yet another blow for the antis
 

http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/..../804090303/1006
the smarts one in the pole were the ones who want some of the regulations changed. Hopefully a few changes will be made, just dont know if there are enough to do so.

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

Looks like the story has been taken down. It's no longer available.

Is that the Staunton News Leader? I used to live there. Graduated from Lee.

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

Try this
http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080409/SPORTS/804090303/1006
and both sides have tried to put a spin onthe survey, but the numbers are there judge them yourself.

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

sorry I posted it like that. The way I did it wasinappropriate and is only going to start more arguments on the subject (I think we have had enough) so sorry all.

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

Yes the numbers do speak. 32% for no change and 67% want more regulation or it totally eliminated. The spin is how one looks at it. The numbers say more are against it than for it - 35% say total elimination. The rest want it changed. Too bad those changes were not defined. The bottom line is a lot more people want something done to fix the obvious problems dog hunting presents than want it left alone.

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

Question - How many of the ones who responded to the survey were from Virginia?

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

Hokie don't start, you can tryto discredit the survey for what reason? It was just a few questions that he put inhis articleand itwas in a VA publication. I'm sure you would see a large variance if you separated justwhat part of VA the respondents were from or what type of game being hunted with hounds.

If it's that important, let me ask you how many members of the VHDA aren't VA residents? Or, since membership is free, how many houndsman have signed up their wifes, kids,.....without their knowledge? And how many guys signed on before they knew the VHDA's was anti hunting because of it's boards decision to oppose SH?

I still can't figure that one out, because you can see Sunday hunts listed on Speeddog all the time for VA and NC. I guess it's OK for houndsmen to hunt on Sunday, they just don't want anyone else to.

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

In all seriousness that survey is a joke, 150 people is long way from a "representative sample". And out of that, 64% were for dog hunting (in some form). Don't believe the hype, stricter regs in the future? Probably. Banning of dog hunting in VA? Not likely, no matter what some bogus survey says, hell he didn't even mention the other 50 people that were for hound hunting and just wanted the regs changed.

49 + 54 = 103

153 - 103 = 50 more that were for dog hunting but were interested in new regs.

Spin that however you want. Put it to a statewide vote and see what happens with those numbers. Am I the only one that actually read the numbers because I noticed noone else mentioned it. I could ask 150 people I work with and I bet my numbers would be much different, BS survey is all I'm saying.

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

New just because you don't like the numbers you can't say the survey was BS. If you think the results from a statewide vote would be better, your dreaming. If you have any common sense, you never want any hunting issues put up for a voted by the general public. The numbers in that survey reflect exactly what you said " stricter regs in the future? Probably"

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

new you do have a point. hell, I could go around my county and ask 150 people (most who dont even hunt and could get 140 of em to say hunting is fine just the way it is:)We all know that most do not want hound hunting done away with, and some of the few that do wouldnt if a few rules are changed. i talked with the local gm in my area a couple of weeks ago and was telling hime of the arguing on some of these sites and like he told me "why waste your energy arguing over it, its not going anywhere" He has a good point we know its not so why fall into some of these guys traps and argue with them?:eek:

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

Actually the general public vote wouldn't bother me in the least. We have had votes in VA before on hunting issues and the sportsman turnout was very high. Recently several couties have had high hunter turnout to encourage their city councils to pass resolutions to protect houndhunting. For example:
One thing about the general public is many of them don't care enough to vote on a topic that means nothing to them where as hunters are more inclined to go vote(IMO).

The numbers in this "poll"don't bother me, 64% are for dog hunting, what would bother me about that?The only thing I am commenting on is the fact that you are talking about 153 person pollhere, that is a long way away from a representative sample. Hell, I have lived in VA my whole life and have never evenheard of CC McCotter or the paper he writes for. I googled him and he has many good articles so I am not attempting to discredit him, just saying 153 people reponding to a brief article in a local Staunton, VA newspaper (which by the way is a non hound hunting county)does not mean you have tapped into the pulse of the entire state.153 people, that is nothing, we have had polls on this site with more responses. It is far from a representative sample and if hound hunting goes to a vote(in the counties where hound hunting is legal) IMO there will be an enormous hunter turnout. Do the same exact poll in Southhampton County, Dinwiddie, Zuni, Windsor, etc. and I am sure that not only would more people respond but the numbers in favor of hound hunting would skyrocket. You can check myresponses on many dog threads in the past, I am not blind to the problems. But unlike many I am more interested in finding solutions(whatever they may be) than hearing about any kind of hunting getting banned.

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

What hunting issue was put up for a statewide vote? Do some research on those county resolutions, they are just a show of support. The DGIF still would control any changes to the current state regs. for hunting with dogs. I'm sure the counties you mentioned would have a overwhelming percentage of voters in favor of hunting with hounds, but you could ad the populations of all those counties plus a few others and it wouldn't equal a county like Fairfax. How do you think the vote would be in that area? If those counties are so hunter friendly, why can't you hunt with a ML in S. Hampton or what happened to rifles in Charles City? The survey was just a small sample of the population, that's all, but I doubt the numbers would change that much if you picked 1000 more people from across the state.

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

I don't know what the deal is with S. Hampton and the muzzleloaders. Many people there, hunters included don't want them, I don't really understand it. I'm not trying to convince you the poll is inaccurate just far from being conclusive.Anything we "think" is simply speculation on both our parts and only time will tell.

My only point has been that poll doesn't mean squat to me because regardless of the topicthepoll was not taken from random(or even neutral)areas and there was very litle response to it anyway(153 of which 64% were for dog hunting). If itis convincing to youor it matches your opinion on the topic that's fine too. I'm just not buying into it(and it actually favors dog hunting, which I am for). A poll in a non hound county that 153 people responded to just doesn't convince me, we could change the topic on the poll and just based on the low numers I wouldn't buy into it. It fits what you believe so you agree and don't think the numbers would change on a statewide leveland if that's true thenhound hunters should be happy 64% approve, and if you are not for hound hunting those numbers shouldn't seem promising.

There are a lot of counties East of the line that dog hunt and those dog hunters are much more aware of the need to participate and get involved than they were 2 years ago so again I am not convinced there will be some massive turnout in Fairfax or any other county that will sway the vote very much(if/when it ever goes to a vote), you think otherwise and that's cool with me. I believe new regs in many areas are inevitable in the futurebut will ultimately help so hunters wanting new regs is not that threatening to me and many other dog hunters thatI know because we are already doing it correctly through cooperation and respect. Like I said only time will tell.

Here is a fairly big hunting issue thathunter turnout was high on and it was voted in.

In 2000 this referendum for a state consitutional amendment was passed and put to the voters. Sportsmen/hunters turned outin large numbers to vote and it was made a state constitutional amendment.

Constitutional Amendments
Passed
Right to Hunt and Fish. Provides for a referendum at the November 7, 2000, election to approve or reject an amendment adding a provision to Article XI, Conservation, to state that "the people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law.


Here is a little about the women who headed it up and it's passing.

"Crumley’s background is one of accomplishments, although some have been disappointed with her tour thus far on the DGIF board. The highlight of her public service occurred in 2001 when she headed the successful campaign that resulted in a state constitutional amendment protecting the rights of Virginians to hunt and fish. The very day Crumley became DGIF board chairman, a judge in Nelson County upheld the amendment in its first real test."

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

Got your message. I saw the article in the paper didn't realize the original poll was in Woods & Water magazine. Which is a good read by the way.

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

Good deal, I don't think are opinions are to farapart on this issue.

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

67% were either against dog hunting or wanted it changed. Hows that spin on it? You guys are beating your chest like it's some sort of victory. First more are totally against it than for it. It's only slightly more so lets just cancel those 2 out. That leaves 32%. "For" is actually "more regulation" and that leaves a lot to the imagination. "More regulation" could mean minimum sizes of land to hunt with dogs, no right to retrieve, no chasing of anything in bow or ML season and a lot of other things that are being kicked around in the VDGIF survey. Those couple of suggestions are just so you can get an idea of how a person could be "for" and still create big change for the dog hunters. It wouldn't bother me one bit to wake up tomorrow and hear it's all over for hunting with dogs. But in reality it's the deer chasers that to me and many others are the ones causing the biggest problems. So in a properly formatted survey I would be able to say "yes" to dog chasing in general so not to end things for the small sect of dog hunters that pose little to zero problems. Like real fox hunters, rabbit hunters and coon hunters to name a few. A good survey would let it be clearly stated exactly what parts of dog hunting needs more regulation and which sect should get them and exactly what one feels will correct it.

Looked at the questions on the VDGIF survey? Well it's all right there. Looking forward to seeing the results on that one. I think it will clear up what that other 32% really feels.

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

You can make statistics dance the jitter bug if you want, especially with a tiny non-representative sample like this one. If you want to read it from one perspective, then two thirds of those responding do not support banning hunting with dogs. From the other perspective two thirds do not approveof letting dog hunting continue in its current form.Of course, it is not clear if the respondents wanting change insist on mandating it or if theyjusthave varying degrees of support forthe idea that some changewould be nice but not necessarily mandatory.

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

I think we all know your take on the dog situation BB. We'll all just have to wait to see what the future holds. So while everyone worries about that I'm gonna go work on my food plots. Good luck.:D

RE: yet another blow for the antis
 

That's what I did this weekend. Got a little over 3 acres turned over ready to plant. Stopped disking the field to gas up and heard dogs running. Went up the end of the dirt road and a pack was running. 2 other non-hound dogs were on the road but it was hounds that I heard. Heard them while these 2 were standing there so don't know if they were lost pets or wild. 1 had 3 legs. Went back to get the video camera but the bottom fell out and it started thundering so I canceled those plans. Plenty of time for videoing dogs chasing out of season as they run them up there most every weekend.