Modernizing wildlife governance in Vermont has benefits for all Vermonters, and Vermont ecosystems
by Sarah Gorsline, Project Coyote
It’s an exciting time for wildlife governance reform in Vermont, presenting the opportunity to make wildlife management more democratic, compassionate and responsive to addressing the biodiversity and climate crises. A new bill introduced in the Vermont legislature by Senators Bray, Hardy, McCormack and White – S.258 – has the potential to make Vermont a leader in science-based, ethical wildlife management in the United States.
This bill would shift rulemaking authority from the Board of Fish & Wildlife to the Department of Fish & Wildlife. Vermont’s Board of Fish & Wildlife currently consists of 14 unelected Board members from counties throughout the state, appointed for 6 year terms by Governor Scott in a private process, overseen by a Commissioner also appointed by the Governor. The Board is not required to have any training in biology, ecology, conservation or ethics, and they oversee all wildlife rulemaking.
Up to this point, wildlife policy put forth by the Board has satisfied the interests of hunters, trappers, anglers and hound hunters, but has rarely welcomed the requests or concerns of Vermonters who represent non-consumptive users, such as those who recreate in wild spaces for reasons other than hunting, trapping, fishing or hounding. S.258 would also ban two of the most problematic coyote hunting practices: hunting with hounds and the use of bait to hunt coyotes, both of which raise significant public safety and ethics concerns.
The Vermont legislature indicated a concern for public safety, landowner rights and humane hunting practices when they issued Acts 159 and 165 in 2022. These legislative mandates required the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Board to create new regulations to reduce conflicts between hound hunters and residents, to reduce the danger to the public, wildlife and pets that trapping poses, and to improve animal welfare.
When the Board of Fish & Wildlife failed to meet these legislative mandates in November 2023, the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (LCAR) officially registered 4 objections to the Board’s proposed rules, a rare and significant step by this legislative committee. Despite LCAR specifically requesting that a coyote hound hunting moratorium remain in place due to the Board’s rules failing to meet a section of the Act 165 legislative mandate, the Board of Fish & Wildlife ignored that request from legislators and has issued permits for coyote hound hunting in 2024.
I’m a Vermonter whose family has roots in the state dating back over a century in Windsor County, and I also represent the science-based nonprofit Project Coyote in Vermont. We support the right of all Vermonters to hunt for food in a fair chase, ethical and humane manner. What I as a Vermonter and Project Coyote do not support are practices with no basis in current science or ecosystem management, such as hound hunting, wildlife killing contests, recreational trapping, and the indiscriminate removal of predators: bears, coyotes, wolves, fox, bobcat and fisher, who are critical Ecosystem Allies and help manage the health and wellbeing of Vermont ecosystems through what scientists call “trophic cascades.”
Trophic cascades are powerful indirect interactions that can regulate entire ecosystems, and occur when top predators limit the density and/or behavior of their prey. Carnivores, here in the Northeast, serve crucial top-down regulatory roles in maintaining ecosystem health and species diversity including the Eastern coyote, Eastern wolves who have been found dispersing in the region, bear, fisher, bobcat, fox and the protected lynx. Contrary to what biologists at Vermont Fish & Wildlife, and some hunters may say, coyotes and other predators don’t explode in population if they’re not aggressively removed. Rather, carnivores are self-regulating and adjust their population based on available territory, interactions with other species, and food resources.
Coyotes are a great example: when aggressively hunted, studies show that their populations can actually increase, due to increased litter size under pressured conditions, and due to juvenile coyotes, upon disruption of their social structure, dispersing out of their known territory and finding new mates to reproduce. Scientific studies show that juvenile predators who are orphaned tend to predate on farmers’ livestock more than predators in areas where the population is not aggressively removed.
Generally speaking, hunting doesn’t reduce human-wildlife conflicts, and hunting should not be confused with “hazing,” a deterrence technique in which humans frighten off wildlife to cause wariness. Use of bait in hunting – which S.258 seeks to ban for coyote hunting – creates the conditions for increased human-wildlife conflict by drawing wildlife out of the wilderness and into human-cultivated spaces.
In November 2023 a family’s dog was killed in Dummerston when a hunter shot at the dog from his house, thinking the dog was a coyote approaching his bait pile. This incident followed 2 other incidents in 2022 of dogs being shot over bait piles by hunters mistaking them for coyotes, in Barre and Tunbridge. Just like trapping, bait piles are an indiscriminate method of hunting that introduces the possibility of any animal getting caught up in the practice as collateral damage.
In my work advocating for wildlife, and in my discussions with trappers, hound hunters and Vermont Fish & Wildlife biologists and staff, I find that the question “Why?” is not asked often enough. Humans are incredibly effective predators, and technology allows us to eliminate any skill and chase from a hunt. But why are we removing critical predators like coyotes, wolves, bears, bobcats and fisher from the landscape in the first place? These animals all have a purpose within ecosystems, whether keeping them healthy, or reducing rodent populations which in turn controls the prevalence of diseases such as Lyme disease. And just because Vermont Fish & Wildlife has not yet developed a method to study predators without the collaboration of trappers and hunters, doesn’t mean that there aren’t alternative ways to study these animals while alive, as other states around the U.S. are implementing.
We’re living in a time of mass species extinction. Protected Eastern wolves are potentially dispersing into the Northeast, alongside the known presence of lynx. Vermont Fish & Wildlife thus far seems unconcerned with protections for Eastern wolves – who are a protected subspecies of Gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act – given the current year-round coyote hunting season, and the lack of required reporting for large coyotes killed. Hunter reporting is a critical step toward understanding the presence of Eastern wolves in Vermont, as is informing hunters how to differentiate between Eastern coyotes and wolves. Department staff have indicated that they do not believe Eastern wolves exist in Vermont (there have been several DNA samples since 1998 indicating that they do, whether hybridized or not), and staff have also incorrectly claimed that Eastern wolves are not a protected species under the Endangered Species Act.
This is concerning because Vermont Fish & Wildlife is entrusted with managing wildlife and ecosystems for all residents, including generations of Vermonters into the future. In Vermont, a significant amount of Fish & Wildlife funding comes from funds supplied by all Vermont taxpayers. Vermont Fish & Wildlife also receives funds from the hunting, trapping and fishing licenses they issue. Current wildlife policy reflects the interests of hunters, anglers, trappers and hounders, which is why Vermont Senate bill S.258 would be a helpful corrective, democratizing the Board through a new board member appointment process, requiring training for board members in science-based ecosystem management, and shifting rulemaking to the trained scientists and biologists at Vermont Fish & Wildlife, who need to step up to the responsibility they hold for protection of wildlife for all Vermonters, not just consumptive interest groups.
Please join me, wildlife advocates and fellow Vermonters in reaching out to your local Senators in support of S.258, to make Vermont a leader in science-based wildlife policy.
Sarah Gorsline is a Grand Isle County resident and Multimedia Associate and Vermont Representative for the San Francisco Bay area nonprofit Project Coyote, whose mission is to promote compassionate conservation and coexistence between people and wildlife through education, science and advocacy.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Legislation, Outdoors
notice/// to the state of vermont/// keep your coyotes off my private property i am not in any public private partner with you to feed ,house, or baby sit your wild dogs///
Love the mournful sound of a coyote at sunset.
And the Lord God created them all.
and midnight, 2am, 4am, whatever
I guess coyotes do kill a lot of farm animals as well as young game animals. Also cats: two of my neighbors’ pet cats have disappeared over the past month, and I have seen a coyote go after a cat in my own yard, which is one reason any cats of mine stay indoors. My interest coyotes is chiefly aesthetic: they are beautiful, and I was thrilled to hear a single “Song Dog” making his music the night before a Native American Pow Wow, as if he was welcoming the tribes. At any rate, there is no way to control acts of sadism by individuals, such as stomping a coyote pup to death as has happened in Vermont. I don’t know what to say, other than that I have personal devotions to Saint Anthony Abbot (patron of animals) and Saint Francis (who preached to the birds), and am pledged to request mercy for animals when I feel it is warranted.
THE LOST DOG
BY Ellin Anderson
The wildlands dog, so bold and free,
Came by to take a jog with me,
Near autumn’s swamp, beside my car;
His coat was cream and cinnabar.
Throughout our romp, he seemed so tame:
Trickster Coyote was his name.
One autumn day, I ventured forth
To seek the wildlands of the north,
And at the hour of gloom and owls,
Outside my room, I heard the howls
Of God’s lost dogs, who seemed to say:
“Come find us, Lord — till fog is grey
And broken by the rising sun,
You’ll hear faith spoken — we pray as one.”
BTW, really lovely poem, Ellin.
Indeed, all creatures great and small, the Lord God, He made them all.
And that fact cannot be disputed by any hunter, trapper, or advocate for animals anywhere.
Which is precisely why no matter what one’s position is on this matter, humaneness and respect must be part of the equation.
It is required of us all.
Okay, let’s do a trade.
14 unelected members of the Board of Fish and Wildlife for the 23 unelected members of the Climate Council.
Thanks, Ms. Gorsline, for a very factual & well-presented article. There is little in your account that can be argued against from a rational or reasonable perspective. The typical rebukes encountered on VDC consistently revolve around “tradition” (slavery was once a tradition too in the USA) or “recreation” – neither of which remotely justify the slaughter of helpless animals. Feeble attempts to cull or “control” populations, the sheer “enjoyment” of “trophy” killing, engaging in “contests” of false prowess, or to sell pelts to mostly foreign entities as though no other avenues of sustenance or livelihood exist in 21st century America are equally weak & unconvincing. And as you presented within your well researched presentation, many of these acts obviously cause more problems from an environmental standpoint than they cure.
The image of any supposed human being – often characterized as a “higher” life form – stomping to death a baby canid is repulsive, ignorant, and the epitome of cruelty.
I look forward to continuing to support your mission in protecting domestic animals, educating outdoorsmen, creating oversight commissions that place educated & informed persons in positions of authority, and in finally legislating humane methods of handling the fellow living beings which God created & with whom we share our world with, for they deserve nothing less.
Funny how top predators are glorified, until it gets to humans…then not so much. Hunters, trappers and fisherman pay directly towards wildlife management through mandatory licensing fees. Any of you mountain bikers, hikers and campers willing to pay a mandatory licensing fee to use public lands, my guess is no. Hazing has its place, but is not always effective. I was able to convince a pair of bears (mother and teenager, I think) that it would be more desirable to harass my neighbors than me via rubber shotgun pellets. The numerous mink that have killed countless chickens over the years were more effectively dealt with via body grip traps, shotgun (lead pellets) and even my gloved hands as I squeezed the life out of him after he (yes he, springtime promiscuous mating tour) returned to the scene of the crime only to have me corner him in the coop after I closed the door behind me. When “non-consumptive” users are willing to pay actual access fees than there may be a valid argument for changing how regs are implemented. Just because one does not take something tangible from the wild does not make them a non consumer.
Yeah. I don’t pay near enough in taxes (over $11,000 in property annually) to even think about having a say in how the environs in which I live are managed. Sure.
But either way, since learning over the months of “outdoorsmen” strangling woodland creatures with their bare hands, stomping wild canid pups to death, and partaking in eating domestic dogs to honor some sick foreign nation’s “tradition”, I’ve concluded, with more than valid reasons, that some of these folks who partake in such behaviors need to dial VT state’s 9-8-8 as soon as possible.
So since my property taxes are nearly as high as yours would you advocate for me to hunt, trap or fish without having to pay a license fee? Why is it OK for wild animals to tear apart other animals just trying to do their thing, or to tear apart my chickens who I take very good care of and give them the best life they desire, or my cats, my dogs (coyotes are aggressive towards dogs. Yet, somehow it’s wrong for me to take wild animals. What of those who kill animals (often quite gruesomely) with their cars (even world saving Teslas and Priuses) how should that be addressed? I know your stance on this topic, and I have no illusions about changing your mind, but the questions I ask ARE valid.
All Vermonters contribute to the maintenance of public properties & recreational areas – NOT just “hunters”. Bring up your cause to the legislature should you take issue with how you may personally contribute.
The disconnected and irrelevant arguments revolving around animals being accidently struck by automobiles et al which you reiterate have all been brought up over & over ad nauseum in previous threads over the last year & have been responded to in detail. Therefore, I recommend your accessing all of those threads for any & all answers you seek as nothing has changed on my end, as you surmise.
It has all been stated & refuted over the many months and likely contributed to the legislature now taking up the cause, to be perfectly honest. The harassment & the intimidation by some posters appeared to have the opposite effect of what they were anticipating I might presume.
But just as with any typical democrats’ line of defense for distraction from the actual issues as an example – I notice that virtually none of the pro-trappers are arguing any of the hard facts & erudite truths made by the author in any mildly academic manner. Instead, we have yet the usual deflections, dodging, & circumvention of such facts in an attempt to undermine the validity of the author’s highly informative article. Mostly because, frankly, it doesn’t.
9///// 8///// 8//// hello//// hello//// hello/// i guess no ones at this site///
natchez sells rubber buck shot/// it will work on burglary tourists at close range/// you should have another back up weapon
I offered this comment in the lead article (2/19/24) comment section which it would appear you (Kathleen) abstained from.
“”I’ve tried to explain so many times to people, that I’m not sure why I even try anymore. Foothold traps (NOT leghold) set properly, with swivels hold the animal by its toes or paw, the swivels allow the animal to move without twisting out of the trap or wrenching its appendages. I have found foxes and fishers curled up sleeping while being held in a foothold. The law states that traps must be checked at least every 24 hours (for land traps, 72 for under water) any animal that may chew its own leg off would be an animal dying of dehydration or starvation…this doesn’t happen in 24 hours. Trappers I have found are very respectful of nature and their prey.””
What I stated about foothold traps IS factual. I would add I have personally put my fingers in a foothold trap (fact) the prolonged effect of being in a foothold for 24 hours or less would not be unlike having your toes pinched in tight fitting ice skates, they go numb, burn like crazy when freed and return to normal (fact). I have released fishers from foothold sets and freed them because they were in a trap intended for another animal, fisher being out of season, I was required by regs to release them, which I did (doing the right thing, fact). I watched them run off on all four, no limping, fully functional (fact). I once accidentally caught a chicken by the neck who was pecking in soft dirt and hit a trap set for fox near the entrance to my chicken yard (fact). My wife had gone out before me and let the chickens out before I had been able to cover the area with a bucket for the day. I released the chicken who literally was caught fully below the head by its throat. The chicken survived, exhibiting stroke like symptoms for a day (in isolation) and then completely returned to normal (fact), only to NOT survive the death ride of a mink clamped onto its neck the following spring along with several other chickens (fact). I have never stomped on a canid pup or killed any animal I’ve trapped in a way that causes suffering, bullet to the brain is about as quick and humane as one can get. The exception being the mink I cornered in my chicken coop after it had killed several chickens I did kill that one with my gloved hands predator to predator, fact. I have NO intentions to distract, I’m not a democrat, I’m not even a republican. You mention having addressed (or others) my points previously and won’t rehash them, fine. Yet the points you make have also been aired previously by you “ad nauseum” in previous threads. My point being, I am free to air my opinions, and you yours, can it be done without name calling and maliciousness? For my part I will say yes.
What the advocate misses is the idea that we don’t really need the government to step in and solve such a minor problem. Let’s save the government for problems that everyone thinks we need help with.
The worldwide killing of hundreds of thousands of non-targeted species, protected species, and domestic pets via trapping is hardly what the majority of peoples consider a “minor” problem. The fact that trapping does not whatsoever effectively curtail animal populations as trappers insist it does – in contradiction of data – is not a minor problem. Apparently, since this goes on unabated and unaddressed by trappers themselves, it is necessary for government to intercede.
These undeniable realities of trapping are but two of the very reasons why between two-thirds to three-quarters of all Vermonters and of citizens across the United States hold opposition to trapping & why intercession is necessary.
Roughly 26% from Vermonts General Fund section of the State budget is
“”significant”? Most of the F& W budget comes from either direct Sportsman contributions from license, sales, etc ( 25% or so) , federal funds from Dingell Johnson/ Pittman sources that are almost 100% funded by Sportsman nationally, either directly or indirectly,( almost 50%) , and a few smaller sources. It should never be forgotten that for decades the ONLY funding source came from Sporting support, and only relatively recently, because of the political climate, aging and declining Sporting population and changes in public attitude, has there not been enough money raised through sporting sources, the Department had to turn to the State to request funding support. It should also be noted that the Federal sources of income were asked for, developed by and self imposed by the Sporting community. The buffer that the citizen Fish and Wildlife Board wisely represents between politicians, lobbyists, anti hunting special interests to the Department of Fish and Wildlife is and has been working since the disastrous years of the Legislature mandating year to year changes in Fish and Wildlife management and Laws.
Thanks for those numbers Perry. Wasn’t Ducks Unlimited almost entirely responsible for restoration and preservation of migratory habitats? You seem like the guy who would have those numbers as well.
Hunting numbers continue to decline. Trapping is practiced by a very small minority. All residents of VT pay substantial taxes to support recreational areas & activities and to maintain/preserve outdoor sports. If hunting/trapping are in such decline & therefore the revenue down once derived through such sources, one might to wise to research why – and how it relates or doesn’t relate to the now more prevalent mindset of the humane treatment of animals.
Actually, about 73% of Pittman-Robertson funds come from non-hunters, and about one-third of Dingell-Johnson funds come from non-anglers. The argument about who pays is kind of silly, since wildlife is a public good, like public schools and libraries. Should we base access privileges on who pays more taxes? Should firefighters only put out fires in rich people’s homes? Should people who buy a license in order to remove a wild animal from the public wildlife trust through hunting or fishing have more of a say in wildlife management than anyone else? I disagree.
Correction, Perry:
The Pittman-Robertson funds and Dingell-Johnson funds are not “almost 100% funded by Sportsman [sic] nationally”.
Most Pittman-Robertson Act revenues (>90 percent) are generated from taxes on guns and ammunition, and most of those items (78 percent) are not purchased by hunters.
Most Dingell-Johnson revenues (more than two-thirds) are generated from tax on fuel for motorboats and small engines. An estimated one-third of that fuel is not used in fishing.
During 2015, 65 percent of archery participants in the United States were target archers only (i.e., did not bowhunt).
I genuinely don’t recall calling you any names, but please feel free to refer to any past article wherein I did so by including date & headline & exacting quote. Sadly though, women such as myself who dared to subscribe to a very different viewpoint on trapping as do you & the other “trapping enthusiasts” on VDC, have been referred to on this site as having potentially aborted their babies (??!!), being unable to garner “suitable” mates, & being referred to as “idiots” by one particular purported “professional”. Such are the slings & arrows that men in general, I have discovered, tend to resort to when resilient, opinionated women won’t either acquiesce or retreat from their positions. That all aside, I personally believe that those on VDC – in numerous past posts both over the last year, as well as from poster (above) Ellin Anderson who described said incident re: coyote pup, – who extract enjoyment or satiation from either killing or torturing wild/domestic animals for “sport” ought to consider seeking mental health assist. I arrive at such belief not upon my own accord, but from US government/Humane Associations’ data such as: “The Link Between Animal Cruelty & Human Violence”, “The Animal Abuse – Human Violence Connection”, “Animal Cruelty Facts & Stats”, and numerous other papers/documents authored by mental health professionals. From the recent incident of a trapper shooting & killing a pet dog & lying to law enforcement about the incident to trapping enthusiasts recounting their experience in consuming domestic, companion animals in order to “honor tradition” in foreign lands, and from the unsolicited postings of videos on this forum depicting the skinning of animals to the callous disregard by many trappers on VDC toward the indisputable reality that worldwide, trapping kills hundreds of thousands of non-targeted species & domestic pets —- I’ll continue to generally maintain that position under certain conditions as described.
However, there is nothing that can be accomplished at this juncture by VDC posters arguing for the continuance of largely unregulated & lax trapping activity in VT nor of those who advocate for the humane treatment of and safety protocol for animals. Again, the VT legislature now appears poised to possibly enact changes as described regardless of the fact that trappers now are possibly seeking to approach the topic in a more genteel manner, which would have been a more beneficial approach from the beginning, I agree with you there. And I’ve merely made my points repeatedly in previous threads simply because the trappers continued to make their same arguments against the imposition of trapping oversight repetitively themselves, -including alluding to some rather preposterous, unscientific viewpoints such as trailing & killing bears with dogs specifically prevents bear from “breaking into” dwellings in search of food(?) Instead, Ms. Gorsline’s article doesn’t include any such personal conjecture that holds no basis in scientific theory, but rather provides scholarly arguments & data that evidence what strongly appears to suggest the need for more balanced stewardship, and unbiased & responsible oversight over trapping.
As a self-described responsible trapper, I would recommend that you attend the legislative sessions and provide your personal perspective about your involvement in the activity. And I believe it’s a positive step, as it is within any scenario where disparate opinions endure, that all here, myself of course included, comport themselves in a civil manner & address others in a respectful manner regardless of the differences we harbor on this topic.
The breakdown of the Departments budget source numbers come from a report conducted by Southwick Associates at the request of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. There was a letter written into the News and Citizen a couple of years ago that detailed the specifics quite well, from ammunition right down to import tariffs on sporting equipment. My emphasis is that the Board is a necessary citizen entity. Doesn ‘t anyone remember the political nightmare that Fish and Wildlife was before the establishment of the Board? Just because the rule making process and outcome did not entirely reflect all the desires of some of the specific interest groups, including some hunters, and trappers, anti hunting, anti trapping advocates, etc., actually makes some of my point. Additionally, to blanket the board as uninformed as to the science, and because they are not experts in specific fields that they oversee are not qualified to make policy also makes my point. To educate themselves in order to make unbiased, objective policy is the point. They hear specifics from the experts more than anyone. The composition of the Board reflects the individuals who most directly support the Department of Fish and Wildlife and their conservation efforts. The general populace of this State do not contribute a significant portion of their taxes to this Department. The tax contribution of the non Sporting populace directly to the Department of Fish and Wildlife is miniscule.
Let’s instead pay heed to the topic the author very specifically writes of above in “Support of S.258” which has absolutely nothing to do with budgetary concerns but rather the apparent need for nonpartisan staffing and a more academic approach to addressing the concerns that trapping oft creates which are, yet again, the killing of non-targeted and endangered species, as well as those of domestic pets amongst others detailed informatively within Sarah Gorsline’s column above. Only last November was yet another pet dog killed by a trapper who shot her in cold blood as she approached a trap on public property. Obviously, as we all were instructed in basic marksmanship, the trigger of a gun should NEVER be pulled until the shooter absolutely & positively identifies their subject.
Comments that attempt to perhaps pose distractions from Ms. Gorsline’s factually based writings as they appear above should be reserved for a different thread. “Recreational” trapping and trapping without proper safeguards & restrictions in place are not, according to polling, what the majority of the public desire.
This Bill removes the Boards rulemaking ability and shifts its role to purely advisory capacity, a complete reversal of the intent of the Boards inception.The Board exists as is because it is comprised of citizens who represent the constituents who directly and indirectly financially support the major portions of the budget of the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife….as a representative democracy has intended. This is why the discussion of vested interests crosses into the finances of who pays the salaries of the professionals and scientists who advise the Board. You cannot separate the two issues and attempt to deflect the intent of the bill.
Just as an aside, and not entirely cogent to my previous statements, a number of years ( decades) ago, I attended a local Fish and Wildlife presentation from the Departments then ” Fowl wildlife biologist” who proclaimed that Vermont would never, ever have a sustainable wild turkey population. If the Board listened then, the Turkey importation program from, I think Pennsylvania, would never have happenned.
Yes, correct, in terms of ending that specific board’s rulemaking ability – based upon how & why the board was originally formed & organized along with its sole purpose being to “protect” recreational trapping at any cost. The author of the article above describes in detailed fashion as to precisely why animal advocates, the majority of residents in VT, and many environmental experts believe that action needs to be taken at this point. Just in general, and true to the manner under which government typically operates, there are far too many board and commission members and department heads across VT in general who were placed into such positions thanks to political appointments, and who possess either little expertise in the required field and/or who hold unyielding biases in light of their political ties.
As far as crediting Fish & Wildlife for the return of the wild turkey, I’d simply ask why the birds were extirpated from their original habitat by about the mid twentieth century to begin with? And what about the “eastern” cougar or catamount that once roamed the Green Mountains, or the Gray Wolf? What are their “success” stories after being hunted to extinction by humankind? I’d suggest that it’s likely better to not mess with Mother Nature to begin with as opposed to attempting to later “fix” wildlife calamities that ultimately result in an imbalance in the ecosystem – which man then claims he must step in to remediate.
But no matter what F & W thinks about reintroduction of either the wolf or the cougar to potentially restore balance, much of this is off topic. And again, the very strong opposition to trapping both in VT and across the nation are based upon the facts & realities as presented clearly & concisely above. And though I commend all those now on here who are at least now making efforts to allow debate without incivility, (to put it mildly) it appears that the entire matter has now been placed in the hands of the legislators which, I actually admit, is not the best place either – in terms of decision-making on this very controversial subject matter.
I guess in the end, it would have been advantageous to attempt compromise, as opposed to refusing to accept or allow any such concept. JFK stated: “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but never let us never fear to negotiate.”
Perhaps it won’t be too late.
That’s, of course: ….”never let us fear to negotiate.”
coyote said/// wow/// wow/// every body is talking about me// it will keep the human mind busy, during the huge finance system melt down/// the humans will be giving me their chickens when they can not continue to feed them/// coyote thanks you///
Wait and see what the legislature’s involvement in wildlife management does to the wildlife in Vermont. Everything the Vermont Legislature touches turns into an expensive and nearly un repairable disaster. Prove me wrong.
First, might I suggest that you check out this “bio” of Sarah Gorsline. https://projectcoyote.org/about/sarah-gorsline/ I have copied and pasted a few of Ms. Gorsline’s statements below followed by my opinion and/or facts that I have been able to obtain.
Ms.Gorsline, I also represent the “science-based” nonprofit Project Coyote in Vermont”, “Science-Based”. Do you mean as opposed to the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife ? Do you mean the same Vermont Fish and Wildlife Dept. that brought among other species, whitetail deer, and moose back to a point that there are huntable populations in Vermont again after being decimated by land clearing for sheep farming in the mid to late 1800s ? The same Vt. Fish and Wildlife Dept. that has brought black bears from an estimated 1200-1500 in 1975, to a population estimated at between 5,000 and 6,000 today ? The same Vermont Fish and Wildlife Dept. that has managed a non native, invasive species (coyotes) to a point where they are now considered a stable population that can be utilized for sporting purposes ? How much do these facts bother you ?
Ms. Gorsline, “What I as a Vermonter and Project Coyote do not support are practices with no basis in current science or ecosystem management,” Personally my opinion of non-management (which is what non hunters advocate) of this renewable resource is that it is Voodoo management, and does no good for anything .
Ms. Gorsline, “But why are we removing critical predators like coyotes, wolves, bears, bobcats and fisher from the landscape in the first place?” “Removing them” ? Again, managing them. They are a renewable resource, as are deer, bear, moose, or timber . Antis abhor this fact.
Ms. Gorsline, “These animals all have a purpose within ecosystems”. As do humans.
Ms. Gorsline, “Carnivores are self-regulating” By pure extrapolation therefore, all prey species are naturally regulated by the predators ? See where this is going ? I don’t expect you to say this part out loud.
Ms. Gorsline, “hunting should not be confused with “hazing,”. The only difference being that when hunted, the targeted animal is harvested, it will not be a problem again. Not necessarily the case when a problem animal is “hazed” to the point of relocating itself, be it a bear, a coyote, or a beaver, relocating, by whatever means, as often as not makes my problem animal, someone else’s problem animal as they have learned a behavior that produces a desired outcome.
Ms. Gorsline, “In November 2023 a family’s dog was killed in Dummerston when a hunter shot at the dog from his house, thinking the dog was a coyote approaching his bait pile.” As with all the other domesticated pets which are allowed to free range without human supervision, would the outcome have been the same if the pet was on a leash ? Remember, anti hunters have called for regulations for hunting dogs to be leashed while hunting, so isn’t what is right for the goose right for the gander ?
Ms, Gorsline, “We’re living in a time of mass species extinction.” The term “mass extinction” seems relative, besides which, none of the species that are being addressed by this anti hunter are on an “endangered, or threatened” list.
Vermont Fish & Wildlife receives funds from the hunting, trapping and fishing licenses they issue. What % of Department funding is derived from license sales, stamps, plates, Pittman/Robertson, and Dingell/Johnson, gas tax kick backs from the Coast Guard for marine uses, etc. compared to general funding ? (in otherwards funding by other than sportsmen, and women)
How many licenses,including permanent, and life time are sold ? Any estimates as to how many “Vermonters” are there funding POW, Project Coyote etc. in Vermont ? How many are involved in more than one ? (I know that is probably unknown, or maybe even unknowable) In 2021, the latest year I can find data on, 64,343 or 10 % of Vermont citizens bought hunting licenses in Vermont, which is 14th most among all 50 states. By comparison the “animal rights” group, “Protect our Wildlife” according to their own posting on their web site is “supported by over 3,000 Vermonters,” or about .464 % See POWs claim as copied and pasted from their website belowProtect Our Wildlife VermontFebruary 9 at 7:33 AM · “Unfortunately, the writer mischaracterized the bill as the work of the “radical closet animal rights group called Protect Our Wildlife” (POW). First, POW is not a “closet” group plotting on the dark web. It operates openly with a mission to “make Vermont a more humane place for wildlife” and is “supported” by over 3,000 Vermonters, including hunters. POW recently held a gathering in Middlebury to discuss its work, which was attended by both hunters and wildlife conservation supporters from around Addison County.”
Hot off of the Vt. Fish & Wildlife press “For license sales in 2023, the total numbers including permanent reprints, youth licenses, etc, are :
Resident fishing licenses: 92,752Non-resident fishing licenses: 42,897Resident hunting licenses: 69,996Non-resident hunting licenses: 9,419Trapping licenses: 880 in 2023 (counting permanent license reprints with trapping privilege, 1849).
Here are the general budget proportions and license numbers you asked for: Budget: rough percentages from 1) direct license sales = 25%, 2) Federal Pittman Robertson and Dingle Johnson = 27%, 3) the state general fund = 23%, and 4) other sources like grants = 25% The money that the F&W Dept. receives from the general fund also has money derived from state rooms and meals, sales tax, and others, that were generated by sportsmen, residents, and non-residents alike who drop their hard earned money here in Vermont, pursuing their interests. I will let you do the math with these new figures, but as I stated above it widens the gap between those that put their money where their mouths are, and those that just run their mouths !
Trapping is the most inhumane & barbarous method of taking the lives of animals in the wild known to exist. As stated repetitively, though without note or concern by any avid trappers on VDC, it also:
Brutally kills tens of millions of domestic animals annually nationwide
Kills non-targeted species without discrimination
Kills endangered species leading to extermination of entire species
Sources: National Geographic with exacting article references to be found in past still accessible by searching VDC past articles on trapping, 2023.
As far as the “sport” of hunting or even fishing is concerned, according to the site Wildlife For ALL, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service official records show that the number of hunting and fishing license sales from every single state within the U.S. (including U.S. territories and of course, Vermont) has declined sharply.
From the year 1960, these sports have demonstrated a steep decline. In 1960, hunters represented 7.7 percent of the total population, while presently hunters represent only 4.6 of the population today – this, despite the fact that the US population has increased exponentially from the nation comprising approximately 180 million people in 1960 to over 325 million today. Likewise, even the sport of fishing has fallen in favor with like decreases in license requests, while trapping has seen declines that far surpass the declines seen in either hunting or trapping.
As per the cited website: “The data clearly shows that the percentage of Americans who hunt and fish continues to decline, a trend that threatens the revenue of state wildlife agencies.
Therefore, in conclusion, no matter how various posters categorize the number of licenses requested in the state of VT, the actual “math” as reported by the US Federal Government clearly demonstrates and proves an over sixty-year decline in interest in hunting & fishing in general, but most clearly in trapping which, again. two-thirds of Vermonters hold distain for and approximately three-quarters of the entire general public within the U.S. does as well.
Most imperatively however, regardless of these declines as described accurately by US Fish & Wildlife Services, trapping, exclusively, the unpopularity of trapping specifically is what is of concern here and what is the only matter of contention – NOT hunting or fishing. The vast number of hunters do not trap nor do the overwhelming number of fishermen ever trap & kill wildlife. Those who do trap & execute woodland mammals in this manner are doing so for the sheer profit in selling pelts to foreign markets (since the utilization of fur in fashion is close to extinct itself in terms of most US market interests) and/or for “recreational” trapping – a “sport” which appeals to a very tiny minority of enthusiasts, for obvious reasons. The reality that such “sport” delivers kill blows, so to speak, to domestic pets, and the aforementioned killing of protected and endangered species by the multi-millions annually contributes to making such “sport” especially unpalatable by the vast majority, at least those who hold a semblance sense of respect for other living beings who also occupy the planet alongside human animals.
And in the end, the current “controversy” (at least as construed by trappers) is nothing more than the fact that ALL Vermonters, and indeed all Americans seek the right to be involved and engaged, as fairness should automatically dictate, in the decision-making processes that the government oversees, as the wild animals of the North American Continent and the environs of the wilderness regions within the nation belong to each & every individual, not merely some, not only but a few, and it is with this current effort that the majority of people and families who encompass the majority, who currently enjoy our wildlife flora & fauna & our forest regions but who choose not to partake, for one reason or for numerous, in the sports catalogued above – will finally have the equal & fair-minded opportunity to be a part of how our collectively owned & used national resources are managed.