Regulations governing hunting, one of Virginia’s oldest traditions, will remain unchanged after the Wildlife Resources Board voted 6-3 against two proposals to update the state’s Right to Salvage law.

The right to retrieve law allows deer and bear hunters to go onto other people’s property to retrieve their dogs, which hunters use to scare away game. The Supreme Court of Virginia recently upheld decisions referring to the right to recover as an exception to the criminal law of trespass.

Landowners, increasingly mobile to rural areas, argued that the law allowed their private lands to be turned into public property for hunters. The hunters say they want to perpetuate their tradition as they have done for decades, legally.

In response to these tensions, the Department of Wildlife Resources has released reports and convened working groups in recent years that presented seven proposalsincluding two that the board rejected Thursday.

One of the rejected proposals would have required deer and bear hunters to put GPS collars on the dogs they use. The other rejected proposal would have required hunters to make “reasonable efforts” not to let their dogs wander onto other properties once owners inform them they are not welcome.

The other five proposals included raising awareness about ways to avoid conflict between the two groups, as well as seeking funding for more conservation police officers to respond to the issues. The other proposals were not regulatory and have already been implemented.

Although board member and former lawmaker Jim Edmunds attempted to advance the GPS collar proposal, board members ultimately voted against it and other regulatory changes. DWR recommended rejection, saying the group lacked the authority to make such changes.

“The right to recover is legal. “That’s why there’s a discussion in the General Assembly about how the trespass itself is statutory,” said DWR Executive Director Ryan Brown. “That’s not something this board would have the authority to take on.”

The decisions came after several property rights advocates said the current law violated their constitutional rights, disrupted their peace and security, and compromised their ability to maintain their livestock. Advocates also said the expense of installing fences on their property to keep stray dogs out exceeded 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 trespassing on our properties,” said Jim Medeiros, a representative for the Property Rights Coalition of Virginia, who was one of the property owners who sued the state for the right to recover the law, but who lost.

“This board was specifically and exclusively given the authority to regulate (hunting) by the General Assembly,” Medeiros added. “Like it or not, this problem is yours.”

Several hunters, wearing bright orange hunting caps, also spoke at the meeting, citing the cost of collars as a barrier to youth hunter participation and the apparently low rate of trespassing convictions resulting from the conflict – 60 complaints out of 60,000 that did not warrant changes (although property rights advocates denounced the difficulties encountered in proving trespass).

“We will defend our rights, as well as our traditions, as Virginians,” said Kirby Birch, executive director of the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance, after saying the solution was to “show respect for each other.” .

“We will continue to hunt with hounds for another generation, if you work with me to make the promises I just made come true,” Birch said.

Virginia has an ongoing process to solicit suggestions on deer and bear season regulations for next year, but the rejection means the battle over the law could end up being fought in the Virginia General Assembly. next year, which will begin in January.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT