This regulation is a sneaky way to bring a slow, but certain, end to the tradition that so many of us love.  

"A deer or bear hunter shall make reasonable efforts to prevent his dogs from entering a landowner's property . . ."  We already do this.  We take reasonable precautions to prevent dog trespass.  We don't need this requirement to be codified, as it is something most, if not all, hound hunters take seriously.  We know what the biggest complaint against hound hunting is, so we try to prevent those complaints. 

Okay, so let's say the proposal passes. Now, we have to do what we were already doing. But what does "reasonable efforts" mean now? The proposal attempts to provide some guidelines as to what "reasonable efforts" might be (i.e. section B), but provides hunters with no concrete definition of "reasonable efforts." You know what this vagueness does? It allows judges to define "reasonable efforts." No longer will houndsmen, the people who know best how to maintain a hound, be able to define what "reasonable efforts" are. Instead, the first unlucky houndsmen will be charged on the basis of this proposal, and a judge will decide whether his efforts are reasonable. Eventually, a hunter who can actually afford to appeal the case will appeal it, and the judges in the Court of Appeals, who have probably never hunted with a hound, will then give us the definition of "reasonable efforts" that will guide houndsmen.  We don't want to be told how to properly maintain our hounds by the government.  These ladies and gentlemen have been running hounds for years now.  Let them decide what "reasonable efforts" are, because anybody who has never hunted with hounds has no clue. 

Now, let's talk about the rebuttable presumption.  So, if a houndsmen uses "reasonable efforts" to prevent dog trespass, and even amends his efforts after being unsuccessful the first time (the proposal requires this), after a second dog trespass in the span of twelve months, the houndsmen who was responsible for the trespassing hound will be charged under this proposal. That houndsmen will be charged, despite his "reasonable efforts," because now there is a "rebuttable presumption that reasonable efforts had not been undertaken." So, how is this presumption rebutted? You hire a lawyer. You go to court. You explain your actions to the judge. The judge decides if the presumption was rebutted, i.e., the judge decides if your efforts were actually reasonable, despite the dog trespass.  Should every hunter who uses reasonable efforts have to go through this process just to keep their record clean? I don't think so.  The rebuttable presumption addition to this proposal will force good houndsmen into court when they did nothing wrong.  Even if they use all the methods of "reasonable efforts" outlined in section B of the proposal, they still have a possibility of being forced into court to defend themselves.  If this proposal is to pass, the language regarding the rebuttable presumption needs to change. A rebuttable presumption should not be applied to every instance of multiple dog trespasses in the span of twelve months. The rebuttable presumption provision in this proposal is overbroad and unduly burdensome. 

This proposal will cost the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) revenue.  60% of the primary revenue supporting the DWR is made up of licenses, permits, stamps, and sales tax on outdoor/hunting equipment. (See the VDWR 2023 annual report). Thousands of hunters use hounds to hunt bear and deer in Virginia.  If this proposal passes, we will lose many of those hunters. There will be too much risk for many hunters to bear.  They will move to North Carolina. They will quit hound hunting all together. Either way, they will stop buying licenses and hunting equipment, and as a result, decrease the revenue supporting the DWR. If the revenue for DWR decreases, the opportunities and resources for DWR will also decrease.

Ultimately, this proposal will lead to the downfall of hunting with hounds.  If you want to pass more regulations, provide us with something that doesn't blatantly favor landowners.  It's a shame that my children probably won't be able to hear the sound of hounds.  It's a shame, but with proposals like this, I'll only be able to show them pictures.