Dear Editor,
Historically, state fish and wildlife agencies developed alongside hunting and trapping to eliminate predators for ranchers. The fundamental mission of state wildlife agencies is not animal welfare — it is managing wildlife for hunting, trapping and ranching purposes.
Wildlife is legally considered state property. The state claims ownership and regulatory authority over it. Most wild animals in Vermont are not protected under state law.
For instance, opossums are not a protected species in Vermont. They are classified as furbearers or nuisance wildlife. Because of this classification, they are not protected from physical harm or intentional cruelty.
The absurd reality is that trapping and killing opossums — using a wide range of methods — is legal under state regulations.
But caring for opossums in Vermont is illegal without permits. Keeping, sheltering or rehabilitating opossums — even temporarily — can result in fines or criminal charges. Neither wildlife rehabilitators nor veterinarians may rehabilitate bears, turkeys, deer, moose, caribou, elk or other big game, even when these animals are orphaned or intentionally injured through human cruelty.
There is a significant legal and ethical disconnect in how wildlife regulations work. Helping or aiding an animal, even attempting to provide pain relief or treat something easily treatable, can result in fines or prosecution, while people can legally harm and kill these same animals nearby.
Disease concerns, such as rabies and parasites, are cited by the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department as justification for their position. Many mammals carry rabies, including foxes, skunks, bats and raccoons. Humans and dogs can also get and transmit the disease. However, opossums rarely get rabies because their body temperature is too low for the virus to survive.
The hypocrisy is glaring. It appears the department prioritizes control and exclusivity over safety. Trappers handle dying, stressed animals — peak rabies risk — with bare hands. No vaccinations are required, and oversight is nearly nonexistent.
Hunters field-dress animals, exposing themselves to blood and organs — no problem. Pest control operators kill so-called nuisance wildlife in close contact — and it’s perfectly legal. Hounds literally bite and tear apart wildlife, getting blood everywhere, and there is no apparent concern for rabies vector species.
But when a licensed, vaccinated veterinarian or rehabber tries to help? Suddenly it’s a public safety issue.
Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department regulations are designed to limit competition between hunters, not to protect wildlife. The same agency that says it’s concerned about rabies risk from rehabbers apparently has no problem with hounds repeatedly biting wildlife.
The double standard in hounding is particularly brutal. Dogs are trained to chase terrified animals for hours. Bears are treed and shot. Coyotes, bobcats and raccoons are torn apart. The dogs themselves are often injured or killed.
The bottom line is that cruelty is ignored while compassionate care is punished.
Wildlife rehabilitation permits are expensive and bureaucratic. Requirements are often impractical — exacting facility standards, for example — or the process is made unnecessarily tedious and time-consuming. Aiding an animal not on the department’s limited approved list can result in prosecution or loss of license.
The “let nature take its course” hypocrisy of the department means that shooting an arrow through an animal’s skull is “hunting” — legal and encouraged. But removing that arrow and treating the wound is seen as interfering with wildlife.
The system is fundamentally broken when helping is criminalized and harming is subsidized. You would think the department would make it easier to help wildlife or at least aid in harm reduction, since the only alternatives are to witness prolonged suffering or do-it-yourself euthanasia attempts.
It is fundamentally backwards that the legal system makes killing wildlife easier than helping.
Alana Stevenson,
Charlotte, Vt.
