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