The Rise and Fall of a Buddy Bill

One of the most frustrating aspects of the General Assembly Session are those weird, narrowly written pieces of legislation that generally seem to have one thing in common: they make no sense for the vast majority of people in Virginia. While research reveals these bills are usually written by members of the GA as a favor for friends and many never pass committee, some actually do. These usually consist of the odd little caveats that exempt so and so from paying this or that tax or overrule some local zoning regulation.  We tend to call bills like this “Buddy Bills,” and they are as common as the sunrise in legislatures across America.

They rarely end up fixing things, and the problems they create normally call for either a later repeal or amendment.  At that point, though, the “buddy” has already taken advantage of the favor.  Thus, what many would characterize as scamming the taxpayers or just Virginia citizens in general is instead viewed as no big deal – just a favor for a friend.

This series of articles will investigate and track the progress of this year’s premier “Buddy Bill,” one that is unfortunately being carried by Bill Howell, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates.  The bill, HB 1900, is ostensibly a private property protection bill, aimed at penalizing trespass by dogs on the property of another after the dog’s owner has been notified to keep the dog off the property.  Each violation could cost the dog owner $100 in civil penalties.  The bill is largely aimed at deer hunters who use dogs to corral deer – a form of deer hunting that has been common in the eastern part of Virginia for centuries.

The bill’s proponents have put together a cute, if unoriginal, website, wherein this issue is given the “Downfall” Nazi video dubbing treatment that was all the rage in 2009.  You can watch the link here.  Maybe even watch it twice.  And yes, that is the Honorable William J. Howell’s name superimposed over an image of Adolf Hitler in the Führerbunker, because what could better explain the horrors of deer dog hunting in the Commonwealth than a Nazi analogy.

howell

Let’s be clear about what HB 1900 actually is.  While it purports to protect landowners from trespassing animals, what it actually does is put yet another unfunded mandate on localities. If you paint your tree properly (operative word, properly) the burden is then placed on the locality to prove the offending dog was on the said property, and then take the offending owner to court to impose the fine. The locality, to impose the fine, must prove notice was given and that the dog was actually physically present when the claim was made. You may also notice that, under the language of the bill, proper notice can be delivered “verbally,” which will lead to the inevitable “he said she said” routine between neighbors, forcing a local judge to decide who is being honest.  The result is a bureaucratic nightmare, which will overwhelm local animal control agencies and flood the courts with litigation.

Those who read me know I write most often from the local perspective. I document life in my home county of Caroline where my husband, Jeff has been on the Board of Supervisors since 2008. My original intent was to write a humorous post on HB 1900, because there’s a lot that’s funny about this bill.  Slapping blue paint on a tree to keep dogs out? Can’t you just see the dog lumbering along making sure he does not set foot over the property line with the blue trees? What about cats trespassing? How about green paint for cats? Then there are chickens – an ever present problem in Caroline. Yellow paint for chickens, right? After reading the bill my neighbor said, “Well, I am pretty fed up with the teenagers driving by and mooning me. Can you get your friends at the General Assembly to write me a bill that says if I paint my tree pink, no mooning?”  It’s absurd, and anybody who has ever seen or heard a dog hunt recognizes that something like this is impossible to enforce.  Dogs aren’t deterred by paint.

For those who aren’t familiar, Caroline county is a rural area and deer dog hunting is common.  It’s filled, generally speaking, with a mix of long-term residents, like us, and new people who have fallen in love with the area.  Sometimes, though, it feels like it’s filled with new people who did not research where they were moving to. Here in the office, I often get calls from new residents all the time asking the same kinds of questions: “When will my trash get picked up?” Another common one: “Who can I call to get the raccoon off my back porch;” and, of course, “when will my internet be installed?”

“No,” I often have to explain, “the booming noise is not fracking. It’s Fort A.P Hill, where we have been training troops and blowing stuff up since 1941 and we love our men in green.”

We are a huge, rural county, but because we are centrally located on I-95, our tax rate is low and our house prices are good, we have seen rapid expansion over the last decade. While yes, you can jump on I-95 and get to work in D.C. or Richmond, we aren’t D.C or Richmond, and so we’re short on amenities and concrete.  To be fair, most of the folks who move here come to love it and understand Caroline. Those that don’t and who wanted a different lifestyle move on, and that’s how it should be.

This is, however, NOT one of those stories.  And there’s not much funny about it, either.

We in Caroline are fully aware of the movement to ban hunting with dogs in Virginia, which has so far been unsuccessful. Anti-dog hunting people are fond of painting all hunters in the same light, namely as those who both abuse and then abandon their dogs, treating them like property or worse.  Lost dogs are common, unfortunately, but the majority of dog hunters love their dogs, care for them, and want to see them returned.  Yes, just as in anything in life, there are a few bad dog owners, but the bad deeds of a few do not warrant punishing all.  The General Assembly has done a good job of passing practical legislation to address the legitimate concerns of landowners over dog hunting, and which most of us are confident will work in helping to retrieve dogs who are found on the property of another.  There are already leash laws, and livestock disturbance laws, and others which can be used to address the more egregious abuses.

In short, here in Caroline as in most of rural Virginia, we rely on one another to help solve these problems. It’s that old fashioned concept of being a good neighbor. Jeff has on the average, two complaint calls a year during hunting season, many of which are worked out with the help of our Sheriff and Animal Control or by simply talking to the hunt club or the owner. If you count family hunt clubs in Caroline, there are probably over 50 establishments that use dogs for hunting, and thousands of these dogs routinely take part in hunts in our area. Caroline is filled with lowlands and swamps and without the ability to hunt with dogs, very few deer would be taken. It is rare for a club not to cooperate in solving a problem, especially when the problem is communicated in good faith.

For centuries the men and women of my county have been taking to the woods to hunt foxes, deer, bear, and rabbits with dogs. Duck hunting along our beloved Rappahannock River is also done with retrievers. Hunting with dogs is a Virginia tradition going back to Lord Fairfax and George Washington. My ancestor, Thomas Griffin Thornton, High Sheriff of Caroline, was the most famous fox hunter of his day and when he (and his horse) were killed by a man to whom he was about to serve a writ, his prowess in the sport was covered by all the newspapers in 1838. My grandfather raised Chesapeake Bay Retrievers and in my heyday, I raised Blue Tick Coonhounds. Caroline folks, like many in rural Virginia, are still very tied to our traditions of the land and clubs like ours pass these traditions on to their sons, daughters and grandchildren. Caroline is home to two Virginia fox hunting organizations. Commonwealth Foxhounds, based in King George County, hunts land in northern Caroline, while the Caroline Hunt has their permanent home here.

Caroline is also home to one of the leaders in the movement to ban dog hunting in Virginia.  Ben Fulton, a leader for what appears to be close to a decade in the effort to restrict dog hunting, bought property in Caroline in 2014.  Perhaps he liked the location, and perhaps he loves the country, but if his desire was to find a way to ban dog hunting in Virginia, he couldn’t have moved to a better place to move that agenda forward.

Since moving to the county in 2014, Fulton has not hesitated to use the courts to protect his property rights. Donnie Pitts, whose family has owned 500 acres for generations near Fulton, was walking the woods in the weeks after his father’s passing and was hailed by Mr. Fulton, who was a co-worker and Pitts’ new neighbor.  Fulton told him how sorry he was to hear about Donnie’s father’s death.  According to Pitts, two days later, a federal game warden showed up in his driveway with a warrant, accusing Pitts of trespassing on Fulton’s property during a dog hunt, and using photographs from a game camera as proof. While the ground survey on paper showed that Fulton’s game camera had actually been on the Pitt’s property, the judge nonetheless found him guilty and Pitts received a two year jail sentence. This may seem harsh, but Donnie has been assured that if he keeps his nose clean (Donnie Pitts has never gotten so much as a speeding ticket), it will be nolle prossed in another year.  The sarcasm is intended.

When interviewed, Donnie’s wife Mary, a two term president of the Caroline Chamber of Commerce said, “we were just so hurt, never expecting anything like that from a neighbor. Our family has hunted that land for 50 years and the previous property owners did not like hunting, so we were always extra careful to respect that and not cast the dogs out in such a way they ended up there. Our beagles are like family members. I have two of our Mama dogs in the basement now by the wood stove with their puppies, and they receive veterinary care and are loved.”  She added, “it’s such a shame to try punish the majority of us who do respect the land and try and do what is right.”

Fulton’s property, which includes 50 acres in the most rural part of Caroline, is filled with game cameras designed to “catch” anything that moves or even resembles a dog or human on his property. Instead of calling Animal Control, the Sheriff or Jeff, his supervisor, so the problem can be addressed, he “documents” these canine trespassers and files complaints with the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. DGIF has no mechanism for removing dogs, which is within the jurisdiction of local authorities, but that does not seem to be Mr. Fulton’s concern.  His actions seemed tailored to increase the number of complaints being filed with DGIF, driving up dog complaint data that is reported Commonwealth wide.  While it’s unclear how many complaints have been made by Fulton, the number of complaints being received by DGIF has increased by over 100% since 2014.  In 2014, DGIF received 237 dog-related complaints. By 2016, the number had more than doubled to 493, or the equivalent of 3-4 calls per county in Virginia.

His emailing has been prolific, and has not been restricted simply to DGIF.  Both Delegate Margaret Ransone, who represents Caroline in the 99th District, as well as Speaker Howell, have received significant numbers.  In the body of his emails, Mr. Fulton repeats over and over again, “This is not an emergency or an ongoing situation but I would like to speak with a Conservation Law Enforcement Officer concerning this matter[,]” and provides his contact information.  Here’s an example of one such email:

email

 

 

Fulton’s concerns do not appear to be simply relegated to dogs wandering through his property unsupervised, as he notes dogs wearing tracking collars specifically in his emails.  It’s not clear why he notes this, although it is reasonable to believe that he views the presence of a collar as an indication that the trespass is willful, even though the collar is merely evidence that the dog owner is making his best efforts to ensure he retains his dog if it gets lost or too far from the pack.

While Fulton’s primary means of complaint has been through emails similar to the one above, he has, at least on one occasion, called local authorities.  The result of this was the immediate response of animal control who returned an errant beagle with a collar to his home. In thirty years, this single instance was the only dog call from Fulton’s actual home.  The rest of the complaints have gone to legislators and other state agencies who cannot solve the immediate problem.  Thus, based on this behavior, it seems clear that Fulton’s concern is not merely to ensure his property is free from trespassing hunting dogs, but also to create a case for legislative action to address this issue throughout the entire Commonwealth.

Caroline is truly blessed to be represented by good people in the General Assembly. They spend huge amounts of time here and our senior Delegate, Bobby Orrock, lives here. They are sensitive to the needs and to the people of our county and are strong proponents of local governance. That’s why it would be surprising for Delegate Orrock, Delegate Ransone or any of the other members of the General Assembly who represent Caroline County to carry a bill like this.  This is probably why none of them were approached to carry this legislation, and the bill’s proponents chose instead to seek out Speaker Howell’s assistance.

It is unclear what the relationship is between Mr. Fulton and Speaker Howell, and while there has been much speculation in Caroline as to what that connection might be, the result has been that the Speaker has chosen to carry the bill, despite the fact that his district is not one that would be primarily impacted.  When we were notified by our Delegate that this bill was moving forward, Jeff called the Speaker who denied a personal relationship with Fulton.  The Speaker, however, did make it clear he was aware that Fulton and his attorney were involved in the drafting of the legislation, and that he had received emails from Fulton documenting his concerns with hunting dogs on his property.

The bill does not appear to have been assigned to a committee yet.  It’s unclear why it has not yet been referred, but one could speculate that by not assigning it to a committee, opponents may not be able to direct their inquiries and opposition to the bill until it is too late to do so.  Given how wide a net the bill casts, as it is written it applies to all dogs and not specifically hunting dogs, the bill will likely be referred to the General Laws committee, rather than the Agriculture Committee which has jurisdiction over hunting related legislation, and where it would likely have died.

Remember in the video where Hitler asks why the Ag committee hasn’t killed this yet?  That the Ag Committee promised them it wouldn’t pass?  Clearly the anti-dog hunting coalition recognizes this tactic for what it is.

This is the same tool used to funnel unfunded mandates to localities as well, to send it to a committee whose members are not familiar with local government. Many of the General Laws delegates represent cities, and bills specifically targeting rural areas don’t impact them. Yet a bill like this would likely cause as many problems in urban areas, handing neighbors a potent legal tool to harass dog-owning neighbors whose dogs don’t always recognize the difference between one lawn and another, even if the mistake is inadvertent.

While this bill may appear to be small potatoes, it appears to have drawn enough attention that anti-dog hunting activists are fundraising to hire a lobbyist to advocate on their behalf in Richmond.  According to those who have been called, Rich McDaniel – grandson of Howell confident Charles McDaniel, and a prominent businessman from Fredericksburg in his own right – has been making calls fundraising in favor of this bill.  While it’s unclear why McDaniel is involved, what is clear is that these calls have likely backfired.  Knowing that prominent citizens are trying to lobby on behalf of the bill has motivated hunt clubs from across Virginia, from bear to rabbit, to mobilize their members in opposition.

It’s also clear that regardless of the outcome of this legislation, this will likely be a first step towards an eventual ban on dog hunting within the Commonwealth.  Despite the limited, five week dog hunting season, it isn’t clear if civil penalties like these fines will be enough to curtail the concerns of those, like Fulton, who seem to view a dog crossing their property as a heinous crime.  The practical end result of this bill is sure to be interminable fighting in residential neighborhoods, and few fines actually collected, thus requiring the legislature to take further, more drastic, action.

I have been told by members of the General Assembly in both the House and Senate that Speaker Howell has been approached to withdraw the bill, given the importance of this year’s Governor’s race and the likely backlash that the bill will cause in rural Virginia.  Not only is this legislation that legislators who respect Virginia tradition wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole, it could give rural Democrats a tool to attack Republicans with, especially given how the bill appears to have been drafted and crafted.

Even if the Democrats don’t latch on to the fact that somebody actually used a Nazi reference in regards to dog hunting, they surely will be happy to try to win back Virginia’s hunting community, who they lost long ago with their opposition to the second amendment.  Claims that this bill represents “protecting private property” will fall on deaf ears, since the true impact of the legislation has a far greater impact on the rights of those with hunting leases than it does on private property owners who seem to think that a can of paint can keep wild (and domesticated) animals off their rural, timbered property.

It’s up to Republicans to maintain Virginia traditions in the face of opposition from the left, and the willingness to jettison those ideals in order to do a favor for a friend helps to reinforce the image that Richmond is out of touch with the rest of Virginia.  Let’s hope the GOP doesn’t fall into this proverbial hole yet again.

Over the coming weeks, I will be continuing to investigate the progress HB 1900 makes in Richmond and the efforts for and against its passage.

Сейчас уже никто не берёт классический кредит, приходя в отделение банка. Это уже в далёком прошлом. Одним из главных достижений прогресса является возможность получать кредиты онлайн, что очень удобно и практично, а также выгодно кредиторам, так как теперь они могут ссудить деньги даже тем, у кого рядом нет филиала их организации, но есть интернет. http://credit-n.ru/zaymyi.html - это один из сайтов, где заёмщики могут заполнить заявку на получение кредита или микрозайма онлайн. Посетите его и оцените удобство взаимодействия с банками и мфо через сеть.