Brenna Galdenzi: Vermont Fish & Wildlife is aligned with special interests

This commentary is by Brenna Galdenzi of Stowe, president of Defend Our Wildlife. 

We hold listening to, “simply hearken to the biologists” from Vermont Fish & Wildlife senior employees, however those self same employees members disparage outdoors biologists when the latter disagree with Fish & Wildlife insurance policies which are usually motivated by politics, not science. 

After being concerned in wildlife advocacy in Vermont for over 10 years, I’m not naive in regards to the function politics play in wildlife coverage selections, however I used to be shocked by the mean-spirited feedback hurled at a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Conte Wildlife Refuge biologist by a senior employees member at Vermont Fish & Wildlife. 

What brought on the eruption of hostility? The reply: The refuge enacted minor hounding coaching restrictions in an effort to raised shield at-risk species, together with the ground-nesting Canada warbler and American woodcock.

Final summer season, the Conte Refuge requested the general public to touch upon its 2021 Searching Plan. Defend Our Wildlife and its members participated within the public remark course of. We thought hounding needs to be prohibited on the refuge for quite a few causes, together with disturbances to ground-nesting birds. 

Defend Our Wildlife additionally requested that using lead ammunition be banned for searching, contemplating its affect on the surroundings and birds of prey. You possibly can learn our letter right here. POW acknowledged the necessity for the refuge to deal with the wants of each hunters in addition to those that don’t hunt and like to attach with nature in different methods (e.g., climbing, wildlife pictures and many others.). 

However Vermont Fish & Wildlife senior employees have no real interest in compromise or acknowledging variations, as evidenced by emails we obtained via a public information request. 

When the Refuge printed the outcomes of its 2021 Searching Plan final fall, they included minor modifications, similar to shortening the hound coaching season from June 1 to Aug. 1 and requiring permits (at no cost) for any hounder who runs three or extra hounds. These modifications had been a far cry from what wildlife advocates wished, however based mostly on the response of senior employees members at Vermont Fish & Wildlife, you’d assume the refuge had banned deer searching. 

Reasonably than settle for that the overwhelming majority of Vermonters are extra involved about defending nesting birds or different at-risk wildlife than hound coaching, Vermont Fish & Wildlife employees members accused Defend Our Wildlife of recruiting individuals from out-of-state individuals to a petition. Like different accusations, that is false. In actual fact, you’ll be able to see the petition right here.

The director of wildlife at Vermont Fish & Wildlife, a public servant, delivered a letter to Sen. Leahy’s workplace on behalf of a non-public citizen (and hounder) who referred to Defend Our Wildlife as a “misinformed anti-hunting group” and different false allegations. This director of wildlife was additionally copied on the hounder’s request asking Leahy to divert essential funding from the refuge and redirect it to Vermont Fish & Wildlife. 

In one of many e-mail exchanges, the Vermont director of wildlife mentioned the next in regards to the Conte Refuge supervisor: “My guess is he needs a promotion and is prepared to promote his skilled integrity. SAD.” He additionally mentioned that the refuge supervisor was dishonest and unprofessional and that he misplaced all respect for him. 

Along with assaults made by Vermont Fish & Wildlife, a lobbyist who represents hounders (and trappers) instigated a letter-writing marketing campaign to Leahy, urging him to not help future land acquisitions by the refuge. These are the identical individuals who name themselves “conservationists,” but they’re attacking one among Vermont’s two nationwide wildlife refuges? The brand new Vermont Fish & Wildlife commissioner, Christopher Herrick, has requested everybody to respect variations and work collectively, however I suppose that doesn’t apply to his senior employees who disparage fellow biologists. 

In a draft letter to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service relating to the refuge’s new hounding restrictions, Herrick wrote, “… it drives a wedge between us and our many and diversified constituents. I stress that going ahead we don’t need this instance to be replicated nor utilized as a longtime precedent setting.” Who’re these “diversified constituents,” commissioner? One would argue that the refuge did, in truth, reply in a manner that acknowledged each the wants of at-risk species — a requirement for refuges — in addition to diversified constituents. 

Although Vermont Fish & Wildlife is statutorily tasked with “safeguarding wildlife for the individuals of the State,” it’s clear that senior employees, together with the commissioner, work for privileged particular pursuits. Wildlife advocates don’t have an “in” at Vermont Fish & Wildlife like this hounder and lobbyist did.  And make no mistake, this pandering to a sure constituency has an extended historical past. This isn’t the primary time that Vermont Fish & Wildlife has proven favoritism to hounders, as evidenced right here after they challenged a special refuge supervisor. 

I’m making a plea for the commissioner to cease utilizing “science” as a cloak for coverage selections. Let’s be clear: Wildlife administration is political and Vermont Fish & Wildlife senior employees function extra like lobbyists than these in command of overseeing our shared wildlife.