Council approves dog‑hunting trespass rule as amended to a one‑mile buffer around Talladega National Forest

A joint interim committee on June 5 considered a proposed amendment to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ dog deer hunting regulation that would make it unlawful to allow a hunting dog to enter, cross or remain on another person’s property without permission, and approved the rule with a limiting amendment that would restrict enforcement to within one mile of the Talladega National Forest.

The rule drew hours of testimony from private landowners and hunters from Talladega County and nearby communities who told the committee that packs of hunting dogs regularly cross private property, disrupt hunts and limit the ability of families to use their land. Committee members then voted to recommend an amendment to confine the rule’s operative language to a one‑mile buffer around Talladega National Forest; the conservation board must accept the proposed amendment for the change to take effect.

Commissioner Chris Blankenship of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources told the committee the rule (identified in the hearing as Rule 220‑2‑0.112) is intended to give enforcement officers a tool to address repeat dog trespassers. “This regulation will give our officers a tool to address the problem with dog deer hunters,” Blankenship said, adding the department proposed a warning for a first violation and citations for continued violations. Blankenship said he had met for many hours with dog hunting groups and the conservation advisory board while drafting the proposal.

Private landowners who testified described repeated incidents in which dog packs crossed fences and chased deer across their leased or owned property. Chris Turner of Munford, a Talladega County landowner, said the problem has “continued to get worse and worse” and that the amendment “would help us tremendously. You know? It’s a start.” Calvin Crowder, who leases timberland adjacent to the national forest, said landowners currently have “no recourse” and urged the committee to give officers a way to cite repeat offenders.

Representatives of organized dog hunting groups also addressed the committee. Lane Stevens, who said he represents the Alabama Dog Hunters Association and regional deer dog groups, said his members support keeping dogs off private property and that the association had agreed with the department on a contingent plan: if the rule were adopted, the advisory board would consider expanding dog deer hunting season dates as a benefit for hunters who follow the law. Stevens described a prior, broader proposal his group had prepared that would have imposed steeper fines and suspensions for repeat trespassers.

Committee members pressed the commissioner on specifics. Representative David Faulkner asked whether the department would recommend adding days to the dog deer season if the rule went into effect; Blankenship responded that he had pledged to recommend an additional week — “an additional week” — to the advisory board contingent on officers having the enforcement tool. The commissioner also said the regulation would accept electronic permission (including text messages) from landowners as proof of permission to hunt on private property.

Senator Gavan moved an amendment to limit the effective area of subsection (c) of the rule to within one mile of Talladega National Forest; the motion was seconded and approved by the committee. The committee’s approval sends the rule and the proposed amendment back to the conservation board. If the conservation board accepts the amendment, the rule would go into effect as amended; if the board rejects the committee’s amendment, the committee’s action has the effect of disapproving the rule and it would be delayed until adjournment sine die of the next regular legislative session.

Community members emphasized the local nature of the problem at the hearing: nearly all private witnesses who testified said they live, lease or hunt in the Talladega County area. Committee members referenced a prior 2019 vote in which the council overturned a similar rule.

Next steps: the conservation advisory board and the department will consider whether to accept the committee’s proposed amendment. If the board accepts it, the rule will be filed and proceed to final administrative publication; if the board rejects the amendment, the rule will not take effect and the issue could be addressed by the full legislature in the next session.