<body><div><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=3E3ylY_0wODgGbu00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=3E3ylY_0wODgGbu00" width="800" height="533" ><figcaption>Board of Wildlife Resources member Jim Edmunds, far left, speaks during a meeting Thursday. (Charlie Paullin/Virginia Mercury)</figcaption></figure>In response to the tension, the Department of Wildlife Resources issued reports and convened workgroups over the past several years that presented seven proposals, including the two the board rejected Thursday.One of the rejected proposals would have required deer and bear hunters to put GPS collars on the hounds they use. The other rejected proposal would’ve required hunters to make “reasonable efforts” to not let their dogs roam onto other property once property owners notified them they weren’t welcome.The other five proposals included raising awareness about ways to avoid conflicts between the two groups, as well as pursuing funding for more conservation police officers to respond to issues. The other proposals were not regulatory and have already been acted upon.Although Board Member Jim Edmunds, a former legislator, attempted to have the GPS collar proposal advance, board members ultimately voted against it and the other regulatory change. DWR recommended the rejections, saying the group didn’t have the power to make such changes.“The right to retrieve is statutory. That’s why you see that discussed at the General Assembly, how trespass itself is statutory,” said DWR Executive Director Ryan Brown. “It’s not something that this board would have the authority to take up.”The decisions came after several property rights advocates said the current law violates their constitutional rights, disturbs their peace and safety and compromises their ability to maintain their livestock. The advocates also said the expenses of putting barriers on their property to bar roaming dogs outweighed the costs of hunters using GPS collars.“We don’t care if others hunt with dogs, we don’t want to stop that. We want to stop the constant intrusions onto our properties,” said Property Rights Coalition of Virginia representative Jim Medeiros, who was one of the property owners who sued the state over the right to retrieve law, but lost.“This board has been specifically and exclusively given the authority to regulate (hound hunting) by the General Assembly,” Medeiros added. “Like it or not, you own this problem.”Several hunters, donning blaze orange hunting caps, also spoke at the meeting, citing the cost of the collars as a barrier to young hunters participating and the seemingly low rate of trespass convictions resulting from conflict — 60 out 60,000 complaints that did not warrant changes (though property rights advocates called out difficulties in proving trespassing).“We will stand up for our rights, also for our traditions, as Virginians,” said Kirby Burch, chief executive officer of the Virginia Hunting Dog Alliance, after saying the solution is to “show respect for one another.”“We will continue to hunt with hounds for another generation, if you will work with me to make those promises I just gave come to pass,” Burch said.Virginia has a process underway to solicit suggestions for next year’s deer and bear season regulations, but the rejection means the battle over the law could end up being fought in next year’s General Assembly session, which starts in January.Judge Orders People Removed From Voter Rolls to be Reinstated, Gov. Youngkin to Seek AppealOn Friday morning, a federal judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs challenging a Virginia program that has removed over 1,600 people from voter rolls since August, following an executive order by Gov. Glenn Youngkin. This means that people can be reinstated on voter rolls for the time being.The U.S. Department of Justice sued the state and Youngkin administration for allegedly removing voters too close to the 90-day “quiet period” before Election Day. Voter rights and immigrant advocacy groups filed a similar suit, alleging that people affected by the purges are those whose Department of Motor Vehicles paperwork doesn’t indicate they are U.S. citizens because some of them may have become citizens in the time since renewing or receiving their license, while others may have made a blunder on their paperwork.That case, brought forth by Virginia’s League of Women Voters and the Virginia Coalition For Immigrants Rights, was the basis of Friday’s ruling.Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles also ordered the state to work with local registrars to send letters to affected people within five days.“Let’s be clear about what just happened: only eleven days before a Presidential election, a federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 individuals — who self-identified themselves as noncitizens — back onto the voter rolls,” Youngkin said in a statement Friday.State law directs the DMV to send monthly lists of people who failed to identify as citizens to the state Board of Elections, which are further forwarded to local registrars. It was carried by former Republican state Sen. Ken Cucinelli before it was signed by then-gov Tim Kaine, a Democrat.In defense of the process, Youngkin has stressed that a Democratic governor signed the law and he is simply employing it.Attorney General Jason Miyares alleged Giles was “urged” by the DOJ to reinstate the removed registrations and called the lawsuits a “shameful, politically motivated stunt.”Both he and Youngkin noted that the state will petition the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and be prepared to take their case to the United States Supreme Court, if needed.Virginia Considering Future Building Code Updates That Could Help With Infill DevelopmentVirginia’s next building code update isn’t until 2027, but state lawmakers are already proactively thinking about ways it could be tweaked to help foster development on vacant or underutilized urban parcels and encourage affordable housing. An advisory group is expected to produce recommendations for how Virginia might update its zoning code to allow for certain multi-unit buildings over three stories to only need one stairwell instead of several.The idea is that in lieu of an extra stairwell, buildings on smaller parcels in urban areas can still be developed or redeveloped to create additional housing units.“When you go from three to six floors, you open up a lot more options for units,” said Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg, D-Henrico, who carried a bill to create the advisory group in this year’s legislative session. “It’s not a cure-all, but it does allow you to redevelop and increase your units.”The advisory group is weighing the pros and cons of doing so and preparing recommendations to share by the end of this year. His bill, also carried by Del. Adele McClure, D-Arlington, passed the legislature with bipartisan support before being signed by Gov. Glenn Youngkin.“We’re seeing an increased momentum across the country, both at the state level and the locality level, because of, to be quite frank, the housing crunch, the supply crunch, the affordability crunch,” VanValkenburg said.He points to localities that have allowed for single-staircases for buildings up to six floors — like Seattle, Washington, New York, New York and Honolulu, Hawaii. These types of structures require considering factors like caps on square footage or number of residential units per floor or specific additional fire safety measures. At the state level, Tennessee passed a law this year to allow localities to adopt building code sections for single-stairwell residential buildings up to six stories.While the concept could help with housing and infill development, public safety officials do note fire hazard concerns. Steven Sites, a fire marshal in Fairfax who serves on the advisory group, noted potential issues in single-stair buildings over three floors.For instance, he said that not all fire vehicles have the equipment to reach higher windows and he noted how both firefighters and residents would utilize the same stairwell when residents are trying to evacuate as firefighters respond to a fire.He said that if Virginia were to pursue allowing for single-stair buildings up to six floors, there could be things to “make this have a better look and feel for fire service.”That could entail requiring smoke detectors in the common areas.“Currently in the code in an apartment-style building like this, there’s no requirement for smoke detection in these common areas,” he said. “So we know that’s a piece that could be added.”He added that another consideration could be if certain localities should be allowed to tap into single-stair code or if it would become a statewide requirement for buildings up to six floors.VanValkenburg said that he and McClure didn’t want to “legislate building codes.” He said that they saw their measure to create an advisory group as a way to encourage adoption of single-staircase allowances when Virginia updates its zoning code in 2027.The report from the advisory committee will be one part of the larger process when Virginia next updates its building code.Andrew Clark, vice president of government affairs for the Home Builders Association of Virginia, previously told The Mercury how tweaking staircase requirements can help solve development issues in spaces that are ripe for housing but would otherwise be abandoned projects.“This has the potential to unlock some really challenging sites in cities and built out areas that are trying to figure out how to do infill right,” Clark said. “Removing one staircase can really change the equation on what housing can be provided more affordably. Once you start opening up square footage from the staircases and corridors that eat up so much space, you can create more of a communal feel for new buildings.”As the advisory group works on recommendations, it will still be some time before the state could consider adopting any of them. But VanValkenburg and McClure’s bill was part of a handful of housing-related bills to pass the legislature this year aimed at addressing growing housing affordability issues in Virginia.“It’s zoning, it’s the building code, it’s money in the affordable housing trust fund — it’s a bunch of different things,” VanValkenburg said of the various efforts it will take from various people and entities to help with Virginia’s affordable housing issues. “But this is a pretty low-hanging fruit policy idea, I think.”Amid Provider Concerns, Virginia Board of Ed Passes New Standards for Child Care CentersThe Virginia Board of Education adopted new standards for licensed child care centers on Tuesday, ending the existing standards to enhance the safety of children receiving care.The board voted 7-0.However, after some providers aired concerns over the changes at the business meeting, the board on Thursday directed staff to create guidance for providers on screen time and other common issues raised through variance requests. The board also removed the requirement for providers to use only liquid soap in the proposed regulation since some children can only use bar soap because of sensory needs.“Honestly, it just seems like an over-regulation to require child care centers to apply for a variance for something like just using a bar of soap,” said Board Member Meg Bryce, a Gov. Glenn Youngkin appointee. “I have a 3-and-a-half-year-old who can’t pump liquid soap, so I can see why this would be a pretty common issue in child care centers.”The action ends a years-long process that began in December 2021 to protect children while also meeting state and federal laws, considering the cost and operational impact of regulations, and reducing any “burdensome” requirements, according to Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) staff. Public comments on the updated rule will still be accepted through the Early Childhood Advisory Committee.The new regulation, dubbed Standards for Licensed Child Day Centers, is expected to help people more easily understand the standards and keep kids safer under state and federal laws.The regulation describes to providers the health and safety requirements of operating a child care center and provides the standards to protect children under the age of 13, and also reduces risks and ensures the services and resources at the centers are “conducive to the well-being of children,” according to VDOE staff.<blockquote>Data shows thousands of Virginians in need of child care services</blockquote>In 2020, the Virginia General Assembly transferred oversight of early childhood care and education programs from the Board of Social Services to the Virginia Board of Education.In addition, funding and oversight of early childhood programs and policies, including the Child Care Subsidy Program and child care licensing and monitoring, transitioned to the Virginia Department of Education from the Department of Social Services on July 1, 2021.“From the beginning, we’ve tried since the shift to DOE to say our job is to partner with programs to keep kids healthy and safe,” said Jenna Conway, deputy superintendent at VDOE, adding that if any providers don’t understand the standards or need additional help the department will assist.She continued that there is still more work to be done and it is essential that providers “believe in these regulations” so they can employ these practices “day in, day out” to prevent child care center fatalities in Virginia.The regulation includes a state law requiring centers to have a stock of epinephrine on hand and to train staff on its administration. Another law requires centers to perform lead testing to ensure drinking water meets minimum standards.Under the new regulation, the definition “school-age” was revised to clarify that the allowance for children 5 years of age by Sept. 30 to be considered school-age is not exclusive to school-age only groups.Records must now also include a child’s dietary restrictions and any special accommodations needed, and centers must also inform the superintendent if a child is lost, missing or wandered away unattended from the facility.The height requirement of climbing equipment installed outdoors after June 1, 2005, was reduced from seven feet to six for toddlers and preschool children. Indoor climbing equipment height requirement remains at five feet.One of a handful of speakers requesting the board modify the proposed regulation on Thursday said the height requirement is unclear.Other speakers urged the board to modify the regulation that calls for providers to increase the ratio of staff, which they feared would increase costs for centers. Speakers also pointed out that the proposed regulation has no restrictions on visual media screen time.Conway said there are approximately 2,600 child care centers across the state.by Nathaniel Cline, Virginia MercuryVirginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and X.</div></body>

Mountain View, CA

NewsBreak

Virginia Board Votes to Reject Changes to Hound Hunting Regulations

In response to the tension, the Department of Wildlife Resources issued reports and convened workgroups over the past several years that presented seven proposals, including the two the board rejected Thursday. One of the rejected proposals would have required deer and bear hunters to put GPS collars on the hounds...