Vulture6

I've been reading this thread for some time now, trying to keep an open mind. I've had trouble with hound hunters over the years on my private land, but this year marked a significant shift in attitudes and cooperation.

So, that being said, this comment raises a question...

Would you please elaborate? Which portion of his statement is BS? Since you appear to be knowledgeable on the subject would you please offer a specific rebuttal?

I'm serious.

Killer_Primate

You know what; I’m starting to think this Hokieman guy, is pretty sharp, but has a different agenda. I think that he’s really an anti-dog hunter, posing as a dog hunter and acting really stupid and confrontational. Think about it… pretty good plan really. I tip my hat to your efforts mouthpiece…

Did I figure you out?

Bigg~BirddVA

You got 2 words right! LOL

bryant1

That sounds like a very logical explanation.......

huntwalkers

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT VA Hunting Dog Alliance is really doing??

This is VA Hunting Dog Alliance "talking points" for a meeting that Ward Burton (DGIF Board Member) had in Wylliesburg VA to give everyone a chance to clear up all of the false allegations about the hound study!

BELOW is an email that a VHDA member sent to me to try to change my OPPOSITION towards their group! THIS is why I am SO against what they are doing!!!!
__________________________________________________ __
Wylliesburg issues/talking points first draft:

On scare tactics/misrepresentations by VHDA:

With regard to alleged misrepresentations/scare tactics by the Va. Hunting Dog Alliance, a reading of the VDGIF message announcing the dog study, namely that VDGIF has decided to launch a study concerning the "Future of dog based hunting in Va.", and to use the "findings" as a basis for regulatory proposals to the 09 session of the General Assembly has such an ominous sound that the average dog partnered deer hunter doesn't need to hear anything else to realize that something very dear to him is being put at big time risk. And he doesn't understand why. But he pretty quickly picks up that intended or not, this "study" will provide a made-for-media public forum for every group opposed to dog partnered hunting.. including the nut cases ..and that the news media is going to be right there at ringside salivating at the opportunity to sensationalize the charges made against us. Members of the General Assembly will be closely following the news media accounts containing these charges. Since most have no experience whatever with hunting, they'll be looking for info to capsulize the issues. Once the public hearings begin, perception will be driven by the what the media sensationalizes, not by the weight of the evidence. Calm, rational discourse doesn't sell newspapers. After the July VDGIF Richmond meeting, the Norfolk paper ran letters to the editor where the most charitable descriptions of dog partnered deer hunters were "pond scum", and from there went straight down to the bottom of the barrel. Ward says he ignores the media, which is a great strategy for a NASCAR driver since they get a repeat crack at the media every week, but we get essentially one chance and its over. We find it unpersuasive that an agency which professes to intend no harm to dog partnered hunting would use a vehicle which has its opponents in such a state of high glee. Bottom line, the media rather than VDGIF or us will end up controlling the perception which gets out there. PETA and other anti dog members VDGIF put on the study group will be egging on the media by continually leaking their side to the press. And PETA and the Humane Society, flush with Vick cash, will be furiously lobbying the General Assembly with the sensational charges.

And then there's the attempt to use the "scientific impartiality" of Va. Tech to sway the public when BD explicitly assured the Commissioners at the July meeting that Tech would be just running the study, he would be in charge. But this little detail's going right over the public's head.

In fact we have only to look back 3 or 4 years ago when a similar vehicle would have been launched by VDGIF but for a massive effort by dog based hunters. We refer to the attempt to severely restrict the use of the 50,000 or more dog tracking collars purchased at a cost of perhaps $15 million by dog partnered hunters.

Tracking collars allow dogs to be found, removed from the roads, and returned to the hunt. Hunters consider them to be the best thing to happen to dog partnered hunting since the beginning. Opponents of dog based hunting should applaud this technology since dogs are gathered from the hunt and off their lands, if that's where they were. Yes its true that perhaps more people use dogs now that they don't have to spend all night looking for them. Putting hunters using tracking collars on dogs at risk of tickets/summons/confiscations would certainly have driven a lot of hunters to give it up. Since the person said to be the author of, or signature to, this proposal is here tonight we'd like to request an explanation. I raise this old issue because absent some other explanation dog partnered hunters were forced to conclude that this proposed restriction went straight to the mindset and motives of VDGIF leaders regarding dog partnered hunting. Certainly the anecdotal story that the restriction attempt was launched because 5 or 6 bear hunters were using 1 in every 10,000 collars off dogs and on bait defies credulity. If that was true it would have been easy enough to ban the use of tracking collars in all hunting activities except on dogs, rather than use the bear bait situation as an excuse to penalize all 10,000+? dog partnered hunters who put tracking collars on their dogs . I clearly recall being stunned at the time, and plenty upset at having to divert nearly 2 whole days to the issue.

In case we are charged with not giving VDGIF the benefit of the doubt:

Already told the Roanoke paper that dog based deer hunters have had their chance. Made sure to tell the press about the paper (International Paper, no longer the landowner) companies trying to get rid of dog based hunting, but never made any attempt to explain why this happened. Devil in the details. Somebody told the press about the Georgia 1000 acre rules, and it had to be from VDGIF. Somebody fed the line about "the many dog based deer hunters having to suffer for the sins of the few" to the Richmond TD as it was used by Lee Graves right after the July meeting, and no one at the meeting made any such assertion. Had to be from VDGIF. Or maybe used the Denny Quaiff conduit.


On Economic Impact Attributable to Dog Based Deer Hunters
We understand that The Governor has told some of his friends that it would not be feasible to ban dog based deer hunting since it puts $50 million into the Va. economy. That's about $700 per hunter. With IRS auto mileage allowances in the high forty cents, if one drove 1500 miles during the hunting season the $700 would be met from vehicle deprecation/expenses alone, leaving the cost of dogs, feed, truck dog boxes, veterinary expenses, tracking systems, CB radios, ammo, guns, clothing, hunt club land leases, food plots, road work, country store expenses, to be paid . Needless to say the $700 is way, way low, got to be up in the low thousands at least, bringing total direct money injection into the Va. Economy at over $200 million, economic impact to three times that amount ~$600million because of the way money turns over in the economy (see Field and Stream Magazine). We arrived at a figure of ~$3000/dog based deer hunter in Meck. County via asking hunt Club Presidents to sit down and add up what was being spent. When that $3000 is multiplied by the 70-75,000 dog based deer hunters East of Rt. 29, the sum comes to ~$225 million. Its just happens that $224 million is the value of the corn and soybean crops combined in Va. in 05. So the money we put in the economy, whatever it is, is serious money even when measured by Va. Agriculture standards, and surely greatly exceeds that put in by any other hunting group. We note in passing that its hardly imaginable that the Governor pulled that $50 million figure out of the air unless it was out of the air over the 4000 block of West Broad Street.
Public Safety:.
And then there's the huge positive public safety impact of thinning the deer herd on public (highway) safety. Rule of thumb is that the deer population doubles every three years when not hunted. The experience of some local lakeside communities (Merrifield at Clarksville comes to mind) which banned any acts of hunting deer bears this out. Within-community deer associated accident rates skyrocketed, the flower/ornamental plant population nearly vanished.

In Va., insurance industry figures for reportable accidents with deer run to 45,000 and they're considered to be certainly low. At 45,000 accident, $1000 minimum per, that's a minimum of $45 million in damages again way low. I haven't gotten the figures for serious injuries and deaths from deer related accidents from Va., but they were 3-5 deaths/year and 60-70 in the most serious accident category (paraplegia, amputations, brain injuries, etc.) for NC some 12 years ago. (some of the above info from discussions with Nelson Lafon).
Bottom line the general public's far more likely to be killed or seriously injured via a deer caused accident when the family car is put in the public road than from hunters, possibly some 100 times more. An accurate statistic attached to the above public safety difference would make a powerful sound bite. The VDGIF should go on the offensive on behalf of its hunter constituents, and spend some serious, targeted money publicizing the positive public safety effects of our (free) deer herd thinning. There's a lot of low hanging fruit here that's just begging to be used. Landowners have testified that the land lease fees obtained from hunt clubs help keep their land off the development market. This neatly dovetails with Governor Kaine's initiative to preserve land from development, which he has described (and Va. Wildlife magazine has featured) as the cornerstone of his environmental policy.

Early Training season Dog Prohibition

On the issue of banning dog training in the early primitive weapons seasons should it come up:
A) Negatives associated with the early primitive weapons seasons per se:

What were originally primitive weapons have evolved into very high tech weapons, from single shot scoped rifles capable of killing a deer at well more than 100 yds., to high tech crossbows. What this amounts to is a full month of access to the deer resource not available to dog partnered hunters, resulting in a huge disadvantage to dog partnered hunters. Its ironic that dog partnered hunters helped the still hunters get these seasons implemented, and for our efforts got rewarded with losing access to the estimated half of the best bucks that don't make it to the general season in our area of the Southside. Many of the best breeding stock are killed during this early season before they have the chance to pass on their genes. Southampton has excluded itself from an early primitive weapons season.

So when the "primitive weapons" hunters find themselves angry when a trailing dog breaks the stillness, maybe they should pause to remember that the owner of that dog can't hunt over said dog for a month, i.e. be thankful for the big time 30 day advantage and not so greedy for more.

B)The banning of dog training or outside exercise during the month before Nov. 15 or whenever the season comes in will result in dogs not being in shape to really stay behind a deer till around the first week in Dec. There aren't nearly enough fox pens to accommodate all the dogs needing a run every week, and fox pens are a serious negative for introducing young dogs to the experience of learning to trail. No cold trailing or sticking behind on deer or fox who have gotten way ahead in a fox pen Cold or cool trailing an absolute necessity for deer dogs.

With respect to the issue of dogs destroying the experience of still hunters lets use the situation in Meck. county as an example. There seem to be about 38+ dog based deer hunt clubs. We decided to take the county tax map and shade in all the dog based hunt club lands hunted either by lease, permit, or ownership. We're about half through. The bottom line is that its looks like about 90% of the huntable land is hunted by these clubs. So all but a small percentage of the primitive weapons hunting takes place on dog based hunt club lands. The point of all this is that club members figure out among themselves how to optimize getting the dogs in shape before Nov. 15 vs. optimizing the still hunting experience ... with some coordination with adjoining clubs. Its pretty obvious for Mecklenburg that performing this exercise at the lowest level rather than from Richmond maximizes access to the deer resource for the most hunters. The areas in pink are either lakeside development which don't want dogs, or landowners who are known to have complained. The relative tiny size of the areas vs. the credence given to the complaints are instructive.

There are quite a few more still-hunt-only clubs in Brunswick than Meck. Nelson Baird is not only a large landowner who leases land to both still and dog hunt clubs all over Meck., Lunenburg, and Bruns., but is President of the Genito Hunt Club on the Meck/Bruns. line whose dogs run deer into large (1000 acre) Norfolk based still hunt club territories often. I hope he will share his experience with us tonight. (Since the Norfolk clubs have figured out that they get more from the chance to kill a deer during a dog chase or from a dog chase stirring up their deer in the 9AM to 4PM period than they lose in the dawn and dusk periods, they're know they net out positive and there's never been anything but cooperation over many years.) We think this situation is far more representative than conflict situations which the VDGIF hears about.

Bottom line: Most of the complaining about dogs by still hunters is from large properties where the members are from the wealthy and connected segment of society, who are used to using money and access to power to achieve their desired ends, rather than respectful give and take with local hunters from a differ society strata. A secondary source of complaints is from (mostly small) landowners who spend a fair amount of time and effort on food plots and hunt only dawn or dusk over these plots. I have serious empathy with the latter still hunter, tempered by when the "primitive weapons" hunters find themselves angry when a trailing dog breaks the stillness, maybe they should pause to remember that the owner of that dog can't hunt over said dog for a month, i.e. be thankful and not so greedy.

Persistent Baiting by Still Hunters:
Bring up the persistent baiting issue below only if the discussion gets focused on what Dog based hunters should give up because of our transgressions:
Describe the persistent baiting widely seen on Still Hunt only lands not seen on Dog based Hunt Club lands and ask rhetorically, what might be appropriate for them to have to give up. Refer to the feed dealers describing the huge spike in loose corn sales around early Oct. every year. Fall planted Silver Queen its not.

Bottom line I don't think there will be much if any ill will between Still and Dog hunters at this meeting. We should take this opportunity to focus on getting Bob Duncan on the record. May be our only chance


Remember: VDGIF figures indicate deer dog based vs. still hunters ratio, East of I-95, 70-30; 95 to 29, 50-50.
__________________________________________________


AGAIN, I am opposed to VHDA's & Hokies point of view! They are making ALL of the ethical & responsible hunting dog owners LOOK BAD!!!!


huntwalkers

JUST because they have a hound dog, That DON'T make them a Houndsman!

Bigg~BirddVA

Another load of dog crap. Must be Hokieman's cousin.

Yes there is a dog problem in VA. Yes it's 99% dogs used for deer hunting. Yes something will ultimately be done about it. Denial or shifting the problem to be the agenda or cause of others is just more of the patented VHDA BS. It's 2008, you and you alone are responsible for your dogs. You let them go didn't you? The old days of we have the right to run amok on others lands is coming to a close. The bottom line is people do not want your dogs on their property regardless of the reasons or how long it's been allowed. Times change, slavery was a tradition just as dogs for deer are and it's time for a change. That time is now. People also do not want uninvited guests - hunters looking for lost dogs - on their land either. How this totally absurd violation of basic property rights came to be is beyond me. To allow it to continue is even more bizarre.

Dog hunting $$$.
West of the Blue Ridge they use the same argument for $$$ generated except they leave off the word "dog". It's hunting for deer that generates the $$$. If dogs were out of the equation people would still hunt. Nice try but hunting is alive an well in states that have zero deer dog hunting. And there are more of them that do not allow it than do.


Accidents and deer and the truth.
The truth is 1,000 of damage permits were issued last year alone for deer. More in dog chaser lands than other non-dog areas. If dog hunting was so darn effective why so many more permits?

Kill per sq mile vs hunting hours.
East of the Blue Ridge they kill something like 1 deer less per square mile than in dog chasing lands. But they only have a 2 week gun season there. If time were equal the WBR kill would easily exceed the EBR totals. Another BS story that only through the use of dogs can you control and kill deer. It's not as effective as the numbers prove.

Training season.
It's illegal to train on deer. There, do I need to say that again slower for you? It's illegal, what more do you need to know or hear? There's a reason for it. It interferes with another's rights for use on their own land in a time the state has deemed needs to be free from dogs. Other words keep your damn deer hounds locked up then. I'm sorry you feel jealous the bow hunters and ML hunters get their time first. Tip of the day learn how to hunt, not chase and you too can enjoy the benefits. Your poor little story is undoubtedly the most pathetic attempt at justification of running in another’s season I've ever heard. Congratulations on that winner. Any attempt to justify breaking the law just goes to show why there is a dog issue. They feel they have the right to break laws whenever they desire to.

Like a dog chasing it's tail this brings us back to the beginning, or why this study is being done in the first place. Dog chasers = illegal and unethical hunters. No not all but a larger % vs the other hunting methods. Whether it's running on another’s lands, running out of season, entering another's lands under the guise of looking for hounds, the whole dog hunting experience is always on the edge of breaking the law. It's the nature of dog hunting and people are getting tired of it. Change needs to happen and this is the first step.

Baiting presently is illegal. Till and if it ever is then catch and burn the people doing it. Same as running deer with dogs illegally. Lawbreakers need to be stopped.

I've go more too.......... I've also got a survey in progress by the state.

huntwalkers

Big~Birdd,

The last post is what VHDA is doing!
That was an email that they (VHDA) forwarded to me to try to gain my support because I have been and will always APPOSE what they are doing!

I just want everyone to see that instead of working these issues out they (VHDA) want to attack everyone else!!!!!!

I SAY HUNT RIGHT or DON'T HUNT!

huntwalkers

JUST because they have a hound dog, That DON'T make them a Houndsman!

Bigg~BirddVA

Sorry about that! LOL These guys are living in la-la land.

rick64

Do any of you post on VA Deer http://vadeer.proboards42.com/index.cgi

besides hokieman

Killer_Primate

Oh wow, he posts there... I didn't know that! We'll have to go sign up and see what ol' moutpiece is saying...