The point is, there is only so much control that can be exerted upon an animal. I may have an apiary on my farm. It may pose no danger to anyone. It may not even be near a fence. New neighbor moves in and complains about the bees - well - geez - how does she know they’re my bees? So it begins - the constant harassment, the calls to the county; I’ve seen it happen. It’s happening here. Seems like once the county has its first Starbucks, all hell breaks loose.
My beagle trespasses. I admit it. She’s a pretty smart little beagle, but alas, she has yet to learn how to read. I can recall her. But, especially on farmland, property lines are not easily discernible. So if my little beagle trespasses, I have a responsibility to retrieve her.
It happens with my neighbors too. You know, yeah, it can be annoying to be out and about, especially on a green horse, and have a hound dog jump out of a hedge and shout BOO. But I get just as irritated when a wood duck, deer, turkey, snake, or any other animal does it. Irritated because I’m riding a green horse and the knucklehead thinks everything is a predator. Living in the country means lot of animals about. Lots of noise. Farmers bringing in crops. Spraying fields. Biosolids application. Blech.
It’s normal. I love to hear my neighbors rooster. It’s great. Yippee.
But I digress.
This entire “study” has been blown completely out of proportion. The ONLY thing the GA tasked DGIF with doing was examining the right of retrieval. And that was ONLY because there are a few jerks (and you know who you are and shame on you) that abuse this very necessary right. Citizens contacted their state reps to ask a new law be made. Unfortunately, the bills drafted really didn’t work - as this is really a regulatory matter - one of interpretation by game wardens, and mostly an enforcement matter. Wardens were having trouble nabbing the bad guys, because it’s too easy for the bad hunter to use the “right of retrieval” excuse - when in fact - he’s abusing the rights of the property owner.
No excuse for that. None.
What has happened, is that DGIF went overboard. And the invitation of animal rights groups, is not coincidental. What a person has to ask themselves is this:
Why are animal rights groups being invited to private meetings - meetings in which the only issue is supposed to be property rights/right of retrieval?
Your answer is - they shouldn’t be. Again, the right of retrieval, and its abuse, was the SOLE issue the GA charged DGIF with resolving.
What was supposed to happen is that DGIF would meet with hound/hunting groups in Virginia, discuss the problem, and come up with a solution, and report that solution to the General Assembly.
However, since hunters have been purposefully (and I really think it was purposeful) permitted to do nothing but send an email or write a letter - the deck has been stacked against all hunting.
The sad thing is that the money that is being spent on this study, just to date, could have paid the salaries of at least two game wardens. Those game wardens could have worked in the very area many of these complaints originate. As we know, the role of game wardens is varied. They not only act as law enforcement, but they can be a tremendous resource to the community - helping resolve problems between landowners, hunters and anglers.
I have been following this issue for many sessions. What I had hoped would happen last session is that DGIF would simply meet with hound hunters and hammer out a solution. I even expressed confidence in their ability to do just that.
I was wrong. The second I found out about the AR groups - knowing what I do about their current campaigns - I have to admit I’m furious and DGIF has lost my confidence. Of course - the safari scandal didn’t help.
What needs to happen is that the study needs to be halted. If there are tangential issues with leadership at DGIF, or the method in which that leadership is chosen - those may be very legitimate issues - for the near future. But now - the study needs to be stopped before it spirals further out of control.
However, since pretty much nobody except HSUS or PETA reps are permitted to comment - I’d say it’ll be a cold day in hell.
I don’t understand why VT is muttering about removing hunters to eliminate a predetermined outcome. Since only the abuse of the right of retrieval was supposed to be up for discussion, the only outcome expected was a way in which to STOP the abuse of that right.
Hope that gives a bit more background for folks that might not be familiar with how this “study” came into existence.
