Dear Fellow Virginians,

Last month I sent many of you an email message that described the acquittal of PETA employee Andrea Benoit (AKA Ondrea Harris) of felony and misdemeanor charges for dog stealing and tracking collar removal in Southampton County (attached). Ms Benoit was seen taking a Walker hound after discarding its collar in a roadside ditch and a short while later was apprehended with the dog in a PETA marked van. My message identified two of Ms Benoit's defense attorneys, Richard Railey and Steven Benjamin. Four days later, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries lashed out at me publicly in a press release sent to media statewide, to thousands of sportsmen and posted on its website.

Statement in Response to False Accusations
March 27, 2008
On Sunday, March 23, 2008, an email was distributed by Bob Kane, president of the Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association and former chairman of the Sportsmen and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance. The email included an article by Linda McNatt of The Virginian-Pilot published March 21, 2008, about a recent court case involving an employee of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) accused of stealing a hunting dog's tracking collar. Mr. Kane's commentary about the case in that email falsely stated, "PETA's $$ hired DGIF Board vice-chairman Richard Railey Esq."

Mr. Railey learned of Mr. Kane's e-mail on Tuesday, March 25, and is shocked by it. He responds that he has never accepted a case representing PETA or, to his knowledge, a PETA member, and he has never received payment or compensation from PETA or any other animal rights or animal welfare organization.

In October, 2007 Mr. Railey, who is an attorney, was contacted by persons inquiring about possible representation of certain individuals criminally charged in Southampton County. He agreed to meet with these defendants. As soon as Mr. Railey determined the nature of the cases he advised that he is an avid hound hunter, had no interest in these cases, and turned them down immediately. Certainly, these individuals were entitled to competent legal representation, but in Mr. Railey's opinion, given the circumstances he could not competently represent these individuals. Any involvement on his part in this matter ended at this juncture.

The Virginia Board of Game and Inland Fisheries and the management of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries are disappointed that this false assertion has been made and disseminated via mass emailing. Within the hunting community, of which Mr. Railey is a passionate and lifelong member, to the extent this e-mail might be believed, it could be damaging to his reputation and standing. Once material such as this is disseminated on the internet, it is very difficult to retract or refute.

Unfortunately, this is the latest of a number of inaccurate statements that have been circulated during the past year through a variety of channels generally relating to the Department's current Hunting with Hounds Study. This e-mail, like other similar inaccurate statements circulated and posted on internet sites, has the effect among many sportsmen of unfairly discrediting the Board and the Department. One such internet rumor is that Board of Game and Inland Fisheries members are somehow secretly colluding with anti-hunting interests to eliminate certain types of hunting in Virginia, a charge that could not be further from the truth.

This extraordinary incident raises several troubling questions.

1) What are the facts of Mr Railey's involvement in the PETA-Benoit case?

2) Why are DGIF and its contractor so sensitive to criticism of its hunting hounds study, using an unrelated dispute to vehemently attack me personally and publicly, someone who has expressed concerns about their badly flawed and divisive effort?

The attached Southampton County Circuit Court Arrest Warrant and charging slip clearly show DGIF vice chairman Richard Railey as Ms Benoit's defense attorney from her arrest until a week after her arraignment, at which time criminal defense specialist Benjamin took over. Is this document in error? Court officials say it's not. Did PETA not pay Mr. Railey? Only he and PETA know for certain. What practical difference does that make? The court record indicates he defended a PETA employee who took a hunting dog after throwing its tracking collar into a ditch. This was a very high profile, widely reported Southside case. Norfolk based PETA killed 97% of the animals it took in, per its reports to the state. Its Norfolk employees were given suspended sentence wrist slaps in North Carolina after killing and dumping adoptable dogs they took from shelters there in 2006. If the record is erroneous and Mr. Railey feels injured, he should correct it.

If this latest action further discredits the Board and the Department with sportsmen, that's nothing new. It's a continuation of a sad state of affairs that began with Governor Warner's first Board appointments and the arbitrary, unprecedented and partisan dismissal of sitting Board chairman Carson Quarles in 2002. Since then, DGIF has had scandals, terrible morale, two director firings, forced retirements, a Board chairman's "voluntary" resignation and felony charges against department personnel. A General Assembly bill to radically alter the Board's appointment process failed in the House of Delegates this past session by only three votes, (47-Y 52-N). This agency has lost its way and a large measure of its constituent sportsmen support, and not just from those who objected to a series of past proposed "animal welfare" related department regulations.

The ongoing abject mismanagement of the hunting hounds study, with its Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS)-PETA surrogate member, alleged dog killer, anti-houndsmen, unrepresentative stakeholder advisory committee, carefully preconceived agenda and biased procedures is very apparent. No significant and recognized houndsmen club officer was invited to participate. This quasi-political miscalculation has seriously damaged the historical positive symbiotic partnership between Virginia game managers and those sportsmen who pay their salaries and expenses through license purchases. All Old Dominion sportsmen and wildlife lovers are profoundly threatened by this growing schism. Only the anti-hunting, animal rightists stand to gain.

Are the Board of Game and Inland Fisheries members somehow secretly colluding with anti-hunting interests to eliminate certain types of hunting in Virginia? Of course not. But anti-hunters and animal rights activists will significantly benefit and the rest of us will be hurt due to the Board's inattention, knee-jerk reactions and lack of judgement. Only time will tell how much its actions have permanently injured Virginia sportsmen.

Freely forward and cross post.

Sincerely,

Bob Kane, President
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
Chairman Emeritus, Sportsmen and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com http://saova.org