North Point Remodeling

1

I'm writing to encourage anyone who values their say in the way we relate to wildlife in this state to weigh in on S.258 pronto.

As shown in previous FPF posts, op-Eds, and testimony to the Natural Resources Committee, I've been a supporter of many of the principals of this bill- I value all wildlife, and while my predominant place in the outdoor community is as a hunter and fisherman I am welcoming of the idea that more diverse viewpoints and user groups should have a say in advising the FW Department.

However, I do have a couple of strong issues with the way the bill is currently worded, and I hope that if you agree you'll let your representatives know (they've been taking their duty to listen to our opinions very seriously, and I greatly appreciate that.)

1: Clearly direct the board to facilitate the opportunity to pursue and consume animals whose populations are not threatened by us doing so.

We all say we want a science-based approach to wildlife management. However, a purely science-based approach does not recognize the tremendous cultural value, and public health value, of hunting, fishing, and trapping. I'll reuse an example I wrote in a recent email to the members of the Natural Resources Commission: my shooting a duck and smoking it for my family's Sunday dinner is of no ecological value. It is, in fact, a net negative- simply one less duck on the landscape (I'll add that almost everything we humans do is a net negative for the surrounding ecosystem). However, it is of tremendous value for me and my family. We experience a closeness to nature and wild places, we enjoy the time outdoors learning the habits of and perusing the duck, and we are nourished by the meat it provides. This cannot be overlooked.

2: Require bipartisan approval of nominees for the board. If this board is to be productive, it will need members who can work together- bipartisan consensus would help trim the ends of the ideological spectrum.

Thanks- Alex

As I have stated in a previous FPF post, I am a lifelong hunter and fisherman, and I cannot fault the principals of this bill.

However, after studying the text and discussing it extensively, I do think that there are a couple of flaws that need to be addressed.

S.258 aims to create a diverse wildlife board. Fair enough, I say- that's democracy, and it could direct more attention and funding towards a wider array of wildlife. However, there is currently no language in the bill to assure that this diversity is achieved and that the various "shareholders" are represented fairly. For instance, if 1 in 7 Vermonters are hunters, how many are birdwatchers, etc? Collect this data and represent these groups proportionally. I accept that this could be cumbersome, but it would quell the concern that these appointments would be simply subject to the political whims of the moment and establish a precedent of data-driven decision making.
I am also quite concerned with the removal of the mandate of the State of Vermont to prioritize an abundant deer herd. I think that this should be looked at not only as an ecological issue, but a public health one. Last years deer season provided Vermonters with around 3 million high quality, nutritious, and delicious meals. That is seriously important, and as a young father who raises his children on organic, free ranging venison I implore the state to take this into account- particularly given that Vermonts hunters have statistically lower median incomes than our non-hunting peers. These are extremely valuable meals that are hard for people to replace. I'll add a link to a VPR piece on the topic below: https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2024-02-15/gardening-hunting-foraging-can-improve-f[...]ine

I hope that our elected representatives will take these and other suggestions into account when crafting the final text of this bill- these are topics that are fundamental to who we are.