If you're looking for "I Spys," dating or LTRs, this is your scene.
View ProfilesPublished February 28, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.
Should "bunny huggers" have a say in how Vermont's hunting and fishing regulations are adopted? Some lawmakers seem to think so, and they appear poised to pull the trigger on the biggest shake-up of Vermont wildlife regulation in decades.
A bill to diversify the voices on the state's 14-member Fish and Wildlife Board is moving swiftly through Senate committees. Support for S.258 is heartening to animal-rights groups — derisively referred to by a board member last year as "bunny huggers" — but alarming to hunters, anglers and trappers who say they feel their way of life is yet again under attack.
"That this bill exists and is moving is an affront to many," said Chris Bradley, president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, which traces its roots to 1875.
Animal-rights organizations have for years blasted the board as an insular boys' club more concerned with preserving traditions than with listening to the rising sentiment against practices seen as outdated or cruel. Now they're demanding a seat at the table where those decisions are made.
"Our big concern is, this board is making public policy on a shared public resource — which is our shared wildlife — without representation from a diverse public," Brenna Galdenzi, president and cofounder of the Stowe-based Protect Our Wildlife, said during a recent legislative hearing. "That is just simply not good democracy."
The volunteer board, established in 1969, has one member per county, all appointed to six-year terms by the governor, with the consent of the Senate. Members historically have been almost exclusively hunters, trappers and anglers, and they want to keep it that way.
They argue that the Fish & Wildlife Department and the board are responsible for the conservation efforts that have helped game and nongame species thrive. The board is not the place for people who oppose legal hunting, Fish & Wildlife Commissioner Christopher Herrick told the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee on February 21.
The board "develops the rules and regulations with respect to the activities that you've already said are legal," Herrick said. "They are not there to rehash that."
The bill nevertheless proposes to revamp the board to include members who don't hunt, fish or trap — people sometimes referred to as "nonconsumptive" wildlife enthusiasts, such as hikers, bird-watchers and photographers.
The bill would increase the board to 15 members. Five would be named by the speaker of the House, five by the Senate's Committee on Committees, and five by the commissioner of the Fish & Wildlife Department. The goal is to have a "balanced representation" of "licensed users and non-licensed users of wildlife."
The board currently has final say in regulations for hunting, fishing and trapping — approving seasons, bag limits, methods for taking game and licensing fees. For example, the board recently gave preliminary approval for hunters to take 180 moose in Essex County this year in an effort to thin the herd and reduce the spread of ticks.
The bill would strip those powers and relegate the body to an advisory role for policies regarding all wildlife in the state, not just game species. The department itself would enact the rules it implements and enforces.
Gov. Phil Scott opposes the bill for several reasons and believes that appointing the board should be an executive, not a legislative, function, his spokesperson, Jason Maulucci, said.
Wildlife advocates seeking the change feel that the current board has been unwilling to listen to critics of certain hunting practices and that they're more likely to get a fair shake from the department's wildlife managers and biologists.
"I think there is a greater need for science to undergird the decision-making process," Bob Galvin, Vermont state director of Animal Wellness Action, told Seven Days.
But the notion that the department or the board doesn't listen to residents is wrong, Herrick argued. Board meetings are open to the public, and residents can weigh in before action is taken, he said. He noted that he invited representatives of anti-hunting groups to help the department draft new rules for trapping and coyote hounding.
He likened the board's responsiveness to its critics to his own experience as a father of young children. "I certainly listened to them growing up, but I didn't do what they said every time, because they weren't always right," he said.
Sen. Chris Bray (D-Addison), chair of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee and sponsor of the bill, said he was not impugning the work of individual board members, whose expertise is appreciated.
"It's a positive, forward-looking bill that says we want more voices at the table," Bray said.
Still, he and his colleagues have taken issue with the board's work of late. The legislature passed laws in 2022 instructing the Department of Fish & Wildlife to implement new rules for two practices many consider inhumane: hunting coyotes with dogs and the use of leghold traps. In both cases, lawmakers were displeased with the results, feeling the rules did not satisfy the "legislative intent" of the laws.
The coyote regs were meant to minimize the risk of hunting hounds running onto private property and harassing residents, their pets or livestock. In response, the board passed rules that set up a permit process but still allowed hunters to pursue coyotes with hounds if the dogs were outfitted with GPS tracking collars. Lawmakers on the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules said that didn't meet the law's requirement.
Similarly, the board adopted rules requiring trappers to set their devices at least 50 feet back from trails in order to reduce the risk that people or their pets would step in them. But lawmakers said the definition of trail was too narrow.
In one testy exchange, Sen. Mark MacDonald (D-Orange) told Herrick that the bill was a direct response to the board's failure to follow the law.
"The board represents people who wish the law to be carried out, and the board is reluctant to do it and does not do it," MacDonald said. "We're stuck," he continued, adding that "the system has failed as currently structured."
The rules committee took the unusual step of filing a formal objection with the secretary of state to the policy changes that the Fish and Wildlife Board adopted.
That's why the current bill, in addition to shaking up the board, would ban hunting coyotes with dogs outright. It would also prevent the use of any "foothold trap or body-gripping trap" not only within 50 feet of any trail but also from other areas "where persons may reasonably be expected to recreate."
The prospect of such a ban brought hundreds of sportsmen and wildlife advocates to the Statehouse last week for hours of passionate testimony.
Laurie DeMuth, a veterinarian from Fairlee, described mountain biking with her dog, Spider, in the woods near Lake Morey on Easter Sunday 2021 when four hounds wearing radio collars attacked and mauled her shepherd.
DeMuth described screaming at the dogs while racing down the mountain on her bike, with Spider sprinting alongside as the hounds repeatedly attacked him. If I slow down, they're going to take him down, she thought. He's not going to get back up, and he's going to die in front of me. They eventually made it to the porch of a cottage, where they remained until the hunter drove up in a truck and retrieved his dogs, she said. Spider suffered several puncture wounds but recovered.
On the other side of the debate, Eric Morton of Barre Town said lawmakers should wait to see whether the recently implemented regulations on hounding coyotes work before imposing a ban. Herrick said the season for hunting coyotes with dogs runs from January through March, and about 36 permits have been issued.
"We, as Vermont hunters, anglers and trappers, are tired of being attacked every time you're in session," Morton testified.
Other hunting advocates said they, too, felt victimized by the repeated criticisms of practices they consider their heritage and birthright.
Former state senator John Rodgers, a cannabis farmer from West Glover, blasted the bill as "founded in bigotry, classism and discrimination." He argued that "privileged" hunting opponents have the time and money to lobby in the Statehouse for changes while working-class people who hunt and fish can't.
Mike Covey, executive director for the Vermont Traditions Coalition, said the use of divisive terms like "consumptive" users and "nonconsumptive users" was offensive and that he considered it "a microaggression against the outdoor community."
Galdenzi, the head of Protect Our Wildlife, said she was appalled to hear hunters and their advocates "co-opt" the lingo of social justice movements and paint themselves as victims.
"It makes me so angry that they're throwing a pity party for themselves," she told Seven Days. "You are not marginalized, John Rodgers! My God!"
Comments are closed.
From 2014-2020, Seven Days allowed readers to comment on all stories posted on our website. While we've appreciated the suggestions and insights, right now Seven Days is prioritizing our core mission — producing high-quality, responsible local journalism — over moderating online debates between readers.
To criticize, correct or praise our reporting, please send us a letter to the editor or send us a tip. We’ll check it out and report the results.
Online comments may return when we have better tech tools for managing them. Thanks for reading.