I read this article, and think that for a magazine which claimed in the article to maintain a neutral position, this piece is decidedly pro dog hunting! They freely admitted that their first article on the subject was pro dog, but they said that the second was "anti-status quo" (I guess that means not in favor of dog hunting). After reading this article, I have to wonder how "anti-status quo" the second article really was, and why the author had to write under an assumed name. I still need to go to the web site and find the questionaire to fill out. In order to even things out do I need to go excessive in my beliefs? I have to wonder if this publication doesn't have some relation to VHDA.