Conserve 50% of all land in Vermont, Natural Resources chair says

By Guy Page

Citing information from the United Nations, the chair of an influential Vermont House committee and the architect of the embattled Act 250 revision has sponsored a bill calling for 50% of all total land area in Vermont to be conserved from future development. 

Rep. Amy Sheldon

H606, “an act related to community resilience and biodiversity protection,” would “establish State goals of conserving 30 percent of the land of the State by 2030 and 50 percent by 2050.” The bill’s sole sponsor is Rep. Amy Sheldon (D-East Middlebury), chair of the House Natural Resources, Fish & Wildlife Committee. 

The bill will be reviewed by House Natural Resources tomorrow (Thursday, Jan. 20) at 9 am, following a brief presentation about the Global Deal for Nature. This international initiative is “calling on world leaders to support a Global Deal for Nature that protects and restores half of the Earth’s lands and oceans,” its website says. 

The bill cites United Nations-sourced information that a million plant and animal species are threatened with extinction, humans globally are are squeezing wildlife into ever smaller areas, and that changes in land and sea use are the #1 driver of these problems. 

Sheldon’s bill cites the Vermont Climate Council 2021 report and other state studies to demonstrate the need for “permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover.” The bill sets this goal: “Thirty percent of Vermont’s total land area shall be conserved by 2030, and 50 percent of the State’s total land area by 2050.”

The action plan calls for an inventory of currently preserved land, both public and private, and “an evaluation of the impact of intergenerational land transfer trends.” The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources would be tasked with producing a draft plan by July of next year.

19 replies »

  1. Watch Out, the Government, Federal and Local are coming for your Private Property!

    WE The People are in charge of Our State, not “unelected selected” Marxists.

    Stand Up for Your Private Property, The Right to Live Free and Pursue Your Dreams of Owning Land, Your House and Your Business. They are pushing propaganda in the guise of “Climate, Nature”. They want you to blindly sit back and believe that Government control and TAKEOVER of your Land is in your best interests.

    Do You want to Own Nothing while The Government Owns Your House, Land, Business? Do You want to be a Serf, Slave to the Government? This is road that takes you there. Do you want to tell your children, grandchildren, nephew, nieces, “sorry You own nothing because we let you down and let the Government take All of my property, land, business, and yours forever”.

    Is that the kind of State or Country you want?

      • Many do not vote for these people, but we are significantly outnumbered by the Marxist/socialist/communists who support this crap.

  2. The VT Land Trust states that more than 1,950 pieces of land covering 590,000+ acres; this is about 11 percent of the state is concerned currently. Vermont needs to see the issue of global warming and the possible extinction of species locally, not globally. The broad statements made by the UN do not directly reflect Vermont, as the threat of rising sea levels, as a potential danger does not apply to Vermont.

    Protected land is currently privately owned and actively farmed or managed for timber. What does this bill mean to Vermonter’s? There are not specifics. How will Vermont get from 11 percent to 50 percent? This project sounds like a real estate acquisition scheme, disguised as conservative in the name of global warming, which is right on line with the globalist agenda.

  3. Here we go again. This is a global version of the Northern Forest bill that VNRC peddled in 1998.It was to be a wide band of untouchable land from northern Maine to Northern NY. Fortunately it collapsed, I believe in Maine. These VNRC people won’t quit until every acre of rural Vermont is denied to human use, except for a few farms and already ruined villages.. This woman is a menace to our constitutional rights.

    • Not entirely, John: Remember Howard Dean’s deal with the paper company land and private camps in the N E Kingdom? VT and the Feds as I remember took over thousands of acres.
      This is forever, never to be returned.

  4. This will only drive up the price of the existing homes and property that will not be conserved, which will put the middle and poor class of Vermonters out of the land and housing market and drive them to other states or apartment dwelling in the city. Great idea you dumb farts.

    • Sounds like a scheme concocted by Joni Mitchell and James Taylor.

      “They took all the trees,
      Put ’em in a tree museum;
      A dollar and a half just to see ’em…”

      Fools like Sheldon, and there are many in the state legislature, do not have Vermont’s best interests in mind. Personal gain and enrichment–that they have in abundance…

  5. If the state wants to conserve 50% by 2050, they’d better do a better job of procuring land than they did the 6000 acres on Woodbury Mountain.

  6. Before any such proposal gets rolling, the voters need some critical information released. There needs to be a comprehensive list of appraised values and acreage of all private land and homestead holdings by all members of the Vermont Legislature. This needs to be compared to the Vermont population as a whole to see what disproportionate role the legislators represent in land/value ownership. Hypocrisy needs to be exposed where it exists.

  7. Be afraid! Be very afraid! Property taxes fund education in this state. Either they will deny you the ability to use your land to fit your needs and you will still have you pay the high land taxes OR the state will “own” your land and you will make up for the loss of all those tax dollars through another BIG Montpelier “ponzi tax scheme.”

  8. Why don’t we restrict incoming humans so we don’t need to build new
    Levitt Towns like the new one in Shelburne. If we didn’t have need for new housing we wouldn’t need to use farmland for housing, we wouldn’t need to build more schools to teach English to illegal immigrants, we wouldn’t need more grocery stores to feed excess population and we could reduce the number of “helpful” legislators needing to figure out what to do with the time they seem to have on their hands.

  9. Climate change, global warming, no such things.
    This is a false pretext for control. We are about to freeze our butts off as the Earth’s gravity fails and solar minimum advances. Cold is the future. Population decline is in.

  10. Sheldon’s IQ remains in the single digits. Oh, and by the way, I suspect there won’t be any democrats giving up their homes and land for “conservation” any time soon. And how about “conserving” land and mountains that have been destroyed by junk wind turbines and solar arrays? Let’s get rid of them and let nature get on with what it does.

  11. My little slice is safe without her input. But I’ll tell you, if they price me out of here it isn’t.

  12. Not so fast! I am sure there will be ample opportunities for land owners and taxpayers to weigh in on this proposal.
    Before it gets kicked around under the golden dome there needs to be ample public discourse to ferret out all aspects and possible unintended consequences. Who thinks this is a good idea and what will it cost us?

    • Seriously? Public Input? Not unless one is a member of a pre-determined “disadvantaged” group, then one will be given ample time to comment. Ask GoV how the legislature allows their views. Is there adequate input from the public on school funding? Is anyone able to speak at a school board meeting? Dissenting views not welcome there, either. Try the GWSA and it’s Vermont Climate Council. Meetings were held by VCC committees that barred anyone NOT a member of the selected minority group. Satisfied with the input to that fiasco? Hope so, because we are stuck with the results.
      This land grab proposal will only be curbed by a lack of funding.
      Sorry, but as time goes forward- the voice of the electorate has been severely restricted and more importantly disregarded.

  13. Call their bluff. Agree to conserve all of our ridgelines so they can’t build any wind turbines.

  14. Let these communists buy us out so we can escape this commies idea. I’d move to a free American state if I could.

Leave a Reply