Hello Delegates, I am writing in opposition of HB1396. This bill had been brought fourth by landowners groups that falsely claim to represent and maximize property owners rights when in fact they are property owners that want to end the tradition of hound hunting. This is proven by these groups comments on their own social media pages. These groups have made claim that only 8 states allow the use of hounds to hunt, a stat quoted by delegates in the subcommittee, that is simply a false statement, currently only 9 states allow hounds to be used to hunt deer but nearly every state allows the utilization of dogs to hunt other game species many not requiring an special license to do so. I ask the delegates to understand that the vast majority of the members of the hound hunting organizations are land owners as well in addition to all of the landowners who lease or allow hound hunting on their land support the tradition of hound hunting. This bill creates a permit allowing the DWR create and issue permits on a may issue criteria with visual permit requirements for hounds and vehicles. If Additional funding is needed to police game laws the bill should be amended to a license just like an archery or muzzleloading license that is a shall issue. Additionally the cost for said license should be reduced and required for all that utilize or partcipate in any type of hunting that utilizes a dog. Dogs are already required to have owner contact info on their collar and their vehicles have state issued license plates therefore marking is not necessary. Lastly the only ones who should be exempt from license purchase are those that utilize dogs to hunt on their own land. This simplifies the requirements and makes it fair for all parties. Basically if big game is harvested and checked in and the use of dogs is checked as a part of big game license registering process they should be required to have a dog hunting license or be exempt as a land owner. I hope that you find this as a reasonable comprise. Additionally there needs to be some sort of recourse for false complaints or accusations. If this bill continues as is it will create more tensions between those who utilize dogs to hunt and those who don't like the use of hunting dogs. False complaints will continue to increase cause additional hunter harassment and tension between hunters and those that oppose it. Thank you for your time. V/R, B. C. Bunch

Oppose house bill 1396

Public Comment on HB 487 – § 28.2‑1200.1(E) I oppose HB 487 as drafted, specifically § 28.2‑1200.1(E), because it is structurally incompatible with Virginia’s constitutional public‑trust framework and cannot be cured through clarification or narrowing language alone. State‑owned bottomlands are held by the Commonwealth in trust for the people, pursuant to Article XI of the Virginia Constitution and long‑settled public‑trust doctrine. Local governments possess no inherent authority or property interest in these lands; they may act only as instrumentalities of the Commonwealth and only within powers expressly delegated in a manner consistent with fiduciary trust obligations. The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) functions not as a discretionary landowner, but as a fiduciary trustee charged with protecting public rights in navigation, fisheries, and access. Subsection E departs from this framework by providing that certain localities “shall be deemed to hold a legal property interest” in state‑owned waters, bottoms, or subsurface soils. This language does not convey title, grant a lease, or authorize an easement through VMRC’s established statutory processes. Instead, it declares a property interest into existence by legislative fiat—without trust findings, without case‑specific review, and without meaningful judicial oversight. This approach presents multiple constitutional tensions. First, it risks reordering the beneficiaries of the public trust, elevating the operational needs of particular localities over the Commonwealth’s duty to manage these resources for the benefit of the people as a whole. Second, it bypasses VMRC’s fiduciary role by substituting a categorical legislative declaration for individualized trust analysis. Third, by insulating the deemed interest from downstream scrutiny, it functionally undermines separation‑of‑powers principles. Virginia doctrine looks to function, not labels; calling an interest “necessary” for a project does not cure a structural transfer of authority. While the provision could be cured in theory, doing so would require rewriting it into something materially different: eliminating the deemed property interest; limiting localities to eligibility to apply for a time‑limited, non‑possessory easement or lease; requiring written trust‑consistency findings by VMRC; and preserving full judicial review. Those changes would restore constitutional alignment—but they would also defeat the purpose of subsection E as drafted. Accordingly, subsection E is not merely overbroad or imprecise. It is structurally incompatible with Virginia’s public‑trust framework because it attempts to manufacture a local property interest in public‑trust resources without conveyance, findings, or review. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose HB 487. — KJH/Virginian/Veteran/In the Commonwealth

If you’re tired of the 9-to-5 grind or just want a way to put some extra cash in your pocket every week, I have something for you. Companies are currently looking for remote writers to handle: Article Writing Blog Posts Social Media Content Live Chat Support No experience is necessary and full training is provided. But before you apply, you need to see which role you’re best suited for. Go here to take the Writing Job Quiz. ---> http://PaidToWrite.Online/ Once you finish the quiz, you’ll get a breakdown of the best opportunities available for you right now. Visit -----> http://PaidToWrite.Online/

Invasives should be pulled or killed by herbicide and not be permitted to be sold in nurseries