HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-15-2009 - Information Item 4n-Fo~ma -~' ion =~ em
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Frank W. Clifton, County Manager
FROM: Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager
SUBJECT: Hunters "Dogging Deer"- Feedback from Concerned
Private Property Owners
DATE: December 9, 2009
This memorandum is the second information update on staff efforts pertaining to
hunters who use dogs to hunt deer in the unincorporated areas of the County.
The first information update was provided to the BOCC at its meeting on
November 17, 2009 and conveyed findings from a meeting convened by County
Management, Animal Services, County, the Sheriffs Department, and NC
Wildlife Resources on November 4th with representatives of the hunting
community. A similar meeting was held on December 8th involving concerned
property owners to receive their input and ideas on the practice of "dogging
deer".
Attachment 1 is a summary of the meeting for BOCC review and reference.
The "bottom line" for the private property owners participating in the discussion
was the principles of property rights and public safety driven by increasing
population density in the northern part of the County. They strongly urged the
BOCC to consider seeking legislative authorization to prohibit "dogging deer"
north of I-40. Regardless of whether hunters acted responsibly, they asserted the
days of deer hunting with dogs were gone as a result of increased population
density and overall reduction in sizable acreage. They also felt that northern
Orange shouldn't stand out in the midst of its neighboring counties -Durham
(2001) and Alamance (1979) have already banned the practice and it was
indicated Person and Caswell are receiving complaints and having discussions
regarding dog hunting deer as well.
The County Attorney's Office has been asked to research existing and/or
proposed local legislation the BOCC might seek authorization to establish, and to
advise on whether anything might be done immediately while the BOCC
considers formal action and the legislature convenes in 2010 to consider any
local requests. Planning has also been asked as additional background to
provide maps detailing density and contiguous acreage as suggested at the
private property owner meeting.
Attachment 2 provides a brief history of the Orange County Hunting
Ordinance. County Management will continue to work with the County Attorney,
Animal Services, Planning, the Sheriffs Department, and technical advice from
Wildlife Resources to develop further background and an action item for formal
BOCC consideration in public meeting in January or February 2010.
Dogging Deer- Meeting Convened by Orange County Staff,
12/8/09
Concerns/Challenges Expressed by Private Property Owners
1) Enforcing existing trespassing statutes: Hunters driving onto other
people's property w/o permission, using excuses: "trying to retrieve my
dogs"
2) Trespassing: Hunters being verbally abusive and rude, physically
threatening; creating confrontations
3) Trespassing: Clubs misrepresenting themselves/making false claims of
permission
4) Animal control: Dogs left overnight
5) Animal control: Abandoned dogs hanging out on private property
6) Public safety -Sheriff, Wildlife Resources: Hunters shooting from the
roadway
7) Trespassing: Hunters ignoring requests/pleas to leave private property
8) Animal control: Claims by hunters they can't control what the dogs do and
where they go
9) Private property owners afraid their own dogs will wander off
10) Not that many large tracts of land (ideally 1000-1200 and even 2000 acres
would be needed) in northern Orange where dogs can run w/o crossing
other private property
11)Family members frightened by the sound of gunshots
12)Complained to the Sheriff and Wildlife for years -Hard to enforce if not
caught in the act of trespassing
13)Interfering with more traditional hunters
14)Claims they can kill more deer with dogs untrue
15)Chasing deer through pasture and breaking fences the owner has to
replace
16)Flat out dangerous period - 6 weeks of hunting season (Central NC gun
season)
17)GPS collars don't control the dogs -they just allow the hunters to more
effectively (shoot the deer) track and ultimately recover their dogs
18)Mode of operation is to drive down the road and shoot the deer in the
middle of the road -unsafe!
19)Fractures peace and quiet
20)"Gang mentality" among the hunters; they show up in large numbers
21)Neighbors are afraid of speaking up; Landowners are intimidated
22)Sooner or later someone is going to get hurt
23)The day of dog hunting is over; shouldn't have to happen! (As is apparent
from it being outlawed in adjacent counties as well as south of I-85).
24)Women shouldn't have to be subjected to this; very uncomfortable
speaking up
25)Hunters disappear before game warden arrives on the scene
26)People live in the county now who didn't grow up here and don't feel
they're getting a fair shake on this subject
27)The "still" hunters (who use deer blinds, walking, etc.) don't like it either
28)Landowners don't want to be the ones pointing the finger; don't want to
make their neighbors mad
29)Not about hunting in general - it's a property rights issue, a safety issue
30)Dogs may or may not have an ID collar
31)Don't want to interfere with ALL dog hunting in the county, e.g., rabbit,
raccoon and fowl.
32)Why did the BOCC prohibit it in just one section of the County and stop?
NOTE: The Sheriff shared his recollection that this took place in the late 40s
- a ban on dogging deer south of I-85 given population density and concerns
from the towns and university. The north side was left alone perhaps because
of tradition and out of neighborliness.
Options/Opportunities Suggested by Private Property Owners
1) Stop hunting w/dogs {best option} or implement some other rules to
motivate hunters to stay on their own property
2) If a dog is on another's property w/o permission -then the owner could
capture the dog and hold them for Animal Control where the owners will
be fined
3) Hefty fine outright to have a dog on someone else's property -hard to
enforce
4) Stricter trespassing fines for dogs caught trespassing -hard to enforce
5) Tougher penalties for hunters who allow their dogs to cross properties
without permission to hunt -hard to enforce
NOTE: Animal Services advises to contact Animal Control and file a
nuisance complaint under existing regulations, prompting action against the
dog owner. Dogs at large off property constitute a public nuisance.
6) Change regulations to stop deer hunting with dogs in northern Orange
County
7) Alamance and Durham Counties have already outlawed this practice -
Why isn't Orange County more progressive in this area?
8) Hunters need to take this issue more seriously and assist in policing
themselves - as this may be true in different degrees with different clubs
9) NC Wildlife Resources Commissioners have been discussing alternatives
to deal w/issue statewide
10)Maybe things would be settled if the law were changed
11)May not be possible to reach a compromise under northern Orange
County conditions
12)Hunting in general can continue in a civilized manner
13)The BOCC should listen to both sides and make a decision
14)Walking deer drive - 30 hunters could cover 100 acres on a Saturday and
kill more deer; you can't kill more deer with dogs
15)Is there a way to temporarily stop or suspend it while the BOCC studies it?
16)Videotape is acceptable evidence, but you must be prepared to testify in
court
17)The best immediate plan is to call law enforcement for a response; The
most effective enforcement is for the game warden to come out and write
a ticket
18)If property is properly posted, you must come to court to testify in a
trespass allegation
19)Landowners would benefit from registering their land with Wildlife
authorities so that an officer could arrest a trespasser without checking
with the landowner if the trespasser does not have written permission to
be on the land in question. A proposed dog hunting ban for property above
-85 would carry more weight if there were documents to substantiating:
• Population density and land ownership in the areas in question
have increased/changed such that trespassing and public safety
issues created by dog hunters have intensified and must be
addressed by law.
• Signed petition from landowners requesting a review of the law
governing dog deer hunting above I-85 in Orange and other
counties
• Number of documented legal disputes between dog deer hunting
groups and landowners
• Projection of when this form of hunting will be banned throughout
NC and other states where it is still legal
NOTE: The Sheriff advises to call 911 for dispatch prompting a "call for
service". The Wildlife Resources Commission is limited in personnel; there is
currently only one officer per county. Planning has been asked to provide
maps depicting population density and contiguous land areas under single
ownership of 1200 and 2000 acres.
A draft of this summary was circulated among the meeting attendees as
well as all those on the a-mail distribution list compiled by County
Management for this purpose. Every effort has been made to
incorporate the sense and spirit of the meeting short of a verbatim
record. See also additional a-mails attached from Steve Graf amplifying
several of these ideas and providing further comments he wished
shared with the BOCC. An a-mail from Charlie Treis who was unable to
attend the meeting is attached too.
Persons in Attendance
1) Forrest Orr, Wildlife Resources
2) Robert Sharpe, Wildlife Resources
3) Steve Graf
4) Richard Lockamy
5) Bob Marotto, Animal Services
6) Zach Blevins
7) Peter Rourk
8) Andy Smith
9) Beth Banes
10) AI Banes
11) Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass
12) Gwen Harvey, County Manager's Office
Note: The Central Deer Season with Gun hunting allowed in Orange County
is November 15 -January 1.
Page 1 of 2
From:
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:19 PM
To: Gwen Harvey
Subject: Dogging Deer Committee
Dear Ms. Harvey,
I was unable to attend the meeting held Tuesday, December 8th, by the Dogging Deer Committee to
provide concerned citizen input regarding this issue. I spoke at a County Commissioners meeting last
January about this matter. I would like my voice heard as a concerned citizen.
Deer dog hunting Northern Orange County has become problematic. Something needs to be done about
this issue. There are several problems that arise from this method of hunting.
. Hunters from outside the county who are leasing land show no respect to adjacent property
owners. The majority of the hunting they do is during the week when many property owners are
at work. This makes it difficult to address the problems that arise from this type of trespassing.
This method of hunting prohibits the ability of local hunters without dogs to hunt and feed their
families. In my case, I had opened hunting on my land to a friend with a family of seven. He had
to give up tree stand hunting because these hunters allow their dogs to run through adjacent
properties and then follow behind them calling the dogs and using that as an excuse to go through
property that they are not leasing. This scares off the deer and puts the tree hunter at greater risk
of shooting a person who is not expected in the woods. Of course, the law does not allow them to
shoot a deer while looking for their dogs, but one can only imagine what really happens when
there are no consequences because of the limited capability of wardens to monitor every inch of
potential hunting in the rural parts of northern Orange County.
^ The third problem is the use of GPS collars on dogs. This enables a hunter to track the dog
tracking the deer and go to wherever the dog is to make the kill. Again, this lures hunters onto
unleased land.
Just recently, members of a dog hunting club leasing land near my home came onto private property and
rather than have a productive discussion they cursed and were confrontational. I was uncomfortable
after the encounter and made changes to my daily routine in order to ensure the safety of my family and
animals. We have No Trespassing signs as well as Beware of Dog signs and they are ignored by deer
dog hunters. Rural private property should not be treated as public lands. Dog hunters have made it
clear that they believe they have the right to trespass on private property if they are looking for their
dogs. I would like this clarified.
I am hopeful that this can be resolved for the northern sector of this county as it was for the southern
sector. Deer dog hunting should not be allowed in Northern Orange County.
Thank you for all you do to serve the citizens of Orange County, NC.
12/ 10/2009
Page 2 of 2
I would like to receive a copy of your final report and recommendations.
Charlie Treis
12/10/2009
Page
Melissa Allison
From: Steve Graf ,
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:19 PM
To: Gwen Harvey
Cc: 'Peter J Rourk'
Subject: RE: DRAFT Memo & Attachment to BOCC -Dogging Deer
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Ftag Status: Red
Gwen,
Thanks for writing this memo so quickly! I think the memo looks fine. Here are my comments for
attachment A:
Under Concerns/Challenges:
• Item 11 -The problem arises from multiple gunshots. People are ok with a single shot. But in
general, dog hunters shoot a minimum of 5 times and sometimes you hear 10 or 15 shots in just
a few seconds!
• Item 14 - I don't really think this is relevant to the discussion. I think this item should be
dropped.
• Item 23 - I don't think this is really afact /experience based comment It is too much of an
opinion. I think it should be dropped.
• Item 31 - I would rewrite this to read "Request to stop Deer dog hunting does not include
hunting for rabbits or birds with dogs"
• Item 32 -Change the word "County" to the phrase "Southern Half of the County below
interstate 85" My understanding of this is that the legislature made a statewide decision back in
the 1940's. It was not done at the county level. The county government had nothing to do with
the fact that the county was split in half.
Under Options/Opportunities:
• Item 12 - I don't think this is relevant to the discussion. I think this item should be dropped.
I would like to see a couple of my comments about the last memorandum added to this memorandum.
If memory serves, there was unanimous support for these comments in the meeting from the land
owners when I made them. I think it is important that the commissioners see these points. Maybe
another section or attachment should be added called "Comments on Previous Meeting"?
• Page 2 Bullet 1 - I disagree with the statement that "dog hunters can't guarantee the dogs
won't cross over private land". I believe that based on the fact that deer are creatures of habit
and run away from the dogs in the same way every time they are chased, that the dog hunters
know full well that the dogs will run over private land that they don't have permission to hunt. If
the dog hunters didn't know where the deer would run, then dog hunting wouldn't be effective.
This is a very important point.
• Page 2 Bullet 2 - I disagree that the Triad Club is to blame for all of the troubles. My
experience is that I have had just as much trouble with the Caldwell club and other local dog
hunters as with the Triad Club. I would like the record to show this.
• Page 2 Bullet 3 - I disagree with the statement that dog hunting fuels the local economy and is
family-centric. My family shops at the local stores all year long, not just during rifle season. And
my family must stay close to the house when the dog hunters are around which diminishes our
quality of life.
Thanks again for doing all this work!
12/10/2009
Page 2 of 2
Steve Graf
From: Gwen Harvey [mailto:gharvey@co.orange.nc.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:37 AM
To: AI Banes; Andy Smith ;Beth Banes; Born Blacksheep; Charlie Treis ;Christopher Cole; Gayle Dauver; Jeff
Peloquin; Jim Manwaring; Mary Bennett Houston Lockamy; Peter J. Rourk; Steve Graf; Annette Moore; Bob
Marotto; Craig Benedict; Forrest Orr; Lindy Pendergrass; Robert Sharpe
Subject: DRAFT Memo & Attachment to BOCC -Dogging Deer
Importance: High
Good Morning - Pls review and provide any feedback or comment. I'm trying to get this finalized so it can go out
to the BOCC in their package Thursday (Dec 10) for the meeting on Tuesday (Dec 15). Your~uick r~ly would be
greatly appreciated. Thx all for your candid participation and genuine concern! -Gwen
12/10/2009
Orange County Ordinance Regulating Certain Aspects of Hunting and
Fishing
Adopted December 2, 1991
Made it unlawful to enter upon the private lands of another to hunt or fish
(or) with the intent to hunt or fish without the written permission of the
owner or lessee of the land
Orange County was authorized by the State Legislature under Chapter 246, 1991
Session Laws to adopt an ordinance regulating the hunting and fishing on private
lands. The ordinance was in response to problems that had developed within the
county of individuals hunting and fishing on lands of others without the
permission of and against the wishes of the owners or lessees of the property.
An Orange County Task Force on Hunting was formed to assess the Hunting
Ordinance in 1993. The Task Force noted "positive response" and a "conscious
effort" by hunt clubs to comply, citing fewer numbers of violations and voluntary
participation in a hunter safety courses co-sponsored by the Orange County
Recreation & Parks Department and NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
In late summer 1995, a Hunting & Fishing Ordinance Committee was formed and
held meetings to review and assess the Hunting Ordinance again. This
Committee presented a series of ideas for consideration by the BOCC and
conducted a public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed
changes in October 1995. Although not discussed during the committee
meetings, a citizen requested that there be a restriction placed on the use of
dogs while hunting deer. A public hearing was held at the BOCC meeting on
October 2, 1995 and comments received were referred back to the Committee to
review and bring back a recommendation. A search of BOCC agenda and
minutes through the County Clerk's Office revealed the matter never came back
to the BOCC for action.
A new Hunting Committee was convened in the spring 2001 in response to
concerns by the public to consider seeking local legislation in order to give law
enforcement maximum flexibility to deal with unsafe hunting practices,
specifically hunting with firearms under the influence of alcohol. The BOCC held
a public hearing on January 16, 2002 to consider amending the Orange County
ordinance regulating hunting. The BOCC sought and gained Legislative
authorization under Session Law 2001-165 to amend its local ordinance.
Amended January 21, 2002
Made it unlawful for any person to hunt with a firearm while that person is
under the influence of alcohol or other impairing substance; for any person
to hunt with a firearm while that person has any blood concentration as
measured by an alco-sensor; for any person to hunt with a firearm or with a
crossbow or bow and arrow within 150 yards of any federal, State, or local
government building, including those owned or leased by boards of
education
Attached is a copy of current local laws in Orange County excerpted from the
NC Wildlife Resources Commission Regulations Digest, 2008-2009.
2
'
• Discharge a rifle of greater than .22-caliber, except from an !.
_ i
New Hanover '. •
elevated position in which the rifle is a minimum of eight feet, ~ e Hunt a fox with dogs in Federal Point. township'south of the ' • ~ ;: -' :
above t11e ground. .. Intracoastal Waterway. -
• Take deer with the aid of a boat or floating device.in or within Set a steel trap on'anothet~ land. ,
100 yards of Roanoke River above the U.S.17 bridge. .Intentionally remove or.destroy an electronic collar; or other. • •
' ' ';
`
. Hunt with a Eireann from, or discharge a firearm on or across, a .
electronic device, placed; on a dog by his owner [o maintam'. • ~~, ~
4
public ,road northwest of 13.5.64, U.S,17 or in an area adjoining control of the dog. ' . '
Beaufort County and lying between N.C.171 and U.S.17. Northampton ~;
e Hunt with or discharge a firearm on or across S.R 1142 between Take deer with the aid of a boat in or within 100 yards of the ;, : + ~
N.C. 903 and S.R 1113. Roanoke River below U.S. 301.
~
• Buy or sell a dead fox, fox pelt or other part thereof. - • • Hunt, take or kill any wild animal or wild bird with a firearm oim; .; `~
'
Hunt from the rights-of--way of S.R 1504 and S.R. 1505. from oracrosstheright=of-way of any public road or highway.
McDowell • Discharge a rifle larger than .22-calibgr on another land or -. .
• ' Discharge a firearm fromtheright-of-way of astate-numbered fromtheright-of-way of a public road across such land.without• ;' ~'+
• road for the purpose of taking big game animals. This does not written permission of the'owner or lessee and unless positioned
apply to those portions along N.C.105 bordered on both sides at least eight feet above the ground. • - . •,
.
~, g~ ~•~, .Possess afirearm on amotor-propelled vessel (except anout- : r
. Intentionally remove or destroy an electronic collar, or other board with the motor removed and stored) on Meherrin Rivet
electronic device, placed on a dog by its owner to maintain
~ during the open deer season. - ~ -
control of the dog: Onslow -• ` . .,
Mecklenburg • Hunt any wlld animal or bird from the right-of-way of any public
e Hunt deer with any ride, except that a muzzleloading rifle maybe
• road without written permission of the owner or lessee of the "
used during the primitive-weapons season.. . land that abuts the road. .
o Huntwith afirearmfrom apublicroad orhighwayright-of-way Orange ,_
Mitchell ' . .Hunt deer from a public road. _ .
• Hunt wild boar with any weapon other than a bow and arrow, a • Hunt with fireanms from the right-of--way of a public road. . .
rifle larger than .22-caliber or a shotgun loaded with buckshot or .NOTE: Entrance to private lands to hunt is regulated by local '
~
•
rifled slugs. ordinance.
• '
•Hunt, take or kill any wild bird or wild animal except bear or • Intentionally remove or destroy an electronic collar, or other. `
boaz with a firearm from, on oracross apublicroadright-of--way. 'electronic device, placed on a dog by his owner to maintain '
• Intentionally remove or destroy ari electronic collar, or other control of the dog. - ` . ~ '
electronic device, placed on a dog by his owner to maintain • Hunt on the land of another without Having on•one's person;
controlflf the dog. - written permission, signed and dated for the current hunting . '
•
Montgomery season, by the landowner or lessee:. ~
' ".... • ~ • .
. Sell a dead fox or parts thereof. .Unlawful to hunt with firearms by persons under the influence
Moore of alcohol or other impairing substances.
• In Sandhill and Mineral Springs townships: (1) hunt any game amlico . - ~ . • :. ~
• .
animal on another's land without possession of written per- 500 yards of another'spe~m~=
• • Take migratory waterfowl within
mission of the owner or lessee; (2) hunt with a rifle of greater ~ nent hunting location without permission o#'the landholder. .
than .22 rimfire caliber or capable of firing 12 center fire upon whose land the waterfowl is taken.
ammunition, except that a muzzleloading rifle may be used .Hunt bear with dogs. ~ .
when positdoned at least eight feet above the ground. • Take any wild anirrtal or wild bird from or across rile right-of--~ - .
• Shine a light on deer between 30 minutes after sunset and 30 way of N.C. 55 and~N.C.306.
minutes before sunrise. . • Pasquotank -
• Hunt deer on the land of atmother without written permission • Discharge a center fire rifle on another§ hand,. or oh or across
dated within one year. such land from a public road, without having in pos§ession : ~ .E : -
. Hunt, take or kill deer on, from or across aright-of--way of any written permission of the owner or lessee: • . • .::
public road. - • ~ To have possession of a loaded shotgun or center fire rifle while • , ~ ,
. o Hunt deer with dogs unless each dog bears a collar, tag or other on the right-of-way of any public road or highway while outside. -
identi$catfon with the ownem's full name,and address. the confumes of the passenger azea of a vehicle; without the • : ~
Nash written permmission of the owner'or lessee o~ the land that abuts
o Take migratory waterfowl on, from or over the Rocky Mount the road orhighway. - . . ~ .. .
Tar River Reservoir or within 500 yards thereof, except within • e To hunt, take or kill any bird or game animal from or on rile •
"Zone E" with peraiissioa of the affected landowner and subject right-of-way of any public road oi' highway, without first
to the rules and regulations of the City of Rocky Mount. See - securing the written permission of the owner or lessee of the , .
httpJlwwwrockymountnc.gov/pazksJhunting:html for more land that abiyts the road or highway., ~ ~ .
detafl, ~ o Intentionally'remove ordestroy anelectronic collar, or other:
o Discharge a firearm from, onto or across a public road. electronic device, placed on a dog by his owner to maintain -.:
o Hunrdeer with a rifle, except from a stand at least six feet above control of the dog. .'
the ground. Fender - ,
•
• Hunt or discharge a rifle on or across the right-oE way of any road. -:•
Take deer with the aid of a boat or• floating device in or within 100 .
• Hunt on the land of another without written permission fromthe yazds of the Black River, Long Creek, Morgan Creek or Turkey.
owner or lessee. ~ Creek between N. C. 210 and the Northeast Cape Fear River. ~~ •
Please note; ,For the convenience of the reader, major regulation changes appear in RED. 69: ~ '
fLC (L.~~~~~.~~~~~t o~-og