Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance

[Hokieman]

KEEP AN EYE OUT !!!

![]( got this in an e-mail tonight from a friend who works at VA Tech.

[IMG]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/Hokieman/mtlion4.jpg)

[IMG]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/Hokieman/mtlion3.jpg)

[IMG]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/Hokieman/mtlion2.jpg)

[IMG]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/Hokieman/mtlion.jpg)

For those of you in, or anyone you know in the Big Stoney Creek area in Giles County please be aware of sightings of mountain lions in the area. This case, the animal actually came up to the sliding patio door of the home looking for food and was very agitated. Be cautious of leaving any animals outdoors unattended, apparently there is a food shortage causing them to come into common areas.

These photos were taken about 25 miles from one of our transmitter sites (I work for the radio stations in fairlawn) this was sent around because of worker safety concerns, apparently the sightings are becoming an almost daily thing…

They are gorgeous arent they! But obviously are dangerous to people and pets.

[awm]

MFHA & USSA involvement

Wateryglen,

I wrote to Dennis Foster at the MFHA & received the info that they are very involved,
have been involved from the start, have testified twice, in constant contact with Va. Wildlife, & the Va. Hunts have lobbyists.

Are you a member of the MFHA? Dennis Foster seems to be very approachable & ready
to help with info.

Dennis did not speak for the USSA, but included them in his opening statement, I think
we need to speak to USSA directly to get their take.

I will email them to find out—

I’m in New York, so can’t help much with Va. but am watching all this activity.
Ann

[Anne_FS]

I read on a GSD board today that the VA mandatory spay/neuter bills have been tabled and will not be brought up again in this session.

[Hokieman]

[QUOTE=Anne FS;2972465]
I read on a GSD board today that the VA mandatory spay/neuter bills have been tabled and will not be brought up again in this session.[/QUOTE]

That is great news.:yes:

[awm]

USSA involvement

I received a message from Bud Pidgeon that the USSA is on top of the Virginia
topics, I’m glad to hear our lobbyists are on the job!
Ann

[Bob_Kane]

VA Anti-dog breeder legislation

[QUOTE=Anne FS;2972465]
I read on a GSD board today that the VA mandatory spay/neuter bills have been tabled and will not be brought up again in this session.[/QUOTE]

Anne and others -
Those two bills were dead on arrival and never stood a chance. They’d been rejected repeatedly in past General Assembly sessions. They were a diversionary sideshow.

The main event was the HSUS’s top priority anti-breeder bill, HB538, which was reported yesterday from the House Agriculture Committee on vote of Y-12, N-9. Votes for and against this bill were

YEAS–Morgan, Cox, Sherwood, Orrock, Saxman, Plum, Shuler, Eisenberg, Shannon, Vanderhye, Mathieson, Bouchard–12.

NAYS–Ware, R.L., Wright, Hogan, Scott, E.T., Marshall, D.W., Lohr, Poindexter, Pogge, Lewis–9.

[Hokieman]

[QUOTE=awm;2976561]
I received a message from Bud Pidgeon that the USSA is on top of the Virginia
topics, I’m glad to hear our lobbyists are on the job!
Ann[/QUOTE]

Who are the USSA lobbyist working the Virginia General Assembly? I was told by Derek Shively they had none.

[Bob_Kane]

[QUOTE=Hokieman;2976989]
Who are the USSA lobbyist working the Virginia General Assembly? I was told by Derek Shively they had none.[/QUOTE]

Derick-
Do you shave yet?
:D:lol:

[Hokieman]

[QUOTE=Bob Kane;2977070]
Derick-
Do you shave yet?
:D:lol::)[/QUOTE]

" News Flash " Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance has had a presence in the General Assembly everyday. We are there because we care about the hunting dog community and we aren’t being paid for it. You Bob are in it for the money and don’t do nothing but email and try and grab someone walking the hall when you do show up. Please Bob, leave the real lobbying to the ones who can do it.:yes:

[Bob_Kane]

[QUOTE=Hokieman;2977349]
" News Flash " Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance has had a presence in the General Assembly everyday. We are there because we care about the hunting dog community and we aren’t being paid for it. You Bob are in it for the money and don’t do nothing but email and try and grab someone walking the hall when you do show up. Please Bob, leave the real lobbying to the ones who can do it.:yes:[/QUOTE]

Puppy mill bill barely survives panel
January 31, 2008 12:15 am

Puppy mills are large-scale dog breeding operations that are usually unlicensed.

By Chelyen Davis

RICHMOND

–A bill to require business licenses for dog breeders narrowly survived a House committee vote yesterday, despite opposition from several hunting dog groups.

The bill, sponsored by Del. Bobby Orrock, R-Caroline, aims to eliminate “puppy mills” by defining commercial dog breeders and requiring them to get a license and undergo regular inspections.

Orrock’s bill applies to breeders who have more than 20 unsterilized female dogs for breeding purposes, and bars them from having more than 50 dogs older than 4 months on their property at any time. It also bans pet stores from buying dogs from anyone other than licensed breeders.

The Humane Society’s Web site says puppy mills–large-scale dog breeding operations that are usually unlicensed, and which often breed dogs under horrific conditions–are a growing problem in Virginia.

Orrock says his intention is to keep the bill from affecting hunting clubs, and people who breed just a few dogs a year, while targeting “the assembly-line type breeder” who keep so many dogs that it’s impossible to properly house and care for them.

Orrock told the House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee yesterday that he tried hard to include the hunting and breeding community in discussions about his bill, and that he was amenable to amendments. He also said a lot of misinformation has been spread about his bill.

“I have tried in earnest to come forward with a piece of legislation that does not adversely impact on anyone,” Orrock said.

But several hunt clubs opposed the bill when it came up before the committee. They noted that commercial breeders already have to have a federal license, and think the restrictions of Orrock’s bill are redundant and intrusive.

“It’s an awful bill,” said Bob Kane of the Virginia Hunting Dog Association. He said he was never approached by Orrock to talk about the bill. “This bill contradicts and conflicts with federal law. This is a bad bill for so many reasons I can’t begin to describe it.”

Alice Harrington of the Blue Ridge Shetland Sheepdog Club, warned the committee that Orrock’s bill would “put out of business licensed breeders” while doing nothing to stop “puppy moonshine operations” that operate illegally anyway.

“HB 538 will either be largely ignored, or it will be the mother of all unfunded mandates,” she said.

But the bill had its supporters as well. Tom Evans, who lobbies on behalf of hunting associations, said he supports the bill because it does define commercial breeders.

Sheriff Fred Newman of Washington County said he busted a puppy mill last year in which 115 dogs were found living in one house. The case cost his department over $7,000, he said. Had his officers been allowed to inspect the operation earlier, he said, the situation might not have gotten as bad as it did.

In the end the vote was 9 to 8 to approve the bill–Del. Ed Scott, R-Madison, was one vote against it–and refer it to the Appropriations Committee, because it has a small fiscal impact.

“Delegate Orrock has taken on a significant challenge here,” said Del. Lee Ware, R-Powhatan, who voted against the bill. “We, by this legislation, reach too far. The medicine is not quite the fit for the problem here.”

In eight years, I’ve never accepted anything but out-of-pocket reimbursals for my on-site Richmond lobbying on behalf of hunting dog owners. If I charged for my time at my career rate, I’d have an very big estate in hunt country. As was the case last week in subcommittee, when VHDOA was the only group to oppose HB538, VHDOA was also the only opposition yesterday to a Senate Courts Committee passed SB263 new jailable misdemeanor for dog owner trespassing. Just some very checkable facts. [URL=“http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/06_SAOVA_Bob_Kane_Prt1-08.asp”]Meet Legislative Legend & Lobbyist
BOB KANE

[Hokieman]

[QUOTE=Bob Kane;2977703]
Puppy mill bill barely survives panel
January 31, 2008 12:15 am

Puppy mills are large-scale dog breeding operations that are usually unlicensed.

By Chelyen Davis

RICHMOND

–A bill to require business licenses for dog breeders narrowly survived a House committee vote yesterday, despite opposition from several hunting dog groups.

The bill, sponsored by Del. Bobby Orrock, R-Caroline, aims to eliminate “puppy mills” by defining commercial dog breeders and requiring them to get a license and undergo regular inspections.

Orrock’s bill applies to breeders who have more than 20 unsterilized female dogs for breeding purposes, and bars them from having more than 50 dogs older than 4 months on their property at any time. It also bans pet stores from buying dogs from anyone other than licensed breeders.

The Humane Society’s Web site says puppy mills–large-scale dog breeding operations that are usually unlicensed, and which often breed dogs under horrific conditions–are a growing problem in Virginia.

Orrock says his intention is to keep the bill from affecting hunting clubs, and people who breed just a few dogs a year, while targeting “the assembly-line type breeder” who keep so many dogs that it’s impossible to properly house and care for them.

Orrock told the House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee yesterday that he tried hard to include the hunting and breeding community in discussions about his bill, and that he was amenable to amendments. He also said a lot of misinformation has been spread about his bill.

“I have tried in earnest to come forward with a piece of legislation that does not adversely impact on anyone,” Orrock said.

But several hunt clubs opposed the bill when it came up before the committee. They noted that commercial breeders already have to have a federal license, and think the restrictions of Orrock’s bill are redundant and intrusive.

“It’s an awful bill,” said Bob Kane of the Virginia Hunting Dog Association. He said he was never approached by Orrock to talk about the bill. “This bill contradicts and conflicts with federal law. This is a bad bill for so many reasons I can’t begin to describe it.”

Alice Harrington of the Blue Ridge Shetland Sheepdog Club, warned the committee that Orrock’s bill would “put out of business licensed breeders” while doing nothing to stop “puppy moonshine operations” that operate illegally anyway.

“HB 538 will either be largely ignored, or it will be the mother of all unfunded mandates,” she said.

But the bill had its supporters as well. Tom Evans, who lobbies on behalf of hunting associations, said he supports the bill because it does define commercial breeders.

Sheriff Fred Newman of Washington County said he busted a puppy mill last year in which 115 dogs were found living in one house. The case cost his department over $7,000, he said. Had his officers been allowed to inspect the operation earlier, he said, the situation might not have gotten as bad as it did.

In the end the vote was 9 to 8 to approve the bill–Del. Ed Scott, R-Madison, was one vote against it–and refer it to the Appropriations Committee, because it has a small fiscal impact.

“Delegate Orrock has taken on a significant challenge here,” said Del. Lee Ware, R-Powhatan, who voted against the bill. “We, by this legislation, reach too far. The medicine is not quite the fit for the problem here.”

In eight years, I’ve never accepted anything but out-of-pocket reimbursals for my on-site Richmond lobbying on behalf of hunting dog owners. If I charged for my time at my career rate, I’d have an very big estate in hunt country. As was the case last week in subcommittee, when VHDOA was the only group to oppose HB538, VHDOA was also the only opposition yesterday to a Senate Courts Committee passed SB263 new jailable misdemeanor for dog owner trespassing. Just some very checkable facts. [URL=“http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/06_SAOVA_Bob_Kane_Prt1-08.asp”]Meet Legislative Legend & Lobbyist
BOB KANE[/QUOTE]

Legislative legend in your own mind. And at a meeting wenesday you had to be asked to sit down because you didn’t know what bill you was opposing or surporting. again I say your a joke to the general assembly members.

@Hokieman;2977349

" News Flash " Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance has had a presence in the General Assembly everyday. We are there because we care about the hunting dog community and we aren’t being paid for it. You Bob are in it for the money and don’t do nothing but email and try and grab someone walking the hall when you do show up. Please Bob, leave the real lobbying to the ones who can do it.:yes:

[Moderator_1]

Please refocus your energies and responses on the topic of the thread and not on each other. Thanks.

[Hokieman]

[QUOTE=Moderator 1;2978734]
Please refocus your energies and responses on the topic of the thread and not on each other. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

Thank You and your right.:yes:

[Hokieman]

Some hunters makes a dog’s life good

Some hunters make ‘a dog’s life’ good
February 2, 2008 12:16 am

Foxhounds prepare for a hunt in Old Chatham, N.Y., in 2005. Successful hunters take good care of their dogs.

This is in response to Frances Hutchins’ Jan. 29 letter, “Hunting dogs deserve better lives than most of them get.”

I understand her concern and agree that many hunting dogs are mistreated, abandoned, and considered by some as “disposable” after the hunting season ends.

However, not all hunters are in that category. I have hunted with a group for more than 30 years. We do not paint numbers on our dogs; we know them by name, and they know us. We provide vet care and a pill regimen. We ensure they are properly fed and watered and have a clean environment.

At the end of each hunting day, we ensure that all “our children” are with us to return home, or we stay as late as necessary to find them. They are checked over to ensure no injury has occurred, and then “put to bed” with food and water.

I’m tired of the standard line that complains that we are all bad and have no feelings for the dogs. I’m sure there are plenty of hunters and clubs that take very good care of the dogs. Do not lump us in with the people who do not have respect for the dogs, the game, and landowners’ interests.

David DiPardo

King George

[Bob_Kane]

ALERT & ACTION REQUEST: HSUS’s Anti-Dog Breeder Bill HB538 Reported

[INDENT]ALERT for All Virginia Dog Owners.[/INDENT]

Dear Virginia Dog Owners:

HB538, HSUS’s anti-dog breeder bill was reported by the House Agriculture Committee on Wednesday. The initial, binding vote was 9-8 in favor. Late votes changed this tally to 12-9. Here’s how your representatives voted,

YEAS–Morgan, Cox, Sherwood, Orrock, Saxman, Plum, Shuler, Eisenberg, Shannon, Vanderhye, Mathieson, Bouchard–12.

NAYS–Ware, R.L., Wright, Hogan, Scott, E.T., Marshall, D.W., Lohr, Poindexter, Pogge, Lewis–9.

If you’re represented by one of the Yea voters, please let them know how you feel about this vote against you and remember their vote when they run for reelection or higher office.

Also please thank the NAY voters that supported you.

We lost this one-vote decision largely because VHDOA’s Coalition, the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance and the Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders failed to coordinate their efforts and effectively address HB538’s worst flaws. Only five minutes were allocated to those opposing the bill. Unfortunately, an AKC HB538 opposition letter was sent too late to be useful. Also weighing heavily against us was the HB538 supporting “I had all my concerns addressed” testimony of Tom Evans, VFDCB’s long-time paid lobbyist who was terminated on January 21, 2008. The Virginia Veterinary Medical Association’s Legislative Chairman, Dr. Steven Escobar, sent a letter supporting HB538. That hurt us as well. HB538 requires that a veterinarian must approve dog breedings. Tell VVMA and your veterinarian your opinion on this position. http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/state17.html

What to do now.

We have only one chance left to kill HB538 and only one argument. The bill has been referred to the Appropriations Committee for a fiscal impact review. If Delegate Kirk Cox’s subcommittee of Cox (Chairman), Morgan, Hogan, Abbitt, O’Bannon, Phillips, Dance, Shannon reports the bill at its 10:00 AM 2/7/2008 meeting, the full committee will report it the next day, it will pass its House floor vote on Monday-Tuesday and be sent to the Senate on February 13th. If HB538 isn’t stopped on next Thursday, it will become VA law.

The Appropriations Committee has only one function, to review a bill’s fiscal impact. It may not and will not reverse the policy decision of the Agriculture Committee that reported HB538. This is the $$ committee. If they are convinced that HB538 has a significant fiscal impact and isn’t funded in the budget, it will not report it and HB538 will die.

Dog owners need to flood the Cox subcommittee with emails, phone calls and be there next Thursday.

Do NOT argue the bill’s policy flaws. That’s not only a waste of time, it’s counterproductive. No one on that subcommittee cares and three of its members voted Yea on its policy merits in the Agriculture Committee.

What dog owners need to tell this subcommittee is that HB538 creates huge tax burdens on the state and local government by creating an complex and expensive duplicate dog kennel licensing and inspection program. The work’s already being done very competently by the USDA. We’re currently paying income taxes to fund the federal government’s licensing and inspection program to ensure proper large dog breeder animal care. HB538 imposes unfunded costs on the state and counties that will drive up our taxes further without providing any benefit. It duplicates work already done. Further, it inadvertently harms responsible small hobby breeders. Repeat the phrase Unfunded Mandates.

The VHDOA’s preliminary fiscal impact analysis is attached. This estimated $1.9 - 3.6 million increase in Virginia state income and local taxes is being refined. It will only get larger, not smaller.

In addition to taking action to communicate this Action Request widely and making your own subcommittee contacts ASAP, please contact the Chairman of your Board of Supervisors and urge that your county go on record opposing this burdensome unfunded mandate. Treasurers are already strapped attempting to implement Delegate Orrock’s 2006 “gotcha” licensing bill. HB538 just compounds that problem. Be aware that the “gotcha” rabies dog tag system will be used to screen for HB538’s “commercial” breeders.

VHDOA’s General Assembly contact page at http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/VA.AG.Ctmes.html has been rewritten to include the Cox subcommittee’s email and phone information. Feel free to fill in your statement regarding HB538’s fiscal impacts.

DO NOT limit your message to Vote No on HB538. That’s completely ineffective and will be ignored.

Last chance folks. We need to outwork HSUS, et al. We may not have the funding, organization, experience or cohesion, but we have passion and don’t want to lose our dogs.

Freely forward and cross post.

Sincerely,

[Hokieman]

THREAD HIJACKER

[QUOTE=Bob Kane;2980905]
[INDENT]ALERT for All Virginia Dog Owners.[/INDENT]

Dear Virginia Dog Owners:

HB538, HSUS’s anti-dog breeder bill was reported by the House Agriculture Committee on Wednesday. The initial, binding vote was 9-8 in favor. Late votes changed this tally to 12-9. Here’s how your representatives voted,

YEAS–Morgan, Cox, Sherwood, Orrock, Saxman, Plum, Shuler, Eisenberg, Shannon, Vanderhye, Mathieson, Bouchard–12.

NAYS–Ware, R.L., Wright, Hogan, Scott, E.T., Marshall, D.W., Lohr, Poindexter, Pogge, Lewis–9.

If you’re represented by one of the Yea voters, please let them know how you feel about this vote against you and remember their vote when they run for reelection or higher office.

Also please thank the NAY voters that supported you.

We lost this one-vote decision largely because VHDOA’s Coalition, the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance and the Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders failed to coordinate their efforts and effectively address HB538’s worst flaws. Only five minutes were allocated to those opposing the bill. Unfortunately, an AKC HB538 opposition letter was sent too late to be useful. Also weighing heavily against us was the HB538 supporting “I had all my concerns addressed” testimony of Tom Evans, VFDCB’s long-time paid lobbyist who was terminated on January 21, 2008. The Virginia Veterinary Medical Association’s Legislative Chairman, Dr. Steven Escobar, sent a letter supporting HB538. That hurt us as well. HB538 requires that a veterinarian must approve dog breedings. Tell VVMA and your veterinarian your opinion on this position. http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/state17.html

What to do now.

We have only one chance left to kill HB538 and only one argument. The bill has been referred to the Appropriations Committee for a fiscal impact review. If Delegate Kirk Cox’s subcommittee of Cox (Chairman), Morgan, Hogan, Abbitt, O’Bannon, Phillips, Dance, Shannon reports the bill at its 10:00 AM 2/7/2008 meeting, the full committee will report it the next day, it will pass its House floor vote on Monday-Tuesday and be sent to the Senate on February 13th. If HB538 isn’t stopped on next Thursday, it will become VA law.

The Appropriations Committee has only one function, to review a bill’s fiscal impact. It may not and will not reverse the policy decision of the Agriculture Committee that reported HB538. This is the $$ committee. If they are convinced that HB538 has a significant fiscal impact and isn’t funded in the budget, it will not report it and HB538 will die.

Dog owners need to flood the Cox subcommittee with emails, phone calls and be there next Thursday.

Do NOT argue the bill’s policy flaws. That’s not only a waste of time, it’s counterproductive. No one on that subcommittee cares and three of its members voted Yea on its policy merits in the Agriculture Committee.

What dog owners need to tell this subcommittee is that HB538 creates huge tax burdens on the state and local government by creating an complex and expensive duplicate dog kennel licensing and inspection program. The work’s already being done very competently by the USDA. We’re currently paying income taxes to fund the federal government’s licensing and inspection program to ensure proper large dog breeder animal care. HB538 imposes unfunded costs on the state and counties that will drive up our taxes further without providing any benefit. It duplicates work already done. Further, it inadvertently harms responsible small hobby breeders. Repeat the phrase Unfunded Mandates.

The VHDOA’s preliminary fiscal impact analysis is attached. This estimated $1.9 - 3.6 million increase in Virginia state income and local taxes is being refined. It will only get larger, not smaller.

In addition to taking action to communicate this Action Request widely and making your own subcommittee contacts ASAP, please contact the Chairman of your Board of Supervisors and urge that your county go on record opposing this burdensome unfunded mandate. Treasurers are already strapped attempting to implement Delegate Orrock’s 2006 “gotcha” licensing bill. HB538 just compounds that problem. Be aware that the “gotcha” rabies dog tag system will be used to screen for HB538’s “commercial” breeders.

VHDOA’s General Assembly contact page at http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/VA.AG.Ctmes.html has been rewritten to include the Cox subcommittee’s email and phone information. Feel free to fill in your statement regarding HB538’s fiscal impacts.

DO NOT limit your message to Vote No on HB538. That’s completely ineffective and will be ignored.

Last chance folks. We need to outwork HSUS, et al. We may not have the funding, organization, experience or cohesion, but we have passion and don’t want to lose our dogs.

Freely forward and cross post.

Sincerely,[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the update Bobby.

[Hokieman]

Ask Yourself This Question. If This Hound Hunting Study Or These Actions Were Taken By The Wildlife Department In Any Other State, Every Sportsmen In America Would Call It Anti-hunting. Dgif Is Pointing To Their 91 Year History Of Support For Sportsman To Say Trust Us! I Say Look At Their Track Record For The Last 4 Year History Of This Board!

Restructuring The Dgif Board Is Key To Preserving Your Hunting Heritage For Future Generations. Call And Ask Your Delegate To Support House Bill 1352 Vote Yes.

[Bob_Kane]

HB538 Lobbying Allies - County Administrators

Dear Virginia Dog Owners,

HSUS’s anti-dog breeder bill HB538 is before Delegate Cox’s appropriations subcommittee at 10:00 AM on Thursday, 2/7/2008. That subcommittee will be most concerned about the bill’s fiscal impact of cities and counties and its unfunded nature. Few things aggravate county administrators as much as budget-busting unfunded mandates from Richmond. HB538 will impose $ millions of costs on localities. See the attached preliminary cost estimate by the Anti-HB538 Coalition.

Please contact your county administrator and ask he or she to file a statement opposing these unfunded HB538 mandates with the subcommittee. Point out that HB538 passed by a one vote and these delegates wanted no part of increasing taxes in the counties and cities they represent, Lee Ware, Tommy Wright, Clarke Hogan, Ed Scott, Danny Marshall, Matt Lohr, Charles Poindexter, Brenda Lewis and Lynnwood Lewis.

Every county’s leadership and management should be very sensitive to this inappropriate cost burden, but the representatives of these counties and cities were overruled, and they are likely to be extremely amenable to sending a $$ Do Not Report HB538 $$ message to Richmond.

Counties - Accomack, Amelia, Brunswick, Charlotte, Chesterfield, Culpeper, Floyd, Franklin, Halifax, Henry, James City, Lunenburg, Madison, Mecklenburg, Northampton, Nottoway, Orange, Pittsylvania, Powhatan, Prince Edward, Rockingham, York

Cities - Danville, Harrisonburg, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk

Please urge your county or city to contact the entire subcommittee by 5:00 PM, Wednesday, 2/6/2008. Any later than that, it will be too late to influence Thursday’s vote. Request a copy of that communication and forward it to VHDOA. In the event messages go astray, we will present them in person. Here are the subcommittee members’ email addresses,

DelKCox@house.state.va.us
DelHMorgan@house.state.va.us
DelCHogan@house.state.va.us
DelWAbbitt@house.state.va.us
DelJOBannon@house.state.va.us
DelBPhillips@house.state.va.us
DelRDance@house.state.va.us
DelSShannon@house.state.va.us

Last chance folks. We need to outwork HSUS, et al. We may not have the funding, organization, experience or cohesion, but we have passion and don’t want to lose our dogs.

Please forward and cross post widely.

Your dogs and I thank you.

[Hokieman]

HB1352 PASSED 12Y - 10 N ONTO SENATE

HB1352 PASSED THE HOUSE AG AND WE NEED EVERYONES SUPPORT. EMAIL YOUR SENATOR AND ASK THEM TO VOTE YES TO HB1352.

Virginia Sportsmen and Sportswomen ask yourself this Question. If This Hound Hunting Study Or These Actions Were Taken By The Wildlife Department In Any Other State, Every Sportsman and Sportswoman In America Would Call It Anti-hunting. Dgif Is Pointing To Their 91 Year History Of Support For Sportsman To Say Trust Us! I Say Look At Their Track Record For The Last 2 Year History Of This Board! “The people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law. Virginia Constitution, Article XI, section 4”

The DGIF derives all authority from the legislature, which according to Article 1 Section 2 of the Virginia Constitution is derived from the people.

The DGIF Board members all 11 are currently appointed by the Governor and serve “at his pleasure”. Only the Governor sets policy for his administration, Governor Kaine has a record of being aggressively anti-gun and pro animal rights! We need the members of the General Assembly to help defend our Heritage and put the hunters of Virginia trust back into the DGIF! Call your Virginia senator today!!! and ask them to “support house bill 1352 and Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance efforts to de-politize the DGIF Board by restructuring the Board so the six positions are appointed by the General Assembly and are no longer” at will" positions.

“The DGIF Board consists of 11 members appointed by the Governor of VA, with one representative selected from each congressional district in the state. The Board meets approximately six times a year to set regulations and policy for the operation of the Department. Proposed regulations are presented at public meetings so that anyone who has an interest in them is able to voice their opinion. Once the discussion is completed, the Board votes on the regulation and sets a date for when it will take effect if it passed.”

It’s important that you understand that all hunters in Virginia should do this not just the hound hunters to preserve their way of hunting for the future generations.

Let me explain, House Bill 1352, First of all if we can succeed in getting six of the eleven members of the DGIF Board appointed by the Legislature… 4 House, 2 Senate and have all members of the Board serve for “good service” as opposed to “at will” they will be better able to resist the pressure from the appointing authority to follow political winds and more likely to follow their conscience. If they are required to hold a Virginia hunting, fishing or trapping license for the three years prior to their appointment you most likely will get a better group of Virginia hunters that will be more likely able to perform their job making important decisions in the department on issues regarding rules and regulation, wildlife management, etc based on prior hunting experience and to follow the voice of the people.

Restructuring The Dgif Board Is the only “Key To Preserving Your Hunting Heritage For Future Generations.” Call And Ask Your Virginia Senator!!! To Support House Bill 1352 Vote Yes.

[Bob_Kane]

VA HB1352

Delegate Lee Ware’s HB1352 was reported from the House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee this morning by a vote of 12-10. HB1352 reconstitutes the membership of the Board of Game and Inland Fisheries. Currently the Governor appoints the eleven Board members (one from each congressional district) and the General Assembly confirms those four-year, rolling appointments. HB1352 reduces the Governor’s appointments to five and splits the remaining six between the House and Senate. This dramatic shift in DGIF appointing prerogatives is fueled by intense sportsmen and GOP legislator dissatisfaction over the Game Department’s current leadership.

The 12-10 vote to report was along party lines, http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/staterk.html with the exception that GOP Delegate Bobby Orrock joined the nine committee Democrats to oppose the chairman and eleven other Republicans. HB538 appears likely to pass the full House early next week, but its prospects in the Democratically-controlled Senate aren’t very bright.