March 27, 2003

Mr. William L. Woodfin, Jr.
Director, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Commonwealth of Virginia
4010 West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23230

Dear Director Woodfin:

The Virginia Hunting Dog Owners’ Association (VHDOA) submits these comments on your Department’s proposed 2003-2005 hunting regulations. The focus of our very considerable concern is 4 VAC 15-40-284, located at http://www.dgif.state.va.us/regulations/docB2.htm

The VHDOA represents a broad cross-section of Virginia's 200,000 hunting dog owners and was founded in January 2001 in response to the animal rightist (AR) and anti-hunter attacks on hunting dog owner use of state wildlife management areas and the Humane Society of US’s (HSUS) unsuccessful efforts to defeat the November 2000 "Right to Hunt and Fish" ballot initiative. Our mission statement, objectives and prior policy positions are documented on our website.

Basically your regulations' authors have little understanding of hunting dog training and use and, more disturbingly, may be influenced by animal rightists' anti-hunting dog propaganda. The largest 2003 HSUS anti-hunting initiative is aimed at California's squirrel, rabbit, hare, fox, bobcat, wild pig and bear hunting dog owners. CA AB 342 seeks to ban all mammal hunting with dogs. The animal rightists argue that 1) using dogs to hunt other mammals is unethical, and 2) radio collars make hunting too easy. Both of these rationales appeared echoed in DGIF's statement below, a disturbing sign.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 VAC 15-40-284 (new). Game: In General. Intentionally crippling or harming non-migratory game birds and game animals prohibited; dislodge an animal from a tree prohibited; and use of telemetry equipment to aid in the chase, harvest, or capture of wildlife prohibited.

Summary:

The proposal is to (i) prohibit the intentional crippling or harming of non-migratory game birds or game animals for the intent of continuing a hunt, chase or for the purpose of training dogs (ii) make it unlawful to dislodge an animal from a tree to further a chase or to train dogs and (iii) to prohibit the use of telemetry equipment to aid in the chase, harvest or capture of wildlife and provide for the disposition of such equipment if used illegally.

Proposed language of amendment:

4 VAC 15-40-284. Game: In General. Intentionally crippling or harming non-migratory game birds and game animals prohibited; dislodge an animal from a tree prohibited; and use of telemetry equipment to aid in the chase, harvest, or capture of wildlife prohibited.

A. No person shall intentionally cripple or otherwise harm any non-migratory game bird or game animal for the intent of continuing a hunt, or chase, or for the purpose of training dogs. Upon treeing, baying, or otherwise containing an animal in a manner that offers the animal no avenue of escape, the person or the hunting party shall either 1) harvest the animal if within a legal take season and by using lawful methods of take or 2) terminate the chase by retrieving the dogs and allowing the animal freedom to escape for the remainder of the same calendar day.

B. It shall be unlawful to dislodge an animal from a tree for the intent of continuing a hunt, or chase, or for the purpose of training dogs.

C. It shall be unlawful to use electronic tracking equipment (to include but not be limited to radio collars and telemetry devices), to aid in the chase, harvest or capture of wildlife. No part of this section shall be construed to prohibit the use of telemetry to aid with the location and/or recovery of dogs or for the use in department authorized wildlife management activities.

D. Any electronic tracking equipment utilized in violation of this section shall be immediately seized by the arresting officer and disposed of upon conviction as ordered by the court.

Rationale:

Unethical treatment of animals has always been a concern of the department. Currently there isn’t a clear description on the proper and ethical treatment of animals that are being legally chased or hunted with dogs. In addition with the advent of sophisticated telemetry equipment it is necessary to distinguish the use of such equipment for the retrieval of dogs and not to aid in the chase, harvest or capture of an animal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------

Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association Comment:

Bobwhite quail, chukar, pheasant and ducks are used in training puppies and older sporting dogs. Versatile hunting dogs are taught to track and retrieve wing clipped birds or ones with pulled flight feathers. The established and well-respected North American Versatile Hunting Dog Association also uses such birds in its testing program. Pointing dog trainers expose field trial dogs to such quail to accustom their dogs to poor flushing birds. Untold numbers of pointing dog and retriever puppies are introduced to flight-hampered birds. All of these birds are pen-raised for the purpose, not wild stock. Virginia already has a state agency charged with poultry protection and welfare – there’s no need for another. A well trained hunting dog conserves game and this ill-advised regulation seriously undermines our ability to develop such dogs.

Electronic tracking hunting dog collars continue to grow more sophisticated. Historically, collar bells were used to audibly track hunting dogs. Beeper collars, with and without switchable pointing and treeing modes, followed. Today's most expensive units may be used to track dogs miles away, have saved the lives of many valuable and loved dogs and aided in many a hunt. Some states require that bear dogs be radio (telemetry) collared. Every falconer uses a telemetry device, as do most earth dog owners to locate terriers underground in groundhog holes.

This regulation is so poorly constructed it would ban beeper collars used to locate a dog buried in heavy cover on point. It's also administratively very vague, leaving too much discretion to department personnel who obviously don't understand collars' use or importance. Post-publication department verbal explanations for these proposals have centered on alleged isolated rogue bear hunter actions. This rationale is both confused and contradictory. Such an ill-considered approach can’t be justified in our view. You’re attacking a varmint gun problem with a 4-gauge punt gun and the collateral damage is just too great. It’s not even clear that the asserted problem can be addressed this way. Neither new proposed regulation can be modified to make it acceptable, in our view.

No person shall intentionally cripple or otherwise harm any non-migratory game bird [or game animal for the intent of continuing a hunt, or chase, or] for the purpose of training dogs.

and

C. It shall be unlawful to use electronic tracking equipment (to include but not be limited to radio collars and telemetry devices), to aid in the chase, harvest or capture of wildlife. both need to be struck from the set proposed rules, we believe.

This subjective, unethical animal treatment concern could be expanded to other areas. What's next, the elimination of dog training collars? Ethics are instilled and absorbed early, not legislated. The added inference that somehow dog hunters aren't ethical is frankly insulting and demeaning. Such attacks from HSUS and other animal rightist anti-hunters are expected, not those from DGIF employees our members have supported and who's salaries they pay. Hopefully this proposal and its supporting text are an aberration or misunderstanding and not a statement of new departmental policy. We continue to look forward to working with you to protect Virginia’s wildlife resources and hunting heritage.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Kane, President
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/index.html

Cc: DGIF Commissioners
DGIF Policy Analyst and Regulatory Coordinator