RE: SC Stakeholder Report on Hounds
Well it's 35 pages. The conclusion section.
Conclusion
This group of concerned citizens is to be commended for working so hard at their own expense to attempt to find consensus recommendation on an issue that has been discussed and debated for decades. As South Carolina increasingly confronts demographic changes and resultant fragmentation of what were previously large continuous tracts of land for dog deer
hunting, this issue will continue to be the source of heated discussion.
At the root of the problem is a competition of values between dog deer hunters and landowners. Proponents of dog hunting point to the tradition of involving young hunters and using the opportunity to stress issues of ethical hunting. Many also argue that this traditional form of hunting complements other deer management practices. While they are aware that issues of property rights are involved, many feel as though such rights are not as important when compared to preserving a southern tradition. They argue that property rights are not absolute and that they themselves are restricted from doing whatever they please on their own land.
Landowners, on the other hand, expect to be able to enjoy their property without the interference of others. Landowners have complained of property damage, along with interference with deer management practices aimed at improving still hunting. They counter the argument that property rights are not absolute by pointing out that having restrictions on one’s own property does not automatically imply that the property rights of others must take a backseat to dog deer hunting.
These competing values reflect changes that are taking place in South Carolina. Abundant wildlife, picturesque scenery, relatively low property values, a generally favorable climate, and a high quality of life will continue to attract Americans from other parts of the country who seek a better place to raise their families or to spend their golden years. Consequently, the
clash between dog deer hunters and landowners or still hunters should be expected to increase. Absent any changes to the status quo, the DNR and members of the state legislature can be expected to receive more contacts related to this issue.
The key question for the legislature is “Who will you disappoint?” The stakeholders involved in this project sought to find enough common ground to create a win‐win situation. The failure of this group to do so indicates that such a compromise may not be attainable. There are several factors that contributed to this inability to reach consensus.
The first has to do with the characteristics or makeup of the group. Many in the field of public issues management and facilitation argue that the group which the organizer chooses necessarily impacts the solution. When trying to resolve a complex problem, it is important to ensure early on that all critical stakeholders are present and represent their concerns (Howe 2008). In the case of the dog deer stakeholder working group, members of the group were
nominated by members of the legislature or by the DNR itself. While every attempt was made to include a somewhat even number of people on both sides of the deer dog debate this, in hindsight, did not occur. Ultimately, as a simple artifact of the appointment process, the group was made up of two‐thirds dog deer hunters and one‐third landowners and still hunters. Had
the numbers been more equal, it may have been easier to reach consensus.
The second factor contributing to the group’s inability to reach consensus was the lack of a sense of urgency. When a problem demands immediate action in the minds of participants, they are more likely to think of common interests rather than remain locked into a position. No such condition of urgency seemed to be felt by many in this group. For example, many dog
deer hunters seem to feel that their political position with certain members of the state legislature is strong. They seem confident that their Representatives and Senators will not vote for any legislation that they did not support or that will ultimately kill the sport. This confidence was apparent when a majority of dog deer hunters refused to accept any new law that included land permits.
It is also true that collaboration requires a strong sense among stakeholders that they cannot obtain the desired results on their own. When a group facing a public issue like dog deer hunting includes members who feel they do not need to give anything up in the group setting, it is hard to reach consensus. This position was not limited to dog deer hunters. Some landowners and still hunters held tightly to their demand for land permits because they also felt
that, in the absence of a negotiated agreement, their best alternative would be to petition legislators and demand that changes be made.
Finally, this is not an issue where everyone can be expected to be happy with the result. If a bill is introduced that mirrors what Georgia did (including land permits), one should expect a large and vocal opposition from dog deer hunters. They are passionate about what they see as the possible loss of yet another freedom that is integral to their way of life.
If nothing happens, the legislature and the DNR can expect to continue to receive complaints when hunting dogs run afoul of private property rights. Landowners and still hunters are equally passionate about government’s vital role in protecting property rights. While this stakeholder group did not reach consensus, the discussion and ideas generated should inform any eventual legislation of dog deer hunting and contribute to a more widely acceptable
outcome.