House committee reports hound‑permit bill with civil‑penalty substitute after hours of testimony

The House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee on Monday adopted a substitute to HB 13 96 that retools the bill into a regulatory framework and reported it to the floor by a vote of 14–7.

The substitute, which lawmakers said removes criminal penalties and establishes civil fines and permit requirements, was described by counsel Chuck Slemp of Cozen O'Connor as turning “this bill now as amended [into] a purely regulatory bill that imposes civil penalties for violation of the permit.” Slemp, who identified himself as a former commonwealth's attorney and chief deputy attorney general, urged the committee that the approach would allow DWR to promulgate regulations and avoid criminal prosecutions for well‑intentioned hunters.

Supporters outside the house panel told lawmakers they had worked with the patron and stakeholders to refine the language. Jim Maderos, a full‑time dairy farmer from Dinwiddie County representing Citizens for Virginia Property Rights, said, “We do support these amendments” and thanked the committee for its work. Billy Don Farris, representing the Virginia Property Rights Alliance, said the substitute “provides a balanced solution to preserve the long‑held hunting traditions in Virginia, while also protecting private property rights.”

Opponents raised procedural and policy concerns. Jim Hackett, chairman of the Sporting Dog Coalition, traced multiple past studies—DWR reports in 2008, 2016 and 2023—and said prior recommendations (including creation of an ombudsman and better landowner‑hunter processes) had not been implemented. Hackett said he remained opposed to HB 13 96 as presented.

Committee members pressed for clarity about permit scope, fees and how DWR would administer the program. Delegate Glass urged more funding for DWR so the agency can be “a good partner” in implementing the policy and suggested changing the word “permit” to “license” to reduce stakeholder alarm. Chair Willett noted extensive, bipartisan engagement in the subcommittee and credited stakeholders for negotiating the substitute language.

After debate and two additional friendly amendments (including removing the phrase “vehicle identification” from a standards clause), the committee adopted the substitute and reported the bill. The committee recorded the outcome as reported with substitute by a 14–7 vote.

The bill now proceeds under the House rules to the next committee or floor stage specified on the report.