Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-21-2010 - 6aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 21, 2010 Action Agen a Item No. - SUBJECT: Dogging Deer Issue in Northern Orange County DEPARTMENT: County Manager's Office PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Report from the Hunting Community 2) Report from Concerned Private Property Owners 3) Population Density and Acreage Maps 4) Report from Staff Attorney 5) Survey of Landowners Who Own Large Tracts of Land Concerning Management and Hunting - Conducted for the NC Wildlife Resources Commission Available for Review Under "Meeting Agendas" -January 21, 2010 -Item 6-a - on County Website - www. co. orange. nc. us INFORMATION CONTACT: Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager, 245-2307 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245-2575 Bob Marotto, Animal Services Director, 942- 7387 Annette Moore, Staff Attorney, 245-2317 Lindy Pendergrass, Sheriff, 245-2900 PURPOSE: To present findings and conclusions to enable the BOCC to determine next steps regarding the practice of using dogs to hunt deer in northern Orange County. BACKGROUND: "Dogging Deer" is the practice whereby deer hunters use dogs to chase the quarry in order to facilitate the kill. Dogging deer has been prohibited in that portion of Orange County lying south of I-85 since 1979 when the General Assembly adopted NC General Statute 113-291.5. No hard evidence exists as to why this occurred when it did, why the line was drawn the way it was, or if it were preceded by any local debate or special request. Law enforcement speculates the action emerged due to changes in the urban environment and community culture. State approval is required for the BOCC to take similar action on the portion of the County lying north of I-85; i.e., to ban dogging deer completely throughout Orange County. The County already has a requirement for written permission by the owner to allow hunting to occur on private property. The BOCC expressed an interest last winter in taking action to ban the practice in northern Orange. County as part of its package of legislative requests to the local delegation for the 2009 session of the General Assembly. The idea was tentatively raised when the BOCC met with 2 legislative leaders and in the discussion learned several had already been contacted by private property owners. The decision was made to withhold pursuing legislation then in order to provide time and opportunity for dialog among the stakeholders. The BOCC is scheduled to meet with the local delegation on February 22, 2010. As in the past several years, the BOCC previews its legislative requests with the delegation, schedules a formal hearing to allow public comment on its proposed legislative agenda, and authorizes the County Attorney to draft and submit any proposed legislation to the local sponsors by the required due dates. The BOCC is tentatively scheduled to receive public comment on its proposed legislative agenda on either February 2 or February 16. During fall 2009, Orange County staff held two "listening sessions" to receive input and information from vocal and active representatives on both sides of the issue from northern Orange County. These sessions were supported and assisted by officers from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). The resulting reports were submitted previously to the BOCC as information items and are again attached here. Staff has also prepared and attached four maps depicting the population density in northern Orange and locations of contiguous acreage arguably considered "optimal" for hunting deer with the aid of dogs. The County Staff Attorney has also provided the attached report on means within the County control of addressing the issue locally. A summary of findings and conclusions from the two listening sessions are provided below: ^ Changing demographics and differing community perspectives have produced opportunities for deer hunters using dogs and private property owners to clash more frequently; heightened the importance of continuous public risk assessment; and fostered a need to re-evaluate local deer hunting customs. ^ Representative deer hunters and private property owners are organized and. active in stating opinions and objections. The Caldwell Hunting Club, for example, asserts how through a 30 year tradition it has adapted to ensure safe and responsible behavior among its membership and to demonstrate respect for the community by giving back through charitable service. Private property owners cite numerous illustrations and incidents of trespass, rude and intimidating behavior, disturbing the peace, threats to public safety, and general incompatibility with population and property patterns. ^ Dogging deer has been banned in adjacent Alamance and Durham counties. Dogging deer proponents argue those bans brought unscrupulous hunters from the outside into Orange County who disrespected law and etiquette, and caused crop damage for local farmers due to deer overpopulation. Opponents argue the bans were a result of increased urbanization and community adaptation for safety reasons. ^ Except in instances of large tracts under single ownership (estimated from 200-1200 acres) no practical way exists to prevent a deer dog on the hunt from physically crossing property for which there is no permission by the property owner to allow hunting. Neither is there technology available to the hunter to direct or deter the dog during the chase. ^ Local laws currently available -the required written permission by the owner to hunt on private property (Sheriff's Department) and the nuisance animal control citation (Animal Services) for hunters whose dogs are caught or left behind on private property -are not deemed to provide the "blanket" protection some seek. (Note: Anson, Gate and Moore counties have obtained State approval to compel additional requirements/restrictions about hunting deer with dogs; i.e., requiring the dog to wear a collar identifying the name and address of the owner.) ^ NC Wildlife Resources officials are short staffed and hard pressed to respond sufficiently to counter or apprehend perceived or actual trespassers. ^ Law enforcement has found it difficult to precisely quantify the extent of the problem out in the field since situations may arise and dissipate before they arrive on the scene, incidents may simply go unreported, and individuals may be fearful of calling attention to complaints or having to testify in court. ^ Criticism and objections were directed towards using dogs to hunt deer, not towards using dogs to hunt other wildlife such as rabbits or game birds. ^ The central deer season with gun hunting allowed in Orange County for 2009 was November 15, 2009 -January 1, 2010. Any regulatory action authorized by the General Assembly for Orange County in 2010 could be implemented and effective no sooner than for the 2010 deer season. Additionally, County staff has learned of a "Survey of Landowners Who Own Large Tracts of Land Concerning Deer Management and Hunting", conducted by Responsive Management in December 2008 for the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and published in 2009. The study entailed a telephone survey of owners of tracts of land of at least 5 acres in the state. The majority of landowners responding used the land as a residence for their own use or that of another person and identified locations as being rural, whether a farm or not. The mean age of respondents was 60 and the mean amount of time in the community was 34 years. The total number of survey respondents was 1619 with Orange County respondents representing 3.6 percent (n=59). The top counties in which the tracts of land are located among landowners in the sample were Union, Randolph, Chatham, Orange, Wilkes, and Rockingham. (Only those with 5 acres or more were kept in the survey.) (Note: The complete Survey is included with this agenda item on the County website - www.co.orange.nc.us -under "Meeting Agendas" -January 21, 2010 -Item 6-a.) The NCWRC survey queried landowners on their opinions of deer and the deer population, problems with deer, hunting of deer on land, management of deer on land, other opinions on deer hunting regulations, and overall participation in outdoor activities. Survey results most applicable to the dogging deer issue before the BOCC are detailed below: • Ninety-three percent approved of legal, regulated hunting. • Ninety-two percent agreed that written permission from the landowner should be required to hunt on private land. • Top four reasons cited for not allowing others beyond the landowner or immediate household to hunt on the land were -concern about a hunter injuring another person on 4 the property (66%), concern about trespassing on their property (64%), concern about liability (59%), and thinking that the property was too small for deer hunting (55%). • Landowners with tracts from 5-20 acres were more likely to agree their property was too small than those with more than 20 acres. • Fifty-percent of the landowners strongly disagreed with the statement, "Hunting deer with dogs should be legal in North Carolina", and 61 percent moderately or strongly disagreed. Only 15% strongly agreed with the statement. County staff is not aware of any action the NCWRC has taken or contemplates as a result of the Survey Report being issued. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the BOCC seeking legislative regulation through the local delegation. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the BOCC receive the presentation and background materials as submitted; receive any public comments per usual for a regular agenda item; and take action as it may deem appropriate. Options include: 1) Approve seeking legislative authority to adopt a local ordinance that would ban "dogging deer" in northern Orange County and include the request within its 2010 proposed legislative agenda. 2) Defer seeking legislative authority to adopt a local ordinance in the 2010 session. 3) Create further opportunity for open discussion on this issue among interested members of the public. 4) Other, as determined by the Board of Commissioners. ~'~~-~~ n rr,-- n rn MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Frank W. Clifton, County Manager FROM: Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager SUBJECT: Hunters "Dogging Deer" DATE: November 5, 2009 This memorandum is an information update on staff efforts in response to complaints from two (2) citizens during the fall7winter 2008-09 concerning hunters who use dogs to hunt deer in the unincorporated areas of the County. Complaints centered upon deer hunters who: • Lived outside the County but leased hunting land in the County • Allowed their dogs to run through adjacent private properties and follow behind them, trespassing and disrespecting the property rights of others • Used GPS collars on the dogs, further luring the hunter across private un- leased property In February 2009, the County Manager's Office convened a meeting that included representatives from the NC Wildlife Resource Commission (1NRC), the Sheriffs Department, Animal Services, Planning, Legal, and County Management. Major points of discussion were: • History, custom and tradition -Orange County is roughly divided in half - south of I-40 hunting dogs with deer is prohibited. This line was drawn in the late '40s through State legislative action. In 1979 Alamance County received legislative permission to prohibit dogging deer; Durham County received the same in 2001. • Protecting personal property and public safety -for property owners, neighborhoods, hunters. and the dogs • "Due Process" -hunters who dog deer and the landowners who lease or allow their land to be used to hunt deer should be included in future dialog • Legislative Approval would be required to further restrict hunting in Orange County -stakeholders would have to be informed and public meetings organized as prologue to any request by the BOCC for state authority When the BOCC Legislative Agenda Committee met in the spring 2009 to consider its recommendations to the full BOCC and State delegation for consideration in the summer of 2009, the issue of bringing forth a request to 6 prohibit dogging deer was tentatively raised. One Orange County citizen had already contacted Representative Faison and Senator Kinnaird with this thought in mind. The BOCC Legislative Agenda Committee asked Legal to review the background behind the Alamance and Durham County actions and for County Management to continue its outreach to the hunting community. On November 4, 2009, County Management convened a meeting consisting of members from the hunt clubs in Orange County that dog deer along with the Sheriff, Animal Services Director, a WRC Officer, and the Staff Attorney. An Orange County resident who makes his land available for hunters from outside the immediate area also participated. There were only two (2) complaints made to the BOCC in 2008/2009 about dogging deer. The Sheriff reported only one (1) complaint about hunting with dogs to his Department over afive-year period. The WRC Officer indicated that there were ten (10) tracked complaints involving deer throughout his district in 2008, but indicated no violations or citations issued during 2008. He explained the challenges of enforcing certain hunting regulations and indicated that he received more informal complaints that clustered in a particular area of the County known for deer hunting with dogs by non-residents. A lively but respectful conversation ensued between the hunters and County officials around the items of history, custom and tradition; property rights and public safety; and due process. Feedback from the hunting community is summarized below: The Caldwell Hunting Club is the oldest (since 1979) and largest organized club in the County that use dog to hunt deer. They abide by State and local statutes that require written permission from the land owner to hunt on private property. They have standards of conduct, approved by-laws, and "police" their own members. They assert "a hunter will not shoot on private land; but can't guarantee the dogs won't cross over private land" (i.e.; land for which there is no written permission.) They also said their members would not pursue a dog onto properties adjacent to the ones they have permission to hunt carrying a firearm. The Triad Club, it was alleged, is "the outlier" or offending club, comprised of persons who live outside of Orange County but who lease private land from Orange County landowners. Triad Club members were said to be the ones creating trouble for those who are responsible and do the right thing. The Triad Club was reported to operate mostly along Wilkerson Road, Hurdle Mills Road, Tapp Road, Hester Road, and Walnut Grove Church Road. The hunters felt their club and service activities helped fuel the local economy and provide family-centric recreation: the land leased, the supplies purchased, the meals eaten, and other charitable acts. 7 • They felt that without their deer hunting or "harvesting", the deer population would be less controlled and there would be greater damage to local farm crops and vehicle collisions. It was noted that otherwise farmers would obtain more permits to thin the deer population, and that during the summer months the meat would be left to rot rather than be consumed as it is during the hunting season. (In more informal conversation, the WRC Officer noted to staff that he issues only a handful of depredation permits north of I-85 by comparison with the twenty-plus permits he issues in the southern part of the County.) • They also felt their use of GPS collars on the dogs helped manage and direct their "chasep more effectively and safely than otherwise would be the case; and the collars were not "shock" or control collars as members of the non-hunting public might suspect. • The hunters in attendance strongly urged the County not to take away their ability to hunt deer with dogs; i.e., seek legislation similar to Alamance and Durham County. They instead called upon citizens with complaints to call upon Fish and Wildlife and law enforcement to respond and take appropriate action against offenders. As a result the hunters, State and County representatives discussed ideas and alternatives for addressing trouble spots (outside of outright prohibition) and came to the following understanding and agreements. • WRC would step up its monitoring efforts, particularly in the areas known to be hunted by the Triad Club, and educational outreach to the extent practical within resources. • The Sheriff would remain cognizant and aggressive in response to citizen complaints and advising hunters on local law and protocol. • The hunters would increase their own vigilance surrounding safety, courtesy, respect, and peer pressure to hunt responsibly. • County Management would provide a meeting report (this memorandum) to the Board. This memorandum is provided as "information only" to the BOCC. Should there be the need for further action at this time the BOCC is asked to advise County Management. Attachment Sign-In Sheet from Meeting 8 November 4, 2009 Meeting Attendees Dave Hughes Steve Hamlin Mac McDade Tommy Hamlin Jimmy Wade Forrest Orr Earl Brown Lamar Chapman Bob Marotto Mike Rimmer Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass Annette Moore Gwen Harvey ~~~~ ~ .~n-I~o~rnq -'son ~+em 9 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 4t" with representatives of the hunting community. A similar meeting was held on December 8t" involving concerned property owners to receive their input and ideas on the practice of "dogging deer". Attachment 7 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. 10 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. A ~~~- g- Dogging Deer- Meeting Convened by ~ Orange County Staff, 1218/9 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: Hun#ers 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-'[200 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 11 12 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 wldogs {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 mare 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 genera! 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 1 S)Is there a way to temporarily stop or suspend it while the BOCC studies it? 13 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 I-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) 1=orres# Orr, Wildlife Resources 2) Robert Sharpe, Wildlife Resources 3) Steve Graf 4) Richard Lockamy 14 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 1 5 From: Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:19 PM To: Gwen Harvey Subject: Dogging Deer Committee Dear Ms. Hatvey, 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 Iike 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 #hen 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. 12/1 a/2Q09 Page 2 of 2 1 6 I would like to receive a copy of your final report and reco-runendations. Charlie Treis 12/10/2009 Page 1 of 2 1 ~ Melissa Allison From: Steve Graf . Sent: Wednesday, December 49, 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 Flag Status: Red Gwen, Thanks for writing this memo so quickly! I think the memo Looks fine. Here are my comments far 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 1 Q or 15 shots in just a few seconds! • Item 14 - I don't really think this is relevant tv the discussion. I think this item should be dropped. • Item 23 - I don't think this is really a fact !experience based comment It is too much of an opinion. f think it should be dropped. • item 31 -1 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 OptionslOpportunities: • [tern 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 abou# the fast 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 -1 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 [and that the 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 1 $ Steve Graf Pram: 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 #heir package Thursday (Dec 10) for the meeting on Tuesday (Dec 15}. Your quick repiy would be greatly aQ rp eciated. Thx all for your candid participation and genuine concernl - Cwen 12/10/2009 ~~.~ ~ Orange County Ordinance Regulating Certain Aspects of Hunting and Fishing Adopted December 2, 1991 Made it uniawfu[ 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 wi#hin 150 yards of any federal, State, or local 19 20 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-Saiiber, except from an - elevated position in which the bile is a minimum of eight feet ~ ~ New Hanover ~ ~ °" ; ' .. ~ .• ~- e Hunt a fox with dogs itr Federal Pointtov¢ttshi~ sputh of thb. ' • • - ~: • • ;~"~ • + ~' .: -_ abovetfreground. Take deer with the aid of a boat or floating devfcein ar within • IntracoastalWateXway. .•~ . - _ . e 5ef a steel trap on'anothelr~s land. ~ _ ~' •:. 'j.• • ~ -'_' `' , • '-~.' ~:~ 100yardsofRoanokeRiverabovetheU.S.l7brtdge. ~ IntentionalT remo~eordestm anelectr3ni~collar;or th~r~~~• .: y y, Q - _ ''~` ` a. ••. r.. ' ' o Hunt witty a firearm fiom, or discharge a firearm on or across, a electmafc devrte, placed;on a dog by his owriex io maintain'.. ~ . • . :~K~, .' ~; public load northwest of.L•1.S: 64, U.S,17 or in an area adjoining control of the dog. ~ t ' • , ' . ~ ~ ~ ' - • ';•. : •: Beaufort County and lying between N.C.171 and U.5.17. - e Huntwith or discharge a firearru on or across S.R 1142 between ' • . ' • • ; ', = . '. Northampton a Take deerwIth the ofd of a beat in br vvittiir- IOU yardsro j the : ~ + ~ ~• ~ ~ .' _:•,• •~ • . • ~' N.G.903andS.R 3113. RoanokeRiverbelowU.S.301. •~ •• :: •:• ' '~ ?;;''~ o Buy orsell a dead fox. fox pelt orotherpart-thereof . •Hunt, take or kill any vrild anal or}vildbird witli~a bream oil; ._ '? ~. •~ • . ~ ".<' '~ Hunt from'thetights-of-wayof S.R 1504 and S.R 1505. - ft+om or across the right of-way of any public road or highway.; ~ ,ti ~ •. ~ ,. ~ . McDowell Discharge a xille Larger than.22-calib4r'ori anothet's Land or. - .':. -.'::..::: . ' . ' Discharge a firearm fromthe right-of-wayof astate-numbered fromthe xlght-of-way of a liublic roadaemss suchlandwtttiouo ;' d - il ' ' _ •~: : • road for the purpose of taking big game animals. This does not h id 05b d b d positione ess owner or Lessee and ur written permissioh of the ht feet above the ground • • • - •: • : ~ at least ei ,, ;_ - es on ot or ere s apply to those portions along N.C.1 ~ .. .. . ; g - ~- ~ • bygamelands. .Possess a flr$arm on amotor-propelled vessel (ezcepi si- out : • '• . ' . :: } e Intentionally remove or destroy an electronic collar, or ocher - board with the motox removed and stored) on MehetrirrRiveY • ~ • - - . electronic device, pieced on a dog by its owner to maintain doting the open deer season. • : - controloFthedog: • Mecklenburg OnsIow • : ': , ~ :,•. - : - • Hunt arty wlld animal or bird from the right-of-way ofany pulzlic . - . : e • Huz}t deer with any rifle, except that a muuleloading rifle maybe ' • road without written permission of the owner or Itssee of the '' . J used duringthe primitive-weapons seasoh.. - . land that abuts the road. • , ~ • - o Hunt with a firearm fiont apublicroad or hfghwayright-oE way • Orange - • ,. • Mitchell' . •' ~ • Huntdeerfromapublic road. • ~ ' • Hunt wild boar with any weapon other than a bow and arrow, a • Huntw}th fireamu fiom the right-of-way of a public road. ' . ' - • title larger than .22-caliber or a shotg~tft loaded with bucTcsltot qr ~ . •.: • NOTB: Entrance to private tands'to hunt is re~tlated by local - :. • :.' : . iifled slugs. - .Hunt, take or kill any wlld bird or wild animal except hear ar ordinance. • • ' • Intentionally remove or de'sfroy an electroaic•collar,'or odor,' . ;, , boarw[th a firearm from, on or across a public road right-of-way. ~ • `electronic device, pb+ced on a dogby his ownei to maLtfatit . ~ . f • intetrtionally remove or destroy ari eiectrotdc collat., or other electronic devtce, placed on a dog byhis owner to maintain . control of the dog. . • ~ .. • : ° ...' . ~ ' ~ -- - • Hunt on thi land of anotheTwithouttiavf ng do one'; peirsoii; . ~..~ ' •` ' wntml-of the dog. ~ - ent hunting, ' wt[tttn permission, signed and dated for the eunr ' ~ ' , , . Mont ame - •• Se)~a dead fox or parts thereoL - ~ ' - '~. .. -. - season, by the landowner or lessee:. ~ • Unlawful to hunt with firearms by persons under the ipflaerice' • ' •' • ~_'. q• ~' ~~ stances. of alcohol or other impairing sub ~ . e In Sandliill and Mlrieral5prirtgs townships: (1) hunt any game animal on another's land without possession of written per- amllco - • . ' • . - ~ ~ ' : ` • e Take migratory waterfowl within 500 yat~ls ol: another~s perms=_ - - mission oftheowner or }essee; (2) hunt with a rifle of greater • , nenthuriting Location w[thout pennlssion o[the landhotdet. • •: ' '' ` ' than.22rinnfirecaliberorcapableoffiring.l2centerfire . uponwhoselandthewaterfowlistakeir. ~ . - ammunition, except that a muzxleloadittg tine may be used when pos[t3oned atleastefghtfeet above theground. - • Hunt bear with dogs. ~ . - : .. ... • Takeaaywild animal orwlld bird from or across the right of~ . ' • : - • Shfne a light an deer between 30 mitrutes after sunset and 30 306. wayof N.C. 55 and N.C. : •• : - minutes before sunrise. • - ' s Hunt deer on the land of another without written permission Pasquotank .' . .. Discharge a center fire'tifle on another?s 1'aird,,or oh or across ~ '::,•' •'• • datedwithin one year. , such lan$ from a public road, without having ih po~ession :' f:. • : .:.. J' e Hunt, take or Idll deer on, hom or across a,right•oE way of any .• : t., written pemrtssionof lire ownerorlessee: _• ••~ • • ; ' ` ~ ;_ ;... public road. ~ ~ . Tohave possession of aloadPd shotgun orcgrrte'r 8re riflewhite • : ~ • : •~_ ~' - ` ' • . e Hunt deer with dogs unless each dog bears a collar, tag or other on the right-oF~vay of any public mad or h[ghwaywhile oritside. identification with the owners full name,and address. 'the confines of rice passenger aria of a vehicle; without the • :' .; - • Ny~h written permission of the owner"or Lessee o~ the land that shirts e Take migratory waterfowl an, hom or over the RoclryMounL Tar River Reseivoir or within 500 yards thereof, except within the roador highway. ' '. ' . '; .. ' • • Ta hunt, take'or kill any bird or game animal fiom or on rile "Zont H" with petrriission of the sparred landowner and subject right-crf-way of anypubBe road oi• highway, withoui fast " ' ' to the rules and regulations of the Ciry of Rocky Mount. See securing the wriuen perrrrLssion of the owr[er or lesst<e of the • ' ' •,-.. : -'. l-ttpJ/wwwrockymountnc.govlparks(huntfng.html far more ~ ~ land that abryts the road or lrighway.• .. • ~ • . ' ' ' .:: r d~{l, t~rer: ' er, or o o ]ntentionally remove or destroy an electrotdC eotl . ° . Discharge a firearm from, onto or across a public road. electronic device, placed on a dog byhis owner ro maintain ;. ;~ .' . • . Hunrdeer with a rifle, except fiom a stand at least six feet above - control of the dog. ' ' - ' ' the ground. e Hunt or discharge a bite on or across the•tight of way of any road. Fender . ' - .. .: :: ' Take•dear with the a2d of a boat or• floatingdevicein or-viithln 100:. ' . ~;, , % ~ • Hunt on the land of another without written perniissfon fromthe yards of the Black River, Long Creek, Morgan Creek or Tuikey. . ', owner or lesst:e. '- - - Creekbetween N.C. 210 and the Northeast Cape Pear ittyer. ~• • . . Please note: For the convenience of the reader, major regulation t:hanges appear in RED. _ • ' 69~ " ~ - ' • - - , ~ ~ ~ Census Blocks (North of I-85) 0.0.2501 -.0..5000 - 5.001 -.10.00 PopulatiorUAcre - 0.5001 -1.000 ~ 10.01 - 50.00 0 - .0.2500 ' ' - 1.001 - 5.000 ~ 50.01. - 260 °''' N ,inch = 3 miles 0 1 2 3 MSles ~•-. . Orange County Planning and Inspections Department GIS Map Prepared try &ian Carson December 11, 2009 Orange. County Population Density North of I-85 (Census 20QQ) Census' Blocks {South of I-85) ~ 0.2501 - 0.5000 PopulatioNAcre ~ 0.5001 -1.000 0 0 = 0.2500 ~ 1.001 - 5.000 - 5.001 - 10.00 - 10.01 -50.00 - 50.01 - 26© °"+ N 1 inch = 3 miles 0 1 2 3 IWles Orange County Planning and Inspectbns Department GLS Map Prepared try Brian Carson December 11,, 2009 .Orange County Population Density South of I-85 (Census 20~) Census 2000 Blocks ~ 0.2501 - 0.5000 ~ 5.001 -10.00 Population/Acre. ®0.5001::-1.000 ~ 10.01 = 50.0© ~ 0.000000000 - 0.2500 ~ 1.001 - 5.000 ~ _> 50.01 r N 1 inM = 5 rrules 0 2 4 les .A Orange County Planning and Lspectbrs Deparhnent QS Map Prepared by Bdan Carson Decenber 14, 2009 Alamance-Durham-Orange County Population Density (Census 2000) Parcels 200 Acres or Larger North of I-85 N 1 inch=2.25 miles Par Is 200 Acres or Lar er ~, ;•°' ~ 2Mdes ~ ~ 9 cry Orange County Planning and Lspectlore DeparameM . QS Map Prepared by elan Carson December 11, 2009 Office of the County Attorney ORANGE COUNTY P.O. BOX 8181 200 S. CAMERON STREET HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager FROM: Annette M. Moore,. Staff Attorney RE: Hunting Deer with Dogs DATE: January 6, 2010 In an email message dated December, 23, 2009 you asked the following question in regard to hunting deer with dogs in Orange County: "What if anything [does] the BOCC has (sic) the power/authority to do immediately to impact the. issue (as requested by the concerned property owners) and what they may [the Board] wish to do as part of their legislative packet to the local delegation." Under North Carolina law, a County may only undertake those activities for which it has been given specific legislative authority. The Generally Assembly grants the powers to Counties either expressly, necessarily or fairly implied or in incident to a power expressly granted, and where the power is essential ~to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the corporation... ~ The General Assembly has charged the Wildlife Resources Commission with administering the statutes governing hunting of wildlife.z However, the County may ask the General Assembly for local enabling legislation that has a minor and incidental impact on wildlife resources.3 N.C. Gen. Stat. §113-291.5 Regulation of dogs used in hunting; limitation on authority of Wildlife Resources Commission; control of dogs on game lands;. control of dogs chasing deer; other restrictions provides: (a) Except as provided in G.S. 113-291.4, in the area described below, the Wildlife Resources Commission may regulate the use of dogs taking wildlife with respect to seasons, times, and place of use. The area covered by this subsection is that part of the ' Reese v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, 676 S.E.2d 481, 490 N.C. App. May 2009 quoting Carter v. Stanly County 125 N.C. App. 628, 632, 482 S.E.2d 9, 11 quoting White v. Union County, 93 N.C. App. 148, 377 E.E. 2d 93 (1989). ZN.C. Gen. Stat. §113-133.1(b). 3 N.C. Gen. Sta. § 113-133.1(c). State in and west of the following counties or parts of counties: Rockingham; Guilford? that part of Alamance and Orange lying south of Interstate Highway 85; Chatham; that part of Wake lying south of N.C. Highway 98; Lee; Randolph; Montgomery; Stanley; Union; and that part of Anson lying west of N.C. Highway 742. (emphasis added) (b) In the areas of the State lying east of that described in subsection (a), the Wildlife Resources Commission may not restrict or prohibit the use of dogs in hunting or the training of dogs, in season or out, except during the breeding and raising seasons for game during the period April 15 through June 15. As you can see from the statute, the General Assembly has granted the Wildlife Resource Commission authority to regulate the use of hunting wildlife with dogs with respect to seasons, times, and place of use in the part of Orange County lying south or Interstate Highway 85. The statute also provides that the Wildlife Resource Commission may not restrict or prohibit the use dogs in hunting in season or out for other areas of the state, excepted as provided above. The statute does not provide authority to the Board of Commissioners to enact an ordinance regulating this area. Absent legislative authority the Board does not have the power to create an ordinance regulating or prohibiting hunting deer with dogs in the County If the Board is interested in adopting an Ordinance regulating hunting dogs with deer, I recommend that the Board ask~our local legislative delegation to put forward enabling legislation to allow such an ordinance. A draft of appropriate language for the enabling legislation is attached. NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY 28 AN ACT TO PREVENT HUNTING DEER WITH DOGS IN ORANGE COUNTY The General Assembly enacts: Section 1. It shall be unlawful to allow dogs to chase deer, or to hunt or attempt to take deer with the aid of dogs at any time in Orange County. Section 2. Any person violating this provision of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined or imprisoned as provided by law. Section 3. All lawful peace officers of the county and State, including wildlife protectors, shall have authority to arrest for violation of Section 1 of this act. Section 4. This Act shall apply to Orange County only. Section 5. This Act is effective upon ratification.