Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 8 · column 3 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved
By Betsy Parker
Rappahannock News Staff Writer
Nothing has sparked a more impassioned debate among hunters, landowners and wildlife officials than the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries’ recent efforts to address issues surrounding hunting with hounds, a storied Virginia tradition that dates back to George Washington.
Called “"Hound Hunting in Virginia: A Way Forward.’* the final report is not due to the VDGIF board until Oct. 23, but the Stakeholders Advisory Committee put forward its list of recommendations on Friday.
Chief among them are changes the socalled “right to retrieve’* law that prompted heated debate over the last month.
Public hearings around the commonwealth in September were marked by discord as hound hunters clashed with property rights advocates.
The sole meeting in Fauquier County, however, had 59 speakers for hunting with hounds, and just one against. Most spoke in support for the right to retrieve law.
The law allows hunters to go onto private property — even posted land — without permission to retrieve dogs.
“Hounds will remain with their quarry, treed or denned, until retrieved by their handler,** explained Warrenton Hunt master A1 Griffin. “Really, retaining that law is all about animal welfare, the welfare of the hound or hounds.”
“Hound hunters are adamant that right to retrieve is crucial to their ability to hunt with hounds and that it protects the welfare of their hounds.” wrote Dr. Steve McMullin, Virginia Tech wildlife professor.
On the other side of the debate are enraged landowners who sometimes see blatant trespass through posted property on the guise that a hunter is “just getting his dogs.** explained Julia Dixon of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. “They have a valid complaint if someone is misusing the law.”
In their recommendations, 13 members of the SAC voted to modify the right to retrieve law, with five votes against. Modifications to the right to retrieve law include having hunters “be required to make a reasonable attempt** to contact a
52.6%