2012.02.02
Sunday hunting isn’t dead yet; just gravely wounded
By now most of you have heard that a House subcommittee tabled three Sunday hunting bills yesterday at the request of the bills’ patrons, who knew they didn’t have the votes to get the bills out of the seven-person committee.
This is a major blow for Sunday hunting advocates, but not the end of the road.
SB 464, which passed the Senate last week by the strong margin of 29-11, is still alive and will likely end up in that same House subcommittee.
That bill addresses many of the criticisms leveled at Sunday hunting.
To placate non-hunters who claim that Sunday hunting would keep them from enjoying the outdoors on Sundays during the hunting season, it keeps the hunting ban on place on public land.
An amendment to SB 464 puts in place a 250-yard buffer around houses of worship on Sundays.
It also does not allow hunting with hounds on Sunday.
Isn’t that unfair to houndsmen? Well, houndsmen asked for it. Thanks in part to Virginia’s right-to-retrieve law, hunting hounds and their handlers have drawn the ire of some landowners, many of whom are also hunters. There is a belief among some in the hunting-with-hounds set that another day of hounds wandering across private land (or, heaven forbid, through church yards) could create such a backlash that it could ultimately lead to further restrictions on hound hunting. (Can someone who hunts with hounds provide some insight and thoughts about SB464?)
Might those compromises be enough to get at least four members of the subcommittee to support that bill?
Don’t hold your breath.
Consider the statement Del. Tommy Wright, R-Lunenburg County made yesterday evening.
Wright, who claims to be a hunter and who personally opposes Sunday hunting, said: “One of the main reasons hunters don’t want it is it’s going to hurt hunting in the long run.”
Really? Is that why the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, hordes of sportsmen groups and major outdoors gear retailers are all pulling for Sunday hunting? So they can have fewer customers in the long run?
When hunting has “friends” like Wright, the real enemies don’t even need to get involved. They can just sit back and smile.
If you’d like to urge members of the committee to reconsider their position on this issue, or thank them for the position they have, here’s their contact information. Please be polite. Flying off the handle, tempting as that may be, won’t help your cause.
Delegate Lee Ware (chairman): 804-698-1065, dellware@house.virginia.gov
Delegate James Edmunds: 804-698-1060, deljedmunds@virgina.gov
Delegate Matt Fariss: 804-698-1059, delmfariss@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Lynwood Lewis: 804-698-1000, delllewis@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Ken Plum: 804-698-1036, delkplum@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Tony Wilt: 804-698-1026, deltwilt@house.virginia.gov
Delegate Tommy Wright: 804-698-1061, deltwright@house.virginia.gov
Forgive my ignorance on exactly how our legislature works, but could someone educate me as to how just seven polititians get to decide that this bill gets shelved with little or no chance to be voted on the house floor? By the support it got in the senate I would be willing to take my chances with it in the house, but this committee is preventing that, correct?
Comment by Huntersdad — February 2, 2012 @ 3:16 pm
@Huntersdad
Sure I can explain it…it’s not like 1-2-3 it’s more like $100, $200, $300, and so on.
That’s how our politicians functions.
Comment by The Amatuer — February 2, 2012 @ 4:22 pm
Amatuer I get your point. I can’t help but wonder how many of those men on the house subcommittee have former or current ties to Farm Bureau or the insurance industry as a whole, seeing how Farm bureau is one of the strongest lobbyists to keep this ban in place. Perks and campaign contributions can go a long way in getting the chips to fall where someone wants them to. That’s one part of the political game I’m certainly not ignorant to.
Another politics question….is there any political process in the legislature that could get this bill off the shelf and onto the house floor for a vote, subcommittee be damned? Should be something in the checks and balances of government to keep a small committee from yielding that much power on any issue, let alone Sunday hunting. Anyone?
Comment by Huntersdad — February 2, 2012 @ 5:07 pm
Huntersdad — You don’t have to wonder. Donations are public record. Just go here: http://www.vpap.org/donors.
But you might be surprised by what you might find.
For example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation donated $1,000 to Del. Lee Ware, R-Powhatan, in 2011. The Virginia Hunting Dog Owners Alliance, a political action committee that opposes Sunday hunting, donated only $250 to Ware last year.
Yet Ware is considered a solid “no” on Sunday hunting.
What you don’t see in those public reports is the backroom dealings we all know that go on. You know, “I will vote for your bill if you vote for mine,” and all that good stuff.
Comment by Mark Taylor — February 2, 2012 @ 6:14 pm
I should also add that the committee and subcommittee system is a necessity. This year the General Assembly is considering more than 1,200 bills. If the full House and Senate had to debate and vote on each one they would never get anything done.
But while the committees and subcommittees can weed out bills that need to be weeded out (if you followed hunting- and fishing-related bills, you know there were some ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE, EMBARRASSING bills introduced this year), the makeup of a committee can also lead to the death of bills that might actually have the support of the majority of the House or Senate. Sometimes the people in power assign committee members in order to achieve their personal agenda. That’s politics. I’m not saying that happened here. I’m just sayin’….
Comment by Mark Taylor — February 2, 2012 @ 6:29 pm
Mark, I think that debate on the floor for every bill is EXACTLY what we need, both in Richmond AND Washington. That way if nothing is happening then they are not SCREWING anything else up!!
Comment by brian — February 2, 2012 @ 8:20 pm
Brian — I think you might be on to something!
Comment by Mark Taylor — February 2, 2012 @ 10:50 pm
The email address for James Edmunds is incorrect. I think that it should be deljedmunds@house.virgina.gov
Comment by Bluemtnman — February 2, 2012 @ 11:12 pm
The “logic” put forth by those law makers opposed to Sunday hunting is simply mind-boggling. Wright’s quote takes the cake. If anti-hunters will hate hunters more if Sundays are legal, maybe Wright should introduce a bill that prohibits hunting on Fridays and Saturdays, too. Then HSUS and PETA will hate us two times less.
Comment by Fish — February 3, 2012 @ 7:21 am
Mark, thanks for the civics lesson…another reason I wish I had been a better student so many years ago. I did a little fishing on the General Assembly website yesterday and was surprised to find that none of the committee members had any obvious ties to the insurance business or farm bureau…at least it wasn’t listed in their personal bios. Not even members of the association and a couple of them farmers. Doesn’t mean that there voting or tactics aren’t influenced by that lobby though, just like you said, no way to tell what goes on behind the scenes. And maybe Brian’s right, they need to debate every bill…isn’t that why they go to Richmond to WORK for their constituents? I plan on digging a little deeper for some more info when I have time, and send a couple of emails after I’ve cooled down a while over this matter. Like you said, flying off the handle will do no good. Maybe cool heads will prevail.
Comment by Huntersdad — February 3, 2012 @ 8:17 am
Fish — I’m not sure whether to laugh at your comment, or cry. I expect we’ll soon see statements from PETA and HSUS stating that they have changed their positions on Sunday hunting now that they have been shown the light and realize that Sunday hunting will actually hurt hunting in the long run.
Huntersdad — I actually was thinking the other day that this has been, for me, a good civics lesson. Until I started covering outdoors-related bills in the General Assembly, I didn’t pay much attention to politics. The job isn’t the only reason, of course. Since I’ve had kids I’ve been more in tune with this because my concern now goes beyond me, and I must think about my kids and their future. (I actually pay attention to political issues not related to hunting and fishing, too!)
This Sunday hunting issue can provide a little taste of history in Virginia and beyond. Hunters are a feared and misunderstood minority, so we are an easy target for unequal treatment. Sound familiar? It is frustrating, but fortunately the stakes for hunters pale in comparison to those faced by groups that have been discriminated against in Virginia’s not-too-distant past.
Comment by Mark Taylor — February 3, 2012 @ 8:54 am
Bluemtnman, you still missed the last “i” in Virginia that Mark left out
Here’s the correct address:
deljedmunds@house.virginia.gov
Comment by Mike Hutchison — February 3, 2012 @ 9:16 am
“Wright, who claims to be a hunter and who personally opposes Sunday hunting, said: “One of the main reasons hunters don’t want it is it’s going to hurt hunting in the long run.””
Was he asked to elaborate? I would really like to hear his explanation of his statement. It would seem to me that the increased revenue would be proof enough for law makers, who in my eyes are about the all mighty dollar anyway, would be all over passing this bill.
Comment by Stephen — February 3, 2012 @ 9:21 am
Isn’t that unfair to houndsmen? Well, houndsmen asked for it.–Mark Taylor
Mark, I truly expected more professionalism from you than a statement like that implies. That ranks right up there with a woman wearing a short skirt “was asking for it” after being sexually assaulted. Dog hunting was not the “make or break” issue at all. That statement serves no worthwhile purpose.
Comment by Plottdogs — February 3, 2012 @ 9:52 am
The comment made by the representative is absurd. We have had hunting on Sunday in NC for several years. The numbers of deer harvested are no more dramatic. However, the state only allows bowhunting/crossbow on Sundays throughout the season. This has been a huge boost to hunters. many people that enjoy this sport only get to hunt on Weekends. It also allows more time for parents to spend quality time teaching the good ethics and sportsmanship of hunting to their children.
Comment by Keith — February 3, 2012 @ 10:25 am
Plottdogs,
I think you crossed the line comparing what Mark said to a sexual assault, big difference there, big difference. I think Mark reported it correctly, the houndsmen associations are against Sunday hunting, so in fact they actually did ask to not be included in the bill.
Nino
Comment by Nino Ripepi — February 3, 2012 @ 10:45 am
Failing SB464 may prove to be the most costly legislative decision VA’s House has ever made.
Since this bill is restricted to privately owned land it sets a certain foundation for compensation. Every acre of huntable land in VA, has a lease value of “X” based on a 6 day hunt week, and a greater value of “Y”, based on a 7 day week. If landowners ask for compensation for the difference between x and y, could VA have to pay? Seems reasonable, since this law restricts hunting only on private property.
VA law grants hounds free access to all private lands. Could landowners asked that they be compensated for being forced to grant access? Could hound hunters be forced to keep hounds within their property boundaries? The State knows that there is no way to keep hounds within boundaries, so should they have to compensate landowners for hound access?
I don’t see how VA could defend itself in either scenario. The first Sunday hunting bill was introduced 20 years ago. So if this went to trial, attoneys that represent landowners would ask for 20 years of landowner lease compensation, plus interest.
The hound study was conducted about 5 years ago, and landowners stated then, that is was unfair that they had to grant hound access, especially without compensation. Could VA have to pay for hound access dating back to the hound study?
I can’t see any scenario where VA could defend it’s position in either of these situations.
There’s a lot more to consider about SB464 than the fear of those that oppose Sunday hunting.
Comment by Tony Rutherford — February 3, 2012 @ 10:46 am
You know what, Plottdogs, you’re exactly right. Writing only “houndsmen” was an unfair generalization by me. I should have qualified it. Many houndsmen? Some houndsmen? A few very vocal houndsmen? What do you think?
Maybe hounds weren’t the “make or break” issue. But I still maintain that the feedback from deer hound hunters has played an important part of this debate, and I base that opinion on:
-One of the most active, vocal lobbying groups against Sunday hunting has been the Virginia Hunting Dog Owners Alliance, a political action committee that is heavily weighted toward hound hunting. If you question that, just look up who is donating to the VHDOA and you’ll see the list is dominated by Eastern Virginia hunt clubs. Granted, the number of clubs donating to that lobbying group is in the dozens, so we’re not talking about huge numbers of individual hunters. But I think we can see by the actions of some representatives on this issue that that lobbying effort has been successful. Did it carry as much weight as the Farm Bureau’s lobbying effort? Probably not.
-The Virginia Deer Hunters Association’s membership is dominated with hunters from east of the Blue Ridge — in other words, many deer hunters who use hounds. Their recent survey showed an even split on the Sunday hunting question. Now, there’s no doubt some of the association’s members who don’t use hounds are anti-Sunday hunting. And there’s no doubt some who use hounds are pro Sunday hunting. But I think it’s fair to say that the survey is evidence that many houndsmen are not for Sunday hunting. The VDHA didn’t take a public position on Sunday hunting, by the way.
When I posted above that I was interested in hearing from houndsmen, I was serious. I really am curious to hear thoughts on the Sunday hunting ban. You know as well as I do that my statement about some deer houndsmen fearing backlash is accurate. How much of an issue/concern is it? I admittedly am not plugged into that community so I don’t have a good feel for it. What about among bear houndsmen in these parts?
If fear of backlash is not an issue, why would such a vocal bunch of SOME houndsmen be against Sunday hunting? I am not trying to be a smart a** here, I promise. I really am curious.
Comment by Mark Taylor — February 3, 2012 @ 11:07 am
I am fairly amazed that “Dog hunters” can make an impact on anything political, but the general hunting public seems to have no sway in the political arena. How does THAT work?
Comment by Alleghany Ridge Runner — February 3, 2012 @ 11:59 am
Your right Mark, it’s not dead yet but it’s life span for this year is over I believe. Virginia, I think, is a state that is deeply rooted in tradition and no hunting on Sunday just happens to fall in that category. This will be a long uphill battle, but this time it got farther up the hill than ever before.
Comment by Jim Basham — February 3, 2012 @ 12:03 pm
Folks, I have had some weird issues with my blog admin program. So if you have submitted a comment and don’t see it up, please send it again. Sorry.
Also, in looking for lost comments I found two actual comments in my SPAM folder. I approved both of them. Interestingly they were both from anti-hunters. Funny that the SPAM filter pegged those guys as SPAMBOTS!
Comment by Mark Taylor — February 3, 2012 @ 12:57 pm
Nino, I used the comparison I made to show how some things can be twisted to support a chosen argument. No line was crossed or intended to be.
You misrepresent the facts when you say hounds men are against Sunday hunting. The VHDOA may have come out against it, note that is NOT the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance (VHDA) because I am not sure they took a formal position.As well, the Virginia Bear Hunters did not state a formal position If the Virginia Deer Hunters Association did not take a formal position don’t point at hounds men, because for the most part they had way less to gain. In ANY organization there will be some for and some against any proposal,that is a personal decision and why organizations don’t take a stand unless there is a clear majority.
Comment by Plottdogs — February 4, 2012 @ 8:24 am
I checked the last election results, and 5 of the 7 members of the committee ran unopposed. However, Farris (53% of the vote) and Plum (64%) were in somewhat competitive elections. Any idea where they stand on the issue? I may want to make a symbolic donation to their opponents next time – say equal to the cost of my hunting licenses.
Comment by Rich — February 4, 2012 @ 10:03 am
I meant to say Fariss.
Comment by Rich — February 4, 2012 @ 10:04 am
Rich,
I know for certain that Edmunds, Ware and Wright are opposed. None seem willing to consider any sensible argument to change their minds. Unfortunately, they continue to use irrational arguments and “my constituents want it.” The majority of their constituents may want free ice cream, but that doesn’t mean their duty is to give in to the demands of the mob. This is about what’s right for all Virginians, not just the squeaky wheels.
Comment by Fish — February 4, 2012 @ 6:16 pm
Plottdogs,
I could be wrong, but is this the group you are defending? If I have them mixed up, I apologize and I apologize for jumping on you for your last comment.
http://vahda.org/legislation2011.htm
http://vahda.org/PDFs/SundayHuntingPositionPaper.pdf
“The Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance has adopted a position opposing hunting on Sunday
for many reasons. It is first and foremost an expression of the vast majority of our
membership, even though all may not subscribe to all of the stated reasons in this paper.”
Comment by Nino Ripepi — February 4, 2012 @ 11:54 pm
@Fish
Under the Fair Tax plain we would know how much it cost for a politicians greased wheel.
Comment by The Amatuer — February 5, 2012 @ 9:31 am
Is the fact that we cant hunt on Sundays now unconstitutional, or is it defendable in court? BY that, could someone announce their intent to kill, say- a doe on a Sunday during bow season, on their own farm, and then check it in – all with the purpose to be written up and then take it to the supreme court of VA? Just thinking outside the old box here…..
Comment by Highlander — February 5, 2012 @ 9:39 am
Nino – Thanks for those links.
I didn’t help things here by getting mixed up in my acronyms. There is/was a group called the Virginia Hunting Dog Owners Association, or VHDOA. The Web page is no longer active.
The group that is currently active in this debate is the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance which is an offshoot of the Commonwealth Sportsmen’s Alliance P.A.C (91-401). Again, this is NOT A CLUB. It is a political action committee. It takes donations (and many of those come from hunt clubs in Eastern Virginia) but there are no members. The PAC’s position on Sunday hunting is not in doubt. They lobby against it, pure and simple, as shown by that position paper linked above.
But, again, it is important to emphasize that, no matter what some who are affiliated with the VHDA say, they do not represent the majority of dog hunters in Virginia.
Plottdogs, I again invite you (and any other houndsman, whether you hunt deer, bear or rabbits) to weigh in on this topic and let us know how you PERSONALLY feel about Sunday hunting. What are your thoughts on the compromise bill (SB 464) that would have continued the ban for hunting with hounds?
Highlander — The court challenge has been discussed plenty. There are a couple of potential approaches. One being to challenge it on constitutional merits, another on business merits, as in, the ban is prohibiting private individuals such as hunting guides from pursuing their work on Sundays.
Comment by Mark Taylor — February 5, 2012 @ 10:12 am
Mark, can you email me a phone number I can reach you on and a time good to call you at work. Every time I try to write a lengthy response it will not send the response. You have my email address. I will be glad to discuss my personal opinions.
Nino, no apology necessary on either side as long as in the end we do not discriminate against any form of hunting. We will hang together or in the end we will all go down. Don’t think the anti groups don’t love seeing one group pitted against the other an that includes,bow, rifle, dog, muzzle loader, and hikers and horse people.
Comment by Plottdogs — February 5, 2012 @ 12:31 pm
This might be off topic but Interesting none the less. According to “The Sportsman’s warehouse” website they are returning to Roanoke In the same location as before opening on Monday, April 16, 2012 and the grand opening April 28, 2012 http://www.sportsmanswarehouse.com/storelocator/slStoreDetails.jsp?&siteNo=223
Comment by Lee from NRV — February 5, 2012 @ 1:42 pm
LOL! N.Carolina WRAL.com News solution to their deer population.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/6780762/
Comment by The Amatuer — February 6, 2012 @ 1:03 am
It’s my opinion that Sunday hikers and and everything else has the whole summer to enjoy the great out doors. Someone mentioned charging folks to enjoy public land. Hunters have to pay to enjoy the out doors and provide for their family. I can already hear the crying if they had to buy a permit to hike or do any of those imaginary things they claim they do so much. Prove you have been out there hiking every Sunday. We can prove we can hunt buy our permits……………
Comment by Keith Carver — February 6, 2012 @ 9:17 am
I have hunted with dogs over the years and enjoy it. The one thing I have found though, no matter how hard I have tried, I can’t put a steering wheel on one. They are going to go where the deer goes and that’s that. We all know that deer worship on Sunday’s and shouldn’t be interrupted during that time. Perhaps we should wait till they get out of church to draw a bead on one. (humor)!!!
Hey look, Two hndred and fifty yards is not going to lessen the report of a rifle or shot gun. The thing is and this is important. There are no laws that keep a person from target practice on Sundays. The report from that gun is going to be just as loud as one going off to feed his or hers family. If they can explain that way, then the bill shouldn’t pass but they can’t.
I knew that this bill was going to be a religious thing before it was over. Well, they wont let the ten commandments hang on a wall of a school, where is their logical argument regarding hunting on Sundays?
Comment by Keith Carver — February 6, 2012 @ 9:37 am
@Keith Carver
Well said..How about this go to the outdoor range in JNF then go over to Pandapas Pond tell me how many gun shots you hear on Monday after 1pm and Sunday at 8am.
Then go about a half mile down into JNF and you will hear the noticeable difference. The farther you go into the forest the fewer gun shots you will hear.
My point is you hear far fewer gunshots when people are hunting then when they are not. The argument of disturbing the peace is about as asinine as people hearing arrows wizzing by their heads.
An comment I heard from a woman in Dick’s Sporting Goods Store. All I could do was laugh..Her husband even had to smirk at her.
I only hope he didn’t have to walk home after that exchange.
Comment by The Amatuer — February 6, 2012 @ 12:17 pm
@Keith
I’m not against your point of view I’m with you 100% it’s time to make the freeloaders pay. After all this isn’t the welfare system.
The Hunters and Fishermen are the mighty rich! And the hikers, bikers, and stroller pushers are the welfare recipients. We should start acknowledging them as such.
Comment by The Amatuer — February 6, 2012 @ 12:22 pm
I grew up in eastern Va and hunted in clubs with dogs for many years, even had some of my own at one time. I always loved it and hearing a pack in full song coming towards you on a stand is really a hunting experience you should try at least once if possible. Having said that, I don’t see why hound hunters are against Sunday hunting. Nowhere in the law does it say you are REQUIRED to run dogs on Sunday. I’m sure some of them are out on Sundays anyway rounding up lost dogs, I know I’ve spent a few over the years doing that. About the eastern hunt clubs, there is a lot of money and political clout in some of those larger, older clubs. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some friends\family\kin of some of the principals in Richmond in some of them. Know there were some judges, lawyers, and cops in some.
Comment by SloEddie — February 6, 2012 @ 4:05 pm
# 34 Keith, love the deer church comment.
Something else in the religious vein, what about those out there that like to hunt and who hold Saturday as the Sabbath? I have known some Seventh day Adventists and Seventh day Baptists in the past, their Sabbath was from sundown Friday till Sundown Saturday if I recall. If there are some hunters out there that hold these beliefs, when will the state stop discriminating against them? How can the state determine when the Sabbath should be and how it should be observed?
Comment by SloEddie — February 6, 2012 @ 4:19 pm
SloEddie — Saturday afternoon I was driving through rural Bedford County when I passed a church at which the parking lot was packed.
To paraphrase George Orwell, “All Christians are equal. Some are just more equal than others.”
Comment by Mark Taylor — February 6, 2012 @ 5:21 pm
How many hunters would be honest enough to acknowledge the hunt camp culture which involves a great deal of drinking? Perhaps there needs to be an amendment to the Code for hunting under the influence or sobriety checkpoints. Some of us might feel a great deal safer if we are assured that the hunters were at least sober. This observation is based on real conversations with real hunters.
Comment by Rosie — February 6, 2012 @ 8:50 pm
I believe the hunters need Sunday to sober up for work on Monday.
Comment by Rosie — February 6, 2012 @ 8:51 pm
Rosie,
I think those same persons you are referring (that I believe are within the minority) would do almost anything else under the influence, not just hunting…they would most likely be driving as well and dangerous to everyone in society. I do believe it probably does occur among a few as I have heard the same comments from friends who I believe are reasonable people, I just do not believe it is rampant. I could be wrong, but I do not see it where I hunt, that is for sure. It is very illegal if an actual practice.
Comment by Nino Ripepi — February 6, 2012 @ 10:55 pm
@Rosie
Really I don’t dislike to cook, but what you cook is eaten so quickly. When you sew, you have something that will last to show for your efforts.
~Elizabeth Travis Johnson
I’m not sure of what type of hunter you spoke with, but any hunter of this caliber. Traveled in a small group at ineffective ranges.
Comment by The Amatuer — February 7, 2012 @ 12:16 am
Rosie, it is already against the law to hunt under the influence of drugs or alcohol. As far as sobriety checks, if a hunter or yourself goes through one over the designated limit they will be cited. Please explain more about your personal experience with the hunt camp culture.
Rosie, us hunters may fight amongst ourselves but we tighten ranks when an obvious outsider tries to bash us.Aren’t you late for your PETA party, don’t forget you are in charge of the punch!
Comment by Plottdogs — February 7, 2012 @ 1:53 pm
Rosie’s hunting friends aren’t my hunting friends, that’s for sure. Many of my group enjoy an adult beverage or two in the evening. But never while actually hunting. I mean, NEVER.
That said, there surely are some reckless folks out there who drink and hunt (and, like Nino said, drink and do other potentially dangerous things).
Unfortunately, hunters are too often unfairly stereotyped as a bunch of reckless, bumbling drunks, in part because that’s how hunters are often portrayed by Hollywood and, to a lesser degree, the mainstream media. I mean, I think there are plenty of clueless people (including some in elected office in Richmond) who don’t understand that Elmer Fudd is not an accurate representation of the average hunter.
Comment by Mark Taylor — February 7, 2012 @ 2:05 pm
Another shot across the bow Rosie…
“The encouragement of a proper hunting spirit, a proper love of sport, instead of being incompatible with a love of nature and wild things, offers the best guaranty for their preservation.”
– U.S. President and Nobel Prize winner Theodore Roosevelt
Mothers against drunk Drivers reports with the exception of holidays. More people are killed in drunk driving accidents. During and ending of the Superbowl game than almost any other time on the road.
So the woods are perfectly safe for all from you and your drinking buds.
Comment by The Amatuer — February 7, 2012 @ 2:57 pm
According New York Bureau of Wildlife’s own financials, its primary source of funding is hunting, fishing, and trapping license fees, public land usage fees, and fines for violations of fisheries and wildlife management policies. Less than 12% of its operating budget comes from state tax revenues. This is a similar ratio to other states’ natural resources agencies’ funding. In fact, nationwide, Sportsman’s dollars outpace tax dollars for conservation efforts by a ratio of 9-to-1!
Can you think of ANY other federal government program that divines only 10% of its budget from the general fund?
THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NONE
But what’s really mind-boggling about the whole shebang is this: Even if Animal Rights Groups could match $3 Million a day American Sportsmen contribute directly to wildlife conservation and protection through license fees, land usage fees, and excise taxes, it still wouldn’t even come close to justifying the outlawing of hunting from a dollars-and-sense perspective, personal freedom issues notwithstanding.
The only way to compensate that short fall would to increase taxes by 4% clear across the board.
Comment by The Amatuer — February 7, 2012 @ 3:11 pm
A lot of people probably don’t realize exactly how vital sport hunting is to the U.S. economy (animal rights groups know it, they just don’t want YOU to). Here are just a few examples:
** $24.7 billion — Amount of money hunters spend every year on their sport at the retail level. This money reaches all retail segments, including hard goods, travel, gas, trips, food and drink, supplies, vehicles, leases, lodging, and guide services
** $955.4 million — Annual amount of sales and fuel tax revenue directly attributable to hunting in the U.S.
** 575,000 — Number of American jobs sustained entirely by hunting
** $16.7 billion — Total annual salaries and wages paid to those who hold hunting-related jobs in the U.S.
** $2.25 billion — Dollar amount of combined state and federal income tax revenue generated by hunted-related employment in the United States every year.
How do these numbers compare with other high-participation outdoor sports? For some perspective, compare hunting with another popular gear- and travel-intensive sport, skiing. According to the Census Bureau’s Statistics of U.S. Businesses and other sources, the skiing industry annually:
** Employs approximately 127,000 people (less than a quarter as many as hunting)
** Pays gross salaries of around $1 billion (about 6% of what hunting pays)
** Yields just over $500 million in ski equipment sales (hunters spend more than this on their DOGS).
Hunting is big business in the United States. So big that animal rights groups could never even come close to matching, dollar for dollar, the positive impact sportsmen have on America’s bottom line.
Animal rights organizations are quick to sling the word “majority” around in making their case against the blood sports. They make the absurd leap that since the majority of Americans don’t hunt, that the will of the people is that hunting should be outlawed. Let’s examine this kind of logic for a second…
More Americans don’t ski than do hit the slopes every winter. More of us don’t own cats than do. Fewer Americans ride motorcycles than do, and more Americans have cell phones than don’t. Does this mean that skiing should be illegal, cat ownership abolished, motorcycles outlawed, and cell phones made mandatory?
Of course not. If the “majority rule” model applied to matters of personal freedom instead of solely to matters legislative and elective, NOTHING would be allowed, and no new technologies or activities would ever flourish or even take hold. Imagine how that would affect the economy. Beyond that, the whole point of personal freedoms is to be able to resist the tyranny of the majority if you’re so inclined.
And what’s really ironic is that if the majority in America really did wield the power in all things, animal rights organizations themselves would not be allowed. Far, far more people don’t belong to or support the goals of animal rights activists than do. But despite what PETA and friends say, the same cannot be said of hunting…
An independent polling organization (Roper and Starch) found in 2000 that 85% of American adults feel that hunting has a legitimate place in modern society. A full 62% agreed that hunters are the world’s leading conservationists.
And they’re right.
Read more: Right to Hunt vs. Animal Rights http://dailyreckoning.com/right-to-hunt-vs-animal-rights/#ixzz1ljHUS6rl
Comment by The Amatuer — February 7, 2012 @ 3:20 pm
I missed the episode where Elmer Fudd got drunk! I know some very responsible hunters who would not drink and hunt but I also know some who appear to enjoy the drinking as much as the hunting. I don’t mean to sterotype, but I do think it’s worth noting that not everyone in the woods carrying a high powered rifle is in complete control of their facilities – some of them are hungover from the night before or even from the nip they take in the morning to cure a hangover. Everyone should be afraid to be in the woods with them.
Comment by Rosie — February 7, 2012 @ 3:34 pm
@Rosie
Then don’t drive. • One person is killed every half-hour due to drunk driving
• Each year approximately 16,000 are killed in alcohol related crashes
• Alcohol is a factor in almost half of all traffic fatalities
• Every other minute a person is seriously injured in an alcohol related crash
I Believe you are worrying about the wrong thing. Hunters isn’t what you should be worried about.
Comment by The Amatuer — February 7, 2012 @ 7:27 pm
Considering that my little brother was killed by a drunk driver, I don’t need to be reminded of those dangers. My only reason for raising this issue is because I would like one day in the woods (Sunday) when I don’t have to worry about guns being fired where I am walking with my dog or my kids. I only added the drinking issue because it is something I have heard about for years from hunters who are telling stories and adds to my reasons for being afraid of being in the woods with some hunters. I believe it a valid concern and I am certainly entitled to raise it. I apologize to those hunters who do not engage in this behavior. But I am not the one staining their image – that is being done by the hunters who drink to excess. I would not even know about it, if they didn’t talk about it.
Comment by Rosie — February 8, 2012 @ 9:06 am
@Rosie
Then let this be known I don’t drink and hunt nor do I condone it as a hunting practice. Nor any other hallucinogenic mind altering drug. It’s just plain dangerous for the user and those around them.
Al-thou I touched by your lost, and I wish the killer of your little brother got the most stiffest of penalties that the law provides. Alcohol played a role in his death not hunting.
Now I’ve come across a meth-head once and if it wasn’t for the Game Warden chance encounter it could have became a choice between me and him.
To your point hunters by in large only take to the hard woods at one optimal time October to first 2 weeks of January. Me personally the 1st of November.
So why is it that non-hunters when they have 8 months and take full advantage of that will say they have only one day? Would it be fair to have non-hunters to pay for a National forestry stamp to walk in the forest as I have to pay for one to hunt and fish on National Forestry Land?
Our fees have steadily increased and the non-hunters pay nothing. Were is the fairness in telling those that own private land that would like to take their children out to hunt on a Sunday that may be the only day they have with them of a 6 day work week.
The fact of it it isn’t fair. Yet a group of your brethren make the same speeches when lifting the ban on Sunday Hunting comes up. But where are they when it comes to Higher fees for the Fishermen and Hunters..They are no where to be found because it’s no money out their pockets.
It’s not fair when some obey the laws and those that can get by without a glance.
My last thought I’m home convalescing from surgery for Cancer, Oh i will make a recovery and I will continue my fight for what is right for all of us. Just as I turned in the kids that were openly drinking from a bottle of Jack Daniels Black Label in the parking lot of Dick’s just as they got past Merchant Tires 2 squad cars pulled them over.
As a hunter, parent, and a person within the community. We must continue to do the right thing everyday. Banning those from hunting is wrong. Look through the comments and you will see that for yourself.
You will see that hunters want the same thing as you.
Take care and be blessed Rosie. Coincidentally when I was three my babysitter was killed by a drunk driver and just last year one of my childhood friends mother died from injuries she received by a drunk driver.
Both of which names were Rosie. God is taking to me and I knew he would reveal his lesson. Again take care.
Mark please close the thread.
Comment by The Amatuer — February 8, 2012 @ 1:53 pm
Rosie:
I see the validity in your argument.
I would like to ask one question, one that I think many of the hunters who make the “we pay for the non-hunter’s recreation space with our licenses while they pay nothing (until more recently with the WMA system)” statement would like to know the answer to. How many Sundays do you, and other non-hunting outdoorsmen/women, actually spend in the woods from mid November to the beginning of January (the general firearms season for deer in VA)?
Please know that this is simply inquisitive and not a comment meant to undercut you or other non-hunters.
Your argument of “wanting that one day” is one that has been versed regularly by non-hunters. If Sunday is, in fact, the one day that a vast majority of non-hunters get out in the woods, it will add some validity to these remarks. Until then, I believe the hunting community will continue their belief that these statements are more bark than bite.
The more informed both sides can be about the argument the easier (maybe?) this can be as a process.
Thanks
Comment by RJSteiner — February 8, 2012 @ 2:06 pm
To respond to your question – If we did not go, it would not matter, and we would not ask that the ban on Sunday hunting stay in effect. But we do go and that is why we do ask. I’d also like to add that I buy a fishing license each year with a National Forest Stamp. We frequently float on the James and Cowpasture Rivers (almost exclusively bordered by private property) into the fall and have been on the river as late as November. If it is too cold to paddle, then we will hike or bike with the dog and the kids. My guess is that folks with horses go year round.
In response to your comment that “we pay for the non-hunter’s recreation space with our licenses while they pay nothing” – I did a very quick search and found the following information which indicates to me that the public lands are not paid for and supported as your comment would indicate.
I believe all Federal, State, and local taxing paying and fee paying citizens have paid for and continue to support our public lands and should have safe access to those lands.
A quick search of the National Forest Service site says:
3. Where does the money come from to buy land?
“The Land & Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 created a separate fund to be used for land purchases and other authorized uses. The fund receives money from fees paid by companies drilling offshore for oil and gas.”
What We Do – National Park Service by the Numbers*
$48,000,000,000 incentivized in private historic preservation investment
11,700,000,000 visitors
$5,409,252,508 in preservation and outdoor recreation grants awarded
$2,750,000,000 annual budget
121,603,193 objects in museum collections
97,417,260 volunteer hours
84,000,000 acres of land
4,502,644 acres of oceans, lakes, reservoirs
2,482,104 volunteers
218,000 jobs supported in gateway communities
85,049 miles of perennial rivers and streams
68,561 archeological sites
43,162 miles of shoreline
28,000 employees
27,000 historic structures
2,461 national historic landmarks
582 national natural landmarks
400 endangered species
397 national parks
40 national heritage areas
1 mission: The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience our heritage.
From the VDGIF site:
Funding Source
License – $12,800,000 or 38% (The Department sells licenses and permits required for the participation in hunting, fishing and trapping activities in the state. The Department currently sells some 60 annual license types. Lifetime licenses are not included in this figure. The cash receipts for the sale of lifetime licenses are deposited into a separate lifetime license account that is not utilized to fund annual operations.)
Federal – $15,800,000 or 28% (Federal grants – Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program, Recreational Boating Safety Grant Program)
Net Transfers – $12,744,217 or 22% (The amount of funds transferred as a result of HB38 is based on the figures of expenditures in Virginia associated with hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-associated recreation (wildlife watching, wildlife photography, etc.) calculated every five years in the national survey of hunting, fishing, and wildlife-associated recreation.
Boat – $3,238,000 or 6% (Boat safety registration and titling)
Other – $3,400,000 or 6% (Other cash sources include Virginia Wildlife magazine subscriptions, receipts from “Wildlife Conservationist” automobile license plates; timber sales from agency owned lands; interest from cash balances in accounts; sale of merchandise; donations; sale of state migratory waterfowl stamp; lifetime license sales; and game replacement costs awarded in court cases.
Perhaps we’d do well to agree to disagree. Happy Hunting to you and yours and Happy Hiking to me and mine!
Comment by Rosie — February 8, 2012 @ 4:05 pm
Hello Mark. Just wanted to give my two cents on this very important issue concerning Sunday hunting. I’ve had conversations with you in the past concerning the “mud boggers” who have torn up public land which have resulted in restrictions that have affected a lot of people. (Hunters ,hikers ,bikers ,campers and others that use National Forest lands.)
Except for a couple of years I’ve hunted on public land (Patterson Creek Wildlife Management Area) for almost 40 years. When it comes to deer season I’ve had good and bad seasons so I envy the one’s I read about who are fortunate enough to have some private land in which to hunt on. Some of my hunting buddies harvest deer every year on private land and good for them.
Here’s what I think. I can agreed with the landowners who think they should be able to do as they please with their own land. I wish I had this problem but I don’t. With all the controversy maybe imposing a bow season (long bow, compound bow, crossbow) with a opening and closing date on private land only. This would surely help those that are against hunting on Sunday’s all together.
“As for me and a lot more than you think.” We hunt on public land and we do the best we can. As far as being able to hunt on public land versus private land. What a bummer!
Comment by Gary Lynch — February 8, 2012 @ 7:50 pm
@ Rosie you don’t get it!
Where’s your Forestry Stamp to Hike, Bird Watch, or what have you in the National Forest? When was the last time you had to buy one?
Answer that question.
I’m done.
Comment by The Amatuer — February 9, 2012 @ 2:29 am
Rosie, No one is telling you, you can’t go walking in the woods during Hunting season. It’s just a matter of common sense not to but by all means do it if it makes you feel good. Your arguement regarding where the money comes from is a little on the weak side. We as hunters, buy licenses SPECIFIC to HUNT. Perhaps we can have SEASONS for you and your kind to be in the woods. You could have SPECIAL bird watching licenses (don’t get caught with binoculars without one) and perhaps another for hiking (don’t get caught with hiking shoes without one). Fair is fair right?
Comment by Keith Carver — February 9, 2012 @ 10:24 am
You know? This might just open the door to the state making licenses necessary to even be on Public land, instead of just hanging it on hunters. According to Rosie, it’s all paid for by taxes and justifies her right to go and be on public land any old time she wants. That should apply to hunters as well BUT IT DOESN’T. Hey Virginia! Perhaps the non-hunting crowd has come up with a great idea to raise money. They sound as if they are willing to pay Public Land permits to make an arguement against hunting. By all means let them pay as we do and pay for their voice.
Comment by Keith Carver — February 9, 2012 @ 10:43 am
Rosie?, we can’t hunt in National Parks. Please don’t confuse about 85% of what you listed as being supporting to national forests lands to hunt. You are simply wrong. You have used misleading information to once again try to distract from the true meaning and principle behind why hunters want to be allowed to hunt on sunday. Again, all we are asking for is 4 or 5 sundays in the fall and 4 or 5 sundays in the spring. That still leaves you 40-42 sundays the rest of the year as well as 6-7 months a year that hunters are not even in the woods. Is this that hard to understand?
Comment by Alleghany Ridge Runner — February 9, 2012 @ 12:50 pm
@Amateur- Rosie states that she buys a fishing license with a National Forest Stamp every year. Seems legit to me.
@Rosie- What it comes down to in the end is the lack of the option to hunt on Sundays. When you look at a schedule of the average person, whether that be a working man/woman or a younger hunter who is in school, the only time to hunt is the weekends. With Sundays excluded, that leaves one day a week to hunt throughout the season. Tack on the youngsters’ sports (which almost always take up Saturdays) and what do you have left? This becomes even more complex when one starts talking about the property rights side of the issue. How can you tell a land owner that they cannot hunt on their own land that they work hard to pay for on Sundays?
When hunters buy licenses, it easily adds up to near $100 (some less, some more depending on what quarry we want to hunt, as almost everything has its own license). This year, the license fees ALL went up $5. When all is said and done (economy problems, this and that) it becomes increasingly difficult to justify (for some) purchasing the necessary licensure to be able to enjoy the activity we love (this may be a more extreme case for some, but I know I have skipped out on certain seasons because I could not justify purchasing a license to be able to hunt 1 day, as is typically the situation if I go home from school for a weekend during a specific season). What hunters then see is that, while non-hunting citizens do chip in with taxes and whatnot for the land that ends up being for public land use, hunters pay that AND THEN the license fees. So when a non-hunter complains when we are hunting on the public land they want to hike/ride/paddle, it brings little sympathy, as can be seen in Keith’s response. In my opinion, he does have a point.
Finally, however, daily and annual fees have been initiated on all Wildlife Management Areas (VDGIF supported) for land users who do not already have a hunting or fishing license. Serves to somewhat even up the score.
With many of the states that still have (or have recenty had) Sunday hunting bans beginning to repeal them, the precedent set by these actions have shown little (if any) negative impacts. Everyone seems to still get along just fine and the number of hunting “accidents” have not increased at all. The legislation currently going through the House subcomittee (Senate Bill 464) that is hopefully on its way to the House floor allows for Sunday Hunting on private lands and public waters only and excludes deer hunting with hounds and discharging a firearm within 250 yards of a place of worship (both of which were further ammendments to the bill in the Senate). Public woods will still be unhuntable on Sundays.
Rosie, I hope none of this comes across as bashing in any way. Knowledge of both sides of this issue by members of both sides of this issue will make this a less hostile debate.
Happy hiking to you, your family and your friends. We will always be able to disagree on this subject, and quite possibly always will.
Best wishes
Comment by RJSteiner — February 9, 2012 @ 2:06 pm
This may seem a little off point, however, for those of you that enjoy hunting, fishing, wildlife watching and other outdoor recreation, I am providing a link to sign a petition against SB26. I urge you to sign it and send out to your contacts to sign. If this bill passes it could be extremely detrimental to the Game Department as a whole. There will be less people buying licenses if they know that they cannot be checked, which in turn means less revenue to fund fish and wildlife management. Fish and wildlife populations will be negatively affected because officers will not be able to check creel and bag limits to ensure that laws are being followed. We will be effectively turning the clock back one hundred years on wildlife management. Think about it…
http://www.change.org/petitions/conservation-bills-attempt-to-weaken-law-enforcement-authority
Comment by Angela Gunter — February 12, 2012 @ 11:12 am