U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service photo
by Lisa Jablow
The wildlife advocacy movement has never been stronger in Vermont. Over the last few years, the Statehouse has been bustling with bills seeking to improve wildlife protection and conservation, thanks to a completely dysfunctional, intractable, and self-serving Fish and Wildlife Board. At this point, the only route to positive changes for wildlife is through the legislature. And while I am thankful to live (at least for now) in a democracy, the process of passing legislation is plagued with massive disinformation from lobbyists who work for trappers and hunters, causing distrust in the process. Just as we see on the national level, this is a threat to democracy in Vermont. Being fact-based and credible is important to wildlife advocates, but that is much less of a priority for the opposition. Even a key Senator had to refute disinformation at the start of a hearing this year on S.258, a wildlife conservation bill.
Because animal advocates want to make the world better for everyone, whether they have skin, scales, fur, or feathers, we seek to minimize conflict and are willing to make concessions to keep some forward momentum. We know one thing for certain. Whatever we propose will generate pushback from the sportsmen’s groups because they operate in the slippery slope realm, not on solid, rational ground.
There have been repeated attempts over the years to stop, or at least to limit, certain especially egregious activities perpetrated against Vermont’s wildlife. And in 2018 wildlife advocacy groups, led by Protect Our Wildlife, actually managed to ban coyote killing contests. That was a win for coyotes, but there are still multiple ways in which they are literally hounded, tormented, brutalized, and killed. This is not unlike what happens to coyotes and wolves out west, exemplified by the recent case of the wolf who was injured, duct-taped, and tortured by a hunter in Wyoming. Vermont’s eastern coyotes share wolf DNA and are treated just as horribly. S.258 offered relief for them by ending the practices of hunting coyotes with hounds (AKA coyote hounding) and luring them (and countless other animals) with bait piles. Another benefit of this bill is that it would make several crucial changes to the insular and self-serving Fish & Wildlife Board.
The bill is sensible and fair, even after being weakened in the Senate Natural Resources Committee to satisfy some who were opposed to it. And then it happened. The hunting and trapping lobby began an intense pressure campaign, rooted in disinformation and fear mongering. We are used to hearing about how we are infringing on sacred traditions (although we’re unaware of any tradition of hunting coyotes using radio-collared hounds from pick-up trucks) and interfering with the freedom to pursue their way of life. But now we went from being a huge annoyance and a bunch of “bunny huggers” to The Great Oppressor. The very people who have held all the power over wildlife governance for decades claim to be unfairly targeted and discriminated against simply because S.258 seeks to invite marginalized voices to the table. A Vermont political strategist recently referred to this pushback by sportsmen’s groups as another incarnation of “Take Back Vermont.” He’s not wrong.
This would almost be laughable if it weren’t so utterly tragic. A bill that promises better democracy, diversity, and embracing disparate and marginalized voices is accused of the complete opposite by those who have held all the power for decades. With all of the real oppression and victimization of so many different people, this rhetorical hijacking is shameful. It is the tactic of a schoolyard bully who beats up a classmate and, when confronted by an authority figure, gushes crocodile tears and points at the other kid, saying they took the first swing. We might expect that of a child, but in grownups, including a former Vermont Senator, this behavior is reprehensible. Since they cannot debate the merits of the bill, they cry injustice. The irony in that is not lost on me and many others. So, while those in power cling to the good ol’ boys club, using every argument they can muster, the majority of Vermonters are learning about these privileged special interests and are joining the fight for democracy and inclusion.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Environment, Legislation, Outdoors
And you’re off…….and not a word of it matters up in the statehouse. Enjoy spinning those wheels though.
Citing a couple instances of animal abuse doesn’t necessarily impugn the trappers and hunters. This is the same twisted logic of trans-rights which has brought thousands of maimed and mentally damaged children permanent scarred into adulthood because of some “marginalized” conspiracy theorists who think sex is gender and gender is fluid.
The language in this article smacks of crypto-woke animal rights activism. Sorry, it’s just more of the same. I know the hunters and trappers in my area and they’re nothing like what you describe. Don’t buy it folks.
Fact: Wild animal populations need to be managed in order to maintain a thriving, healthy population, whether that be bear, moose, coyotes, deer, or whatever else you can think of.
From our nation’s beginnings, maintaining the wild animal populations required us to kill and eat them as a simple matter of survival. That worked for a long time because, well, there just weren’t that many people then and mass-distributed beef, chicken, and fish hadn’t become practical yet.
But mass distribution of food is certainly practical now and has been for most of our lifetimes, despite the current regime’s attempt to kill all the chickens and cows. So what happens now that we don’t do as much hunting for our own food? Wild animal populations rise and fall with many factors – the amount of mast in a particular year, the availability of other dietary staples such as berries and fruits, and last but not least, the weather.
And what happens when populations of any wild animal get too large? There’s not enough food for all of them and disease becomes a problem. Sure, that’s “nature” too, but isn’t it better if populations are managed via hunting seasons and number of permits given out in a given year rather than letting overpopulation lead to inevitable disease downstream?
Of course it would. It’s worked for hundreds of years. But it’s also “common sense”, which is, unfortunately, in very short supply in our legislatures.
Another one to file under B.S.
How can you talk about wildlife for so long and yet say nothing with regard to wildlife????? Democracy……1st we aren’t supposed to be one. Second the animal kingdom definitely does NOT work via democracy. When you have people who know nothing about the animal kingdom making rules and legislation FOR the animal kingdom we’ll get crazy non-sense. This whole article is a lot of talk about nothing, other than busy bodies wanting to project their fantasies about how wildlife should live. Dribble, marxist dribble.
Yes.. the truth matters. The truth is that as hard as you people try to vilify Sportsmen and women it will not work. We know how much we’ve benefited Vermont’s wildlife over the years with the leadership of our F+W Dept. The proof is in the healthy wildlife populations we see every day. That can’t be denied. Your efforts to change Vermont’s traditions will fail. Every day I talk with Vermonters about these issues and most agree that our state is unique and those traditions should be preserved. We are not Connecticut, Massachusetts, or New York. As the saying goes “don’t Jersey Vermont.” My advice to you is embrace the system that has worked well for everyone including non hunters and wildlife. Sportsmen and women will fight this to the end.. S.258 will rear it’s ugly head again next year. We WILL be there to push back.
Here’s a question: If the newest gain of function lab stew is jumping from birds, to livestock, to people – would it not have the potential to jump into wildlife mammals or is it genetically modified to only target domesticated mammals, fowl, and people?
Not long ago, the biggest threat to wildlife was rabies, wasting disease, brain worms, along with equine encephalitis, lyme disease, etc. Other threats include, wind turbines (destroyed habitat), solar fields leaching toxins into the soil, and cell towers blaring frequencies into the ears of every living thing.
It should be plain to see to the self-appointed guardians of the environment that targetting hunters is an invented boogey-man, slender man hyperbole fallacy. Looking at the big picture, why not go out and fight a forest fire with a garden hose or your bio-friendly, recycled water bottle.
There is a common structure to the left’s talking points. First, dismiss the rational arguments made by sincere people who disagree as “disinformation”
Then move on to emotional topics, citing isolated incidents of cruelty or abuse. In doing this you must use the passive voice because you have to imply that your opponents cause the harm or abuse – when they didn’t -without actually stating it. So Coyotes are indiscriminately hunted. A grey wolf was abused.
Then go in for the kill. Mention your opponents now that the audience has the images of abuse/cruelty in mind. So you say hunters and sportsman’s clubs are the opponents. That fixes the enemy in the readers mind.
Finish off with a restatement of your emotional “opinion”. Who, but an evil sportsman, could disagree with me?
They really are dishonest people.
To quote Ms. Jablow, “Because animal advocates want to make the world better for everyone, whether they have skin, scales, fur, or feathers,” I think that is called anthropomorphizing . If that does not say it all I don’t know what it would take. Personally I don’t know anybody that has “scales, fur, or feathers”, but it tells me a lot about where these people’s heads are at. Question, for them, does it smell funny ?