2009.03.27
No major fireworks at hunting regs public meeting
With my wife out of town on business and babysitter plans having fallen through, I had to drag my kids out to Glenvar Middle School last night for the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries public meeting on proposed changes to hunting regulations.
It wasn't the ideal place for a pair of tired 7-year-olds, but they did OK. At one point, one of the speakers got one of the girls' attention.
"They just said your name!" she whispered to me.
My good friend Bill Cochran also got mentioned.
Fortunately, my daughter didn't understand that these were not exactly words of praise.
The speaker was criticizing our "biased" coverage of the proposed bear hound license, blaming us (in part) for the backlash against the proposal.
No doubt, Bill and I have both written about the criticism some sportsmen have had regarding the license proposal. But we've also written about the reasons supporters of the proposal think it's a good idea.
As I've written here previously, while I haven't shied from offering some personal insight into this issue, I certainly haven't taken a strong position. In fact, another attendee last night personally told me he felt my writing on the topic has been "fair."
I tend to agree with him. But, hey, that's just my opinion!
I wasn't offended by the comments from those who took exception to how I have covered this issue. (I think three individuals specifically mentioned biased writing, but I missed the last couple of speakers.) What's great about public meetings is people get to speak and everyone else gets to decide what they think about the speakers.
I don't want to give the impression, either, that anyone went too far in their remarks. I've been to some meetings where speakers and the crowd become unruly, mean and rude. There was nothing close to that last night.
The speakers passionately defended their positions, but were absolutely curteous in so doing. Good for them.
I am certain this topic will draw quite a few speakers to the meeting at DGIF headquarters on June 2, when the agency's board will vote on the proposals. I hope that meeting goes as well as last night's.
I'll have a little more on last night's meeting in my column Sunday in The Roanoke Times.
I attended the meeting last night, and was pleased by the behavior of all of those who attended. The audience was quiet and polite while the speakers were expressing their points of view, even if they didn't agree with their position. The people who had took the opportunity to share their views, expressed a true passion for their chosen method of hunting or game pursued. I hope this passion was conveyed to the VDGIF officials in attendance. I hope the VDGIF Board will make their decisions based on science and facts, and not emotions.
Comment by Brent — March 27, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
Mark,
I was at last nights meeting and I agree it was fairly tame, I honestly expected things to be heated. Everyone was respectful of each other and stated their reasons for or against effectively. You could definitely sense the passion in their voices whether they were commenting about deer, turkey or the hot topic of the night, bears. All in all they were gentleman and did not cross the line when they spoke about your repoting and Bill Cochrans reporting on the bear tag proposal. I also was impressed with the number of hunters who do not bear hunt that were there, I would guess it was a third of those in attendance. I thought the DGIF did a good job of presenting all the topics and gave ample opportunities for anyone who wanted to speak.
Comment by Jim Basham — March 27, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
I thought there were a couple of really good proposals at the meeting last night that were worth mentioning. These would definitely interest a majority of the hunters. One was to increase the archery bear season to include that first week. (Previously bears weren't legal till the second week of the early achery season). The other one was to allow TWO bucks in the early muzzleloader season instead of just one.
I hope these proposals pass!!!
Comment by Ralph Barton — March 27, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
If this topic were not so serious I would roll in the floor with laughter.
Over the past several years I had requested you do some bear hunting stories like Bill had done in the past. I recall one where the 70 something year old gentlman was allowed time by bear hunters to make it to a mountain top in Giles County to harvest the only bear of his long bear hunting life. Those bear hunters took up money afterwards to pay for the taxaderist bill since the old gentleman's wife was bed ridden and income would not allow for him to have it mounted. I think it dressed about 400+ lbs. Or the story about the maintenace guy from Roanoke who took a large bear one between Bald and Potts mountains that had drug his freshly shot deer into it's den before the hunter could recover it. That was around 450 lbs I think. Ah, those were the days. The days before Bill Cochran began sounding a lot like Jim Zumbo! Now, with 37 OTHER Amendments on the table for the VDGIF, you have come out and presented how many articles on the subject of a Bear License??? And you call yourself fair. Please allow me time to recover before you do another story pushing your agenda and your opinion on this one topic. 37 Other Amendmants!!! The only ones you touched on were to allow more time and deer for deer hunters. I noticed the complaints from deer hunters revolved around run ins with hounds.I did not see any bear hunter posting about all the illegally built permanent stands in the National Forest or the spots used to bait wild game. I wonder who is emptying all of those shelves at WalMart and other stores of all that Deer Cocaine and C'mere Deer ??? Let's just see how many more times you can write an article for the Roa. Times or place another post on here that declares "No major fireworks at hunting regs public meeting" I hope I got that quote right this time Mark.
Comment by Gmc — March 29, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Mark I want to personaly thank you for letting the hunting community be aware of what was happening with the proposed Bear hunting license.I emailed the VDGIF and expressed my opposition to the separate Bear license.My feelings are that if the VDGIF needs the extra revnue then raise the cost of the big game license as we know it today but keep it all together.I have shot 2 Bear in forty years of hunting while hunting deer and I want the same opportunity for my young son if a Bear happens to come near my deer stand as I know the excitement and joy of harvesting a Bear brings to a hunter.Deer hunters appreciate the harvest of a Bear just as much as the Bear hunters do.Some of my very best friends are dedicated Bear hunters and I dont want to offend them but this is one issue I have stong feelings about to keep the tag as it is.The anti hunting groups love it when they think they can divide us and I pray it will not happen in this great hunting state of Virginia we enjoy so much.Once again thanks for the heads up on this. Mike James
-You're welcome, Mike. mt
Comment by Mike James — March 29, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
Ralph, archery bear season is extended another week, first week, which I expect all archers try to take. Two bucks in early muzzleloader season and you can carry a muzzleloader when ML and archery season overlap with bear season. You have to have a separate license to ML and for bow, will you buy a bear tag? Not provoking at all, just a question, since more people are getting many more days to have a chance at a bear but don't seem willing to purchase that license.There are more tags added for deer on the big game license and if you don't think you want to buy a bear license you don't have to pay for one and you still have more deer tags. Ralph, I am just replying to your post and mean nothing personal at all. I wish you good hunting and if you and anyone else buys that bear tag (if passed) I wish you luck on harvesting one.The separate license is not meant to deny anyone the opportunity to take one.This is just to get your opinion? A lot of this license issue has gotten blown totally out of proportion (not by you). Thanks.
Comment by CRS — March 29, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
CRS.
You state that "The separate license is not meant to deny anyone the opportunity to take one." I think you will have to agree that there will be a large group of hunters who primarily target deer that will not pay the $25 for the bear license as they rarely see a bear when deer hunting. This group (which kills a significant number of bears) then will be denied the opportunity to harvest a bear when they see one while deer/turkey/bear/bobcat hunting.
I suggest two options:
1. Raise the big game license fees across the board by $5 (this should bring in a lot more revenue then the $25 bear license would).
2. Make the bear license required only for those hunting with hounds.
I respect those that hunt bears with hounds and maybe one day I will do the same, but I feel that this extra license benefits one specific group more than any other. The non-resident fees are also unfairly high for the bear license and I am a VA resident.
Good luck this coming season.
Nino
Comment by Nino Ripepi — March 30, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
I think you will have to agree that there will be a large group of hunters who primarily target deer that will not pay the $25 for the bear license as they rarely see a bear when deer hunting. This group (which kills a significant number of bears) then will be denied the opportunity to harvest a bear when they see one while deer/turkey/bear/bobcat hunting.
Make the bear license required only for those hunting with hounds.
Fron NINO:
Thank you, you make my point exactly, kill a large number of bears but won't want to pay a fee after they have paid $18 for a ML license, cross bow license,archery license and the rifle hunters killed more bears just themselves ( not knocking that, that is the law) than the hound hunters. Yet you want to put more money on the dog hunters that proposed this license,seems you just don't like one style of hunting except yours.Why put a fee on one group (dog hunters) when we kill less bears, yet have more opportunity than others, when we propose the same fee for everyone. There will be no fee increase for the youth license either.
Check the out of state non-resident license fees for other states (and I have) and Va is way too cheap.
NINO, I also wish you the utmost sucess in your hunting season. We may disagree but in the end we should all be out for the same reason. Good hunting.
CRS
Comment by CRS — March 30, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
CRS:
Do any other states in the vicinity of Virginia charge $25 for a bear license for a resident? I have looked at the non-resident fees of other states and I think they are also too high, I don't believe that since other state's charge a certain amount is a valid point. The only person's who would pay that high of a fee are those hunting with dogs who are specifically targeting bears. I hunt with non-residents in VA who do hunt the mountains for bears with rifles and muzzleloaders, who definitely will not be paying the $150.
The only reason I say to charge $25 for those hunting with dogs is that those hunters are the only ones who are asking to be charged an extra $25. I am asking to be charged an extra $5 for my big game licenses. I hunt deer in places where there is lots and lots of bear sign and one day, I know that we will cross paths. The only time I have seen these bears is when they are not in season. If I don't have a license, I will watch that magnificent animal, but if I do have a license, I don't think it will be totally luck that I harvest a bear. It will take hours and hours on stand in habitat that supports bears.
I don't think it is I that likes only one style of hunting. I have friends and family that have shot bears on a dog chase and they enjoyed their times doing it, especially the time with the dogs. I don't want the $25 license fee at all, but if one group is so passionate about it and wants it so bad, then give it to just them so they can raise money for their sport. That money could go to support a number of issues that the DGIF has to deal with yearly with regards to right of retrieval and dogs on private land...
As I stated before, let's try to keep all hunters together, we definitely do not want to separate. I have supported bear hunting with dogs in the past, but I feel that the debate around this license is driving us apart.
Nino
Comment by Nino Ripepi — March 31, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
Nino, I checked on three neighboring states and this is what I found it costs for a resident to be able to hunt bear. W Va was $43, N Carolina was $25 and Tenn was $56. Tenn charged $175 for a seven day license that was for all game.
In 2001 the General Assembly gave the VDGIF authority to establish a separate bear license at $25 and $150 for non residents. These prices were set by the General Assembly, and the VDGIF nor the VBHA can alter that price as I understand it, without it going before the GA again.
The VDGIF does not spend any more money on bear hunters and the issues you mention, probably less, than for people spotlighting deer and trespassing while deer hunting.The bear issues just get more emotion. No one group causes all the problems regardless of all the hype. The VGDIF had a list of all complaints reported and the most were for spotlighting by far.
Nino, I enjoyed this chat and hope we still stick together as hunters, I will and feel you will also, and support each other's hunting rights. It is not worth dividing ranks over. Take care.
Comment by CRS — April 1, 2009 @ 9:15 am
Nino my only and soul problems with your thoughts is why constantly give money to the VDGIF...? Why?
When a neighbor in Canada posted here about fishing, fishermen requested to have the price of licenses raised to stem the tide of people taking advantage of fishing for trout and to generate more revenue to improve there water ways after their licenses remain the same price for close to 25 years.
My problem with giving these government entities more is simple we can't hunt a full week, and they raised the price of license only 2 years ago want to raise the price of a saltwater fishing license something I don't partake in is a shame.
If anything give hunters a full week of hunting time and a nominal rate for out state licenses. Why consider taking more from those that reside here.....
than those that visit is inherently wrong to me.
Comment by Static Lines — April 1, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
CRS.
I am sure that they spend much more money on those spotlighting deer, I don't disagree there. I was just stating that they could use the $25 to manage specific issues with bear hunting with dogs.
Who asked the General Assembly for the separate bear license in 2001, who lobbied for it?
If this passes and the fee is $25, then it will cost you $65 to hunt bear, deer and turkey in VA during rifle seasons on national forest land. If you want to hunt during archery or muzzleloader, add another $18 for each. The total is then $101! I have previously stated that what other states charge, shouldn't be a valid reason to decide what your state charges to hunt. However, since you have been making it the point to bring up what other states charge as an argument, I will do the same. Virginia will be the most expensive state in the region for both residents and non-residents to hunt bear if this passes!
VA Residents to hunt Bears (with the $25 license): $65
WV Residents to hunt Bears: $43
TN Residents to hunt Bears: $56
NC Residents to hunt bears: $25
This does not count the extra $36 VA residents pay to hunt with a bow and muzzleloader.
With regards to non-residents, if VA's $150 license for non-residents passes, then they will have to shell out $302 to hunt bears and deer in VA with a rifle, add $31 more for a muzzle or bow license! That makes NC's $175 for a week of hunting look like a good deal or $251 for the season, same cost in TN. WV costs $110 for their hunting license, plus $150 for a bear tag, $260 total.
I guess my final question is, what is the estimate of money that will be raised from the $25 license fee? Is it even going to be significant in the grand scheme? Why not just raise license fees $5 and then you will raise more money. If the VDGIF wants more bears to be shot, how could this be possible if we have less bear hunters?
Thanks for listening and reading my rant.
Nino
Comment by Nino Ripepi — April 1, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Static Lines.
You are preaching to the choir. I agree with what you are saying, especially since the license fees were just increased.
I was trying to make a point with CRS that if the VDGIF desperately needs the money from the $25 bear license, why not just raise more money by raising big game tage fees by $5.
If I had a vote, it is definitely to not add any more fees whatsoever.
Nino
Comment by Nino Ripepi — April 1, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Nino
A tax of 500% on ammo, ideals to squash gun ownership by the president maybe raising the price of a hunting license might be the only way for VDGIF to make a buck.....
outside paying to hunt one.
Comment by Static Lines — April 1, 2009 @ 5:58 pm