This commentary is by Bob Galvin of Richmond. He is the Vermont state director for the nonprofits Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy.
Recently, the Vermont Senate took a significant step for the state’s environmental stewardship by passing S.258, an act relating to managing fish and wildlife, by a 21-8 vote (with one absence).
We are at a pivotal moment where we need to act boldly to determine the course of our collective future, and this bill proposes a significant shift in wildlife management to meet the current need. This move is not just administrative but symbolic of a broader, more inclusive vision for Vermont’s natural heritage.
Historically, wildlife management in Vermont has been guided by the interests of a select group of stakeholders — mainly hunters, trappers, anglers and hound hunters. This approach primarily serves the needs of those communities and often overlooks the voices and interests of the larger number of non-consumptive users of wild spaces, such as hikers, skiers, mountain bikers, bird watchers and those who engage with the wilderness for its intrinsic value.
S.258 seeks to rectify this imbalance, ensuring that all Vermonters, regardless of how they interact with nature, have a seat at the policy-making table.
In a 2018 report titled “America’s Wildlife Values,” researchers found that 34% of Vermonters identified as having a mutualistic relationship with wildlife, believing that wildlife are part of our social network and that humans should coexist peacefully with them. Only 25% of Vermonters identified as traditionalists, who believe that wildlife should be “used and managed for human benefit,” and 29% identified as pluralists who prioritize wildlife differently based on context.
The bill is underpinned by the principles of diversity, equity and mutual respect, aiming to democratize wildlife governance to reflect the state’s diverse populace and their varied relationships with the natural world.
By shifting rulemaking to the Department of Fish & Wildlife, S.258 ensures that decisions are informed by scientific research, ecological ethics and a broader spectrum of public input. This approach acknowledges the complexity of wildlife management in the face of climate change and biodiversity loss, necessitating policies that are not only scientifically sound but also socially equitable.
Furthermore, S.258 proposes banning certain hunting practices that have raised public safety and ethical concerns, such as hunting coyotes with hounds and hunting coyotes over bait piles.
These provisions highlight the bill’s commitment to addressing some of the most inhumane methods of wildlife treatment and the safety of Vermont’s communities, addressing long-standing controversies in wildlife management practices.
Coyote hounding shares some unsettling resemblances to dogfighting. In both scenarios, dogs are trained to aggressively chase and corner another animal, driven by their instincts, which are honed and exploited for human objectives. The key difference lies in the prey — other dogs in dogfighting, and coyotes in hounding. However, this distinction does little to alleviate the ethical concerns surrounding the use of animals for a violent and distressing pursuit.
Advocates for S.258, including hunters with deep familial ties to the state, and representatives of scientific organizations like Project Coyote, argue for a wildlife management paradigm that respects all forms of life and their roles in the ecosystem. They emphasize the importance of predators in maintaining ecological balance through trophic cascades and question the scientific basis of practices that indiscriminately remove these vital animals from the landscape.
In essence, S.258 is more than just a legislative proposal. It is a vision for a future where wildlife management in Vermont is conducted in a manner that honors the diversity of its people, its wildlife and the ecological imperatives of our time.
Its passage would modernize the state’s approach to wildlife governance and affirm Vermont’s commitment to diversity, democratic participation and inclusion of unheard voices in public policy.
