Board of Wildlife Resources considering changes to ‘right to retrieve’ regulations

Virginia’s Board of Wildlife Resources started a process that could require deer and bear hunters to use GPS collars on their dogs and try to notify landowners if they need to retrieve canines from their property, a change from the current law that allows hunters to fetch their dogs from others’ land without permission.

The board voted last Wednesday at a special meeting held at the Henrico County Sports & Event Center to begin the regulatory change process with a 45-day comment period on the measures that are part of ongoing efforts to address Virginia’s contentious right to retrieve laws. 

”Nothing has been put into law or regulation, today,” said Department of Wildlife Resources Director Ryan Brown at the March 20 meeting. “Today’s motion is simply to go out for a 45-day comment period on these regulatory proposals.”

While Virginia made it a class 3 misdemeanor in 2016 to “intentionally” release a dog onto another landowners property for the purposes of hunting, the state’s right to retrieve law that dates back to 1938 allows hunters to go onto other landowners’ property to retrieve their hunting dogs if they accidentally end up there. 

The special meeting came after months of work by a stakeholder advisory committee that found consensus on two solutions — including increasing  signs posted where private property lines begin, and education for hunters on ethical dog use — but not on any of the other recommendations to strengthen limitations on a hunters right to retrieve.

The issue has sparked debate for decades between  hunters and landowners about whose rights should be protected. A 2016 report from DWR found that those tensions would likely keep mounting due to increased land development and less forested and agricultural land being available for deer hunting with dogs.

The tensions have escalated in areas like the southern portion of the Middle Peninsula in King and Queen County. There, conservation police arrested a man in January after he allegedly shot and killed two of three dogs who were chasing deer and ended up on his property.

There’s also been a lawsuit against DWR brought by three Virginians who said they experienced repeated invasions by hunters and their dogs “acting under color of lawful authority.” The case is pending before the Supreme Court of Virginia.

The 2024 General Assembly session saw legislative attempts to fix part of this issue. Sen. Dave Marsden, D-Fairfax, introduced a bill that would have made it illegal for hunters to release dogs to hunt deer on public right of ways. That measure was shot down in committee; attempted legislative fixes in 2022 also died.

The contested changes

At last Wednesday’s meeting, the dog hunters who spoke said advancing these recommendations would lead the state down a path of outright banning dog hunting, while landowners pushed for the measures, which they saw as modest solutions.

Dog hunters took particular issue with the GPS collars, saying they are cost-prohibitive and they sometimes don’t function in rural areas that may lack cell service. 

“The GPS is a very fine system, but we’ve got two states,” said Steve Nicely with the CCM Hunt Club based in the Rockbridge area. ”We’ve got this very fine state down here where we are, and yet we go across the Blue Ridge Mountains, we’ve got a terribly different area. We think the world of GPS, but GPS does not work all the time.”

Nicely went on to say hunters wouldn’t mind contacting landowners if their information was available on posted signs, but those can be sparse sometimes. 

Another speaker said that people who are part of the still hunting camp — a faction of outdoorsmen who sit on property waiting for game to cross their path instead of actively pursuing animals — don’t always act ethically, pointing to Jason Walters, who is alleged to have illegal shot a mature, known buck at Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond and then posted on social media it happened in Prince Edward County, as an example.

Landowners pushed back, stating collars aren’t as expensive as the hunters claim and that satellites, not cell phone service, are used to make an effective connection with a tracking device. Certain collars also have capabilities that allow hunters to draw maps on their phone to train dogs to know where to stay.

“That’s where the dog stays, in that zone,” said Bill Youmans, representing the First Hunt Foundation, an organization focused on educating new hunters. “It’s an e-collar for correction and it’s a satellite system to contain them in that area. It works. It’s proven. It’s used in Georgia.” 

As for the notification idea, a property association noted that it could spur increased conflicts between landowners and dog hunters. The group supported the proposal with a modification to create a web-based portal for landowners to list their property on a map so that dog hunters know their property is off limits.

“This would be a preventative measure that we could use to allow landowners to communicate their expected privacy and allow the dog hunters to know upfront where they’re welcome and where they’re not,” said Chris “Cut” Patton, spokesperson with the Virginia Property Rights Association.

From a third party perspective, Tabitha Treloar with the Richmond SPCA encouraged the use of microchipping for hunting dogs, who sometimes end up in dog shelters. The microchips inserted under dogs’ skin contain contact information of their owners.

“Microchipping all dogs engaged in hunting would enhance reunion efforts and returning more dogs to their owners has the potential to exponentially improve life saving at the most underfunded shelters in our state,” Treloar said.

Administrative actions

Five other measures that the board approved Wednesday are actions DWR can take administratively, even without any regulatory process change.

First among those was advocating for additional conservation police officers who can respond to issues. The number of CPO positions has decreased from 220 in the 1990s to 182 this year, with 176 of those positions filled. Funding for the vacant 6 positions is included in next year’s proposed state budget.

Another administrative action will increase training and strategies, such as focusing on hot spot areas that receive an above average number of complaints. During the late 2023-24 season that runs from November into early January, DWR moved CPOs from the western counties of the state to the eastern side, which resulted in them responding to 2,744 complaints, 128 of which led to violations. Of those violations, 94 were handed with a warning and 34 were issued a court summons.

The increased training also extends to prioritizing the closing of a fox and coyote loophole. Hunting for those animals with dogs is allowed year-round; some hunters, however, use those seasons to also chase deer.

The other two administrative actions include enhancing outreach to communities, hunters and landowners, and enhancing education efforts by creating a best practice document for hunters and private landowners.

Board discussion

The board voted to advance the measures after debating whether their being resistant to change could lead to more drastic measures, and wanting to prevent barriers to  young hunters continuing their interest in the sport.

While sharing his thinking that the notification requirement could lead to more confrontations than less, board member George Twilliger III also advised hunters against resisting the changes. 

“I think you’re pushing this in the wrong direction by being recalcitrant to some change,” said Twilliger.

Former Del. Jim Edmunds, R-Louisa, who led the legislative sportsmen’s caucus while he was a representative, said the right to retrieve regulations needed a change simply because the times have changed. He reflected on the 1970s, when his dad would run 75 hunting hounds in Halifax County.

“The difference between now and then, back then, no one cared. The neighbors were happy, they didn’t mind it,” said Edmunds. “A lot has changed since 1972. …The proposals, Mr. Chairman, I believe are meant to protect hound hunting, not end it. …We got to start somewhere.”

Board member Woody Woodall criticized the changes, saying the cost of tracking collars may dissuade young farmers who want to explore their interest in sport hunting, and that more information is needed on the effectiveness of more administrative changes.

“I don’t want to discourage them financially from being able to participate,” said Woodall. “You’ve got to get the data.”

Woodall went on to question what landowners have done to prevent dogs from entering their property, whether by putting up a fence, or a string of hedges, a line of inquiry which prompted one public speaker to stand up and start yelling at him.

“Sit down, and shut up,” Woodall said to the man, before conservation police escorted the person out of the building without further incident.

Board member Leon Boyd took the opportunity to speak against the disruptive disagreement, which he said distracted from the larger point of their work. 

“We’re all here because of passion,” said Boyd, adding “that only makes it worse.”

Correction: This article was updated with the correct spelling of Director Ryan Brown’s name, the number of conservation police officers in the 1990s and when the deer hunting season begins.