by Mike Fry

As a relatively new transplant to Vermont, I only began looking into the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department after reading that a former Chair of the F&W Board (which is comprised entirely of hunters and trappers, appointed by Gov. Scott) had requested changes to the bear hunting rules so that he could kill two bears a year instead of one.

I also learned this same hunter made public statements about being promised a second bear tag before the public comment period on the proposed rule changes had even gotten going. It should not have to be said that that isn’t how things are supposed to work.

The more I look into Vermont Fish & Wildlife, the worse things get. Lets start with something basic: Honesty.

If you read VF&W’s page on private land and public access (link: https://vtfishandwildlife.com/learn-more/landowner-resources/private-land-and-public-access ), things related to land-use seem pretty peachy. It reads:

“Vermont’s tradition of open access is as old as statehood, and the values that support this tradition are fundamental to our strong sense of community.”

“However, allowing hunting or any public use on your land is, ultimately, a privilege only you can grant.”

That sounds great, until you think about it. The first sentence is true. However, we have to ask if “we’ve always done it this way” is a good reason to keep doing it. Things have changed since the 1700’s. The second sentence is backwards from the way things actually work in the state. By default, hunters have access to our private lands, unless we jump through all kinds of hoops to try to keep them off of them. We have to post the land, with very specific signage, at very specific distances and we have to file a form with our City Clerk (and a copy to the State) and pay a fee to our local jurisdiction, that, ironically, is twice the cost of purchasing a license to hunt bear. Then, we have to maintain that signage so that, say, a sign comes down during a storm, we replace it to remain in compliance. Therefore, we need to walk our property line regularly to ensure our land is still posted properly.

We don’t “grant” anyone access. By default, hunters have it. The state of Vermont automatically grants them access, not us. We have to pay money and do some work to keep them off of it.

At a recent public hearing on proposed rule changes relating to the hunting of black bears in Vermont (a hearing where they implied the rule changes were needed because we need to cut the bear population to less than half the current number, even as the actual data they presented said otherwise – link: https://youtu.be/75QJrz-4_vw ) various people suggested that the proposed $5 cost to buy a second bear tag should be higher. VF&W quickly to pointed out that the fees are set in legislation and not by them. Sure. But, that is pure deflection, because if VF&W went to the legislature to request raising the costs to be more in line with other states (in my home state of Minnesota, a bear tag costs $45 for a resident and $231 for non-resident), the legislature would oblige. The fact that F&W won’t do this makes it clear they are happy to extract their budget dollars from non-hunters to subsidize hunting.

It is also ironic that while various people kept saying hunting is in the Vermont Constitution, they didn’t want to talk about how the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibits the state from turning my land over to any public use, like hunting, without appropriately compensating me for it.

For years, VF&W have been using sensational language to describe minor bear encounters. Then, they use misleading terms like “social carrying capacity” to describe bear populations.

For the record: Social carrying capacity isn’t a biological term. Carrying capacity is. Carrying capacity is the number of animals the ecosystem will support. Social carrying capacity is the number people will tolerate. Social carrying capacity is greatly effected by the way VF&W talks about bears. Simply saying bears have passed their SCC implies they are overpopulated, when they are not. At the same time, using the term reduces the SCC. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, creating their excuse for slaughtering thousands of bears, that are important to our ecosystems, that aren’t overpopulated and that aren’t hurting anyone. They are manipulating the conversation so the people paying for all of that won’t care. They are doing that to benefit a tiny subset of Vermonters, and, specifically at the request of one hunter that served on the F&W Board at the Request of Governor Scott.

If VF&W were honest, they would admit they do not serve most Vermonters. They use us to subsidize the hobbies of their well-connected buddies.