For many who reside in Western Tidewater, myself included, hunting is a favorite pastime. I enjoy my time spent in the woods, mostly because of the time it allows me to spend with my children and the camaraderie enjoyed with friends. I also enjoy the hunt, especially the thrill of possibility that comes with the sound of a cracking twig or rustling leaves that pierce the early morning silence. And I love the sound of hounds that have picked up the scent of a deer and are chasing it through fresh cutover.

Deer hunting with hounds is an age-old tradition in this part of the country, and the love of the sport has been passed down from one generation to the next since Europeans first brought their hounds to North America in the 1600’s. Most dog hunters — those that hunt with dogs and should not be confused with those who would actually hunt for dogs — love and care for their animals as if they were pets. I know, because I belong to a club that proudly and safely hunts with dogs. I also know because my family owns a few hounds, and I would dare anyone who doubts my sincerity to confront our children about how the dogs they love are cared for. As with any large group, however, there are always the few proverbial bad apples, and those with the evolved ability to reason and employ common sense realize that the few don’t truly represent the many. There are those who are dog owners that shouldn’t be, just as there are those who are parents and shouldn’t be. Yet we would never be so foolish as to suggest the abolition of parenthood as a result.

Most deerhound owners I know are also ethical hunters who follow the rules. They do so because to not jeopardizes the future of their beloved sport. The vast majority of clubs and individuals that hunt with dogs rely on the ability to lease land from adjacent landowners. To not respect their wishes or to be disrespectful toward them or their land and still expect to maintain hunting rights would be a fool’s errand. Again, there is no disputing the fact that there are some who push boundaries, are disrespectful to neighboring landowners or outright break the law, but to paint all hunters with that same brush would not only be unfair, but downright false.

There is a movement underfoot today in Virginia to either restrict or eliminate the practice of deer hunting with dogs, which was recently reported in the Jan. 3, 2016, edition of The Tidewater News (“Landowners, dog owners square off”). As is often the case with contentious issues today, the matter is largely being debated on social media, although to call it a debate would be an insult to civil discourse. A significant number of those involved in the online conversation about hunting with dogs have chosen to take the low road in discussing the issue. Most comments and lines of discussion include name-calling, insults and threats. My original intention was to share some of the commentary here, but much of it is not fit for public consumption. And as for the primary organization seeking to eliminate … I mean restrict, hunting with dogs, the Virginia Landowners Association, their forum does not allow for discussion unless it strictly abides by their way of thinking. Several individuals, including myself, have been dismissed from the group’s Facebook page, as well as that of its founder, for offering views or opinions contrary to those to those espoused by the VLA and its executive director. On the group’s website, their mission statement begins with the following unedited statement:

“Insure the constitutional right of property ownership from unwarranted and unwanted intrusion initiated by individuals, government or special interest groups Our beliefs, goals and objectives mirror the importance placed on property rights by our founders as the highest priority of our democracy.”

While this may be a nifty turn of phrase, it is not especially accurate with respect to constitutional priority. The fact is that our nation’s founders deemed free speech to be the highest priority of our democracy, as it is the right protected in the very first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. While the freedom of speech does not guarantee an individual the right to participate in discussion forums on the website or Facebook page of a private group, for a group seemingly concerned with upholding constitutional values the opportunity to present a dissenting viewpoint certainly does not seem to be one of the group’s priorities.

The property right that seem to concern members of this group and others who would seek to restrict hunting with dogs seems to consist primarily of keeping dogs that belong to other hunters off of their land. Such a concern is a valid one. But there is a major misconception when in comes to property rights in this country. The “constitutional right of property ownership” as referred to by the VLA does not prohibit my dogs, or anyone else’s for that matter, from crossing property lines, any more than my freedom of speech being constitutionally guaranteed to the extent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. In fact, the fourth amendment to the Constitution of The United States was written to say that,

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I have read, and reread, all 26 amendments to the Constitution, and have been unsuccessful in my efforts to find the one that guarantees a landowner the right not to have someone else’s dog on their land, anymore than it protects them from having a deer or any other animal from wandering onto it.

It is foolish to assume, and is unreasonable for practical purposes even to wish, that land ownership would guarantee the owner unlimited rights and protections. It does not. And should not.

The first amendment of the Virginia constitution, however, does guarantee the right to not only own but to enjoy one’s property:

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

So herein lies the question; if one has the right to own and enjoy land, and another has the right to own and enjoy their dogs, does one property owner’s right trump that of another? It certainly should not. Does the fact that one man’s dog traverses another man’s land mean that the landowner is unable to enjoy his property?

To automatically assume so requires a tremendous leap, as much so as it would also be difficult to assess the impact of any other creature crossing over a landowner’s property line. To infringe upon one’s property right to own and enjoy their dogs, on the mere possibility that it might infringe on the rights of a landowner’s ability to enjoy his land, would be an irrational and irresponsible overcorrection of a problem that is difficult to determine even exists.

And that is exactly what opponents of traditional dog hunting are seeking to do by attempting to place restrictions on or altogether eliminate hunting with hounds. They are placing the value of their right to enjoy property over that same right enjoyed by another.

The last thing any property owner, be it an owner of land or dogs or both, should seek to do is infringe upon the property rights of another. To do so only weakens the very protection that they themselves seek. To stand on the ground that your right is greater than another’s would be to stand on a slippery slope, indeed.

TONY CLARK is the publisher of The Tidewater News. He can be contacted at 562-3187 or tony.clark@tidewaternews.com.