To the Editor:
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/
“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.
-Mike Fry, Monpelier
Don’t move needle exchange next to Single Pebble, across from new hotel
To the City of Burlington:
The decision to relocate the Burlington Needle Exchange across from the new hotel and next to the popular Single Pebble restaurant is another textbook example of a bureaucratic decision that further threatens the economic vitality of downtown Burlington. While it may have been well intended, placing this service in the heart of the new hospitality area doesn’t solve or reduce addiction, but does damage the local economy and the viability of the new tax base. Burlington relies heavily on tourism, an industry built on public perception, safety, cleanliness. Forcing families staying at the new hotel or existing downtown hotels to navigate the visible drug/homelessness around the new needle exchange and the established area on College Street adjacent to City Hall Park is an issue. Tourists will simply choose other vacation alternatives. The local economy can’t afford to lose this business and tax revenue.
Compounding this is locating the approved Safe Injection Site in the downtown area. Supporters claim this facility will save lives, (overdose deaths already have been significantly reduced through use of Narcan) even though the data they use bears no relationship to the Burlington demographics. They also won’t acknowledge the magnetic impact it will have. It will not only attract drug users, but drug dealers who will supply drugs to a concentrated group of users, and where police will not be able to patrol. It will create another open air drug market in addition to the one that already exists at City Hall Park. This is having a detrimental impact to the Church Street Market Place. Compassion and enablement are not viable strategies when it comes at the expense of public safety and the economic vitality of the Market Place. The damage done to the Burlington economy may already be irreversible.
-Steve Ciardelli, Burlington
Rebuild Woodstock’s foundation from the bottom up
To the Editor,
A recent letter to the Editor expressed concern about the resignation of five Selectboard members and Trustees who “stepped up to do the hard work of addressing years of neglect of critical infrastructure and municipal process” due to “personal attacks and vitriol”. He went on to say that “they could not continue to serve, in large part due to the unceasing disruption and incivility directed at them”.
It would be disingenuous not to admit that these former municipal officials did step up to do hard work on behalf of the community, and in some respects, did achieve things that “make Woodstock a better place [that is] better prepared for a sustainable future”. However, one cannot overlook the considerable mistakes and critical errors in judgement that were made in the process of achieving tangible infrastructure accomplishments that resulted in the massive erosion of public confidence and trust in their stewardship. Those choices led to the public’s legitimate questioning of our municipal officials’ honesty and ethics for engaging in what appears to be serious (mis)conduct including false statements, withholding and allegedly attempting to hide information, and treating the public with disrespect and at times, disdain. Contributions cannot be overlooked; however, they do not negate the irreparable damage that was also inflicted on our community.
It can be reasonably argued that the hostility directed at the Boards was created by their own doing and is a functional result of the public’s reaction to their conduct. Many people have become increasingly frustrated, angry, and hostile because the public has been lied to and ignored, as if residents are an inconvenience or an impediment to what has been referred to and characterized as the “real work of the Boards”. The long-standing efforts to ignore the public’s repeated questions and requests for information and provide false information resulted in a loss of tolerance and patience and was replaced with bitterness over a lack of respect and acknowledgment that municipal officials are accountable to the people. At some point, yes, a persistent pattern of contempt does give rise to incivility, as we have seen throughout American and world history.
Let’s be clear—the public’s reaction to the Manager’s and Boards’ conduct is not the problem; the conduct itself is. Blaming and vilifying victims is classic abuser mentality designed to deflect responsibility and accountability. The public simply became tired of the arrogant apparent misuse of authority and disrespect of being repeatedly ignored, discounted, discredited and deceived. Again, the “unceasing disruption” that ensued from the public’s continued and persistent attempts to achieve transparency and accountability is not the source of the “problem”; it resulted from our municipal officials’ treatment of Chief Swanson and the community as a whole, including behind the scenes misappropriation of Town funds to pay for Village legal expenses.
Susan Ford and other board members who have cited the negative impact of recent community stress on their health, wellbeing, and families are not unique. The stress of the last two years has taken a tremendous toll on the physical, psychological, emotional, and social well-being of Joe Swanson and Nicholas Seldon as well. The alleged email Susan Ford received accusing her of not being competent to run a lemonade stand absolutely pales in comparison to the numerous anonymous vile, graphicly explicit, offensive, and hateful mail they have received at their personal residence on multiple occasions over the past two years.
Demanding that our municipal officials deserve respect and civility when they have treated the public with anything but is grossly unfair and for some, unreasonable. Our community is not suffering from simple disagreement about “issues” as Susan Ford characterized; there are profound chasms around the very values, principles, ethics, and morals that serve as a foundation to underpin and guide everything we do and represent. Nostalgic reminiscence about how Woodstock ‘used to be’ isn’t something just Susan Ford longs for. Many of us no longer recognize the Woodstock that exists now, and it isn’t because we can’t “disagree with each other in a civil way”. In her resignation letter, she asked residents, “to think about your behavior”. The public would ask the same of our municipal officials. I think we can all agree that this isn’t “the Woodstock we want”, but apparently for different reasons, stemming from different perspectives.
Many agree that the growing dissatisfaction and division that exists now in our community began a few years ago with the arrival of our Municipal Manager. The manner in which he has treated three Town Hall employees, Chief Swanson, and countless Woodstock residents alike, with not only the support, but unprecedented and celebratory endorsement of our elected officials, has poisoned our community. Make no mistake, Manager Duffy, along with the cooperation of Board members, created the current state of our community, not the public’s hostile or uncivil reactions. We are where we are because of the choices and conduct of one individual, and the toxic effects of that person on other municipal officials that gave rise to the current state of our community, which everyone agrees, no one recognizes anymore.
As a result of mismanagement, he has pushed out our police chief, which a State Superior Court Judge has already overturned. He has pushed out three local, dedicated, and hard-working residents employed at Town Hall. His management of the police department under interim Police Chief O’Keeffe has created turnover we haven’t ever seen before, and all but one of our emergency services dispatchers have left. He masterminded and carried out the misappropriation of approximately $150,000 of funds behind the scenes, hidden from the public eye, with the assistance and cooperation of some of our elected officials.
As a community, we need to ask ourselves: who is the real “bully” and who are the real “victims”? Who and what started our community’s downward spiral and continued trajectory? Who has played by the rules and who has not? Who is fighting for justice, equal treatment, and respect for all in our community? Who is fighting for transparency and who has expended great effort to avoid it at all costs?
It’s time for our elected officials to make some very difficult decisions.
Woodstock is most definitely at a crossroads, which should be viewed as an opportunity to repair, heal, and restore. It is time to hold those responsible for misconduct accountable, to put Manager Duffy on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation by the Vermont State Police and Attorney General’s Office, and return the full amount of Town funds that were improperly given to the Village Trustees for their legal fees.
It’s time to address the root problem. Ignoring hard topics and conversations is not going to get our community to where we want and need to be. It is time to put this dark chapter in our community’s history behind us. In order to do so, we need to acknowledge the many mistakes that have been made, learn from them, rectify them by holding those responsible accountable, restore transparency, faith, confidence and trust, and make a commitment not to repeat the same mistakes again.
It’s time for Manager Duffy to move on from his path of toxic destruction in Woodstock. The damage he has created here in just a few short years is immeasurable. It is past time to rid ourselves of the negativity that has consumed our town as a consequence. We need to rescue our community from this downward spiral, bring people back together, and move forward with unity, positivity, and hope for the future.
-Alison Taylor, Woodstock
Debbie Powers for Caledonia 1
My Fellow Vermonters:
Deb and I just celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary on June 28th this year which offers an informed perspective on the person she is. I thought I would share just a few of the many reasons I support her re-election for the Caledonia-1 House seat for Barnet, Ryegate, and Waterford. Montpelier desperately needs more people like Deb that understand Vermont’s history and what’s needed to get back to a place we can live and be proud of. We still have much of Vermont’s beauty, but sadly rural Vermont is becoming a place that is unaffordable, unsafe, and a shell of its former greatness.
Deb and I met at Vermont Tech back in 1984, both Ag students that loved our family farms and wanted to pursue that life together. Deb even milked the cows with her dad the morning of our wedding! Deb is a hard worker. She is honest and will do what is right no matter the circumstance or the easiest route. She has courage and integrity at the highest level. She understands issues and works to find solutions to problems rather than be a follower. Whether it was raising our family, farming, or owning a small business, Deb has proven time and time again how to figure out what works to get things done and not necessarily just do what the ‘experts’ are saying you should do. Deb finishes what she starts and gets things done the right way. She is a lifelong Vermonter and the 3rd generation from her family (Father and Grandfather) to serve as a House Representative. Deb is not a politician but rather has good instincts and what I call ‘real-world experience’ common sense.
Deb is a real Vermonter when it comes to farming, she understands Vermont agriculture and what it means to be a landowner. Our entire family loves the Vermont outdoors and all that it offers. Deb 100% knows the value of Vermont’s traditions, its landscape and how important protecting our farms and resources is to make Vermont special.
Deb has also been beside me as we have grown The Powers Agency into a multi-state award winning insurance business serving the Northeast and most recently Wisconsin. Working with families and business owners provides her with firsthand perspective and understanding of the struggles and challenges we are all facing.
Deb is a woman of strong faith that she lives daily! She’s a daughter, sister, wife, mother, grandmother, and neighbor who loves everyone. She is a giver that has cooked countless meals for people and events, coached/taught students and volunteered more times and in more ways than I could even start to mention. I am very proud of all she has done and accomplished but even more for the kind of person she always has been and is today.
Deb and I are grateful and blessed to have the opportunities to live, farm, raise a family, and operate a business in the state we love. We both want those opportunities for all our children and grandchildren. We want folks to be able to retire and not have to move because it’s unaffordable. Deb knows what this means and is willing to put the effort in for our communities to keep these dreams alive for everyone. Residents in Barnet, Ryegate, and Waterford, I urge all of you to take time to Vote for Deb in our General Election Nov. 3rd. Vermont is worth fighting for!
-Kevin Powers, St. Johnsbury