BUCKINGHAM – After voting down proposed changes to the Rifle Hunting Ordinance that would have allowed hunting deer, bear, and turkey from the ground with rifles .23 caliber and above, supervisors, during their March 11 meeting, scheduled a special meeting on Tuesday, March 26, to conduct a public hearing on another proposed revision to the ordinance.

The special meeting is necessary if the county wants to meet the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' April 15 deadline for submitting requests for any modifications to current hunting ordinances if those changes would be applicable to the upcoming fall and winter hunting season.

With the latest proposal, presented by Supervisor Cassandra Stish, the ordinance would allow rifle hunting of deer, turkey, and bear from the ground.

However, the proposal would restrict rifle hunting to a “clearly identifiable fixed location” as well as “from an elevated stand.”

The current ordinance requires hunters to be in a stand at least ten feet from the ground.

Additionally, the proposal adds ground hog to a list of animals lawful to hunt.

Addressing Section 2.A-3, of the current ordinance, which allows hunting certain nuisance species, Stish's proposal would strike the current wording that specifies the use of a .22 caliber rimfire or a .22 caliber center-fire rifle, thus making it legal to hunt those nuisance species with larger caliber rifles.

Moreover, the proposal calls for adding a section to the ordinance that would allow the use of a side arm or handgun while hunting when permissible according to the regulations and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

When presenting her proposal, Stish noted that the current language be maintained regarding the requirement that rifles be unloaded prior to ascending or descending from an elevated tree stand.

The March 26 meeting will begin at 7 p.m., in the Peter Francisco Auditorium at the new County Administration Complex.

Reaching Consensus

The move to hold the March 26 special meeting and public hearing keeps viable the issue of revising the ordinance to allow rifle hunting from the ground.

However, the path to setting that special meeting proved to be confusing and somewhat controversial.

Before Chair Monroe Snoddy opened the March 11 public hearing on the initial proposal, which was presented last month by a committee appointed by the board, County Administrator Rebecca Carter offered a quick overview.

She explained that the revision would make it lawful to hunt deer and bear from the ground or elevated stand with a .23 caliber or larger rifle.

Carter stated that the revision also added groundhog to a list of lawful-to-hunt species. She noted that groundhog was probably left off as an oversight in the current ordinance.

Limiting comments to three minutes, Snoddy clarified that the hearing was not a debate. He added that board members would have time to comment after the hearing prior to their vote.

However, after Snoddy opened the hearing, no one went to the podium. Subsequently, he closed the hearing.

Supervisor Bill Talbert, District 3, Curdsville and New Store Precincts, noting the expertise of those on the committee, moved to allow the use of rifles based on the committee's recommendations.

After Supervisor Joe Chambers, District 6, Slate River Precinct, followed with a second, Supervisor Stish, District 5, Glenmore and Wrights Precincts, launched the discussion.

Sharing that she would probably hunt more often if she did not have to be in a tree with a rifle, Stish stated, “I'd like to be on the ground on a bench or in a blind in a fixed location.”

Referencing the current proposed revision, Stish said, “This is, to me, just rifle hunting from the ground, carte blanche, unqualified or un-quantified and is not doing enough to address the real concerns of the other side of the equation, which are landowners who are frankly some dog owners concerned that carte blanche rifle hunting from the ground may negatively impact their activity in this county.”

Stish added, “In some situations where rifle hunting has been allowed widespread, it has begun the decline of the proud tradition of deer hunting with hounds in those locations. I don't think that is where Buckingham County wants to go.”

Continuing, Stish proposed what she described as “a way forward that may thread the needle.” She offered, “Basically saying yes, you can hunt from the ground with a rifle but you have to be in a fixed location, a clearly identifiable fixed location like a blind or a bench.”

After Stish shared more details about her proposal, Chambers noted that she would be amending Talbert's motion.

Stish replied, “We are having discussion.”

However, Talbert responded that what Stish was talking about would amend his motion. He told Stish, “You can make an amendment to do what you want to do. You vote on the amendment and then you vote on the motion.”

Talbert reminded that his motion was to allow it and it was now up to the board to approve or not approve it.

Although Stish asked the chair if he would like to call for a vote, the discussion continued with Snoddy, who represents District 1, New Canton and Georgia Creek Precincts, sharing that there are about nine hunt clubs in his district. He said that most of those are opposed to rifle hunting from the ground.

Supervisor Donnie Bryan, District 2, White Hall Precinct, added that the majority of the people in his district do not want to see ground hunting with a rifle.

Commenting on using rifles while hunting with dogs, Supervisor Danny Allen, District 7, Gold Hill Precinct, stated, “It is my understanding that each hunting club will make their own rules on dog hunting.” He added, “Most of the them that I've talked to said they would not and right now some already have that rule-that there is no rifle hunting while they are dog hunting.”

Talbert, noting the hardship they would place on farmers if the board does not pass using rifles on the ground, questioned, “Why are we going to deprive our farmers as great as they are?” He added that if they did not pass the current proposal, farmers would be acting illegally if they killed a coyote that was trying to kill their calves.

Stish countered that the current ordinance, which was put into effect on an emergency basis in September and officially adopted as the Rifle Hunting Ordinance in November, authorizes the use of a .22 caliber rimfire or a .22 caliber centerfire rifle from the ground when hunting smaller game, furbearing animals, and nuisance species.

Supervisor John Staton, District 4, Maysville Precinct, offered that the majority of the calls he has received from his constituents oppose rifle hunting from the ground. “I'm conflicted personally on that,” he stated. “I'm trying to let my personal judgments not interfere with the wants of the district.”

Stish stated, “Mine are split too, which is why I'm trying to come up with alternatives that will address the concerns on both sides. Let's call for a vote and see what happens.”

When Snoddy asked Talbert to repeat his motion, Talbert stated that his motion was to allow hunting from the ground with rifles .23 caliber and above.

The voting results, which show up on large monitors in the new auditorium, indicated Talbert, Chambers, Allen and Snoddy voting yes; and Stish, Staton, and Bryan voting no.

However, Snoddy quickly stated that he hit the wrong button and meant to vote no.

In light of the confusion, Bryan asked the chair to call for an oral vote.

Proceeding with the oral vote, Snoddy again cast his vote as a yes. When Stish reminded him that he said he wanted to vote no, Snoddy recanted and stated, “I mean no.”

After recording the no vote from Snoddy, the clerk read that Talbert's motion failed with a three-to-four vote with Talbert, Chambers, and Allen voting in favor of the motion; and Bryan, Snoddy, Stish, and Staton opposing.

“I thought Monroe said yes. How can you do that? How do you change a vote when you said yes unless you come back and reconsider that motion,” Talbert questioned. “It's not legal. It's not parliamentary procedure.”

Interceding, Stish offered, “He hit the wrong button, Mr. Talbert.”

Stating that he was going to make another motion, Talbert moved to allow farmers and landowners to hunt with rifles at ground level.

As the board continued to discuss the previous votes and whether to send the proposal back to the committee, Donald Shumaker, a member of the committee and a resident of Gold Hill, stated, “You know we had presented facts that the majority of the Buckingham people wanted this.” He continued, “But you don't hear them.”

Apologizing for the confusion regarding his voting, Snoddy shared that they have only been using the new voting equipment for three or four months and the vote doesn't always take the first time they make their selection.

Following Snoddy's comments, Stish said she'd like to bring a motion to the floor. However, Talbert noted that he already had a motion on the floor.

He explained that his motion would allow farmers to use rifles so they can kill coyotes.

When Stish responded that they already could do so with a rifle, Talbert countered that they could only use a .22.

Stish offered, “Well, that's part of what I was trying to suggest earlier. I was suggesting striking the entire line about any caliber what-so-ever for the nuisance species.” She continued, “If I'm out hunting, whether in a blind or whatever, I don't want to have to worry about whether I have the right caliber gun in my possession to shoot the coyote that is crossing my path. I want to be able to shoot the thing-period.”

Talbert explained that he was also talking about allowing farmers to hunt deer and bear on their land. He shared that he recently went by a field at night and there were nine deer grazing on a field of hay that a farmer planned to harvest this spring to feed his cows.

Subsequently, at the request of the chair, Talbert repeated that his motion was to allow farmers and landowners to hunt deer and bear from the ground with rifles .23 caliber and up.

At that point, someone in the audience asked if there was a way the public hearing could be reopened or public comments could be shared.

Responding, Snoddy reminded that the public had the opportunity to speak earlier in the meeting during the hearing.

After a second by Chambers, Talbert's motion failed with another three-to-four vote yielding yes from Talbert, Chambers and Allen; and no from Bryan, Snoddy, Staton and Stish.

Stish followed with her motion calling for the special meeting with a public hearing on Tuesday, March 26, to consider her proposal.

After a second by Staton, the motion drew a six-to-one vote with Snoddy opposing.

Responding to a question from the county administrator seeking clarification on the “fixed location,” Stish explained, “The spirit of the law is that you stay put.” She concluded, “So we'll have a hearing and see what happens.”