As sunlight filtered through an overgrown apple orchard in Lincoln, Patrick Berry lifted his shotgun and fired. A loud boom echoed through the tangle of woods, and a bird dropped from just above the trees. Within minutes, Berry’s dog had found the woodcock on the ground. It was not quite dead.
Berry took the needle-billed bird and quickly twisted its neck. He patted Keller, his silky-haired spaniel, and put the woodcock in a bag — later to be plucked, seared and served as savory canapés.
Berry looks like he stepped out of the pages of an Orvis catalog. The vice president for philanthropy at the Vermont Community Foundation grew up in suburban Washington, D.C., and didn’t take up hunting until he was an adult. But he shares a bond with his fellow members on the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Board. The 14 board members shoot deer, hunt rabbits, trap muskrats, land lake trout and bag moose.* If stuffing an animal comes up, board member and professional taxidermist Theresa Elmer of Northfield brings her experience to the table.
For decades Vermont hunters and trappers have been regulating hunting and trapping. But now critics of the board say it’s time for change. People who don’t hunt or trap, known as “nonconsumptives,” want to be represented on the board. They point out that the number of hunters continues to shrink in Vermont: The state issued 67,143 licenses last year, compared with 145,725 in 1970. Critics say it’s time for the board to represent all Vermonters and, by extension, to acknowledge other ways to interact with the state’s wildlife population.
“There’s definitely a large segment of the population who doesn’t hunt or trap, and they currently feel like they are left out of the decision-making process,” said Brenna Galdenzi, president of the Stowe-based anti-trapping group Protect Our Wildlife, which formed in 2015.
Defenders of the status quo see the push as a hostile takeover attempt by people who don’t understand Vermont’s hunting tradition.
The whole point of the board is to oversee rules on taking game, said Berry, an East Middlebury resident. “So if you come to the board with an unmovable bias against hunting, fishing and trapping, you are fundamentally unqualified,” he said.
Kevin Lawrence, the Newbury resident who chairs the board, agrees. “If someone is totally against something, how can they work to support it? It’s like if you said, ‘I’m pretty much against building homes in Vermont and I want to be on the state board of architecture and make it pretty much impossible for someone to build homes,'” he said.
If anti-hunters and anti-trappers get on the board, it will lead to nothing but “no” votes and obstructionism, he added.
Walter Medwid, a Derby resident and lifelong conservationist, is one of the leading proponents for a different sort of board. He helped convince Vermont Rep. Jim McCullough (D-Williston) to propose adding six nonconsumptive members to the board in February during a meeting of the House Committee on Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources.
“It had a very brief moment in the sun,” Medwid said, acknowledging that the idea quickly bombed and never left the committee. But he’s not giving up. Medwid and others have consulted with a lobbyist and are meeting to come up with a new proposal.
“I’ve never seen so many people pissed off about winning a vote.” Fish & Wildlife Commissioner Louis Porter
The idea is in the early stages but could result in a more concerted push for change at the legislature in 2017, said Medwid, declining to be more specific. He said the board is out of step with the public in numerous ways: by continuing to allow moose hunting when the population has declined sharply; condoning an open season on coyotes; and nearly expanding the current trapping season for bobcats.
“It’s rare to see a bobcat,” said Medwid. And yet instead of serving the wildlife-viewing public, current state policy serves “people who are going to sell a pelt to China,” he said.
On September 21, more than 50 people attended a contentious five-hour Fish & Wildlife Board hearing to weigh a trapper petition to extend the bobcat season by two weeks. Fish & Wildlife Department scientists opposed the expansion, and many members of the public railed against the idea.
The board ultimately voted 7-6 against the proposal. But the narrow defeat was not comforting to critics who don’t think bobcats should be trapped at all.
Numerous other states ban trapping of the furtive, elegant feline, whose whiskered face, tufted ears and penetrating gaze make it an especially striking creature — and one with a large fan club. The animal, native to Vermont, made a comeback after being nearly wiped out in the 1800s by a combination of uncontrolled trapping and habitat loss.
The bobcat has also recovered in neighboring states, and trappers now want to lift restrictions that helped the species rebound. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Commission in February approved bobcat trapping there. But public outrage prompted legislators to step in and block the move. Non-hunters and non-trappers are now getting more of a say in game decisions in New Hampshire.
That needs to happen in Vermont as well, according to people like Peggy Larson, a retired veterinarian who lives in Williston. She made the trip last month to the bobcat meeting, which took place in Woodbury at the Buck Lake Conservation Camp. The location felt like “the middle of nowhere” and forced attendees to park far from the building and walk back to their cars on a dark, rutted road, Larson said.
The location underscored the fact that the board pays scant attention to the wishes of the general public, said Larson, who opposes trapping and doesn’t feel represented on the board. “We have no voice,” she said.
The makeup of the board caters to hunters and trappers, and it’s no wonder they don’t want new members who would challenge that, Larson said: “I think that that’s what they are afraid of, frankly, that they just can’t push through everything they want to do.”
Protect Our Wildlife members and others have been paying close attention to the board. Nonconsumptives successfully pressured the board to add a public comment period to their meetings — a standard practice, which it hadn’t been doing. Protect Our Wildlife has also filed many public records requests and has begun to scrutinize trapping data, with special attention to the number of “non-target” animals that get trapped. The group gave Onion River Community Access Media a grant to videotape meetings; the Woodbury meeting has been posted online.
Lawrence said he has no objection to the meetings being videotaped. Protect Our Wildlife is effective at communicating a message, but that doesn’t mean it represents widely held views, Lawrence added.
“A small group can make a big noise, and that’s what we’re experiencing today,” Lawrence said.
But trappers are feeling the pressure. “Just in case you have been living in a cave somewhere, we are going to be in a fight for our trapping rights this year,” Vermont Trappers Association president Bruce Barrofio wrote to members in a March newsletter.
Mike Covey, the association’s conservation director, noted in the newsletter that Protect Our Wildlife is pushing for seats on the board and urged trappers, as well as hunters, to publicly oppose the idea. “They are after all of us in the long term, so we need to acknowledge that and work together,” Covey wrote.
Members of the board are almost always current or former holders of a license to fish, hunt or trap. Vermont does not require members to be license holders, as some states do, but it’s been the practice for decades, confirmed Louis Porter, Vermont’s Fish & Wildlife commissioner.
The governor appoints members to the board, one for each county, often with input from the commissioner. Terms are six years. Porter forwards candidates to the governor’s office, he said, and people also send letters directly to the governor asking to serve.
Porter said that the existing board does an excellent job and listens to dissenting views carefully, including the hundreds of emails it received in opposition to the bobcat season extension.
Porter noted that the Fish & Wildlife Department staff recommended against extending the bobcat season and that the board majority ultimately agreed. The process worked, he said, in spite of what critics say. “I’ve never seen so many people pissed off about winning a vote,” Porter said.
Gov. Peter Shumlin has followed tradition and appointed experienced hunters, anglers and trappers to the board. Jessica Gingras, Shumlin’s director of appointments to boards and commissions, noted that the governor is himself a hunter.
“The role of the board is not to consider whether hunting or trapping should be legal, but rather implementing rules around what the legislature deems should be legal activities,” Gingras wrote in an email. “It is important to the governor that individuals who serve on the board are knowledgeable of issues surrounding hunting and trapping, are familiar with the current laws, and … are willing to volunteer and represent the hunters/licensed consumptive users in their communities.”
Will Vermont’s next governor agree? Through a spokesman, Republican candidate Phil Scott said he would consider all candidates who choose to apply but that “experience is important for board appointments.” Democratic candidate Sue Minter wants to expand Vermont’s wildlife recreation economy, according to her campaign, and would appoint board members who desire to see Vermont’s tradition of hunting, fishing and trapping grow.
Those pushing to get non-hunters on the board say that new programs could potentially generate revenue from wildlife watching, tracking and photography.
“I would obviously want to be on it,” Galdenzi said of the Fish & Wildlife Board. “Would I ever expect that they would approve my application if I submitted one? Never.”
*Correction, October 14, 2016: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that members of the Fish & Wildlife Board “snare” rabbits. In fact, snares are not a legal trapping method in Vermont.
This article appears in Oct 12-18, 2016.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
In a few years I suspect bear hunting will be outlawed. Monies spent to sterilize deer. Banning moose hunting won’t be far behind, as there just there for tourist to look at.
What, never happen, OK, one moose permit issued per year……
When you have a Board that is so mired in their own special interests, how can they possibly make sound decisions over our wildlife? I don’t hunt or trap, but I don’t necessarily oppose hunting for sustenance, but I don’t feel as though my interests are heard on this Board. I enjoy tracking wildlife and consider myself to have a deep understanding of nature, specifically furbearers and their behavior.
The fact that these very trappers on the Board are making money off of these animals’ pelts is a conflict of interest. Of course people like Kevin Lawrence and that taxidermy Board member want to expand seasons on bobcats and otters because they make money off of it! That is just wrong.
This Board needs to represent a larger cross section of Vermonters and until it does, the Department won’t get one penny from me towards their non game funding.
I was at that board meeting and it was astounding to see how hard the board worked to vote down the recommendation of their own wildlife biologist who recommended against expanding the bobcat season. It was crystal clear that this board has its own agenda and a very strong bias toward trappers. There was a real sense of entitlement and ownership—a strong sense of conflict of interest— that I resent as a resident, landowner, and taxpayer in VT. The fact that trappers make money on the pelts of our wildlife killed on public lands seems very wrong to me. I am against trapping for many reasons. It is not supported by sound science since it is inherently indiscriminate. Many non-target animals are killed every year here in VT including domestic pets and protected species. There is no way to know what trappers really do and no way to know if they report their kills honestly and accurately. At this point in time, with growing stresses and concerns related to climate change and habitat loss, conservation really should be the primary focus of all F&W policies. Conservation and trapping are not compatible. Ultimately, I am offended by the tolerance of the department to the inhumane and sadistic nature of trapping. This is in no way an ethical manner to manage wildlife and has been proven to be ineffectual as an effective control of predators.
The headline of this article is misleading. People are against animal torture, in general, which is why they are focused on the traps. Most traps hold the animal for 24 hours or more until the trapper returns to club it to death or crush its chest by stomping on it. (A bullet hole would decrease the value of the fur.) Animals frantically try to get out of a foothold trap, for example, and break their teeth and bones, tear ligaments, etc. Some animals chew their own foot off. Because of the cruelty involved in this method of killing, people are against it. It is not a small group. The majority of people find this type of animal torture to be barbaric. Yes, if you are an unethical hunter who leaves wounded animals to suffer because you took a shot you should not have taken, or if you shoot a mother bear while her two cubs are standing right beside her, then you should also be held to a higher standard. If you want to see animals (and not always the target animals) struggling in a trap for 24 hours or more, then go online and watch the many videos available. See if you can watch for five minutes. Now explain to your kids how this is okay.
“In my last year of land trapping and the only year that I trapped on land in a built up area, I caught 28 house cats and several dogs. I did not kill the dogs, but I did kill 26 of the cats. I did this upon the oral advice of the local game warden and the Maine Trapper’s Association representative. Most cats caught in a steel jaw leghold trap struggle so hard they inevitably injure themselves—oftentimes severely, with broken legs and shoulders. Then, just as it still is today, the unwritten word among the trappers and some game wardens was that if you released the cats, the owners would know they had been in a trap. The owners would take their beloved pet to a veterinarian and the injured cat would then appear on the front page of the local newspaper, causing bad publicity for trappers and trapping. As trappers, when we were sometimes asked about missing cats, we were advised to say that fishers killed them—in much the same way that the coyote is nearly always vilified and blamed today for the disappearance of someone’s cat.” – Bill, a former trapper
I am a veterinarian who has treated injuries and removed limbs from pet dogs and cats caught in leg hold traps. I could not save the cat from Hinesburg who must have been in the trap for days considering the dehydration she suffered. I have four issues with leg hold traps: 1) they are exceedingly inhumane and cause a tremendous amount of pain to the animal, 2) for every target animal trapped, there are TWO non-target species caught, 3) the trapped animal is not killed humanely and 4) trappers do not check their traps often enough.
We need members on the Board who, based on their training and knowledge, can present differing opinions on trapping. This will better serve the public and the animals.
Vermont Fish and Wildlife’s mission is: To protect and conserve our fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the people of Vermont. That means ALL people, not just consumptive groups such as trappers or hunters.
Shouldn’t we be asking Mr. Lawrence and the rest of the board members; how does a group of trappers, taxidermists and hunters not hold bias and discriminate voting based on their own interests and hobbies? Mr. Lawrence aren’t you a trapper notably recognized by the Vermont Trappers Association with the 2015 VTA Hall of Fame?
Lawrence is quoted, “If someone is totally against something, how can they work to support it? Conversely, how does someone who is invested both personally and financially in a particular consumptive activity such as trapping be able to adequately, equitably and ethically make a decision that represents ALL people and supports the tenets of “protect and conserve” wildlife, fish and plants and their habitats.
As for experience, there are many wildlife, environmental biologists, Veterinarians, Veterinary Technicians, Wildlife Rehabilitators with vast experience with specific and also wide range of wildlife, ecosystems and management (scientific- based alternative and creative not just trapping, killing management methods) who could be VT FWD board members.
It is TIME that the non-consumptive Vermonters have an equitable and a representative seat at the table
Oh, by the way… “A small group can make a big noise, and that’s what we’re experiencing today,” Lawrence said. “I’ve never seen so many people pissed off about winning a vote.” Fish & Wildlife Commissioner Louis Porter said.
I’m seriously thinking of posting my over 200+ acres because of the intolerance of the F&W board. I’m not even a hunter or trapper and I allow hunters to come on my property. If I decide to post, it will be a lot of land not accessible to hunters indefinitely. If property owners who don’t post now, band together to post their property if they continue with trapping the way they are now, it will send a MASSIVE message to the board. Our private lands are very important to them
Two comments:
1. Kevin Lawrence says, “A small group can make a big noise, and that’s what we’re experiencing today.” Mr. Lawrence, are you referring to trappers who amount to much fewer than 1% of Vermont’s population? That is pretty small. The Board gets to represent them but not the vast majority of Vermont’s, “the public,” which Fish & Wildlife have the explicit mission to serve, are shut out.
2. There’s a lot in the article about the need for experience, which presumably the trappers and hunters have. Actually, the experience that’s most needed (this is the 21st Century, by the way) is experience with wildlife biology and data analysis. That kind of experience is lacking in the current board. That kind of experience doesn’t make it to the Board, because such people tend to be shut out of a club that exclusively serve trappers and hunters.
The title of this page is misleading and incorrect.
It should truly read UNETHICAL KILLING AND TRAPPING FOES to be more accurate.
The most amazing aspect of the this Board is how they turn a blind eye to all the horrible things that trappers do to the animals they trap. The internet, and social media, is full of horrible videos and photos of these toxic trappers killing wildlife with baseball bats, strangling them with ropes and poles, and crushing and breaking their chests–all for a pelt that is sold to China for $45. The Board, and Department, do not speak out against these atrocities, they do not put rules and regulations into effect regarding how these trapped animals should be killed, nor do they limit the number of fur bearing animals that can be trapped during a season. The department estimates fur bearer populations on the number of dead animals that are killed each year–this method of collecting population data is out-dated, inaccurate and has proven to be useless. The Department also thinks sending out annual surveys to these trappers (which the majority of trappers do not return) is one way to find out how many fur bearers were killed—talk about the fox watching the hen house! Vermonters ask questions about trapping practices and regulations and the Department feels that because we don’t kill fur bearing animals we have no right to participate in the process of keeping them, and their habitats, healthy and flourishing? A person doesn’t have to set a trap to understand what can affect fur bearing populations, criticize inhumane and immoral practices, and the importance of the balance of nature regarding predators and prey.
Fish and wildlife do exist solely for hunters and trappers, but are there four ALL Vermonters. The Fish & Wildlife Board needs to reflect this.
Trapping is, as many have written, is inhumane. It should be banned.
Typo Correction, fish and wildlife DO NOT exist just for hunters and trappers, but all Vermonters.
Vermonters, you are not alone!
The big push is on for fair decision-making regarding our country’s wildlife.
Mr. Lawrence is incorrect: collectively we are NOT a small group and our numbers continue to grow steadily. Trappers and hunters have monopolized the seats at the table long enough. Time to make room for new, refreshing perspectives.
Let me look into my crystal ball: In the future I will have to get written permission from some tree hugging, vegan, from NJ before I can give lead poisoning to the cute little squirrel who’s chewing a hole in the side of my house.
If the non-hunters/trappers want a seat at the table, then ANTE-UP!
Match the conservation dollars paid annually by the hunters & trappers. Nearly ALL of the F&W budget is funded by us (NOT general fund taxes as you may believe; look it up), it only makes sense we have the most say in how it is spent.
If you are running a business, do you listen to your paying customers or the bums on the corner that don’t pay the bills? Want more say? Put your money where your (mostly) flatlander mouths are.
Mr E Bailey- To hunt, fish or take from the natural resources from the state of Vermont is a privilege and yes, it should be charged a fee for licensure and maintenance required to support these opportunities which not only require FWD oversight by game wardens and wildlife biologists but as well as for the administrative effort and supervision of rules, regs and policies. Do you suppose those going into the store can just take things off the shelf for free?? Steal or take all for themselves without leaving ALL the customers a chance to shop? While, you disrespect people with your comment, ” the bums on the corner that don’t pay the bills? Want more say? Put your money where your (mostly) flatlander mouths are.” those same people are VERMONT residents who pay their state/federal taxes, are land owners and stewards that contribute in non-consumptive ways to the state by varying means such as volunteerism, work and economic contributions, education and more importantly uphold integrity and ethics in their daily lives. As for ante- up. GLADLY! happy to support an equitable, ethical, and respectful seat at the table to “protect and conserve ” the amazing gifts this state has by way of wildlife, habitat and ecosystems.. In fact; in 2011 the US Fish and Wildlife Services reported for the state of Vermont a Retail Sales and Industry Output or Ripple Effect for NON consumptive wildlife viewing the sum of $473,910,583!!!! That alone warrants a seat at the VT FWD board.
I too resent being labelled by trappers/hunters as a flatlander, outsider, bum, freeloader, etc. simply because I disagree with their sadistic exploitation of public resources. The State’s wildlife does not belong to consumptive users and many of us who want to protect wildlife from the horrors of trapping pay plenty of money toward the state’s conservation programs. Most of us would likely pay more to offset the meager $23 license fee for trapping. In fact, I already pay $26 for conservation license plates on my car! That’s $3 more than a trapping license! In addition, I post two parcels of land, that’s another chunk of change the F&W Dept get from me. Those of us who boat or hike or use State parks pay fees throughout the year. In addition, my family has lived in Vermont since 1806, probably longer than many of the trapper’s families have. I own land here, pay taxes, and have as much right to use public lands as anyone else in Vermont. But, ultimately, this issue is not about money or heritage, it is about ethics and responsible conservation of public resources. Trappers typically resort to insulting those of us who they disagree with because the facts do not support trapping. It is simply wrong on many levels, from morally to scientifically and ecologically. Trapping needs to be relegated to the trash heap of similar obsolete and irrelevant historical past-times.
I’m a lifelong hunter and outdoor enthusiast. I don’t need to hunt to survive, but it certainly helps in providing protein for my family and I. I also utilize hunting as a way to get out and explore this great state. Often, I will walk 7-10 miles on any given day during the November deer season. It provides me the opportunity to think and get away from all of the craziness in everyday life. It helps to keep my mind focused and sharp and I can’t imagine not being able to get out there and do that.
However, when I was very young (middle school) I shot at a bird in tree with my bb gun. The gun had no sites on it and it was a hail mary shot, but I hit it right in the eye and it dropped to the ground. I had to smash it with a rock to put it out of its misery. From that moment on I told myself that I would never shoot anything again unless I was going to eat it and that has helped me enjoy my time in nature hunting and enjoying wildlife. I do not believe in trapping and I understand that there may be a handful of individuals who use it to supplement their income, but for christ sake, it’s 2016 people…we are making clothing out of recycled textiles.
I have no problem letting “non-consumptives” on the F&W board because I feel that it would only make the board stronger and add diversity. I don’t believe adding 6 is prudent, but 2-3 seems reasonable. In the end, this board should be taking advice from the state wildlife biologists anyway. If there is a blatant disregard to what they say is appropriate, there should be consequences.
All I can say is everything that I want to say has actually already been said for the most part. It is just amazing to me that people in the year 2016 can’t understand that these animals are sentient creatures. It is understandable if people hunt because they really need the meat for food, but there is no
reason to trap anymore.Trappers would be very upset if someone trapped their hunting dogs, but somehow they discount the feelings of wildlife. Fur is no longer a money making industry and the trappers that seem to enjoy the pain they inflict on these animals are truly sadistic. This issue needs to be addressed on a much broader scale in this country. People don’t eat trapped animals and if they trap for pleasure they need professional help. Jeffrey Daumer abused animals as a child and even he admitted later on death row he knew there was something wrong for having the need to do this. Some trappers do it because it is a tradition in their family, but there is no need to trap anymore. How about starting a tradition of showing your kids and grandkids how these animals live in their natural environment through hiking or photographing? This would nurture the kind of character we would want them to show as adults. Some nuisance trap but it has been proven there are more successful and humane ways to solve their problems. Trapping is outdated and needs to stop.
To Mr. J. Jerome; You Sir are an outstanding and exemplary example of an ethical hunter! THANK YOU! Your ethic, compassion, respect and reverence is to be commended and admired. Your understanding and ability to reason and appreciate the value of equity and diversity and the value of wildlife biologists ( notably, the VT FWD board recently voted against recommendations of the wildlife biologists in relationship to the bobcat and otter trapping petition) transcends the fraternal turning-of-a-blind-eye to some of the unethical killing and barbaric cruelty of trapping that is legal in Vermont and supported by the in-bred make up of the FWD board.
GOOD!!! “It was not quite dead. Berry took the needle-billed bird and quickly twisted its neck.” What kind of person does this? One who is sub-human, that’s who. Don’t give me the crap About how “hunting helps animals”, that’s the biggest load of crap ever. Do the research. Hunting injures most animals and makes them suffer. Many animals are wounded and left to die slow painful deaths. These animals have feelings and families. Would you hunt your pet dog or cat? No? Then why murder other animals?
The Vermont AG’s office should investigate POW. Truth be told, it is just an extension of HSUS, which has no connection to the beneficial local human society. Yet, through it facade raises millions of dollars by misleading donors and uses those funds to pay highly compensated executives and associated legal firms to wage legal battles against the various state and federal agencies costing tax payers millions of dollars. Trappers are just canaries in the coal mine. POW/HSUS are going at the preverbal throat of all sportsmen and sportswomen attacking the F&W agency who has re-established bears, deer, turkey, beaver, otter, fisher and martin in a state that was devoid of these mammals. The population of all these mammals has expanded and harvests have had no impact on their growth, including bobcats which have had significant documented population growth since 2008. Those are facts people. POW and other groups share members to portray a larger membership base and recruit people who know little about the science or biology around wildlife management. They prey upon the emotions of others. Ceding the management of our wildlife resources to persons without any knowledge of both wildlife sciences and sportman practices is both dangerous and a path to disaster for wildlife. Massachusetts, after another arm was able to severally restrict trapping, now cost tax payers over $100 million annually to control beaver damage. The role of government is to protect people rights and is not a vehicle for a small group to dictate their values on to others. Hunting, fishing and trapping have been traditions in Vermont since the inception of the state and wildlife have flourished under the F&W’s management.
All of you who are making these anti-F&W board posts are morons. I went to the last F&W board meeting to hear about the work being done regarding black bear habitat as a pre-study for the effect of wind turbines. What I saw was a bunch of older women with too much time and too much money on their hand and a bunch of hen pecked men. People pretended to be re-borne trappers, lawyers and veterinarians. Yet no one actually submitted one supportive fact or scientific piece of data. The whole group was lead by a women who isn’t even from Vermont that came here specifically to disrupt the traditions of this great state.
I am shocked to see anyone admit (Hike VT) that he trapped 28 cats and was told to kill them by a Maine Game Warden. Besides being an insult to law enforcement officers throughout the country, you should not have the right to make any comments. You were never a sportsman, a conservationist and obviously have no ethics. If you are the type of people who make up POW, then it explains all the misleading information that has been published recently. My guess is that you are just a big fat liar!
Hi, commenters. This is clearly an issue a lot of you are passionate about. A reminder, though: please be respectful of other members of this community. Don’t call other commenters names or make personal attacks; address the arguments instead. As a reminder, here are our commenting guidelines:
http://sevendaysvt-test.newspackstaging.com/vermont/Comment…
Thanks for participating!
Evan W- YOU CLEARLY CONFIRMED THE POINT -THANK YOU! Your comment above states you are shocked that anyone would admit that he had trapped 28 cats. Had you read the comment properly you would have recognized the quotation marks indicating that the comment is a record of a statement made by someone other than HIKEVT. HikeVT was merely providing the words and statement that a trapper made in reflection of his negligent and heinous actions at one time. That comment comes from none other than: – –Bill, a former trapper !!! So, we agree, with you; “You were never a sportsman, a conservationist and obviously have no ethics.” That comment is a reflection of Bill the former trapper who in his good conscience has now left the ugly, “tradition” behind.http://sevendaysvt-test.newspackstaging.com/vermont/hunting…
Anthropomorphizing wildlife does a disservice to the biology of these animals and clouds the real issue of population management. In addition, it insults and belittles the inherent struggles these animals go through to survive in the wild. Nature is a savage place and wildlife does not view their existence from a warm kitchen full of food, as we do. No, its a brutal place were life is always in the balance. Human hunting, fishing and trapping and vehicles, for that matter, is but a fraction of this struggle and in many ways quicker and more humane.
Evan W, I don’t trap anything. When something is in quotes, do you understand what that means? I was quoting a trapper who admitted to doing this. He wrote about it, and I quoted what he said. I have also been present when trappers in VT talked about killing house cats. It did not bother them in the slightest. It is part of the culture.
Evan W, I heard the lies about POW before I even knew what the organization was. Then I met some of the board members and people associated with that organization and immediately understood that the trappers are engaged in a disinformation campaign. These are Vermonters who disagree with you, plain and simple. I was at the meeting to observe for myself. What is clear to me is that the trappers feel an extreme sense of entitlement and have a “good ole boy” relationship with F&W. A whole lot of Vermonters who are not trappers want some accountability. Hikers, backcountry skiers, people walking their dogs, landowners, birdwatchers, wildlife photographers, veterinarians, and others are told they have no place at the table, which is not fair. The trappers were quite outnumbered by us so-called “non-consumptives” at the meeting. There is no question that the board would have voted against their biologist’s recommendations had so many members of the non-consumptive public not been there watching and videotaping. Even with that being the case, almost half the board members completely disregarded the biologist’s recommendation, as well as the public comments. There were many landowners and professionals present. You trying to paint them as “older women” or anything else just shows your true colors. This is nothing more than an attempt to slander fellow Vermonters who want accountability. Sad.
Evan W., labeling wildlife activists “older woman” as a means to denigrate their relevance and demean their contributions to the discussion is offensive and sexist. Jane Goodall is an older woman. She is perhaps the most respected wildlife advocate and environmentalist on the planet. Since when does age and gender define someone’s right to fair representation by a State organization? I would much prefer the F&W board be composed of informed, professionally relevant, intelligent, and compassionate older women than macho, ignorant, and uninformed men mired in the sadistic traditions of trapping that are no longer relevant and are destroying biodiversity and hindering the balance and function of our ecosystems.
I would like to thank all of the trapping opponents here for clarifying one point, the reason that we need outdoor folk on the board is that they understand the issues. If you read the above comments which are opposed to the make up of the board, you will note that nowhere in any of them did they discuss actual wildlife management issues. They engage in a great deal of hyperbole and conjecture, but never do they mention the issues generated by excessive populations of any animal. Habitat degradation, increased disease transmission, negative population impacts on other species (including endangered species), and starvation due to excessive competition are all real issues which have been observed by scientists to occur in the absence of active management such as hunting and trapping. One opponent states that they will no longer support the non-game wildlife fund. So you will penalize non-game species because you are mad that their predators are managed? Statements like those clarify that these folks care more about their agenda than they do about the welfare and health of our wild populations.
The reason none of Mike Covey’s “management issues” were discussed above by those of us who oppose his expansion of trapping, is that his list of issues are not caused by wildlife but by human involvement in the landscape. There are numerous scientific studies that clearly demonstrate the ineffective and ecologically destructive nature of trapping. This is particularly true with regard to coyotes and beaver. It is sheer ignorance to say that trapping is a valid means to control populations, health, or habitat degradation. This is a smoke screen for a sadistic sport that supports an obsolete industry. There is not room here to go into all the arguments against the efficacy of trapping (some of which were mentioned in above statements—I guess Mr. Covey overlooked those). The information is easily available to anyone who can read and think critically. Mr. Covey’s arrogance is unveiled when his identity is revealed. He is the very trapper who proposed the contentious petition that was the subject of debate at the September 21 Fish and Wildlife Board meeting. The Department’s own biologist recommended against the extension of a bobcat trapping season for several reasons, the most important being that there is no accurate assessment of the bobcat population in VT. Mr. Covey is an active trapper who routinely denies and denigrates both the science that dispels the many myths supporting trapping as a valid means to manage wildlife, and those informed and professional members of the non-trapping community who would like to see this archaic, ineffective, and sadistic tradition end.
I can’t speak to the accuracy of (Hike Vt)’s comments or quote from “Bill, a former trapper” about incidental trapping of cats, but I do have a personal experience where a Maine Warden told me homeowners in Maine had the right to shoot a Bald Eagle if it was pecking at their roof shingles (the Warden was reprimanded for his incorrect statement by his supervisor(s)). Seems like the cat story is a little far fetched to be made up?
Wow ! Thanks for a thought provoking article .
I have few problems with hunting although a great deal more with trapping . I have enjoyed hunted meat (although I’ll never touch bear again.) My biggest issue is the idea that only hunters should be on the F&W board . Should only developers be on land development boards ? Should only teachers be on education boards ? A great part of Vermont’s appeal is based on its natural beauty of which its wildlife is an important element . Protection of this asset does not belong solely to those who have harvested this resource and by harvested I mean killed wildlife . It belongs to all Vermonters
So we should select board members that are, for the most part, 100% against the activity that the board votes on? This doesn’t make sense to me.
According to a comment by one hunting, trapping proponent, F&W was brought to it’s knees in an attempt to “re-establish bears, deer, turkey, beaver, otter, fisher, martin & bobcats in a state that was devoid of these mammals.” (A turkey is not a mammal.) Did all those species commit suicide or succumb to Vermont’s proud hunting & trapping tradition,’ is my question.
Putting hunters in charge of the fish and wildlife board makes about as much sense as putting pedophiles in charge of a day care.