Connect with us

Vermont

Bill proposing changes to hunting and trapping rules spurs passionate testimony

Published

on

Bill proposing changes to hunting and trapping rules spurs passionate testimony


Lawmakers in Montpelier are once again considering big changes to the state’s hunting and trapping regulations.

Proposed legislation on the table this session has many hunters and trappers in the state very concerned — though groups that advocate for animal rights say the changes are necessary.

Lawmakers in the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee have introduced a bill that would strip the state Fish and Wildlife Board’s authority to write hunting and trapping regulations. That body is mostly made up of people who hunt, fish or trap.

Instead, under the bill, the Department of Fish and Wildlife would write new regulations moving forward.

Advertisement

Additionally, S. 258 proposes banning hunting coyotes with dogs in Vermont and proposes a ban on baiting coyotes. Additionally, it would require foothold or body-gripping traps for fur bearing wildlife be set more than 50 feet back from any trail, class 4 road or other public area, including when the trap is set under water or ice.

The move comes after lawmakers on the committee that oversees rulemaking — the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules or LCAR — told the Secretary of State this winter that new regulations the Fish and Wildlife Board adopted in 2023 for trapping and hunting coyotes with hounds do not do what they called for in law.

Generally, the Legislature sets the guiding direction for a change in regulation by passing a law, and state agencies draft the change, which comes back to lawmakers for review.

More from Vermont Public: Vermont has new trapping & coyote hunting rules. But some lawmakers want to change how they’re made

And while agencies, or in the case of fish and wildlife regulations, the Fish and Wildlife Board, are not required to change the regulations if LCAR objects to them, the ruling can be a mark against the rules if they are challenged in court.

Advertisement

And the new regulations on hunting and trapping already have been.

In early January, a coalition of four wildlife advocacy groups in the state — Protect Our Wildlife, Animal Wellness Action, Center for a Humane Economy and Vermont Wildlife Coalition — filed a lawsuit in Washington County Civil Court, alleging the new don’t do what lawmakers called for in statute.

Democratic lawmakers in the Senate Natural Resources Committee have said publicly they agree — though the Department of Fish and Wildlife stands by the board’s regulations and does not support the changes proposed in the bill.

Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Christopher Herrick told the committee Wednesday his department has issued 36 permits so far for hunting coyotes with hounds in the first ever permitted season on hunting coyotes in the state. The season ends in March.

“I recommend to you that we just implemented this — let’s see if it works the way you desired when you passed the bill,” Herrick said. “We haven’t even given it an opportunity to work.”

Advertisement

He said the Fish and Wildlife Board has been effective, and that the existing system has served Vermont well. He urged lawmakers not to tear it down because they disagree with parts of a rule, a dispute he points out is being hashed out right now in state courts.

“If the board had proposed rules which addressed the law, we wouldn’t be here today,” said Sen. Mark MacDonald, a Democrat from Orange County. “We’re here today because the laws that were passed were not implemented … the system has failed as currently structured.”

Who gets to decide?

For several years, wildlife advocacy groups have told lawmakers that they feel the Fish and Wildlife Board does not listen to their concerns about animal welfare in designing regulations for hunting, trapping and fishing.

Advocacy groups in the state have called for legislation to specifically require that people who don’t hunt, fish or trap have representation on the Fish and Wildlife Board — and this bill would do that.

Bob Galvin with Animal Wellness Action accused members of the Fish and Wildlife Board of calling wildlife advocates “bunny huggers” at a board meeting during the last year.

Advertisement

“I support hunters, trappers and anglers being on the board and having a seat at the table,” said Galvin. “And I want to see other folks like non-consumptive birdwatchers, hikers, scientists and other Vermonters who have spent considerable time in the field studying and understanding wildlife to also be involved in the conversation.”

“Non-consumptive” is a phrase hunters and trappers told lawmakers they take deep offense to, saying the language is “othering.” And they point out that some of the groups advocating for S.258have called publiclyfor a ban on trapping in the state.

Commissioner Herrick, with Vermont Fish and Wildlife, disputed the notion that organizations like the Vermont Wildlife Coalition haven’t had a voice. He said animal welfare groups were invited to participate in the working group that recommended the regulations the Fish and Wildlife Board approved — though groups including Protect Our Wildlife have been critical of that process.

“We’re not always going to agree, but I think it’s a mischaracterization to say that the department and the [Fish and Wildlife] Board do not hear from the public,” Herrick said. “The public is well represented. There’s a public comment period.”

Right now, the 14-person board is appointed by the governor, with members confirmed by the Senate.

Advertisement

The new bill proposes the board be appointed by the Legislature and by the Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife, and it requires that the board include people who don’t hunt, trap or fish.

As proposed, the board would give feedback to the department about all rules and regulations, rather than just those pertaining to hunting, fishing and trapping as it does now — which the department could choose to incorporate or to ignore. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife says this change will overly complicate the way they manage wildlife.

And while animal welfare groups in the state say scientists at the department should make decisions about hunting, trapping and fishing, others say the current system puts hunters, trappers and anglers at the table in a way that generates effective regulations.

Chris Bradley, president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs says there is no justifiable reason for what he says is a “radical” change to how hunting, trapping and fishing are regulated in the state.

“Currently, the governor appoints these individuals based on their reputation, knowledge and experience of Vermont’s outdoors,” he said. “And yes, these historically have been ‘consumptive’ users. Under S.258, that board will be replaced by a politically driven board.”

Advertisement

Bradley did acknowledge gubernatorial appointees are also political — but he and others said they were more comfortable with the existing process.

Heated testimony

Lawmakers are taking testimony all week, and on Tuesday heard passionate appeals from both hunters and trappers and organizations that oppose trapping and hunting coyotes with hounds in the state.

Brenna Galdenzi with Protect Our Wildlife said her group strongly supports the bill, and called hunting coyotes with dogs “a public safety concern.”

“This isn’t the Vermont, again, for better or worse, of the 1950s,” Galdenzi said. “Vermont is more populated, with more people recreating on public lands … there’s going to be continued conflicts with the public.”

She said this bill will make decisions about managing Vermont’s animal species more scientific and more inclusive.

Advertisement

Sarah Gorsline with Project Coyote, which advocates for an end to Vermont’s open season on coyotes, said her group fully supports a ban on hunting coyotes with hounds. She said remaining apex predators are critical in the Northeast, where wolves and mountain lions have largely been extirpated.

“When personal traditions affect the larger community and public safety, then I would ask, how are those traditions going to adapt to new understandings provided by science, to living together with other community members in Vermont?” Gorsline asked lawmakers.

Mike Covey, a lobbyist for the Vermont Traditions Coalition who said he hunts coyotes with hounds and traps, said his group strongly opposes the bill. He said dog owners should be responsible for keeping their pets out of traps — and that Vermont should consider enforcing leash laws more strictly.

“Hunters, anglers and trappers are all wildlife advocates,” he said. “We’ve spent the better part of the century caring for, caretaking, stewarding and funding the sound management of wildlife throughout the country. And to suddenly be targeted as disposable in so many ways, that’s very off putting.”

Covey said anglers, trappers and hunters don’t feel heard and that there’s growing distrust in how regulations are written in the state, and trappers and hound hunters feel these changes whittle away at their ability to practice traditions that have been passed down in their families for generations.

Advertisement

Former state Sen. John Rogers of West Glover said Tuesday he vehemently opposes the bill, and that as a farmer who has lost livestock to coyotes, he supports the ability to hunt coyotes all year.

Rogers said he believes changing the makeup of the Fish and Wildlife Board would make it easier for people who oppose trapping to eliminate it — and he said most hunters and trappers don’t have the time to spend advocating for their traditions before lawmakers. He said he’s seen animal rights activists have referred to hunters as “knuckle-draggers” on social media.

“These people do not have the time to spend in the Statehouse lobbying for their rights. They do not have the money to hire expensive lawyers,” he said.

The advocacy organizations that testified Tuesday in support of the bill pointed out that they also have hunters in their membership and say they support the right to hunt in Vermont.

Amendment Wednesday

Advertisement

In an amendment Wednesday, lawmakers updated the language in the bill to eliminate the terms “non-consumptive and consumptive users.”

And they said they plan to look closely at whether any proposed changes to how regulations about Fish and Wildlife are written might disproportionately impact people from a particular socioeconomic background.

Testimony continues through the week, and lawmakers are scheduled to hear from a range of people Thursday, including those who hunt coyote with hounds and those who oppose it, as well as others concerned with the governance changes the bill proposes.

A list of testimony can be found here, and those who wish to testify can reach out to the committee directly.

Sen. Becca White, a Democrat from Windsor County who sponsored S. 258, called early in the week for respectful discourse about the issue, saying members of the committee have in the past received threats when debate over climate and environmental policy gets heated.

Advertisement

“One of the problems I’m already sensing with this legislation is that this is a very broad conversation about the identity of Vermont,” White said.

Have questions, comments or tips? Send us a message.





Source link

Advertisement

Vermont

Facing ‘precarious’ future, Vermont State Ethics Commission seeks financial lifeline from lawmakers

Published

on

Facing ‘precarious’ future, Vermont State Ethics Commission seeks financial lifeline from lawmakers


For the past eight months, municipal officials seeking advice from the Vermont State Ethics Commission have been greeted by an apology on the organization’s website.

“With regret, due to lack of staffing,” the top of the webpage reads, “the State Ethics Commission can no longer provide advisory and complaint services to municipalities.”

In 2024, the Vermont Legislature established a uniform code of ethics for town and city governments, and directed the State Ethics Commission to provide training, advice and guidance on how to uphold it. Lawmakers, however, failed to provide the commission with additional resources to fulfill those duties.

With one part-time executive director and one part-time administrative assistant, commission officials say, providing advice to municipalities has become “an impossibility.” Paul Erlbaum, one of five volunteer state ethics commissioners, told lawmakers this week that the body may disband altogether if lawmakers don’t approve at least $300,000 in additional funding next year for two new staff positions. The commission’s budget this fiscal year is about $250,000.

Advertisement

“The commission staff is just treading water. And frankly we’re going to go down unless we get staff.”

Paul Erlbaum, commissioner, Vermont State Ethics Commission

“The continued existence of the commission is precarious, I’ll put it that way,” Erlbaum told members of the Senate Government Operations Committee. “We know this is a really, really tight budget year — we’re not doubting that. But the commission staff is just treading water. And frankly we’re going to go down unless we get staff.”

The ethics commission came into being in 2018 after government watchdogs routinely panned the state for its lack of any independent oversight apparatus. Lawmakers expanded the commission’s duties dramatically in 2024 by reforming the ethics regulatory landscape for municipalities, and directing the commission to vet complaints and issue advisory opinions.

Will Stevens, another commissioner, said the panel exists not only “to ensure good governance,” but to signal to Vermonters that “our representative form of government is acting in their broad interests.”

Advertisement

With public trust in government at historic lows, Stevens said, the role of the ethics commission is especially important now.

Alex Driehaus

/

Associated Press

Chittenden County Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, seen here in a Statehouse committee room last year, said she’ll be supporting increased funding for the Vermont State Ethics Commission.

“The Legislature, while acting with good intent, created what amounts to an unfunded mandate,” Stevens said. “It’s a time-honored practice to ensure an entity’s failure to give it more to do while limiting their resources.”

Advertisement

Republican Gov. Phil Scott allowed the 2024 legislation that expanded the commission’s duties to go into law without his signature. While he welcomed the increased oversight, Scott said at the time, he objected to creating new administrative burdens without additional funding.

Though Scott’s concerns proved prescient, the budget he presented to lawmakers earlier this month does not include additional funding for the commission.

“We had to make difficult choices in this budgetary cycle, knowing the limited amount of resources that we have,” Scott said Wednesday.

That leaves lawmakers to decide, once again, whether to fund the good-governance instrument they created.

“The question has to be raised — is the point just so we can feel good and pat ourselves on the back and say we’re doing something without actually doing anything?”

Chittenden County Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky

Advertisement

Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, a member of the Senate Government Operations Committee, has advocated for increased funding for the commission for years. The Chittenden County Progressive said it’s been tough to make any headway with members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

“I think there is often a sense that things are sort of fine. And sure, we should do something, but it can wait,” Vyhovsky said.

Vyhovsky said the commission’s request is small relative to the $9.4 billion state budget. Given the financial strain on the commission now, she said, failure to fund additional staff will raise questions about the Legislature’s commitment to its mission.

“At that point,” Vyhovsky said, “the question has to be raised — is the point just so we can feel good and pat ourselves on the back and say we’re doing something without actually doing anything?”

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Vermont

Two Vermont teens named to National Brotherhood of Snowsports team

Published

on

Two Vermont teens named to National Brotherhood of Snowsports team


Two Vermont youth athletes were named to the National Brotherhood of Snowsports 2026 team roster, according to a community announcement from the organization.

Bronson Culver, a ski racer from South Londonderry who attends Burke Mountain Academy, and Chelsea Charles, a ski racer from Winhall who attends Stratton Mountain School, were selected for the roster.

Youth athletes on the team will be recognized at the organization’s 53rd summit Feb. 28 to March 8 at Keystone Resort in Colorado, according to the announcement.

Advertisement

The National Brotherhood of Snowsports is a national nonprofit representing the largest network of Black and Brown snowsports athletes in the U.S. across more than 60 ski and snowboard clubs.

The team serves as the organization’s national development team, providing athletes with financial support, coaching access, structured competitive tiers and a long-term pathway designed to help underrepresented competitors advance through regional, national and international levels of the sport, according to the announcement.

The team is primarily backed by a scholarship fund started in the late 1970s, which provides need-based assistance for training, travel, competition and equipment.

The fund remains one of the nation’s longest-running support systems for underrepresented athletes pursuing elite competition, according to the group. The org has supported more than 45 athletes who have gone on to compete across regional, collegiate, national, Paralympic and Olympic levels, according to the

Advertisement

“The 2026 roster underscores the depth of emerging talent in our community and the strength of a development pathway that is guiding athletes toward the sport’s highest levels,” said Henri Rivers, president of the National Brotherhood of Snowsports.

Athletes selected to the team represent nine ski and snowboard disciplines, including alpine, freestyle, nordic and moguls.

Selections were based on national and regional results, progression benchmarks, training commitment and discipline-specific potential, according to the announcement.

The summit is the largest annual gathering of skiers and snowboarders of color in the United States and serves as the primary fundraising event for the scholarship fund, according to the org.

This story was created by reporter Beth McDermott, bmcdermott1@usatodayco.com, with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Journalists were involved in every step of the information gathering, review, editing and publishing process. Learn more at cm.usatoday.com/ethical-conduct.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Vermont

New poll on healthcare: Vermonters want to extend ACA subsidies

Published

on

New poll on healthcare: Vermonters want to extend ACA subsidies


Health care premiums set to rise as ACA subsidy deal collapses

Obamacare subsidies are set to expire after Congress failed to reach a deal, leaving millions facing higher health care costs.

  • 74% of residents support the extension of the ACA subsidies, while 19% oppose.
  • Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said that resurrecting the Affordable Care Act subsidies could depend on President Donald Trump in an interview with NPR Jan. 1.
  • 92%, including majorities of all parties, disapprove of Congress’s handling of healthcare.

Most Vermont residents support extending the recently expired Obamacare subsidies, which were at the center of the government shutdown fight last year and continue to cause tension on Capitol Hill, according to a new poll from the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

Democrats in Congress had refused to support a government funding bill that didn’t extend COVID-era subsidies for lower income Americans under the Affordable Care Act, leading to longest-ever government shutdown in October and November as GOP lawmakers would not extend the subsidies, citing reports of fraud and criticisms of Obamacare more broadly. The two sides ultimately came to a deal to reopen the government, and the subsidies expired at the end of 2025.

Advertisement

While the House voted to extend the subsidies in early January, the legislation is less likely to pass the Senate, which has previously voted against it. Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said that resurrecting the Affordable Care Act subsidies could depend on President Donald Trump in an interview with NPR Jan. 1.

In Vermont, 74% of residents support the extension of the subsidies, while 19% oppose. This is divided along party lines, with 99% of Democrats in support and 62% of Republicans in opposition.

When asked about Obamacare in general, 55% of Vermont residents said they wanted to expand the law, including 79% of Democrats. 21% want to repeal the law entirely, including 72% of Republicans.

73% disapprove of how President Donald Trump has handled healthcare, but more disapprove of how Congress has handled the issue. 92%, including majorities of all parties, disapprove of Congress’s handling of healthcare.

Advertisement

The Green Mountain State Poll, a States of Opinion Project conducted by UNH Survey Center and released Jan. 26, surveyed 765 Vermont residents online from Jan. 15 – 19. It has a margin of error of +/- 3.5%.

Do Vermonters support a “single-payer” health care plan?

A plurality (70%) of Vermont residents would support a national single-payer health care plan, the poll revealed.

A single-payer system is where all Americans would get insurance from a single government plan. It’s often championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who calls his plan “Medicare for all.”

Advertisement

Support for the plan is divided by party: 92% of Democrats support, while 61% of Republicans oppose. Those with a higher household income are also more likely to support the idea.

How healthy are Vermonters?

In the poll, most Vermonters said they were in either good (50%) or very good (34%) health.

However, nearly half (47%) of Vermont residents say that it is difficult to pay for their overall medical care expenses, and 67% said that overall medical costs have gone up in the past 12 months. Just 1% said they have declined.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending