Public Weighs in on Controversial Game and Wildlife Bills

Three bills in the state Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee are proving controversial among hunters and animal welfare advocates.

In a relatively rare public hearing held by the committee last week, Vermonters voiced their support and opposition to the bills, which would ban two hunting practices and limit the power of the Department of Fish and Wildlife board.

“Fairly blunt, fish and game bills always have wide interest, and there’s also some controversy surrounding them,” said Sen. Chris Bray, D-Addison, who chairs the committee. “Instead of just doing the regular committee process, we thought it was worth creating a public forum that anyone could participate in.”

Many who oppose the proposed policies expressed concern that the bills seek to limit hunting in general and said hunters use best practices to avoid inflicting unnecessary pain on animals. Those in favor of the bills say the practices at their center are cruel and should have been banned long ago.

Department of Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Chris Herrick opposes parts of all three bills.

Brenna Galdenzi, president of Protect Our Wildlife, a state organization that has been advocating for more regulation of hunting in the state, says the bills are not anti-hunting.

“There are still some practices in Vermont that are legal that, if we were doing the same things with pets, would probably fall under Vermont’s animal cruelty statute, which means you’re inflicting prolonged pain, suffering and fear on a pet. animal. ”, he told VTDigger.

Invoices

one of the tickets, S.281, would ban hunters from using bloodhounds to track and kill coyotes, a practice animal-welfare activists liken to dogfighting. Aside from obtaining a standard hunting license, hunters and their scenthounds face few restrictions when hunting coyotes, which are often seriously injured or killed by the dogs that chase them.

In addition to the public hearing, lawmakers from the Senate Natural Resources Committee took testimony earlier this month on each of the bills. There, Craftsbury resident Diana Hansen said she grew up in a hunting family and has no problem with many types of hunting, but an incident on her property in February 2018 made her object to hunting coyotes with bloodhounds. .

Her 10-year-old son alerted her to multiple dogs coming onto her property looking for a coyote, she told lawmakers. The dogs mauled the coyote, who was bloodied and “clearly exhausted,” Hansen said, until the creature climbed into his greenhouse, followed by the dogs. The incident, which her children witnessed, caused $500 worth of damage. Her property was not publicized, so no official was able to help her, she said.

Rather than ban the practice outright, Fish and Wildlife officials are advocating for more regulations on coyote hunting.

“By regulating it, it would allow us to have a better understanding of what’s going on there with real data and not just anecdotal information,” Herrick said.

A second bill S.201, proposes to ban leg traps, which are also called foot traps. Animal welfare groups say the devices are painful and indiscriminately trap animals, including endangered species and household pets.

In response to the bill, hunters and state Fish and Wildlife officials said the traps are humane and effective if checked often, and are sometimes used to protect certain species by keeping predators away.

The conversation about cheating has been volatile, Mike Covey, executive director of the Vermont Traditions Coalition, told lawmakers during his testimony earlier this month.

“None of that conversation takes into account all the work that has been done to bring trapping into the 21st century,” he said, adding that advances allow hunters to target certain animals and avoid others.

Kim Royer, a biologist with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, testified this month that scientists often use foot traps to capture and collar animals. There has been no evidence of harm to those animals, she said.

Galdenzi said he is concerned about recreational trapping, where standards could be less stringent than state-sanctioned wildlife projects.

“The traps can’t even distinguish between the intended victim, a bobcat, for example, and a protected species, like a bald eagle,” Galdenzi said during last week’s hearing. “Non-target animals, like hawks and ravens, are killed every year in local traps.”

A third bill S.129, would change the authority of the Fish and Wildlife board, which determines many of Vermont’s hunting policies, to serving as an advisor to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The department would make rules related to hunting, advised by the board.

Herrick noted the amount of power the Legislature would have under the proposed configuration. Eight of the 12 board members would be appointed by lawmakers, he said. They are currently appointed by the governor. As it stands, lawmakers already need to pass new policies created by the board.

“The people who work here in the department are grounded in science and peer-reviewed studies and accepted best practices,” Herrick said. “And I think it’s fair to say that the board is based on their experience and recommendation.”

Board members often have hunting or fishing licenses, which makes it easier for them to understand the basics of the policies they are creating, Herrick said, adding that members represent a diverse set of viewpoints.

Covey told lawmakers the bill appears to be designed to “reduce hunting and trapping opportunities in Vermont.” He said it makes sense for board members to have hunting licenses.

“If you don’t understand the dynamic conditions that can occur in the field, it’s very difficult to regulate an issue you’re not familiar with,” he said.

Animal advocates like Galdenzi have pushed for board members to represent non-hunting Vermonters.

“Wildlife is a publicly trusted resource and these policies are impacting us all. Whether it’s the otter harvesting season being extended or any other request that may land on their desks, that affects all of us,” Galdenzi said. “We should all have something to say, and we should all have a seat.”

After hearing from members of the public at testimony and the public hearing, Bray said the committee should discuss next steps in the coming weeks.

Leave a Comment