TJOURNAL.COM • Website of The Tri-County Journal & Chattahoochee Chronicle
The Tri-County Journal
& Chattahoochee Chronicle
PO Box 850, 71 Webb Lane
Buena Vista, GA 31803
229-649-6397
tjournal@alltel.net
View a list of archived online articles about Marion County.
Visit the Home page, for a list of headlines from THIS WEEK'S newspaper.
Visit the Home page, for a list of headlines from THIS WEEK'S newspaper.
Marion County hunting camp ordinance put on hold for revisions
Georgia DNR expresses concerns about ordinance;
Commission to consider DNR's suggestions
Commission to consider DNR's suggestions
By RICHARD HARRIS
(From the Nov. 8, 2006 issue)
The Marion County Commission has decided not to enforce its Hunting Camp Ordinance and will stop collecting fees from hunting camps while revising the ordinance.
Hunting camp owners and hunting groups have strongly criticized the ordinance, even arranging a hearing in federal court. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has also expressed concerns, saying at least a portion of the ordinance is in conflict with state law.
“Right now we are seeking the advice of our county attorney, the DNR, and the Association of County Commissioners, while we consider changes,” said George Neal Jr., chairman of the Marion County Commission.
Neal said one likely change to the ordinance will involve the ordinance’s current restriction that hunting camps cannot have structures, including
The letter stated that the paragraph of the ordinance that includes the 100-foot restriction “infringes on a legitimate recreational and necessary wildlife management activity.”
However, the letter also seemed to imply an overall concern of the DNR about general restrictions the ordinance places on hunting camps.
The letter states: “The Board of Natural Resources has sole authority to set regulations related to hunting and fishing. … It is also our view that the ordinance is inconsistent with O.C.G.A. 27-13 (state law) because it regulates hunting.”
The DNR also volunteered in the letter to assist the county in redrafting its ordinance. The local Commission has been given a copy of an ordinance in effect in Newton County as a model for suggested changes. This model does not single out hunting camps and imposes only very general guidelines for hunters, such as not firing a weapon within 100 feet of a property line unless first receiving written permission from the adjoining property owner.
The Georgia Outdoor Network (GON) was so concerned with the hunting camp ordinance that it had secured a date (Nov. 7) for a hearing in Federal Court in Columbus, according to GON President Steve Burch. GON withdrew its request for the hearing after being informed of the commissioners’ decision to put the ordinance on hold, but it had planned to ask the judge for a restraining order to stop enforcement of the ordinance.
Commissioner Neal said the court date had nothing to do with the decision to suspend the ordinance, as the county had already made the decision after receiving the letter from the DNR in mid October. Neal also says the commission was not trying to harm hunting camps or hunters.
Burch doesn’t buy that explanation and he believes the combination of the letter from the DNR and the pending court date were both likely factors in the Commission’s decision to at least temporarily scrap the ordinance.
“The Marion County Commission was abusing sportsmen’s rights and they know it,” said Burch. “If they didn’t know it, they would have joined us in court.”
Neal, however, insists that the commissioners have no desire to interfere with the right of the public to hunt.
“The intent of coming up with the Hunting Camp Ordinance was in no way an attempt to infringe on anyone’s right to hunt or enjoy the
Neal added, “The commission’s desire is to improve the quality of life of our residents and our guest hunters, who we consider assets to our community.”
Prior to suspending the ordinance, the county had issued 108 hunting camp permits at a fee of $50 each. If the revised ordinance does not include a fee, that money will be refunded.
Local resident and hunter Joe Stubbs, who also works for one of the larger hunting camps in the county, said he thinks one of the commission’s primary reasons for passing the ordinance was to collect additional revenue for the local government.
“I think they were just trying to get some money out of it,” said Stubbs. “I also think there is no need for an ordinance like this in our little county. If we have problems, the county can address them one-by-one.”
He also thinks that if the ordinance isn’t permanently done away with, it may wind up costing the county more revenue than it generates.
“Some of the large hunting clubs spend thousands and thousands of dollars in Marion County,” he said, noting that the club he works for buys a ton of feed per week, not to mention the money spent by the hunters in local businesses and restaurants. “We don’t need to run these folks out of town.”
Fellow resident Jere Smith, who owns a small hunting camp, agrees. He added: “The commission is picking on a group of people that brings more money into this county than any other group I can think of.”
Smith, who also thinks the ordinance should be done away with instead of revised, added that he has visited many local hunting camps and he describes the vast majority of them as “clean and neat.”
He believes the Health Department and the Sheriff’s Office can insure the integrity of the local hunting camp industry through already-existing laws. He also said he doesn’t think the county has enough employees to enforce the ordinance if it isn’t dropped.
Burch said the GON plans to take another close look at the ordinance once it is revised.
He pointed out several portions of the existing ordinance that he considers to be discriminatory. These include: requiring hunting camps to pay fees to the county, while those who hunt but don’t own camps don’t have to pay a fee; hunting camps not being able to put stands within 100 feet of property lines, while those who hunt on their private property can; requirements to “screen” structures on hunting camps, while there may be other types of properties (from homes to trailer parks) that constitute more of an eyesore but are not required to be screened. He also believes portions of the ordinance are so vague that it would be difficult for a hunting camp owner to know if his camp was in violation or in compliance of the requirements.