House subcommittee advances bill to let DWR create permit for hunting with hounds, removes criminalization language

A Virginia House subcommittee on Wednesday reported House Bill 13‑96 with a substitute directing the Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) to develop a permit process for hunting with hounds, a practice proponents said needs clearer standards and opponents warned could impose new burdens on law‑abiding hunters.

Delegate Doug Martinez, the bill’s patron, told the panel the substitute removes the most controversial language from the introduced bill and ‘‘establishes a permit process administered by the Department of Wildlife Resources’’ to give ‘‘clear expectations’’ for hunters and landowners without criminalizing long‑standing hunting practices. ‘‘This substitute removes the language that causes the greatest concern,’’ Martinez said during opening remarks.

The substitute eliminates an original subsection that would have made certain incidental crossings a criminal matter and instead authorizes DWR to promulgate administrative regulations that include permit criteria, identification methods for dogs, exemptions and procedures for suspension or revocation of permits. The committee added two amendments during the hearing: an explicit exemption for ‘‘public lands where hunting is allowed’’ (wildlife management areas, national forest and state forest where hunting is authorized) and insertion of ‘‘or verbal’’ after ‘‘written’’ permission in a portion of the draft.

Supporters, including retired Marine Col. Chris Patton and Brig. Gen. Billy Don Farris, urged the committee to grant DWR the authority to address a high complaint volume. ‘‘Last year, there was 1,276 complaints in Virginia related to deer dog hunting,’’ Col. Patton said, adding that the department had to surge officers during peak weeks. He argued a permit system used in other states could reduce conflicts and protect both landowners and hunting traditions.

DWR Director Ryan Brown told the subcommittee the administration had not taken a position on the substitute as presented but warned that administering an enforcement or permitting program would require new staff and funding. Brown said, based on initial estimates and the $19 fee included in the draft, the department anticipated ‘‘somewhere between 50,000 and 80,000’’ permit sales and ‘‘over 1,000,000 dollars that would be raised’’ — money that could fund several administrative positions.

Opponents, including the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance, farm groups and many individual hunters, said the permit could create confusion, invite false complaints and impose an unnecessary cost on responsible hunters. Speakers feared that marking vehicles and dogs, or requiring permits for spectators, could lead to frivolous enforcement complaints and that the department’s staffing shortfalls would limit effective implementation.

The substitute also adds explicit language that the bill ‘‘shall not be construed to prohibit any activity authorized under 18.2‑136,’’ the code section described in testimony as Virginia’s ‘‘right to retrieve’’ provision. The text preserves that existing retrieval authority and clarifies that the measure is intended to create an administrative regulatory tool rather than a new criminal penalty.

After questions, public testimony and several friendly amendments, the subcommittee moved and recorded that HB 13‑96 with the substitute as amended be reported to the full committee. The clerk recorded the vote reporting the bill as passed out of the subcommittee by approximately 6‑2.

What happens next: If the full House committee and the House approve the measure, DWR would receive enabling authority to draft permitting regulations, followed by the agency’s public rulemaking process where stakeholders could provide additional input.