ORIGINAL: Lanse couche couche

Funny, but the same folks who oppose the right of retrieval law in order to take a shot at hound hunters would be the first on here complaining if an adjacentlandowner refused them permission toretrievea dying trophy buck that had crossed ontohis land.

ORIGINAL: Hokieman

Rick that picture you so proudly display of that malnuturist hound has been on HSUS website and in a local newspaper. God your so anti-dog that you have lost it.

Retrieving a dog doesn't violate property rights
November 2, 2008 12:36 am



It's time for some facts about hunting with hounds.

Virginia is not the only state to recognize exceptions to trespass. All states recognize them.

In some, exceptions are codified and permit farmers to retrieve livestock, hunters to retrieve legally downed game; others permit collection of debris or retrieval of dogs. There is nothing unconstitutional.

Exceptions to trespass involve exigencies, where immediate action is required (e.g., to save a drowning child, catch your dog that dashed into your neighbor's yard, assist an animal or person in distress, or to prevent an accident).

Some call Code 18.2-136 the "right to retrieve" law. That is a misreading; it grants no right.

It is an animal-welfare law. It exists so lawful hunters may immediately retrieve dogs and prevent any harm to the dog or annoyance to a landowner. The hunter must be unarmed, on foot, and must identify himself.

Any other act is a crime. The law is clear and is enforced, though some would have the public believe otherwise.

No law permits violation of property rights. The landowner is protected from liability, and all civil remedies remain available to the landowner.

The vast majority of sportsmen are decent, ethical, law-abiding citizens. They respect property rights, obey laws, and care for their dogs. Those who disobey the law are criminals, not hunters.

A hunter retrieving his hound isn't a "taking" of my property rights; his retrieval demonstrates respect for property rights and love for his hound.

Jessica R. Swan

Fauquier


For more info Email: [email protected]

THE MISINTERPRETATION OF  18.2-136 OVERWHELMS [/b]
THE RIGHTS OF LANDOWNERS[/b]

In Virginia “a person . . . is limited in the use of his own property only by the maxim that he must enjoy it in such a manner as not to injure the rights of another.” Tidewater Ry. Co. v. Shartzer, 107 Va. 562, 59 S.E. 407, 409 (1907). A fundament of the Commonwealth’s civil law is that the landowner has the legal right of exclusive possession and peaceful enjoyment of his own land. Tate v. Ogg, 170 Va. 95, 195 S.E. 496, 498 (1938). As a consequence, “every unauthorized entry upon the real property of another without legal authority resulting in some damage, however, minuscule,[1] constitutes a trespass.” Nature Conservancy v. Machipongo Club, Inc., 419 F.Supp. 90, 404 (E.D.Va. 1976).
The Supreme Court of Virginia succinctly defined civil trespass as “an unauthorized entry onto property which results in interference with the property owner’s possessory interest therein.” Cooper v. Horn, 248 Va. 417, 448 S.E.2d 403, 406 (1994). Elaborating on this cause of action, the high court instructed:
[T]o recover for trespass to land, a plaintiff must prove an invasion that interfered with the right of exclusive possession of the land, and that was a direct result of some act committed by the defendant. Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise.
[hr] [1]. From every direct entry upon the soil of another, §the law infers some damage; if nothing more, the treading down of grass or herbage. § Prosser, The Law of Torts, 4th Ed., § 13, at 66. See also McClannan v. Chaplain, 136 V. 1, 116 S.E. 495, 497 (1923) (declaring that all trespassers are “liable for nominal damages, at least.”).
[/align] [/align]
[1]. Silence is an unreliable source of legislative intent. U.S. v. Mitchell, 39 F.3d 465, certiorari denied, 115 S.Ct. 2578, 132 L.Ed.2d 828 (1994).
[1]. Further buttressing this conclusion is Va. Code § 18.2-119, entitled, “Trespass to Realty.” After defining the crime of statutory trespass, the provision states. “This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provision[] of . . . § 18.2-136. Va. Code § 18.2-136 (1996 Repl.). While leaving the civil law intact, the Virginia legislature modified the statutory crime of trespass to adjust for § 18.2-136, the provision relating to hunters with dogs.

ORIGINAL: Hokieman

Rick your wrong. No law permits violation of property rights. The landowner is protected from liability, and all civil remedies remain available to the landowner.When you buy land in Virginia it is held in trust for you to use and make a living and pass on to heirs or realatives or even sell. but the landwill always reside withthe state of virginia.

ORIGINAL: Hokieman

Rick I am not arguing with you know more about it. we'll bump heads later down the road during GA session.