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

Ben & Jerry’s Foundation says it will shut down amid legal dispute with parent company – VTDigger

Published

on

Ben & Jerry’s Foundation says it will shut down amid legal dispute with parent company – VTDigger


Two patrons enter the Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream shop on Church Street in Burlington. File photo by Charles Krupa/AP

The Ben & Jerry’s Foundation says it will shut down at the end of the year after its corporate parent cut off funding and evicted its three staffers Wednesday. The move leaves $600,000 a year in grants to Vermont organizations, and 40 years of the ice cream brand’s progressive mission, hanging on a judge’s future ruling.

“This is the other foot dropping in terms of the way Magnum is trying to destroy the social values of Ben & Jerry’s,” said Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, in an interview Wednesday.

The Vermont-based iconic ice cream brand has been in a legal fight with its parent company, The Magnum Ice Cream Co. — an ice-cream spinoff of the larger corporation Unilever — since November 2024. Ben & Jerry’s alleges that the corporation overreached its control, pushing out the CEO and interfering with the brand’s political views. The question before a judge is whether the corporate parent had the authority to reshape governance and withhold funding from the foundation. 

Amid the push-and-pull over governance, Unilever audited the foundation, which is the philanthropic arm of Ben & Jerry’s, in April 2025, finding conflicts of interest and a lack of governance and financial control. 

Advertisement

Liz Bankowski, president of the foundation’s board of trustees, said in an interview that Unilever withheld the philanthropy’s funding late last year and ordered foundation staff to vacate its corporate office in South Burlington by July 15 because of governance issues the audit raised. This led the foundation’s leaders to join the ongoing lawsuit, fought by the ice cream brand’s independent board, in an effort to retain funding. The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. 

While the foundation’s leadership is framing the decision to cease operations as the only option after Unilever withheld funding, an unnamed spokesperson for Magnum wrote in a statement to VTDigger that the shuttering is “entirely down to the Trustees and their decision to ignore the findings of an independent audit and failure to put in place basic good governance; much to our dismay.” 

Since the audit, the foundation has adopted a conflict of interest policy, but “the bottom line was that unless we changed our board, they were going to continue to withhold funding,” Bankowski said.  

Cohen described the audit as “a bunch of trumped-up charges.” 

“The foundation has been independently audited every year,” he said. “I think that Magnum was searching in vain for some illegal or unethical activities. I think they found none.” 

Advertisement

Since Ben & Jerry’s sold the ice cream business to Unilever in 2000, the corporation has given $60 million to the foundation. The philanthropic arm has operated for 40 years, supporting the ice cream brand’s progressive mission by offering financial backing to social justice organizations across the country. The foundation does not have an endowment and is reliant on the funding its parent company gives annually, outlined in its merger contract.

A chunk of that funding, $600,000 a year, goes to Vermont organizations such as the immigrant farmworker rights organization Migrant Justice and the LGBTQ+ nonprofit Outright Vermont, according to foundation leaders. 

“We fill a particular niche that not a lot of other funders fill,” said Rebecca Golden, the foundation’s director of programs, who has worked at the organization for 34 years. 

Golden is one of three foundation staffers whose last day in the physical office is Wednesday, following orders from Magnum to vacate. Although Magnum did not directly address its vacate order in its statement to VTDigger, the spokesperson wrote that the foundation’s leaders recently “took the position that its staff are not Ben & Jerry’s employees, despite utilising Ben & Jerry’s offices and systems.”

Golden described the possible shutdown as an “enormous loss” that will not only affect the organizations that the foundation supports but also Ben & Jerry’s employees who “feel very proud of being a part of the foundation.” 

Advertisement

“It’s been a really long year, so there’s been a lot of emotions — the whole gamut, as we like to say of the seven stages of grief. But I think at this point we’re sort of in the acceptance phase,” she said. 

The Magnum spokesperson indicated that the work of the foundation will continue even if its leaders decide to cease operations at the end of the year, writing that the company is “firmly committed to funding a grant-giving foundation, supported by appropriate governance controls to ensure it is living by its values.”

But Cohen is not confident that Magnum will uphold the values of the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation in the corporation’s continued philanthropic efforts. 

“What are they going to fund? I have no idea. My guess is that they would not be looking to fund entities that are opposed to the status quo,” Cohen said.

The foundation’s leaders have pointed to its support of Migrant Justice during a period when the farmworker organization was considering a boycott of Ben & Jerry’s as an example of their commitment to social justice. After immigrant farmworkers raised concerns about working conditions at farms supplying Ben & Jerry’s, the company joined a program that collaborates with farmworkers to strive for fair working conditions. 

Advertisement

Political activism has been central to the Ben & Jerry’s brand since its founding. As a part of the ongoing lawsuit, Ben & Jerry’s alleged in a May filing that Magnum has been undercutting its social justice mission in order to “censor, intimidate and purge” the company’s independent board, which Cohen said was created to defend its progressive values. 

Three of the board’s members, including one who has been an outspoken critic of Israel, were removed late last year after the parent corporation introduced a new set of governance practices. In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Magnum argues that it retains ultimate authority and the brand’s social mission must be nonpartisan.  

As the lawsuit awaits a decision, Cohen, who is not a part of the suit, has created a campaign to “free Ben & Jerry’s,” amassing around 160,000 signers for its petition demanding that Magnum sell Ben & Jerry’s to a “group of values-aligned investors.”   

“The very values-led business model that built Ben & Jerry’s into this amazing, phenomenal brand is the very thing that Magnum is currently destroying,” Cohen said.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Vermont

Hazy, hot, and humid: Wildfire plumes give southern Vermont skies an odd glow

Published

on

Hazy, hot, and humid: Wildfire plumes give southern Vermont skies an odd glow


SOUTHERN VERMONT — A thick veil of wildfire smoke high in the atmosphere is transforming the sky over our local Bennington and Windham Counties this week – casting an eerie glow, muting the sun, and leaving air quality in the moderate range – even as temperatures and humidity remain oppressive.

According to federal forecasters, the hazy and particulate-laden sky and unusual colors are the result of smoke from more than 830 active wildfires burning across Canada and northern Minnesota, funneled into New England by the jet stream and trapped over the region by stubborn weather patterns.

What people are seeing, and why the sky looks so strange

Over the course of Wednesday, residents across Southern Vermont reported the sky shifting from orangey‑yellow to umber to violet hues tinged with pink, with a yellow cast over the landscape and a deep red or dark orange sun, especially nearest to sunrise and sunset.

Advertisement

On a normal and clear day in Southern Vermont, tiny molecules in the atmosphere scatter mostly blue light, which is why the sky appears blue.

However, this week, the air is filled with larger particulate matter from wildfire smoke, which scatters longer wavelengths of light – oranges and reds – in a process known as Mie scattering (pronounced “mee,” and named after physicist Gustav Mie who first published the mathematical description of this weird-looking light-scattering phenomenon).

Due to Mie scattering, the sky can appear milky white, with sepia tones, or faintly pink‑violet, instead of blue. The sun may appear like a dark orange or red disk, especially when low to the horizon, and sunlight at ground level feels weaker and more filtered, as if being viewed through rose-tinted glasses. And these are the effects that we are currently experiencing.

Where the smoke is coming from, and how it travels

Federal agencies have reported that more than 800 wildfires are burning in Canada, with additional fires in northern Minnesota near the Canadian border. Many of these are large, and burning through dense boreal forests with little or no containment.

These blazes have triggered evacuations at their locales and in the surrounding areas, and are attributed to areas experiencing intensive drought.

Advertisement

The smoke created from these wildfires reaches Vermont through a series of atmospheric steps.

The jet stream’s “conveyor belt” of high‑altitude winds scoop up smoke from the Central Canada region and carry it southeast across the Great Lakes and into New England.

A high‑pressure “lid” forms, where a strong high‑pressure system causes air to sink (a process known as subsidence) which then presses some of the elevated smoke closer to the surface.

A stalled weather pattern can occur, where slow‑moving systems over Canada and the Northeast keep the flow of smoke aimed at the region instead of sweeping it quickly away.

These patterns mean that – even though the fires are hundreds of miles away – fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from those blazes is now suspended over Vermont and neighboring states.

Advertisement

Local air quality: Moderate, with cautions for sensitive groups

On Wednesday, air quality in Bennington and Windham Counties sat in the “moderate” category, with the Air Quality Index (AQI) fluctuating roughly between the low‑50s and high‑90s. This was driven primarily by PM2.5 from the presence of wildfire smoke.

In practical terms, most healthy adults can go about their normal routines outdoors. However, more sensitive groups – older adults, children, people with asthma, COPD, or heart disease – are advised to limit prolonged or heavy exertion outside, especially during the haziest periods.

Those with prolonged exposure may notice throat irritation, mild coughing, or even eye discomfort – particularly during intense exercise.

Residents can track real‑time conditions using the federal AirNow “Fire and Smoke Map” and Vermont‑specific dashboards, which show localized AQI readings as plumes shift during the day on Thursday.

How the smoke is affecting storms, heat, and humidity

The same smoke that is changing the sky’s color is also subtly reshaping the weather over Southern Vermont.

Advertisement

Forecasters note several key effects. These include solar dimming, where smoke particles in the upper atmosphere scatter and absorb sunlight, acting as a partial sunblock. This can shave a few degrees off daytime highs, compared with what might otherwise occur under clear skies.

It can also include “capping inversion.” By warming the air aloft, the smoke can create a “cap” – a warm layer that suppresses rising air. This can weaken thunderstorms, even when surface heat and humidity are high.

Another key effect is cloud microphysics, where extra smoke particles provide millions of tiny surfaces for water vapor to cling to, producing many “very tiny” droplets rather than fewer larger raindrops. These smaller droplets don’t fall as easily, which can reduce heavy rainfall and the actual structure of a storm.

For example, on Tuesday night, Southern Vermont sat under extremely high humidity fueled by warm southerly winds pulling tropical moisture up the East Coast ahead of a cold front. Under normal conditions, that setup could have produced stronger thunderstorms. Instead, wildfire smoke likely muted the intensity of those expected storms, leaving the region with more of a muggy “soupy” feeling than the explosive severe weather that many expected.

Short‑term outlook for southern Vermont

Through Wednesday and into Thursday, forecasters expect the following for our Southern Vermont region:

Advertisement
  • Sky conditions – Persistent haze and milky skies, with periods of thicker smoke as the plumes shift southward and then rise again. The sun may remain reddish or orange at times.
  • Temperatures and humidity – Highs in the mid‑80s, with oppressive humidity at times, especially ahead of the next cold front.
  • Air quality – AQI values are forecast to remain in the moderate range, occasionally bordering on “unhealthy for sensitive groups” during heavier smoke intrusions (these are expected through Thursday).
  • Showers and storms – As another cold front approaches us on Thursday, scattered showers are expected with isolated downpours and localized “non‑severe” thunderstorms. (Smoke may again limit storm strength somewhat.)

By Friday, higher pressure and drier air are expected to build in from the west, bringing more seasonable temperatures in the upper 70s to mid‑80s, lower humidity, and improved air quality – though some high‑level haze may linger.

For now, we will continue to look at our landscape through our “rose-colored” glasses.



Source link

Continue Reading

Vermont

Severe Thunderstorm Watch in effect for Vermont, New York & New Hampshire Tuesday night

Published

on

Severe Thunderstorm Watch in effect for Vermont, New York & New Hampshire Tuesday night


The National Weather Service has issued a Severe Thunderstorm Watch for northern and central Vermont, New York’s North Country and northern New Hampshire until 4 a.m. Wednesday. Storms Tuesday night into Wednesday could contain damaging wind gusts up to 70 mph, hail up to two inches in diameter, frequent lightning and torrential downpours. A tornado or two is possible, but not guaranteed.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending