Opinion

Stevenson: Who really benefits from VT’s Fish and Wildlife laws?

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by Alana Stevenson

Historically, state fish and wildlife agencies evolved to serve recreational hunting and trapping interests and to eliminate “predators” for ranchers. The fundamental mission of state wildlife agencies is not animal welfare—it is resource management for human use and profit.

Most wildlife, including native animals, is not protected in Vermont. Wildlife are legally considered “state property.” The state claims ownership and regulatory authority over them.

For instance, opossums are not a protected species in Vermont. They are classified as furbearers or “nuisance” wildlife. Because of this classification, they have little to no protection.

The absurd reality: trapping and killing opossums—often by any method, some truly barbaric—is completely legal.

However, helping opossums in VT is illegal without permits. Feeding, sheltering, or rehabilitating opossums—even temporarily—can result in fines or criminal charges.

There really is a significant legal and ethical disconnect in how wildlife regulations work. Helping or aiding an animal, even attempting to provide pain relief or treat something easily treatable, can result in fines or prosecution, while people legally torture animals nearby.

“Disease concerns,” such as rabies and parasites, are cited by the agency as justification. The threat of rabies or disease functions as a convenient pretext. Humans and dogs are rabies vector species—as are many mammals. Opossums rarely get rabies because their body temperature is too low for the virus to survive.

The hypocrisy is glaring, and the Fish and Wildlife Department’s own rules are selectively enforced. The real agenda is control and monopoly, not safety.

Trappers handle dying, stressed animals—peak rabies risk—with bare hands. No vaccinations are required, and there is no oversight.

Hunters field-dress animals, exposing themselves to blood and organs—no problem.

Pest control operators kill “nuisance” wildlife in close contact—perfectly legal.

Hounds literally bite and tear apart wildlife, blood everywhere. There is no concern about rabies vector species.

But when a licensed, vaccinated veterinarian or rehabber tries to help, suddenly it’s a public health crisis.

Regulations are designed to limit competition between hunters—not to protect wild animals. Those at the top benefit from the rules they create, so there is institutional inertia. The same agency allegedly concerned about “rabies risk” from rehabbers has no problem with hounds repeatedly biting wildlife.

The hounding discrepancy and double standard are particularly brutal. Dogs are “trained”—not in obedience training—to chase terrified animals for hours. Bears are treed and shot. Coyotes, bobcats, and raccoons are torn apart. The dogs themselves are injured, killed, or abandoned when no longer useful.

This is legal, even on public land, and there are no repercussions when hounds attack people or pets. Legislators seemingly accept this double standard without question.

The enforcement disparity is clear: Cruelty is ignored while compassionate care is punished.

Wildlife rehabilitation permits are expensive and bureaucratic. Requirements are often impractical (facility standards, education requirements) or the process is made unnecessarily tedious and time-consuming. Aiding an animal not on the department’s limited approved list can result in prosecution or loss of license.

The “let nature take it is course” hypocrisy touted by the department:

Shooting an arrow through an animal’s skull is “hunting”—legal and encouraged.
Removing that arrow and treating the wound is “interfering with wildlife”—illegal.

It’s not about nature—it’s about who gets to control and profit from wildlife.

The system is fundamentally broken when helping is criminalized and harming is subsidized. You would think the department would make it easier to help wildlife or at least aid in harm reduction, since the only alternatives are to witness prolonged suffering or DIY euthanasia attempts.

It is fundamentally backwards that the legal system makes killing wildlife easier than helping.


Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories: Opinion

2 replies »

  1. It would be helpful to attach some short bio or affiliations of the “author” here. Is she a paid advocate or member of any political advocacy groups who are Anti-hunting etc.? Is she a scientist with credentials pertinent to the topics?

    And has she read the VT Constitution?
    Chapter II Article 67:

    “67. [Hunting; fowling and fishing]

    The inhabitants of this State shall have liberty in seasonable times, to hunt and fowl on the lands they hold, and on other lands not inclosed, and in like manner to fish in all boatable and other waters (not private property) under proper regulations, to be made and provided by the General Assembly.

  2. Looks like the state owned racoons caused a lot of damage to my garden last summer. Now, who do i send the bill for damage to????????? Inquiring minds would like to know. Liberty is always taken away with a state permit or license to pay the wages of the controllers.

All topics and opinions welcome! No mocking or personal criticism of other commenters. No profanity, explicitly racist or sexist language allowed. Real, full names are now required. All comments without real full names will be unapproved or trashed.