This commentary is by Jennifer Lovett of Starksboro, who is a conservation biologist and author, and Jim White of Shelburne, who has a longtime interest in wildlife and government and serves on a town wildlife committee.
Recent coverage of wildlife issues and the role of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department shows deep divides between those who hunt and trap and those who don’t. It seems like an insurmountable challenge to find common ground. However, there is a path forward — with just two steps.
One step is to revamp the politically appointed Fish & Wildlife Board to make the department function like other state agencies. Currently, Fish & Wildlife staff lacks decision-making-authority regarding game species. It is a true oddity in Vermont’s approach to governance.
That oddity is the source of much debate. The reason is that the Fish & Wildlife Board (representing hunter and trapper special interests), not the Fish & Wildlife staff, has exclusive say over all game species, despite the fact that game are a public asset. Yet Fish & Wildlife staff has the best qualifications for this role.
While the board consists of volunteers whose applicable experience is largely time spent hunting and trapping, the Fish & Wildlife staff consists of highly trained professionals — wildlife biologists, for example — who are better prepared to understand all sides of the challenges impacting wildlife.
S.129, a bill introduced in the last legislative session, proposes to make the Fish & Wildlife Board advisory only, and transfer authority to professionals at Fish & Wildlife where it belongs. Under discussion for over a half-century, isn’t it time that change happened?
The second step is to hold Fish & Wildlife decision-making to three simple values: ecological thinking, democratic process and the humane treatment of wildlife.
What is ecological thinking? The idea behind ecology is that all living things interact with one another to form a systemic whole. Applied to decisions about wildlife, it means that choices should be grounded in an understanding of how each species functions within a natural system, rather than determined by the utilitarian and tradition-bound mindset that often predominates now.
Consider that red and gray foxes provide extraordinary benefits by feeding on small rodents that may serve as hosts to ticks that harbor diseases, including Lyme. For this reason, ecological thinking suggests that foxes should not be on the recreational/sport-killing target list. Accessing a trophy fox skin does not compare to the value for human and ecosystem health represented by a reduced tick population.
According to a 2015 Fish & Wildlife report, Vermont has close to 1,000 species listed as “in greatest conservation need.” We must address that challenge from an ecological viewpoint; we can’t have 1,000 approaches. This number has likely grown because the causes — habitat loss, pollution, human encroachment, the climate crisis, etc., have only increased in impact. Ecological thinking would have us consider these threatened species not in isolation, but as part of a larger, living system.
What is democratic process? If ecology describes all parts as parts of a whole, democratic process suggests that all parts influence the whole. In wildlife management, that influence must take the form of all stakeholders having a voice in decisions.
Wildlife is a public asset held in trust by the state of Vermont for all Vermonters; it is not a resource belonging to any special interest group. You only need to look at the operation of the Fish & Wildlife Board to see how this principle gets ignored in practice. The question arises — why is the public that neither hunts nor traps systematically excluded from having a real voice in shaping policy?
This is not to challenge the right of hunters and trappers to participate in decisions. It is certainly not a recommendation that all decisions be put to a public vote. The expertise of wildlife professionals is critical to good management. But where a resource belongs to all Vermonters, all Vermonters should have an equal and unquestioned right to participate in some way. That’s basic democracy and common sense.
Finally, there is the need for humane treatment. We all know on a gut level what the term means when applied to other humans, and to our dogs and cats. Humane management implies a fabric of relationship between living things that assume responsibility to each other. We wouldn’t stick our own hand in a trap; why do we allow traps to slam down on other living creatures’ appendages?
We should establish a management standard to guide decisions by the most humane practices possible. Such a standard would not prevent hunters from hunting. An ethical sensibility that rejects unsporting, wasteful and cruel behavior has been a central belief of hunters from the beginning of time. Many hunters talk about “respect for the life they are taking.”
Do practices like drowning and leghold traps, running down wild animals with radio-collared hounds while sitting miles away, and leaving animals to rot in the field serve that sensibility? Many contemporary hunters and nonhunters believe not. Acting in a humane way isn’t just up to the solitary hunter in the field; it must be an ever-present fundamental in Fish & Wildlife managerial thinking.
Ecological thinking, democratic process and humane practices — are those concepts so radical that we can’t find a way to incorporate them into how we treat wildlife? We don’t think so. We propose them as the common ground that helps bring all parties together to serve the best interests of wildlife.
