Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > South
 SC Stakeholder Report on Hounds >

SC Stakeholder Report on Hounds

South VA, KY, AR, TN, OK, TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, NC, SC, GA

SC Stakeholder Report on Hounds

Old 12-29-2008, 08:38 AM
  #1  
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
 
Bigg~BirddVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 466
Default SC Stakeholder Report on Hounds

Finally got a copy of the report.

Follow the steps to download as a free user.

http://rapidshare.com/files/177863259/SC-DDH_Final_Report_11-21-2008.pdf
Bigg~BirddVA is offline  
Old 12-29-2008, 05:01 PM
  #2  
Fork Horn
 
buckwild41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: va USA
Posts: 201
Default RE: SC Stakeholder Report on Hounds

Had some trouble with the download... Can you sum it up for me?
buckwild41 is offline  
Old 12-29-2008, 07:07 PM
  #3  
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
 
Bigg~BirddVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 466
Default 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.
Bigg~BirddVA is offline  
Old 12-29-2008, 10:03 PM
  #4  
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ponce de Leon Florida USA
Posts: 10,079
Default RE: SC Stakeholder Report on Hounds

It's hard to believe that the game officials and legislature in South Carolina and Virginia cannot work a plan similar to Georgia and Florida's that would help appease the situation. One thing for sure, the problem isn't going to go away just because a bunch of dog hunters overrun a meeting and won't accept any kind of law changes and its enforcement. As soon as a few law abiding landowners andother hunting lease holdersget fed up with game officials that look the other way things will turn even morenasty.
timbercruiser is offline  
Old 12-30-2008, 05:31 AM
  #5  
Spike
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 67
Default RE: SC Stakeholder Report on Hounds

lol
BOWMANN100 is offline  
Old 12-30-2008, 06:53 AM
  #6  
Spike
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 39
Default RE: SC Stakeholder Report on Hounds

a bunch of dog hunters overrun a meeting
why didnt still hunters and land owners overrun the meetings,just like virginias meetings the dog hunters came to show their support or displeasure andVERY few "land owners" and still hunters showed up.
it makes no sense to me,get on the internet,hoop and hollar,jump up and down but yet they are no shows to the meetings.sure they sent thousands of e mails using a hundred diffrent acount names but only a small number of people showed up.i dont understand.what else did they expect to happen.
vahoundsman is offline  
Old 12-30-2008, 07:06 AM
  #7  
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
 
Bigg~BirddVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 466
Default RE: SC Stakeholder Report on Hounds

ORIGINAL: vahoundsman

a bunch of dog hunters overrun a meeting
why didnt still hunters and land owners overrun the meetings,just like virginias meetings the dog hunters came to show their support or displeasure andVERY few "land owners" and still hunters showed up.
it makes no sense to me,get on the internet,hoop and hollar,jump up and down but yet they are no shows to the meetings.sure they sent thousands of e mails using a hundred diffrent acount names but only a small number of people showed up.i dont understand.what else did they expect to happen.
The numbers that show up at meeting are not the deciding factor in the study. What few I talked to didn't want to be around the dogger mentality any more than they have to. Frankly they're tired of dealing with them and felt the meetings might be confrontational or non-productive. The meetings are just a feel good act anyway.


Lets break it down. Say you have a club with 30 members. They have 2-3 surrounding property owners that may have issues with the club. At the meeting who's there 2-3 property owners and 1/2 the club or 15 members. Numbers mean nothing at feel good meetings.
Bigg~BirddVA is offline  
Old 12-30-2008, 07:48 AM
  #8  
Fork Horn
 
eng40sqd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northern Neck VA
Posts: 465
Default RE: SC Stakeholder Report on Hounds

Once again this is heading down the elementary school playground route... The you pee'd in my wheaties and I dont like it mentality on BOTH, yes I said BOTH sides is ludacris and makes me sick to think a bunch of grown men can do nothing but act like there way is the only right way and screw anything else. My kids have even said how "silly" it is seeing a bunch of adults bickering more than they do and they hunt. So imagine how munch BOTH sides look ignorant and pompass to outsiders that are looking in... Imagine all the landowners that are looking at this and saying.. non of them can get along and both sides have their extremists , so I think I will not allow any form of hunting on my land at all just to avoid any of this drama... in the big picture all of this arguing is going to be very counterproductive to all parties involved. I am already seeing this exact scenerio in talking to a few landowners.

All I can say is keep at each others throats instead of peacfully working it out because in the end we will all be hunting on public land or land we own because the landowners are going to be done with it all.... and while we have an abundance of public land in VA I for one know it already gets crowded, just imagine the rest of the hunters out their sharing it... will make you wish you had leanred to listen and talk to one another earlier, instead of sitting in a treestand and looking at the pumpkin army soliders every 100 yards around you!!!!
eng40sqd is offline  
Old 12-30-2008, 08:11 AM
  #9  
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
 
Bigg~BirddVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 466
Default RE: SC Stakeholder Report on Hounds

Well supposedly VDGIF was to make a peace treaty. Instead they loaded the deck with just one side and said "fixed". This isn't over how one hunts it's over one side running over the other time and time again. Is it all of them? No. Is it a lot? Yes. Is the problem going to get beter or worse? Can it go on forever without the obvious being done? Does a soultion exist that is working in other states? Yes.


I'm tired of it. The land I lease was overrun with dogs yesterday and the local HC. Is that fair to me that their recreation takes precedence over mine? The nature of dog hunting untethered without bounds or limits is to interfere with others. Most of us are just asking for equal consideration. Since the HC won't do it on their own it's exculated to the point it's at now. Somethings got to give sooner or later.
Bigg~BirddVA is offline  
Old 12-30-2008, 08:36 AM
  #10  
Fork Horn
 
eng40sqd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northern Neck VA
Posts: 465
Default RE: SC Stakeholder Report on Hounds

I am not arguing that the all clubs are innocent by any means.. I know that not all of them are ethical and that burns me up.. I am all for some changes to be made for instance the RTR needs to be redone as it is a huge loophole, also I feel their needs to be more accountability for rougue hunters and clubs.. this would fall under more CPO officers needed in the field, but if you added more offciers and made they made themselves known then I think you would see a decline in the unethical behaviors of many. In the areas where I hunt I usually see one of the CPO's every Saturday and generally during the week on an almost daily basis. The ones in our area have a huge area to cover but they are great guys and they partol their butt's off, the end results is that all the clubs both still hunting and dog hunting in our area play by the rules and generally get along with one another and hunt ethically. Everyonce in awhile you will get some kid or youngin who is wet behind the ears and knows it all who will try to bend the rules, but the old timers around that area generally take care of that pretty quickly.. generally the message is a one time warning of straighten up and fly right or go hunt somewhere else, you would be amazed at how quickly that can change a kid(teenager to early 20's) attitude on hunting LOL

One Dog club I know of even pushes their property toward the still hunters the last few days of season (after talking to each other beforehand) to get the deer moving toward them, and they are thankful for that... That is the way it should work.. pipe dream.. maybe but being able to get along with your "neighbor" isn't.
eng40sqd is offline  

Quick Reply: SC Stakeholder Report on Hounds


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.