A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 29.1-516.3, relating to Department of Wildlife Resources; permits; use of dogs in hunting game animals, fur-bearing animals, and nuisance species; civil penalties.
HB1396 creates a new permit system within the Department of Wildlife Resources for people and organizations that hunt game animals, fur-bearing animals, or nuisance species with the aid of dogs. Beginning July 1, 2027, a person would generally be prohibited from releasing a dog to hunt, pursue, or chase those animals, or from hunting with the aid of dogs, unless the person has obtained the required permit. The bill directs the Board of Wildlife Resources to establish application procedures, fees, enforcement standards, dog-identification rules, exemption criteria, and best practices for agreements between hunters and landowners.
The bill also sets out several exceptions to the permit requirement, including mounted fox hunting, hunting waterfowl and other birds, use of tracking dogs to recover wounded or dead deer, bear, or turkey, hunting on public lands where hunting is allowed, rabbit chase foot packs, and landowners and certain family members hunting on their own land. It further preserves activities authorized under existing trespass-related law and requires the Board to define “rabbit chase foot pack” by regulation. Violations would be civil offenses, with penalties ranging from up to $50 for a first violation to $100-$250 for repeat violations within three years, and penalty revenue would go to the Game Protection Fund.
HB1396 would add a new section to Title 29.1 of the Code of Virginia governing hunting with dogs and would give the Department of Wildlife Resources and the Board of Wildlife Resources new regulatory authority over permits, enforcement, and exemptions. It would create a new compliance framework for hunters and hunting organizations that use dogs to pursue game animals, fur-bearing animals, or nuisance species, while also establishing civil penalties and permit suspension or revocation for repeat violations. The bill would affect hunters, landowners, hunting clubs, and dog-based hunting practices statewide, especially in private-land hunting contexts.
The bill appears to have had strong support in committee, as reflected by its 15-0 vote to continue it to the next session in Finance and Appropriations. The available record does not include committee debate or recorded opposition, so the overall sentiment in the formal voting history is favorable, though the continuation indicates the measure was not finalized in the session. The substitute version also suggests the bill was refined during the legislative process, likely to address implementation and exemption concerns.
The main points of contention likely center on the new permit requirement for hunting with dogs, the $19 permit fee, and the extent to which the state should regulate traditional dog-hunting practices on private land. The bill’s exceptions show sensitivity to specific constituencies such as mounted fox hunters, rabbit chase foot packs, bird hunters, and landowners, which suggests those groups were important in shaping the substitute. Another likely issue is enforcement—particularly the requirement to prevent dogs from entering property without permission and the use of civil penalties and permit revocation for repeat violations.