act more recklessly in a group. This is most obvious with teenagers but it applies to adults to a lesser degree as well. There was a study that compared the risk taking of teens to adults. Individuals were put in a driving simulator and completed a scenario. The part of the scenario that was analyzed was the risk of going through a light changing from green to yellow to red. The results of the study were a bit surprising. Teen drivers and adult drivers showed the same profile for risk taking. The testing was then repeated with passengers in the car. Teens had other teens in the car and adults had adults. The Adult risk profile stayed about the same, but the teen risk profile went way up. It was evidence that teens in groups, even small groups, are much less risk adverse than teens are alone. Other studies show the same is true for adults as groups get larger.

By its very nature, dog hunting is usually done in groups. When we teach ethics in our hunter education classes, we talk a lot about choosing your hunting partners. Our ethics tend to degrade when we choose partners who have lower ethical standards.

Thanks,

Jack