This story was reported and written by our media partner the Virginia Mercury.
Regulations guiding hunting, one of Virginia’s oldest traditions, will remain unchanged after the Board of Wildlife Resources voted 6-3 against two proposals to update the state’s right to retrieve law.
The right to retrieve law lets deer and bear hunters go onto other people’s property to get their dogs, which hunters use to scare up game. The Supreme Court of Virginia recently upheld rulings pointing to right to retrieve as an exception to trespass criminal law.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Virginia weighs regulations on hound hunting, citing tensions with landowners
Property owners, increasingly moving to rural areas, have argued the law allows their private land to be turned into public property for hunters. The hunters contend that they want to continue their tradition as they have for decades, lawfully.
In response to the tension, the Department of Wildlife Resources issued reports and convened workgroups over the past several years that presented seven proposals, including the two the board rejected Thursday.
One of the rejected proposals would have required deer and bear hunters to put GPS collars on the hounds they use. The other rejected proposal would’ve required hunters to make “reasonable efforts” to not let their dogs roam onto other property once property owners notified them they weren’t welcome.
The other five proposals included raising awareness about ways to avoid conflicts between the two groups, as well as pursuing funding for more conservation police officers to respond to issues. The other proposals were not regulatory and have already been acted upon.
Although Board Member Jim Edmunds, a former legislator, attempted to have the GPS collar proposal advance, board members ultimately voted against it and the other regulatory change. DWR recommended the rejections, saying the group didn’t have the power to make such changes.
“The right to retrieve is statutory. That’s why you see that discussed at the General Assembly, how trespass itself is statutory,” said DWR Executive Director Ryan Brown. “It’s not something that this board would have the authority to take up.”
The decisions came after several property rights advocates said the current law violates their constitutional rights, disturbs their peace and safety and compromises their ability to maintain their livestock. The advocates also said the expenses of putting barriers on their property to bar roaming dogs outweighed the costs of hunters using GPS collars.
“We don’t care if others hunt with dogs, we don’t want to stop that. We want to stop the constant intrusions onto our properties,” said Property Rights Coalition of Virginia representative Jim Medeiros, who was one of the property owners who sued the state over the right to retrieve law, but lost.
“This board has been specifically and exclusively given the authority to regulate (hound hunting) by the General Assembly,” Medeiros added. “Like it or not, you own this problem.”
Several hunters, donning blaze orange hunting caps, also spoke at the meeting, citing the cost of the collars as a barrier to young hunters participating and the seemingly low rate of trespass convictions resulting from conflict — 60 out 60,000 complaints that did not warrant changes (though property rights advocates called out difficulties in proving trespassing).
“We will stand up for our rights, also for our traditions, as Virginians,” said Kirby Burch, chief executive officer of the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance, after saying the solution is to “show respect for one another.”
“We will continue to hunt with hounds for another generation, if you will work with me to make those promises I just gave come to pass,” Burch said.
Virginia has a process underway to solicit suggestions for next year’s deer and bear season regulations, but the rejection means the battle over the law could end up being fought in next year’s General Assembly session, which starts in January.
