Senate panel advances substitute to create permit process for hunting with hounds

The Senate subcommittee on (unnamed) advanced a substitute to House Bill 1396 on a voice vote after the bill’s patron described it as a narrowly tailored permit framework for hunting with hounds intended to improve safety and reduce conflicts.

The patron, identified in the hearing as the delegate introducing HB1396, told the committee the substitute directs the Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) to develop regulations that will govern permits for individuals and organizations, set criteria for administrative suspension or revocation, require methods for identifying dogs used in hunts, and list exemptions for landowners and immediate family. “My goal today is to present a clear, workable framework for ensuring accountability, safety, and consistency in the administration of activities that involve hunting with hounds, a long standing tradition in Virginia,” the patron said.

Why it matters: supporters argued the permit would give DWR tools to respond to complaints and offset program costs; opponents warned the measure could add regulatory burdens and risk criminalization through enforcement of contested permit actions.

Supporters included farmers and property-rights advocates who said the department lacks capacity to address concentrated complaint clusters. “This is a hot spot map DWR has produced showing where complaints have been over a 7 week period. The red areas indicate that up to 700 complaints, in a 7 week period can occur,” said Jim Maderos, a dairy farmer from Dinwiddie who represented Citizens for Virginia Property Rights. Maderos told the committee the department currently spends “nearly $1,000,000 a year annually in addressing these issues” and that modest fees tied to permits would help cover that work.

Animal-welfare groups also urged support. Marie (Dory) Maguire of the Richmond SPCA said the shelter’s intake is strained: “Our shelter is 25% hounds right now,” she told the committee, arguing that regulatory tools could reduce shelter crowding.

Opponents included hunting clubs and landowners who said the bill’s language remains ambiguous about who needs permits and how animal movements will be judged. John Morse, speaking for the Ginny Honeydog Alliance, said he had consulted criminal-defense attorneys who told him contested permit violations could still appear in general district court: “I spoke with 2 criminal defense lawyers … the criminality aspect remains simply because a contested alleged permit violation would inevitably appear in the general district court in the location or in the jurisdiction where it occurred.” Robin Hutt, a landowner and hound hunter, warned the bill would effectively end hunting with dogs by creating restrictive permitting and cited DWR statistics she said showed relatively few incidents statewide.

DWR Executive Director Ryan Brown appeared and described the data behind the complaint map as material produced for a stakeholder advisory committee; he said the department has run multiple stakeholder processes over the past two decades and that the final regulatory outcomes will depend on the vote and conditions the DWR board sets. Brown said he would not speculate on long-term impacts to deer populations but noted localized overpopulation concerns and ongoing department efforts to increase harvest where needed.

Committee action and next steps: after questions and discussion about delegation of authority to regulators, an unnamed senator moved to report the substitute to the full committee; the motion was seconded and the chair declared the motion passed on a voice vote. The substitute grants DWR rulemaking authority with an implementation timeline discussed in testimony (stakeholders noted rules need not be complete until July 1, 2027). The committee took no further changes to the text during the hearing.

The bill will proceed to the full committee for further consideration.