This commentary is by Paul F. Noel of Irasburg. He is a member of the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Board from Orleans County. He is also a volunteer instructor for the Fish & Wildlife Department and has a degree in fisheries and wildlife management from SUNY Cobleskill.
The introduction of bill S.258 and the reasoning behind it has prompted much discussion of this issue and of wildlife management in general. The passage of significant changes to the trapping and coyote hunting rules this past year also spawned controversy and criticism of that result.
I have attended multiple hearings of the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules and the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy over the past few months. I have heard several remarks from legislators and members of self-described wildlife advocacy groups that the Fish & Wildlife Department and Fish & Wildlife Board failed or were in error by developing and moving forward with these critical rule upgrades.
As a member of the board from Orleans County, I found those remarks unfortunate on many levels.
The Fish & Wildlife Board and Department clearly did not fail or act in error. We exceeded the legislative intent that was proposed. The lengthy and exhaustive efforts expended to formulate and finalize the trapping and coyote rules have been well documented.
Despite contrary claims, many different stakeholder opinions were considered — and many compromises made. Not everyone was completely happy from all angles. But the end result was the most comprehensive set of rules in the country that aligns with proven conservation principles and cultural considerations while maintaining the integrity of these activities as viable management mechanisms.
So that brings us back to S.258, which would alter the structure of the board and override certain rules that were legally advanced. The board is charged with the rather small scope of overseeing rule changes concerning hunting, trapping and fishing.
One argument is to bring other diverse voices such as so-called non-consumptive or unlicensed users of wildlife to an advisory table — possibly having these voices become the majority. Having such a format of many members either inexperienced or solidly opposed to the very same activities they are supposed to govern would potentially create a situation of constant chaos and dysfunction.
The board is now composed of a group of people of diverse age, gender and locality. We are all sportsmen and women but with a healthy variety of expertise and background. The strength of diversity is already present in the board.
There is literally multiple centuries of experience and wisdom to draw upon at each and every meeting, no matter the topic. That experience also adequately includes non-consumptive activities. I personally am a hunter, trapper and angler but equally a hiker, nature photographer, forager and paddler. Most, if not all, other board members engage in these or other outdoor pursuits as well.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of having decadeslong engagement and intimacy with the disciplines that we are charged to oversee. But perhaps most important is the level of passion and respect for the fish and wildlife of Vermont that board members possess. That integrity and knowledge base of the board partners with the professional biological support and advice of the Fish & Wildlife Department to create an undeniable alliance that is best suited for the issues at hand.
That connective tissue should not be severed. The future of the sporting community of Vermont, along with the future of historically sound fisheries and wildlife management policy, is at stake.
