Thursday, November 08, 2007
Hound hunting debate mounts
Bill Cochran
Recent mail
BILL: My name is Bryan Morris and I am the president of the United Eastern Virginia Hunting Dog Association and interim co-chair of the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance. I am writing in reference to our position with the hound hunting study and the resolution that has passed the Board of Supervisors in several Southside Virginia counties.
The resolution in question merely emphasizes to the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries that these counties are in favor of hound hunting, which plays a large part in their local economies. The resolution does state opposition for the current study by the DGIF and Virginia Tech.
The reasoning behind our opposition is as follows:
The impetus for the study is a reported increase in complaints [about hound hunters], but no numbers have been reported to substantiate this claim. Mr. [Bob] Duncan, [DGIF wildlife chief], was asked about the number of complaints, and was unable to give an estimate. We would like to be informed of the specific number and nature of the complaints, which sparked this study.
The study will be expensive. We have not been told the cost, but Virginia Tech advertised the assistant’s position at $30,000 per year with full faculty benefits. We do not see this as a judicious use of our licensing fees.
The profile of the focus group members continues to change. The original proposal involved a group of hunters that used dogs meeting to identify problems and offering options or proposals before legislation was imposed. When the study was announced at the DGIF June meeting, it was to include not only houndsmen, but also animal-welfare group members, still hunters, hikers and landowners.
As opposition to the study arose, we were then told that 70 percent of the study participants would be houndsmen. Now we are told houndsmen will make up 50 percent. How are we to be certain that the methods are not being changed to insure a predetermined outcome?
Mr. Duncan has stated on several occasions that there may be no changes made or legislative proposals. This is very difficult to believe. The results of this study will most certainly be the basis of proposed legislation. The backing of Virginia Tech and the DGIF will give enough credence to any bill to guarantee its path through the legislature. The original process would have allowed for houndsmen to work with the DGIF to institute programs and practices that would not involve restrictive legislation.
The method by which individuals are picked to be on the focus group is also questionable. What insurance is there to guard against “cherry picking?” How can we insure that our interests are being protected? The results of inquiry into a bear baiting issue by the DGIF, resulted in a proposal to ban tracking collars. No matter how “well intended” the resulting proposal was ill conceived and misguided. The issue was baiting, not telemetry.
In short, the study is unfounded and costly. It has questionable composition, means and methods. Therefore, the results will be questionable. Since this study will be the basis of upcoming legislation that will have the backing it needs to easily pass the legislature, we find it unacceptable in its current form.
We recognize that there are issues to address. We want to be part of the solution and not have it imposed upon us. We urge all of our membership to be courteous and professional. Information on the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance can be found at vahda.org.
BRYAN MORRIS
DVM
BILL: The hound hunting debate has gotten out of hand every time it’s been brought up. I just wish people would understand that we are all hunters and if we don’t stick together in some fashion it will be the downfall of us all.
FREDDY MCGUIRE
