The Rise and Fall of a Buddy Bill, Continued

As noted in my last piece, proponents of the HB 1900, what we’re referring to as the “Blue Paint Bill” wouldn’t survive a referral to the Agriculture Committee.  It was expected that in order to get around this hurdle, Speaker Bill Howell would refer the bill to the General Laws committee.

One problem with that, though.  While many of the members of General Laws represent urban areas with no dog in the dog hunting fight, Speaker Howell isn’t on the General Laws Committee.  He does chair the Rules Committee, however.  And, in a surprise move that shouldn’t have surprised anyone, HB 1900 has been referred to … the Rules Committee.

All the way in Caroline, we hear the folks on the General Laws Committee, who thought they were scheduled to receive it, breathe a sigh of relief.  Since in its original form it not only punished those who hunt with dogs, but potentially penalized every Virginian with a dog who can’t read a plat, it was recognized throughout the General Assembly as the boondoggle it truly is.

Due in no small part to the major lobbying efforts of the dog hunting community, amendments have been proposed to the bill that would alter how it works.  According to those in the fox hunting community, the bill has been altered to only apply to “hunting dogs” (although that has yet to be defined), and the fine is changed from $100 per dog to $100 per occurrence, with second occurrences costing $250.  Landowners will be required to go to court with proof and pay the requisite filing fees in order to begin the legal process to find the dog owner liable.  Text of the changes is not yet available as of this writing.

Even under these new changes, the citizens of the Commonwealth will still have to pick up the tab for the legal proceedings involved, which would apparently require some kind of hearing in order to prove the dog was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  We can also expect a larger number of abandoned animals whose owners will disclaim ownership so as not to have to pay the $100.00, which will cause added staff hours for animal control and crowded animal shelters.

Given the level of controversy surrounding the bill, it’s surprising that Speaker Howell is continuing to push for it. After the machinations to keep the bill from the Agriculture Committee, sending it to the Rules Committee looks like nothing more than a blatant parliamentary trick to keep the bill from dying the quiet death that so many members of the General Assembly wish it would.

More awkward for the Rules Committee than the optics here is the fact that the bill has begun the usual metamorphosis that bad bills go through, in an attempt to keep them alive by addressing ancillary concerns of certain interest groups to get them to back off their opposition to the bill.  For instance, limiting the bill to hunting dogs alone takes away the concerns of urban legislators who saw this as a community destroying bill.  Removing the per dog language and replacing it with per occurrence is designed to reduce concerns from mounted foxhunters, who use large packs of dozens of dogs at a time, as opposed to deer dog hunters who use smaller groups.  These amendments are designed to keep the bill alive by trying to split the groups opposing it.

The only problem with this is that every time one group gets their problem solved, the solution creates more problems.  For example – just what is a hunting dog? I own Labrador Retrievers who hunt occasionally, but are mostly pets.  Do they qualify as hunting dogs?  Are we going to define hunting dogs by breeds?  Who will make that determination?  How will they do it?  And how long will it take?

If the amendments keep going, the legislation will balloon from the four or five modest paragraphs to a major law with definitions sections, penalty explanations, civil procedure and the like.  Many, many hours will be spent crafting the bill and getting it ready for a vote.  It may even pass.

Then we can fast forward to the real awkwardness when Governor McAuliffe vetoes the legislation, and the Democrats try to claim the mantle of being the defenders of Virginia tradition, and the champions of Virginia’s mounted fox hunters. Sporting clubs all over Virginia who hunt bear, rabbit, upland birds and deer with dogs will praise him, and Republicans will look, again, like we’re playing insider good-ole-boy politics.

Here’s hoping Delegate Kirk Cox, one of the good guys in this debate, puts commonsense and traditional Virginia values ahead of this quintessential Buddy Bill and looks out for our community and for our future electoral success.

For those who want to contact the Rules Committee, you can get their names and email addresses here.

As to the buddies themselves, they’ve been scrambling since my last article.  It’s no surprise that the anti-dog folks pulled the Nazi commercial featuring Speaker Howell and replaced it with a less innocuous one.  No worries.  We at Bearing Drift still have a copy handy and the screenshot can still be viewed on my original post.  My guess is Speaker Howell did not sign on for a Nazi commercial and was as appalled as I was.

In addition to our coverage, the bill got coverage in the mainstream media (you can read that article here) and there have literally been thousands of shares and comments for and against this bill on social media from all over Virginia.  Those shares and comments have continued unabated all week.

The preponderance of comments are adamantly opposed and this author has received permission to share those in the future.  Virginia’s mounted fox hunters are also ready to roll to request this bill be killed, with clubs all over Virginia activating their internal communication lists and sharing information.

Stay tuned for more updates.