Waterfowl; joint subcommittee to study hunting in urban and suburban areas. (HJ721)

Introduced By

Del. Kris Amundson (D-Mount Vernon)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate


Study; waterfowl hunting; report. Establishes a six-member legislative subcommittee to study waterfowl hunting in urban and suburban areas. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Failed


01/14/2009Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 093931412
01/14/2009Referred to Committee on Rules
02/10/2009Left in Rules

Duplicate Bills

The following bills are identical to this one: SJ322 and HJ703.


Anne Haynes writes:

Sound like an important effort to protect wildlife and recreational uses and implement a more evidence-based regulation of hunting. Good job, I hope it passes!

J. Griffin Crump writes:

SJ322 represents the latest in a 20-year-long attempt by a very small group of fanatic anti-hunters in the Mount Vernon area of Fairfax County to ban or severely limit waterfowl hunting. Typically, their attempts have initially applied to the entire Commonwealth, then been scaled down, finally, to their would-be private playground, the Dyke Marsh area just south of Alexandria on the Potomac. This time, the scaled-down area (through a substitute amendment by the Senate Rules Committee) would include all of the prime waterfowl hunting areas on the Potomac from Alexandria to and including Quantico Marine Base. Their campaign, over the years, whether through proposed legislation or by pressure on federal, state and local agencies and organizations, has always failed because, despite tactics such as the planting of phony stories in the media, and despite numerous hearings on the matter, they have never been able to produce evidence of any harm caused by waterfowlers. On the contrary, Virginia's waterfowl hunters annually contribute tens of thousands of dollars in license fees and dues to such organizations as Ducks Unlimited to enhance the viability of our waterfowl populations. I urge voters to read the text of this bill to see how the proposed studies are duplicative of the regulatory activities of State agencies. This waste of tax money and state resources, particularly in these times, on another sham attempt to restrict hunting in Virginia's waters should be rejected.

R. Reynolds writes:

I must agree with Mr. Griffin that this seems to be a significant waste of taxpayer's money.
There already exists a Wildlife Action Plan, assumedly compiled from studies just like this bill directs. Why duplicate efforts?
It seems to me these monies would be better spent educating non-hunters about the safety, traditions and ecological benefits of hunting and hunters' dollars (and in the cases of some land-owners in the area of Dyke Marsh, apparently, the location of the VA-MD state line).
The State Constitution provides for the right to hunt and fish in Virginia. This bill seems to be aimed at un-necessarily restricting that right. Waterfowl hunting opportunities in VA are scarce at best. This bill should be rejected.

Dablow writes:

This is a prime example of the wealthy few, influencing a state Senator to waste the money of the state. As pointed out in earlier comments, these studies have already been done. Shame on the wealthy, for attempting to take away a legal right. Shame on Sen. Dotty Puller, for wasting money on a redundant study, only to show a couple voters that she is "doing something about it". What ever happened to just doing what is right, and not just doing what gets votes?

Lipp writes:

This is a waste of tax payers money. Let the VA Department of Game and Fisheries manage the states game, not rich people and politicians. They know the science and the safety side of the issue and are experts on the matter. This is there job and way they are paid. These are simply rich people who don't like getting woke up early in the morning, after they decided to live near PUBLIC waterways.

Mike writes:

Ms. Puller is just doing this dance to make some of her constituents happy, to be able to say, "Well, we tried".

All of the points of this "legislation" can be answered without spending the money on any committee.