Lawsuit threatened
By Michael Bielawski
After repeated attempts by the Vermont Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (LCAR) to insist on their own rules for trapping and coyote hunting, Vermont’s Fish and Wildlife Department finally decided they heard enough and put their policies into place.
After months of back/forth exchanges of how each side thought trapping and coyote hunting should or should not be regulated, on Thursday both groups had meetings and by the end of the night, the Department made a decision not to make any more changes.
Fish & Wildlife board member Neal Hogan commented just before their vote on Thursday on whether to forego any further changes to appease LCAR. He and the rest of the board all voted to submit the new rules without any further changes.
“This board has done more than its due diligence to support what the legislature asked us to do,” he said. “I am in favor of this motion.”
That meeting can be viewed here.
Other board members expressed frustration including Michael Kolsun. He wrote in the VDC comments for another article on this subject that they’ve done enough to appease LCAR.
He wrote, “As a F&W Board member, we’ve made every attempt to bring this group to the table in the desire to be inclusive. To then be accused of not caring, not listening, and not including their ideas is deeply offensive. EVERY courtesy was extended, and the animal welfare ideas that were suggested were all about banning the ethical pursuit of harvest.
He continues, “From the onset of the “working group”, extensive changes to trapping were brought forth by the trappers and the Department. Additionally, there were zero regulations around hunting coyotes with hounds. What was brought forth by F&W and the hounding community were some of the most stringent regulations in the country.”
He further suggested that LCAR members were working more as activists than lawmakers.
“None of this was good enough for the animal activists, who then went on to continue to smear and degrade department staff, the F&W Board, and all licensed hunters,” he said.
Rep. Mark Higley, R-Lowell, spoke with VDC on Saturday about LCAR’s meeting which also took place on Thursday, and Higley is a member. He said that he tried to remind his colleagues that these requests had already been made to the Department.
“They certainly considered them, they just didn’t accept them,” Higley said. “… The decision at Thursday night’s meeting of the board (the Department) was they are going to go ahead with the rules in spite of what LCAR is looking for.”
Contribute to Vermont Daily Chronicle via Stripe.com – quick, easy, confidential
Trapping will be defined as “hunting”
One issue that was a sticking point between the two sides was whether trapping should be considered a form of “hunting” or not. LCAR thought no it shouldn’t, and requested at least twice that the Department take the word out of the definition, which they ultimately did not do.
Underwater/ice traps exempt from trail setbacks
Another disagreement was whether underwater or under ice traps should be exempt from setbacks from trails, LCAR again asked the Department to not include this exception, and again the Department said no to that request.
Rules for coyote hunting dogs less restrictive than lawmakers wanted
There was also disagreement over what constitutes control over a hunting dog.
“What LCAR was looking for was more restrictions in regards to what’s considered control of your dogs, in other words, they wanted to see ‘within sight, within voice-command, on a leash, they were making those suggestions. What they didn’t like was the definition of control of dogs with what the board had come up with.”
Trail definition will not be too vague
And there was disagreement concerning what’s considered a public trail.
“They wanted a more inclusive definition of public trails and the board (Fish and Wildlife Department) felt confident that the definition that LCAR was looking for was unenforceable when came to just about any trail would be reasonably used by individuals and I think they even included domestic animals.”
The Department wrote a letter to LCAR explaining where they stand on their remaining disagreements, including how to define trails.
“The LCAR objection to the definition of public trails directs the Board to create a vague and arbitrary definition for a public trail that will be subject to setbacks. A violator could be charged with a criminal violation. The Vermont Supreme Court has held that a criminal statute must be construed to implement “a coherent structure of offense and penalty consistent with ordinary standards of interpretation possessed by any reasonable person.”
Not everyone happy, potential litigation
Jane Fitzwilliam of Putney heads the Vermont Coyote Coexistence Coalition spoke during the public comment period. She suggested that the Department could potentially face litigation if someone is unhappy with these new rules.
“The board has no appreciation or understanding of what legislative intent really means,” she said. “You fought this effort every step of the way and it has caused more work for all involved. … For example, if a dog gets by coyote hounds or dies in a kill trap set underwater the Department is left very vulnerable because the burden of truth has shifted onto them.”
The author is a reporter for the Vermont Daily Chronicle
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Outdoors, State Government
Regardless of what “compromises” were made or not made or whether or not Fish & Wildlife has opened the State of VT up to lawsuits, etc. etc. – trapping remains a brutal, barbaric excuse for “sport” and it kills endangered species, mutilates & kills domestic pets, and is opposed by the majority of VT. See National Geographic online for easily obtainable statistical data confirming endangered and/or protected species as well as domestic animal killings caused by trapping.
Since none of those government-obtained stats can as found online can be disputed, what appears to be disputable is the disposition of how this public board meeting ended as the purported facts presented in this article are altogether different from how, by way of example, VTDigger reported the conclusion to be. This VDC article appears to be composed primarily from the VT Fish & Wildlife Department’s perspective until the very last paragraph and therefore statement of facts as reported might be quite biased.
Perhaps LCAR member “native” Vermonter & legislator Seth Bongartz can provide a first-hand account from his own perspective for those who were not in attendance either in person or virtually.
Perhaps VDC might be willing to interview the legislator in pursuit of a more balanced summation – being, I believe, he is a “native” Vermonter and therefore his testimony must be unquestionably valid.
Why not interview Mark Higley?
Why not interview a legislator who actually holds the authority to write bills and alter laws? F & W do not.
Dictionary Definition –
Native: Related to the FIRST People who lived in an area. As in:
“The Aborigines Are the Native Inhabitants of an Area.
Finney surname origin: HABITATIONAL from any of Several Places….Chettleton Staffordshire…Yorkshire….Lancashire…Cheshire….
Your name originates, as do most Caucasian peoples residing in the Northeastern corridor of the US, from the European Continent and your ancestors arrived/immigrated to this region of the United States located on the Continent of North America from the U.K. and/or later out of Ireland where they settled, as did most Americans, in this area generally in the second quarter of the 19th century through to the Great Migration to the “New World” well into the earlier decades of the 20th century.
Your ancestors are likely not related to any of the original native inhabitants who were comprised of various known American Indian tribes of which the State of VT officially recognizes four. Your DNA would almost certainly evidence your ancestry as European-American. Your very random place of birth within VT is not demonstrable in any DNA or genetic testing and as (yet again) the US & VERMONT Constitution which you have past inferred that you abide by provides you ZERO advantages or special rights or accolades or privileges above or in addition to any other American citizen birthed between Maine to Alaska.
Vermont schools years ago were once recognized nationally to supposedly provide some of the best education to school children in the country. I’m beginning to think that the topic of American History was either excluded from such recognitions- or the entire evaluation was wrong.
First item. Trapping keeps animal population at a number that is in balance with human population. I’m not a trapper I do hunt and fish though. It isn’t easy to hunt and kill a bear or coyote without the use of dogs or bait. We are not allowed to bait bears and I’m not sure about coyotes. If you think bears are a problem now just wait
as a native vermonter i hope i can still trap a mouse or rat in my basement
Since there is no such thing as a native Vermonter unless one is aboriginal, I’m unclear about your dilemma.
Merriam Webster, Definition #1 “Native”
noun
1
“one born or reared in a particular place”
Merriam Webster, Definition #3, “Reared”
a
(1)
: to breed and raise (an animal) for use or market
(2)
“to bring to maturity or self-sufficiency usually through nurturing care”
Example, “reared five children”
“birds rearing their young”
Though rather unclear within the VDC article as opposed to the presentation in VTDigger’s piece on the same subject matter, LCAR actually outright rejected four of the main components of F & W’s rules during this hearing on account of their regulations failing legislative mandates. And from what I’ve managed to affirm from legislators who were present at the hearing itself, in light of F & W’s “refusal” to be in compliance with the above-referenced mandates, the VT legislature has amassed some renewed interest in now pursuing an “overhaul”, of sorts, of F & W in the upcoming legislative year of 2024 with bills H.191 and S.111 being more assertively pursued.
With two-thirds of Vermonters opposed to trapping through F & W’s own admission along with the noxious behaviors & verbiage used by trappers on VDC now part of the public record for all the legislature to view and fully digest, and with F & W setting the State of VT and its taxpayers up to the potential for lawsuits now with their non-compliance of LCAR rejections, I would imagine Guy Page & the VDC will be more than busy in 2024 penning many, many more articles on the continuing saga of the numerous public dangers posed by the “sport” of trapping. And in light of the legislature & the majority of Vermonters who increasingly oppose the practice, thanks to the publicity AND commentary provided by VDC, additional actions initiated by both groups appear to be on the horizon. Obviously, no F & W board can act & legislate independently from the State and the will of the majority.
As 2024 is but weeks’ away – all anyone who opposes the brutal act of trapping can do presently is simply sit tight and watch bills being introduced in the days ahead by the legislature to force better safety measures & more humane practices AND to remember to remain vigilant in attempting to keep your children as well as your dogs & cats as safe as possible from the ever-present deadly dangers that trapping poses for unsuspecting creatures who innocently stumble upon a set trap designed to use crushing lethal force to snuff out life.
if trapping is the same as hunting i can solve my problem with a 10 gauge shotgun
i like noxious behaviors and verbiage except when you talk about searburg selectboard members
Vermont Coyote ” Coexistence ” Coalition, now here’s a pack of fools, I hope they get
what they spout about ” coexistence ” when their cats & dogs come up missing or if they have ever been in the woods of VT at dark…………
Where do we get these clowns?
I had a pair of coyotes trotting through my front yard – in city limits. I often hear them in the woods after a kill of something. I wonder if the Vermont Coyote Coalition also advocates to protect the coyotes involved in human trafficking. If people were only as concerned about real atrocities going on under their noses.
And I wonder if the those who derive joy and a sense of “machismo” from torturing and causing suffering to animals in the wild are at all concerned with OTHER atrocities going on under their noses – or if they’re satiated by not only through tearing woodland animals to pieces as they writhe in agony or declaring themselves as somehow “so special” because they birthed in Barre VT as opposed to Granville NY…..hint: there’s nothing special about any of them over & above anyone else. They don’t “stand out” shoulders above ANYONE from anywhere else.
Trapping is a cruel, barbaric, sad desecration of a life GOD created.
The odd chortles, and juvenile schoolyard-type name-calling of Vermont residents with whom you don’t agree with on this subject is presently all being both noted and amassed by particular members of the VT legislature as it readies for its 2024 sessions.
Thank you. Your mature & highly sophisticated arguments advocating for the need to torture and torment animals in the wild is exceptionally convincing. For those who believe in humane treatment of all living beings.
deep in the woods in my camp i can hear a pack of coyotes at night but never fear my 12 gauge mossberg shockwave is waiting for some action
I’m so glad that the Board performed their duty, and delivered a verdict based on science, not on feel good emotions as put forth by anti-hunters. Our Fish and Wildlife Department employees degreed wildlife biologists. How many of the Reps on the LCAR do you suppose can say that ? They listen to “squeaky wheels” or even worse, push only to their own agendas. (S5) It’s about time they were put in their place.
I’m so glad that the VT State legislature has made the citizenry aware that the Department of F & W will now be held legally accountable & open to private claims of action whenever pets are ensnared in the steely jaws of death and their dog or cat’s skull is crushed as a natural result. I’m also grateful that the VT legislature shall now be pursuing bills H.191 and S.111 much more vigorously than ever and I shall encourage and help to enable/assist in the passage of those bills in conjunction with any and every animal humane organization to see that it is done as expeditiously as is possible.
Protect Our Wildlife VT — See Website For a plethora of information and photographs on: Trapping
pervmont maybe a story in vermont which has not been told
Legislator Seth Bongartz, member LCAR, “native” (insofar as Patrick Finney’s unimpressive definition as being “birthed” in a particular “state” within the United States) of Vermont — Advocate for the Humane Treatment of Animals and Finding Legislative Solutions to Enforce safe & more humane trapping stragies within this State.
As I stated on the other article Kathleen, I cut and pasted those definitions straight out of Merriam Graves. I f you have a problem with the accepted definitions, take it up with them.
Well Patrick, I didn’t cut & paste mine, but they are nevertheless taken verbatim from online Dictionaries accessible on the net in the event you need to check their origins.
But oddly btw, the State’s own “Indigenous Heritage Center” at the Ethan Allen Center displayed a slew of “native Vermont” tribal artifacts everywhere, but I never saw anything mentioning “native Vermonters from the UK/Ireland for some strange reason. But it’s OK, despite being born & raised on L.I., I certainly never considered myself a “native” for as far as anyone considered it – they live(d) on the Shinnecock Reservation on the eastern end.
That’s: “strategies” in the last sentence.
Thank you, Seth. And three-quarters of Vermonters thank you as well.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Aborigine: A member of the ORIGINAL people to INHABITATE an area especially as contrasted with an invading or COLONIZING people.
Like it or not and knowing of the reality that most modern-era nations worldwide have been colonized with many original, indigenous peoples being replaced over the centuries, Europeans did, in fact, colonize the North American Continent.
Individuals “birthed” in Vermont aren’t of an “exceptional” class/group but are mere descendants of these colonizers primarily from countries located in western or eastern Europe.
Once their ancestors immigrated into the USA – their State of birth later on is of no particular import or significance from any national or Constitutional standpoint, though it remains fairly sad that one or two specific posters on here are under the impression that their birth was somehow exceptionally significant.
That birth is but reserved for one person on the date celebrated on the 25th of December annually.
I incorporated this into a post had written in reply to Patrick Finney but for some bizarre reason, both his post to me and my reply have been removed(??)
Therefore, I’ll just repeat: Merry Christmas to all. And to all a good night!
this conversation is like pushing a chain through a wood chipper