|
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.
The author is an Animal Behaviorist and Humane Dog & Cat Trainer. She is a Massachusetts resident. Her website is AlanaStevenson.com.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Opinion
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.
Her credentials are available with a simple Google and she has testified several times it on The record so clearly her expert opinions documented . While you have a right to hunt and fish the state has a right to regulate that process and make sure it’s done safely and humanly and currently it is not ! Rights can be managed and regulated and that’s missing in Vermont and is in need of being updated to factor in current environmental impacts . It’s happening all over the country it’s only a matter of time it comes to Vermont it’s already starting . Hunting is a protected right but it’s also an ethical process and over time those ethical boundaries have been crossed. I suggest people start paying attention to actually process instead of commenting in vague and combative questionable ways . You can’t remove others rights to protect your own it doesn’t work that way anymore. And you certainly can’t put our environment at risk either .
Oh, dear, well anyway, Bev, could you go out and tell the turkeys, bears, coons, skunks and deer that it’s time they started to respect my private property and quit crapping everywhere I need to walk. They don’t care about the health and safety of my environment. BTW, I’m a native Vermonters that has been hunting and fishing for more than 65 years and have always followed the rules and used ethical methods to harvest animals.
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.
What a bunch of hooey ! Just another case of refugees coming here, and wanting to change things ! Go back to where you came from . I (and a lot of other real Vermonters) sincerely do not want or need your urban “ethics” !
This article is absolutely spot on! Vermont refuses to change with the research or the opinions of experts. I know plenty of hunters who disagree with proposed management changes, but aren’t heard. Gov Scott is clueless, and it shows with who he puts in charge at Vt’s Fish and Wildlife. Sadly, it’s always the animals that pay.
That is exactly why MR Floyd wrote his piece, and going back to the time the VT Constitution was written, there most likely were at least two sides to the question, as is the case now. Some things do not change with time, some do. The VT Constitution provides the framework for laws passed, or is supposed to. Obviously some legislatores totally ignor that document.
Those pesky opossums found cracks into the henhouse and scared me half to death when I peaked inside the coop and found a huge rope sized tail inches from me. I didn’t want to find out if I’d get bit if I grabbed his tail and swung him out the door. We did put down chicken wire on the henhouse floor, though. Lost a couple of hens first, though.
Some people need to understand how nature works, which the writer of this article has zero experience. Has she even heard of the term predator and prey? Perhaps a few episodes of wild kingdom are in order.
This but another example of out of state lobbyists running our state.
“Historically, fish and wildlife agencies evolved to serve recreational hunting and trapping interests and to eliminate “predators” for ranchers.” That is absolutely false. I would say calling her an expert to be an expert. I disagree. “The reason fish and wildlife agencies were created was to halt the unregulated and indiscriminate killing of wildlife that threatened to drive many species to extinction during the 19th century.” these regulations were designed to manage wildlife populations, protect habitat, ensure fair chase, and ensure sustainability for the future.” Look it up. That is the exact opposite of what she said. I sugared for 32 years and cut wood for boiling and to heat my house. and I started hunting in 1965 when I was 11 years old. I have hunted for 60 straight years. I figured I averaged at least 200 hours a year hunting. That would be 20,000 not counting the wood cutting and sugaring.
I’m not saying I know a everything about wildlife, and I understand that some people don’t like hunting and I respect your right to your opinion. But at least research things before writing about them so you can get your facts straight.