SmartTranscript of House Environment-2025-02-19-10:20

[Speaker 0 ]: Okay. We are live. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Right. We're gonna reconvene our morning hearing, continuing the conversation about h one thirty two. My Covey will be joining us later, and, Brenna Galganzi is joining us via Zoom. And just for those watching, representative shape and has switched sides of the room for [Representative Mike Tagliavia]: thermal reasons. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thermal reasons. She's borrowing. Representative Logan's seat, and representative Logan has been joining us via Zoom. [Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Signals. There we go. Yeah. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Brenna, are you with us? [Witness Brenna Galdenzi]: Hi. I'm sorry I can't be there. I just wanna warn folks, norovirus is no joke. So [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Hey. [Witness Brenna Galdenzi]: I plan to be there in person. So, I am Brenna Galdensi. I'm president and cofounder of Protect Our Wildlife. We're an all volunteer Vermont nonprofit organization that represents over four thousand Vermonters from across the state as well as over forty thousand social media followers. We represent a wide range of people from hunters to vegans, armorers, eighth generation Vermonters who all share in the same mission to make Vermont a more humane place for wildlife. Many of them have already written to you to support h one three two. This bill should be a bill that a broad range of stakeholders should support. But unfortunately, as we've seen before, there are concerted disinformation campaigns that attempt to convince sportsmen and women that the bill is an attack on hunting rights in general. It's created confusion and hinders our ability to debate the merits of the bill. Most recently, you know, lobbyists are informing people that the bill today, is going to ban all predator hunting, which, is not what the bill seeks to do. So I I do appreciate to testify today, on h one three two as it's written, not on what some, suspect that it might, have other, intentions. So I am going to share, if I may, my PowerPoint presentation. Annika, I had to send you a request. You should There you go. K. Thank you. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Oh, You're with me? It's kind of a I don't know. [Witness Brenna Galdenzi]: Sure. Hold on one second. Okay. Can you all see that? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Yes. [Witness Brenna Galdenzi]: Thank you. Okay. So, we are supporting, h one three two, which is a bill, that seeks to ban hunting furbearer species over bait. We support it, because of its effects on wildlife, people, and our pets. The current regulations, on the books prohibit most forms of hunting using bait. Bait is, as, counsel O'Grady shared, is already prohibited for most forms of hunting in Vermont, including for bear, deer, moose, and other species. However, hunters targeting bobcats, coyotes, foxes, and other furbearer species may use bait as well as hunt furbearers at night with the aid of thermal scopes and high-tech game calling devices. And I only mention that because prohibiting the use of bait would not ban the hunting of coyotes and bobcats. There are other ways to hunt them. Bait may bait may be even used on our shared public lands. And there's only one restriction per Vermont's hunting and trapping regulations, and I'll quote the regulation. It is illegal to hunt or take any wild animal using bait during any deer hunting season except that trappers may use bait to take fur bears. So our concerns, it presents an enforcement challenge when bait is allowed for some species but not others, which encourages illegal activity. To give an example, hunters acting illegally may use bait to hunt bears and claim they are targeting coyotes during the open season. Bear hunting season starts on September first. Coyote hunting season lasts all year, so somebody could set out a bait pile like the one seen here in Addison County and claim they're targeting coyotes when they could be targeting bears, which would be illegal. And it also makes it makes it difficult for wardens to enforce the current, baiting prohibition on the books. Another concern that we have is that baiting spreads disease among among wildlife by encouraging unnatural congregation of animals in a small area. I know Sarah Gorsline has provided a number of different scientific research papers, but here's a quote from one of them. The paper is titled impacts of wildlife baiting and supplemental feeding on infectious disease transmission risk. The quote, providing food to wildlife through supplemental feeding or baiting has great potential to negatively impact species health and represents a non natural arena for disease transmission and preservation. And a link to the study is on the bottom of this slide. Another concern that is actually shared with Vermont Fish and Wildlife regarding the spread of disease and other risks. This is something that they posted on their public Facebook page, and we agree with them. Wild by feeding also contributes to the spread of mange and other diseases by bringing individuals in close contact leading to increased spread of disease agents. While wildlife diseases occur naturally, disease spread is significantly increased when wildlife concentrations are increased at artificial feed sites, and that's exactly what, bait piles are. Another concern is the risk for the spread of the highly pathogenic avian flu, HPAI. It spreads through contaminated environments such as soil, water that has been in contact with infected birds. Infected birds can spread avian influenza through their saliva, nasal secretions, and feces. Since two thousand twenty two, HPAI has been detected in the US in bobcat, coyote, red fox, fisher, raccoon, and other wildlife or other wild mammals. And all of the species mentioned here are classified as furbearer species. The photos here were taken by a Vermont resident in Addison County. The photo on your left, shows, chickens and other animals, from a farm, that were used to bait coyotes. And then, the other photo is, pheasants that were used as bait. And important to reiterate, is that baiting for furbearers is largely unregulated. So that raises the concern, you know, what if some of these poultry, chickens and and, other livestock, you know, had HPAI were then used as bait to hunt bobcats and foxes and other furbearers, thereby spreading that, you know, to to wildlife, including birds of prey who also feed on this. So owls and hawks and protected species. So there is the issue of baiting, really being an unregulated practice. And there's a link to a study, supporting, this on the bottom of the slide. A big concern that we have is that baiting, you know, it attracts these animals, coyotes and bobcats, into public public places, including residential areas. And so Fish and Wildlife warns that feeding wildlife can habituate wild animals to people leading to dangerous conflicts. And that is something that we do agree that, you know, we don't wanna draw these animals into public spaces. And so when we hear mister Bradley talk about, you know, dangers of coyotes, well, we shouldn't be luring them into places where the public recreates. And this is a pile of perch that a Vermont citizen photographed that was used for baiting. And interestingly, the same people who complain about coyotes, bobcats, and other wildlife, causing problems are often the same people who are luring them with bait piles, and that doesn't make much sense. Another concern, it endangers pets who are lured to bait. In recent years, there have been three incidents in Vermont that we know of, involving domestic dogs that were shot by hunters over bait piles. Baits can also make pets sick, so it's not just the concern of animals being mistaken for coyotes and shot and killed, animals that are feeding off of tainted meat. Again, not knowing what that bait is since it's unregulated puts domestic animals at risk. This here is from from a Vermont game warden's report of a dog that was shot and killed over a bait pile in Barre town. Mister Boyce was there, went to his garage where he was a where he has a west facing window, which has a clear shooting lane to the bait. He took his AR fifteen rifle and looked through it with his night vision scope. He saw what he believed to be a coyote eating the bait pile, and he shot one time. The next morning, he went out to the bait pile to see if he hit the animal. He did not locate any blood or other evidence that he had hit and or injured anything. He ended up killing his neighbor's dog. And it violates, all tenants of fair chase hunting, thereby eroding the public's acceptance of a long standing tradition of deer hunting. And I know that's a concern of some of our members who are hunters and anglers, that this really is not a good image of of Vermont's hunting culture. This quote here is from an article in Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. Quote, some hunters are willing to say, if it's legal, it's ethical. But the problem with this is that neither legal nor ethical are fixed, timeless boundaries. An activity that is an honored tradition in one time in place may be or become anathema, just a few miles or years removed From public perception to concerns with diseases such as chronic waist disease, baiting is a practice that sits on this knife's edge. In the last slide, we think it would be in the interest of all stakeholders to promote hunting ethics or risk losing public support for hunting in general. This spread or this chart here, if we just wanna look at the two, ends of the chart. So we see sixty four percent represents license revenue, hunting, and angling and trapping revenue in nineteen ninety, made up sixty four percent of the department's budget. Fast forward to two thousand twenty five, only twenty seven percent of hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses make up the department's revenue. And the reason why this is important to share, is that if Vermont Fish and Wildlife and, you know, hunters and sportsmen and women want to put forth an image of hunting to attract a new generation of hunters, to encourage more people to open their lands to hunting, I think it's really important that certain practices like hunting animals over bait piles be separate from the long standing, you know, tradition of ethical deer hunting. So I think we all have something to lose if, hunting over baits continues. And that is it for my presentation. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you for your testimony. Do members have questions? I'm not seeing any. Thanks again. [Speaker 0 ]: Thank you. Thanks. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Cassie Bershock Bershock. [Speaker 0 ]: I have been in the meeting. It'll just take me a second probably to get back in. [28 seconds of silence] [Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Beautiful. Yes. I see a [Representative Mike Tagliavia]: bunch of of of witnesses or handouts here on our website from people who I don't see in the list. Are they gonna hear from them, or are they just providing [Chair Amy Sheldon]: I think they're providing written testimony. [Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Thank you. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: We don't have anyone else who's asking. [Speaker 0 ]: No. No additional people. Alright. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. My name is Cassie Bertishaw, and I am Vermont state director with Animal Wellness Action. I am here to represent the Vermont Chapter of Animal Wellness Action, which is made up of members throughout the state who support the humane treatment of animals and believe that helping animals really helps us all. The presenters before me have covered a lot of information, and I am going to focus on two points today. First, I want to touch on the risk of avian influenza relating to baiting. And second, I want to share information about non targeted animals being killed in baiting incidents. You heard from Project Coyote about the scientific study showing that baiting facilitates wildlife pathogen transmission. And I want to provide just a little bit more information about what that means in the context of highly pathogenic avian influenza, which has been front page news in Vermont and across the country. The basic problem is this, and it's been talked about. Baiting encourages the unnatural congregation of animals into small areas and puts animals in close contact with one another. Diseases certainly can occur naturally, but the spread of disease increases with that close contact. In human terms, I think of this like children attending school. The children are congregating at school in close contact with one another, and it's common for school children to have an increased likelihood of becoming sick. Across Vermont, avian influenza has been impacting a variety of animals. Last week, Commissioner Levine spoke at a joint hearing of the House Health Care and Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry Committees. He stated that since twenty two, there have been one hundred detections of avian influenza in wild birds and that five backyard flocks have been killed. Data from Vermont shows that avian influenza has been detected in a variety of wild birds in Vermont, and that includes bald eagles, red tailed pox, Canada geese, wood ducks, mallards, black ducks, and turkey vultures. Many of these birds are the types of birds who are attracted to bait set out in bait piles. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that with so much of the virus circulating, scientists worry that we may be a few mutations away from a potential human pandemic. The first US patient died from highly pathogenic avian influenza, known as h five n one, in January. The spread of avian influenza is something that, you know, I think we all want to prevent as much as possible, for the sake of wildlife, for domestic animals, and for the sake of people. The second issue that I want to cover is non targeted animals being killed in baiting incidents. This is a picture of Sadie. She's one of the dogs who you've heard has been killed in Vermont. You heard directly from Amy Stewart, and so I'm not going to retell, the story of Sadie. But I will tell you about two more incidents. In this one, Rambo was killed, by a man I'll call mister b. And, it's been mentioned mister b used an AR fifteen rifle with a knife scope to shoot Rambo from the window of his garage. He believed that Rambo was a coyote, and he did not check on the animal that he had shot. Rambo's owner learned the next day, that mister b, his neighbor, had killed Rambo. And the last incident I, want to tell you about dog deaths in Vermont, is Scout's. Scout belonged to a nearby, to to a married couple who were both Iraq war veterans, and they had let Scout out for a routine break. Scout was found about four hundred yards from Scout's home. He had been shot in the head next to a bait pile. Scout's owner shared these words. We were with her for ten years. She played an important role in our lives and helped me readjust to civilian life. And I think, you know, Amy Stewart's testimony really brought home the extreme harm, that incidents like these cause for families, for individuals, for for all the people who who love their dogs. That's great. Bait piles can lead to more than dog deaths. These new stories are from outside of Vermont, but they involve a horse being shot and also a a hunter being shot. And those are just excerpts run from the articles. She was dead ten feet from his bait pile regarding the horse, and the bait pile was in between hunters when one hunter was shot and killed. So we obviously want to avoid these outcomes. News stories like these are from Vermont. They are about the pet shootings that I briefly talked about. And news stories like these hurt the reputation of hunters in Vermont. So I'm hopeful of working together with hunters to reduce unnecessary violence so that all Vermonters can safely enjoy outdoor recreation and the outdoor recreation of of their choice. So it will come as no surprise to, all of you that many Vermonters own dogs. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, twenty eight percent of Vermont households own a dog. And public lands are for shared recreation. Yet, Vermont allows baiting furbearers on a variety of public lands where dogs are not required to be leashed. This is creating a dangerous situation. Baiting also appears to attract pets to private property. It essentially lures pets away from their owner's land and other lands where pets are lawfully allowed to recreate. And it just creates a dangerous situation that ends in tragedy, and we've seen multiple tragedies happen here in Vermont. Even when pets aren't killed, baiting can create a dangerous situation, when it attracts pets to harmful bait, such as tainted meat. So I want to introduce you to my dog. Her name is Winnie. And Winnie and I love to enjoy Vermont's outdoor recreation opportunities together. I've lived in Vermont for about ten years, and I came for law school and at Vermont Law and Graduate School, but I stayed because of the rural treasure that is Vermont and because of all the amazing recreation opportunities that are here. So that's what I wanted to share with you today. Please support h one thirty two to help keep wildlife, pets, and people safe, and I appreciate the opportunity to give this testimony. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you for your testimony. Do members have questions? Thank you again. Chris Huston, we're ready for you to join us via Zoom. [Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Great. Thank you. Can you hear me? We can. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, chairman Sheldon and house committee on the environment. My name is Chris Huston. I live in Waltham, Vermont with where my wife and I raised are now three adult thriving kids who all have a deep respect for where we live. They they fully understand that Vermont is a unique and a special place to have grown up. So we taught our kids to treat every life with respect, especially as we are a hunting family. So, you know, I wanted to share the reason today with you all, you know, why I hunt. It's really it's a way for me to connect with the natural world around me. Frankly, like, no other part of my life as an architect and a builder, this is my time to really intentionally slow down, listen, and to be astutely aware of my surroundings when I'm when I'm in the woods. My interest specifically in today's testimony is from that perspective of a lifelong white tailed deer hunter for nearly fifty years starting in New Hampshire where I grew up and and now in Vermont. I I certainly care very deeply about the animals that I hunt, and our family relies on the venison when we are successful, which is certainly not every year. I can assure you of that. I and my family are very passionate about ethical hunting practices and and the honorable treatment of our wildlife. As such, I take exception to the act of hunting fur bearing animals over bait piles. So allowing this practice to continue, in in my strong opinion, is simply sending the wrong message to the public and, I think, very importantly, to young future hunters. So as a hunting community, you know, we are endangering our future ability, frankly, to hunt as the public perception can very easily be skewed by this and other unethical hunting practices that we have in place. And I I I do not see this as a slippery slope as, some might be suggesting. Instead, I would say that as a hunting community, we must evolve. You know, why do why do we allow currently the practice of hunting fur bearing animals over bait piles and not white tailed deer, for example? The concept has been discussed, previously today, the concept of fair chase, which is also supported by many other states throughout the country, and bait hunting does not represent fair chase in any way. A quick story. After catching a neighbor of ours poaching deer, we had the opportunity to purchase forty five acres of of woodland, behind our house, where this poacher would also dump his trash while hunting. And and, yes, we posted the land as soon as we bought it to keep him out. I bring up this story because as hunters now, hosting is becoming very common practice throughout Vermont. And if we continue to dis these disrespectful practices such as baiting, we will likely see more and more land, posted and kept from from hunting access. This is precisely why the perception of the public is really important to me as a hunter, and it has always been. So I'll just leave you with this quick thought. I had two recent encounters. One was only a month ago roughly. I saw, a bobcat. And then, during the rifle hunting season, I saw two coyotes. In both situations, I saw them first before they before they saw me. I watched their grace as they hunted for their next meal as I was hunting as well. I have the utmost respect for these animals as I've stated. I would never shoot them, and I certainly would not shoot them over a bait pile. It's my strong opinion that we need to elevate hunting. We need to evolve and change with the times and understand that the vast majority of the public would not support this unethical behavior had they had they known more about it. We have to align our policy and our values, and for these reasons, I support h one thirty two. Thank you very much. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you for your testimony. Do members have questions? Alright. Not seeing any. Thanks again for joining [Representative Mike Tagliavia]: us. Thank you. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Mike Covey. [Mike Covey]: I need a smaller desk. Hello, everybody. I'm Mike Covey, executive director of the Vermont Traditions Coalition. Our take on this is that the premise behind this bill, the idea that we need to somehow bring fur rare honey in line with that of big game species is factually inaccurate. H one thirty two appears to be driven by activism, but not any biological imperative. So it's been compared to baiting of other species, and the state currently prohibits baiting a big game. Baiting waterfowl is federally prohibited under agreements in the migratory bird tree. Despite the fact that we are not currently baiting bears, however, there may come a time where that is a practical approach to managing their population levels. It's used in Maine, along with trapping and the use of pounds, and they are still not keeping their population below the level that they would like to have it at. So with currently growing populations, that may be a tool that we need to pull out of the toolbox at some point. So on its face, this bill is nothing more than an attempt to end one of the few successful methods of hunting fur bearing species, And it just places the histronics of one social group over the interests of another and needlessly restricts hunters for the edification of those opposed to hunting. You know, you've heard here already today that the folks that are asking for this bill would like to end all predator. They've been clear about that. If that's what we're gonna do, why don't we just save a bunch of time in future years and do it all at once? Why don't we have that conversation? Frankly, when we elevate one social group over another, that's the worst possible use of legislative power, and that's what this bill does. The activities that we're engaged in are not detrimental to the species. They do not remove the ability to enjoy these species through other mechanisms, but they do pri provide us access. Furbearers are not readily patterned like big gamuts. Deer bear, they go to the same place to eat night after night. You know, turkeys will go to the same strezzo. Furbearers use the entire landscape consistently looking for prey. So, you know, a bobcat that's here today, maybe fifteen miles away tomorrow or a week from now, in a single day, a coyote can travel three to ten miles. We can't hunt them the same way that we hunt other species, because they just simply and they move more erratically. The idea that it's somehow unfair to bait furbearers is frankly meaningless. The word fair has no place in a meaningful conversation about wildlife conservation or hunting. It's subjective. And so there for the number of people in this room, we all have a different concept of what fair looks like. Right? It's not an appropriate way to make law. When we make law, it should be designed around practicality and not around ideologies. Many folks, for an example, are capable of making a excellent shot on an animal that ranges of up to a quarter mile. That animal's completely unsuspecting and just going about its business. Is that fair? Some would say no, and some would say yes. The fact of the matter is it's practical to be able to do that. And if we start concerning ourselves with ideas that are not rigid, then we start opening the entire lot of interpretation in a way that it shouldn't. Many folks have stated that these types of activities, these less understood or less popular activities, are low hanging fruit. And once that low hanging fruit has been picked, they'll move on to the next thing and the next. You've heard that this is a matter of public safety and that baiting will spread disease. But for reasons that I'll go through later, that concept is pretty immaterial to this discussion. With deer, we do have scientific evidence that chronic wasting disease is spread through saliva, and we don't want them all eating off a corn pile. Right? But we still can't grow food for them. They still eat in the same general area. This just keeps them from putting their faces altogether. A greater concern for disease with furbearers is overpopulation. Among furbearers, the propensity to transmit diseases, including zoonoses, are orders of magnitude higher than among larger animals with lower rates of reproduction, and this can be exacerbated by overly dense populations. We manage furbearers differently than we manage big game because they are different animals. That's not some perceived disparity, but rather the proper approach. Furthermore, and importantly, this bill will not change the landscape of food and available food sources. Farmers will still take cows out to the back forty. State and town agencies will still have carcass dumps. Hunters will still have the refuse from their harvest to discard. Slaughterhouses will still have materials to get rid of. When we discussed lawn waste just a couple years ago, we specifically concluded that the most appropriate way to dispose of the scraps from harvested game was to place them upon the landscape and let natural processes take their course, rather than putting them in the slurry of our landfills. That hasn't changed. So this won't reduce in any way how furbearers interact with the landscape or the food sources. All it does is reduce our ability to access a resource that we utilize. If advocates are gonna be allowed to arbitrarily pontificate on the general public's ideas, then I can confidently do so when I state that the general public has expectations for this committee to deal with much more real issues facing the state of Vermont. It's a waste of time and, frankly, tiresome to continue to see this community come under attack. Lawful hunting practices are in place, and we have official wildlife department that is invested in the well-being and stewardship of our resources. If there's a problem, hunters are usually the first people that come to them and say, hey. We have a concern about this. We're not seeing fox, or we're not seeing fisher, or whatever the species may be. Because, ultimately, we are so intrinsically tied to those species that it's a distinct part of our lifestyle and a distinct part of how we identify. For too many years, hunters and trappers have been treated as second class citizens by the animal rights activists in Vermont because somehow disapproving of our lifestyle has translated into mistreating us. We've been maligned and misrepresented, personally attacked, physically attacked, harassed, and threatened, and enough's enough. Moving frivolous legislation such as one eighty one thirty two shows tacit support for the very behavior being driven by this rhetoric. You've all seen it directed at me personally this year. I don't need to go any further about that, but it's also directed at our wildlife professionals and at members of the general public. And this body can reduce that by no longer taking the time out of a busy schedule to deal with these issues that are simply ideology. Vermonters writ large are not calling for this change. There's a handful of activists that are calling for this change. Was anyone here not appalled by the statement you recently heard that we don't need to trap beavers because if they don't have enough habitat, they just eat their own young? Have you contemplated the significance of that statement? Furthermore, we have a Fish and Wildlife Department that, to my understanding, is declining to comment on this bill because they're concerned about the blowback they'll receive from anti hunting groups if they do. Let the gravity of that sink in for a minute. I know some of you have been spoken to about this. Ideologies, again, the abuse of state agencies. None of this should be a driver or an acceptable part of a discussion around wildlife management. This bill is unnecessary, and it's misguided. I understand that people who don't participate in these activities can't understand the distinction necessarily between the mechanics of them, but baiting is a very valuable approach to hunting furbearers because of their nature. I would urge the members of this committee to move on to the pressing issues that face you because you have some of the most grave issues in the state to deal with. Let's leave these bills that have no scientific or practical value on the wall, or better yet, let's have a vote on it and be done with it. Let's end it and send it to the recycling bin where it belongs. The one thing I would add, I was able to catch miss Galganzi's testimony on my way in. She did make a valid point on bears. So let's have that conversation at the board level perhaps that maybe we don't wanna allow coyote baiting during the open bear season too. It's only gonna change that by thirty days. I don't see issue with that. Simplifies things for the wardens. Seems logical. But we don't need this body's help to do that. We can do that at the Fish and Wildlife Board. You heard about some states, only two states with a closed season. Right? Connecticut closed their season at one point. And they reopened it almost immediately due to the problems that it caused in closing season during the the welting season. I believe they were required by their legislature to create a closed season. They did it during the the whelping season, and they eventually retracted that to one day as far as I recall, but don't quote me on that. I do have an email from twenty sixteen about that. It's in from Connecticut. Couple other things I caught before my previous meeting, the concept of wolves repopulating Vermont and population numbers, direct population numbers. I believe our biologists, well, I know our biologists, can give a good educational talk to this committee about the impracticality of anticipating a return of wolves to the state of Vermont based on biological reasons. I don't think that it's fair or reasonable to represent that hunting is a factor in that. So if the committee has any questions, I'm happy to take them, but I strongly urge you to put this bill down and forget about it because it has no real purpose. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thanks for your testimony. I guess I'm curious about your perceptions of fair chase and, how aiding fits into that. [Mike Covey]: I think I would reflect that on you. And my question to you would be, what is your perception of fair chase? Right? So I believe that if if a if an activity is lawful, practical, it's fair. Right? The reason that we bait furbearers is because it is incredibly difficult to hunt them by other mechanisms. The only other really effective mechanisms are the use of dogs and the use of thermals, which you've heard about repeatedly today in a negative manner. There are those who are already arguing that none of those are fair. Correct? And that's that's why that's why I say it's so subjective that it doesn't have a place in the conversation. If we ask Ms. Gaudensie what her opinion of fair is and you ask me what my opinion of fair is, they're gonna be so diametrically opposed that how do we use that to create law? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: I mean, that's what that's what law does is we we, as a society, come together and debate what's fair, and that's typically what laws are doing. But I'm not gonna debate with you. Rep representative Taglia Villa. [Representative Mike Tagliavia]: On the question of fair chase and what in hunting is fair, is it not a true statement that the only way to be successful as a hunter is to have an unfair advantage? One hundred percent. There are people who have [Mike Covey]: argued that fair chase would be if we use no tools whatsoever and had to run the animal down with tooth and claw. That's a completely unreasonable position, but it's a position that some people take. There are others who have stated that it's unethical to hunt with a bow and arrow. You know, that's that's been submitted to this committee in prior years in written testimony that it's unethical to hunt big game with a bow and arrow. You know? That's that's why these subjective ideas are so inappropriate for these conversations. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Do you know how many, animals are taken over furbearers or taken over bait piles versus other methods? And I guess I I will tell you, I no longer deer hunt myself, but I do know, and we heard just prior to you from Chris Huston, you know, many, many deer hunters that I talked to do have encounters with coyotes. Some of them shoot them, and and bobcat and all kinds of other animals while they are deer hunting. That that's pretty common. So I I'm not sure. I'm convinced that baiting is necessary for the hunting of furbearers. [Mike Covey]: I I would disagree with him. I would disagree with his statement. I dare say that I spend as much time in the woods as anybody. And I do not stick to the roadside. In fact, I needed help getting a deer out this year, and one of my friends that came to help asked me exactly what I was doing way up there. You know? And I have seen wild deer hunting, which I spend an inordinate amount of time doing. I have seen three coyotes, four coyotes, and one bobcat while deer hunting. So incidental viewing of them, I haven't seen many. That said, with other methods, I've taken eleven over the last couple of years. And I'm looking forward to the, coyote blanket that I believe you all received the picture of the beginnings of in one of your emails. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Other questions? Okay. Representative Tagliaveen. [Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Same question I asked Chris Bradley. We've had these practices for years now. We haven't seen an explosion in the population of coyote. Or have you or any of the hunters that you know seen an explosion of coyote population or a rise in coyote human conflict? [Mike Covey]: I'm not aware of any that we've seen. I know that there was a problem at Shelburne Farms. They had a great deal of coyote conflict a year or two ago. I think it was a Cross Defense did a story on it Mhmm. That they were they were enduring a great deal of coyote depredation. And I don't know if that has been adjusted or, you know, if they've managed to deal with that. But I know that they were losing a bunch of sheep at one time. I think that all parties involved in this conversation, that's one unique aspect of it. Like, when we talk about coyotes, all parties involved acknowledge that we're not doing harm to the population. You know? And we hear conversations about comp compensatory reproduction, which I've spoken with doctor Eric Gies, who developed that idea, that concept, between persecuted and unpersecuted populations, hunted and unhunted. And the bottom line comes down to healthier animals have larger litters. And shouldn't the goal for all of us be to have the healthiest possible animals on the landscape? And when we meter those populations through the activities that we engage in hunting, trapping of these fur bearers I don't dare say that we prevent unhealthiness in those populations, but we certainly have the capacity to reduce it and mitigate it. And I think that's valued. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative North. [Mike Covey]: Do you see any unintended consequences of this bill if it were enacted? Well, right now, the animals that come to these food sources are potentially being harvested. And when you remove the capacity to harvest them over these food sources that, as I've stated before, are still going to exist upon the landscape, then you are congregating them. And there is no reason for them to be cautious about going to it. And I think that creates a higher concern for disease propagation than allowing them to be harvested over the same food sources that are still gonna exist. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Austin? Yep. [Speaker 0 ]: The avian flu is, I feel like, one mutation away from jumping from animals to human, basically. That's what I'm hearing. So that adds a different that adds another element to this conversation. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that. [Mike Covey]: Again, my thoughts are that while that concern may be valid, it's also irrelevant to this conversation about whether or not we can hunt over these food sources because the food source itself is still gonna remain. You know what I mean? That the the, butcher shops are still gonna need to get rid of the refuse from their work. The farmers are still going to need to get rid of lost animals. The hunters are still gonna need to discard the refuse from the animals that they've harvested and butchered. So we're not changing the food source upon the landscape. Therefore, we're not changing the animal behavior related to it. Mhmm. So I don't think your concern is invalid. I just don't think it's applicable to the conversation about hunting over bait. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you for your testimony. [Speaker 0 ]: Thank you. Thank you. Representative Austin. Anything from fish and parlor? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: They were invited. They said they would come after. Any other thoughts or questions? Alright. That's a testimony we had scheduled for this morning. We will be back ready at one fifty.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Environment-2025-02-19-10:20

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: