 Welcome to our Friday morning meeting. We have a couple of guests with us to lead off with. We have Catherine Jennings from Fish and Wildlife, as well as Kristen Haas from the Ag Agency. They have an issue that they'd like to talk with us in regards to age 656, and they're limited on time, so we'll get right to their sections of the bill, and you could explain to us what you'd like to change. I guess Kristen, you want to start off first? Sure. Yes. Thank you. Then can you guys hear me okay? Yes. Great. Okay. So Kristen Haas with the Agency of Agriculture, thanks for the opportunity to provide the committee with a little bit of information about age 656. Specifically, there are two paragraphs in this bill that are related to or part of the what we've affectionately dubbed as the swine language in the bill. If you're looking at the bill that I'm looking at is version 3.2, and if you're looking at that bill, then these couple of spots, the first one would be on page 27 of that bill. Linda, you put up the shorter version. Okay. So this is an excerpted set of language from version 3.2 of age 656 that Linda has on the screen. So on that version, it's page 3 is the first spot. Let me just jump in here because Kristen, excuse me, but the chair wasn't with us when we met last. Okay. So I was chairing and we did not get this far in the bill. We've got about halfway through the miscellaneous bill. This is a little further, so I just don't want you to assume we're conversing in the language because we haven't looked at it yet. Got it. Thank you for that. So just maybe then to back up for a moment. This language we had requested and obviously had talked with the House-side Committee about, it stems from a desire on the part of the Agency of Agriculture, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, as well as our federal partner agency, USDA Wildlife Services, to try and get some greater clarity around a circumstance that happens occasionally and most recently happened in 2019 last year where there was a livestock owner whose pigs got out and were free roaming for a period of time. And we found in trying to manage that situation, which fortunately we were able to do collectively between those three departments, but in doing so we found identified some gaps in our regulatory authority and technical assistance authority that this language we hope will close and provide clarity for everybody. So that's sort of in a nutshell the origin of this section of the bill that you are all are contemplating. And we again worked with Michael and the House-side Committee to fine-tune this language. I think that the two items that we would still like to see changed in this draft are in effect housekeeping changes within our housekeeping bill. They're going to be more meaningful to important to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Agency of Agriculture than they will to any external stakeholders. So they really truly are housekeeping type changes. So with that being said, then on either page three of the version that Linda has posted or page 27 of the bill in its entirety, you will see the paragraph starting on line four of either of those pages. A statement about that pertains to the definition or what we would like to see for a definition of feral swine. And specifically paragraph C starting online four talks about the possibility to do genetic analysis on pigs to make a determination as to their lineage. And in talking with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, we collectively agreed that because things change over time and the labs that are available to do this testing and the type of testing that gets done changes over time. We would like to see the second sentence in that paragraph just struck to allow for flexibility if say five or 10 years in the future. It no longer is the National Wildlife Research Center that's doing this testing on behalf of these federal programs. We could then have flexibility to utilize testing capability at a different lab. So that's the basis behind wanting that level of specificity struck from this particular paragraph. It doesn't change the intent, it just makes things more flexible and allows this language to evolve along with the technology that may evolve in the future. Yeah. Any questions from the committee on this particular section and the deletion? No, I guess we're good, Kristen. OK, great. So then the second of the two things wanted to draw your attention to are either on page five of the excerpted version that Linda has up. And Linda, that's starting, yeah, the highlighted piece. Or this is on page 29 of version 3.2 of the bill in its entirety. So this section talks about basically the justification for wanting to manage escaped swine and we're not talking about pasture raised swine that are enclosed within a fence or some type of other enclosure, which is was a fairly popular way for farmers in Vermont to raise swine. What we're again talking about here would be swine that are free roaming onto public lands or other private property and the need to manage those animals. And so again, in talking with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, we would like to propose striking the second sentence in that paragraph. And the reason is because these if it is determined that there is a situation that we need to collectively manage these communications between our two departments as well as USDA wildlife services, which which plays a huge role in these types of situations, they're going to happen anyway. And we thought it redundant to mandate that in statute and take up extra room in the green books to do so when we're going to be having these conversations among our three departments and agencies regardless. So again, another sort of just clean up housekeeping proposal that that second sentence stating that are that the Department of Fish and Wildlife has to consult with these other partners that they would already be doing consultation with. We would propose to strike that not changing intent, but just getting rid of extra words. Chris Christian, as the has this issue ever come up? You said there was an issue last year. Yes, yep. It has come up a couple of times that I can recall off the top of my head. Certainly, the situation last year was was the most significant one that I can recall. And that was a circumstance where a farmer, again, pigs got out. There was not at the beginning of it, not not a lot of attention paid to trying to get them back in those pigs. Subsequently, we're doing damage on other private property, neighboring properties. We got a number of calls from disgruntled neighbors of this farmer. The pigs also, I believe, were on public land as well, although not to the same extent as on private property. It's it's it was resolved. Fortunately, the owner was cooperative and we worked, I think, very well with him to get his pigs back in. He did not lose any pigs, which was a success. But we do feel that there we we spent a fair bit of time at the beginning of that situation, trying to navigate with our our attorneys. And perhaps Catherine can can speak to this better than I can. But navigate with our attorneys to try and determine what our authority is to intercede and and get get the situation resolved. So that was that was sort of the most notable one. There have been other circumstances and I I didn't see this myself, but I know in other parts of the state and at least two on at least two occasions, there have been domestic pigs that have been out and have have allegedly again, I didn't witness this myself, but have allegedly created some problems with kids at the school bus and chasing kids at the school bus and that sort of thing. So at the bus stop. So, yes, it has happened before and and last year's incident really put the icing on the cake for us and and and bumped the situation up further in our priority list. And would you characterize the approach that you all have and the feds have as being the same approach? Or are there different sort of lines that trigger reactions? I guess I'm I'm trying to think as as our colleague, Senator McDonald reminds us occasionally we should think of these things as eighth graders. And what are you trying to slyly change here if we don't require consultation with the federal partner? So how would you characterize your approach? Is it identical? Are there differences, etc.? That's a great question. And I'm I'm glad you asked it because it's important, I think, to have on the record. And what I would say is that our federal partners, wildlife services and they have offices here in in state and human beings in state. We work with them regularly. They are not a regulatory agency. They they don't have a hammer in their arsenal. They have they can provide technical assistance. They can they have the expertise and the equipment to catch pigs and perform other tasks as well. So I think collectively our goal with the situation that happened last year and going forward would be first and foremost to try and work with the owner to get the pigs back in a contained area. And that is a uniform philosophy amongst all of us. So we're not talking about anything more aggressive than that at the outset. And as long as we have a situation where the farmer is willing to work with us, then that's the goal. I mean, I'm glad it wasn't videoed, but I I remember distinctly sitting in this farmer's field and on the side of a trap and doing what he described as his pig call to get the pigs to come over to us so we could get them back in the trap. So we went to great lengths to not harm any of these pigs and not leave things in a bad situation. So that, yes, that has been an approach and it's consistent between state and federal. And again, I don't know if Catherine has any thing more to add to that, but that's how I would characterize it. I would wager that that video would have made you a Vermont celebrity. I'm glad it doesn't exist. And I'm going to get back for it for a long time by our wildlife services partners, that's for sure. So I'm glad it doesn't exist. Well, can you recreate it? No, I can't, I think. I remember seeing, well, I remember a lot of things, but one thing I remember seeing is David Alibann, who's the state director for wildlife services, just turning his head away. So he was kind of catty corner away from me so I could see his side and his back and his shoulders were just going like this because he was silent laughing at me. And I said, if you ever share this with anyone. So anyway, that was how that went. So did you catch them or not catch them? We did catch them, it worked. Yeah, yeah, it worked, we did catch them. I'll tell you what, those, I mean, an adult pig is a formidable animal. So yeah, we caught them, but they weren't happy about it. And they were doing quite well being out in the neighbor's property, rooting up their garden and all sorts of stuff. So, yeah. So in the bill where it says the department, does that, that means ag? And then you work with Fish and Wildlife, is that the way that's gonna work or? It actually, in the bill in this section, the reference to department is the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Okay, so that's Catherine's section. Yes, and the reason it is in this bill is because of the intersect and the types of animals that we're talking about, being domestic pigs. We have had feral swine in Vermont, but not very many, so. Be sure that you don't wanna take a second bite the apple, so you're gonna have Catherine go and catch them the next time. I would welcome Catherine's involvement in that. I don't know that, I'll leave that to her as to whether that would be on her bucket list for a career accomplishment, I don't know. So Catherine, do you have anything to add at this time? I don't believe that I am as qualified as our state veterinarian as Kristen to take on such tasks, so that's number one. Just as from a very simplistic point of view, the Wildlife Services and the Department of Fish and Wildlife really have jurisdiction over wild animals. And obviously, Ag has jurisdiction over domestic animals. And so this bill in part really defines when a domestic animal can be controlled and under what circumstances. We obviously always want to return a domestic animal back to its owner. But we also need to have clear sort of lines of communication and authority to address those situations where a domestic pig becomes feral and where we can actually define what constitutes a feral pig. So that's what this bill does and we're very supportive of it. And I think given that pigs are really smart and can cause a lot of damage when they're out there in the wild for a long period of time. I think both the agency and the department think that this is a really effective way to move forward. Thank you. Are there questions? Good morning, Ruth. Good to see you. There are other questions in regards to these two changes within 6.56. Ruth? Yeah, sorry, I was late. I was in a childcare committee hearing. But is it just the pigs? Or was there another change that Kristen was proposing or on a different type of animal? It's just pigs. It's just the pigs, just two little pieces within the pig language of 6.56, yes. Awesome, awesome. It's good to make sure we're getting this under control. I know in other states it's been a huge issue with domestic pigs turning feral. So thanks for addressing this. Yeah, and all it does really is it takes out the references to the federal fish and wildlife people and gives it to our agencies and which they're in communications with constantly anyways. So yeah, they're pretty, how come the house, oh, you didn't get to the house in time to get this changed? Is that right, Kristen? Yeah, that's how I would summarize it. There were a lot of different, this is a long bill and I know there were a lot of different pieces floating around and we did provide testimony on this section of the bill, but yeah, I think it just got lost in the shuffle. So we're hopeful that you will be willing to incorporate it here on the Senate side. You could blame that on me. The agencies asked for it to be removed and I didn't do it. The language was moving in two different bills. I took it out in one bill and I didn't take it out. Well, I'm sure that it was just an oversight. It wasn't because you were busy or an act, right, Michael? It was my fault. I'm gonna take the blame. Michael, I thought you had to do your best pig call. It was kind of crazy at the end of when we were in Montpelier to put crossover and all of that. So we'd be glad to take care of those changes. I don't see any questions from any of the committee members. So thanks for bringing that forward and Michael will make the adjustments and we'll move on. So... Thank you very much. Anything else from either of you? Nope. Can I ask you a question? I know at the end, before everything hit the fan, there was, you were in, we had a joint hearing, I think. I'm just remembering in room 10 and we were talking about the animal closure bill or... Animal shelter. Animal shelter bill. Is that a thing still? Is that coming to us? Did that... We have that, we have that bill, I think it's 254, something like that as H-254 and we'll be, we'll be dealing with that bill along with 656. Okay. So we'll have Kristen back in on that one then. And then... If there, do you recall, Kristen, if there's any changes that we need to address in that part of the bill? I don't recall any. I know that we, as Senator Hardy mentioned, the last time I think we provided input was during that joint meeting and it was with the livestock, care standards advisory council members and we went through at that point a couple of, again, small, seemingly nitpicky but meaningful changes and I believe that those were incorporated. So I'm not aware of any further changes that need to be made to that and it's good to know that you will be taking it up. Yeah, I put both of those bills on our list that we wanted to deal with and so. And was there, there was also the issue that came up in that meeting about the calves, the baby calves situation and you were gonna come with some recommendations perhaps or talk about it with that livestock advisory council and I'm wondering if there's anything that you're recommending that we could put into this bill or is there already something somewhere that's drafted? I don't know. There's not any recommendation at this point and there is nothing drafted that I'm aware of. Oddly enough in the midst of all of the state of emergency and the crisis that we're all in, I've gotten reports back from one of our animal health specialists who does the market reporting at the livestock market here in Vermont as well as over in Cambridge, New York and he's reporting that in this, maybe won't be a permanent change but that things are seeming a little bit better with the calves at the moment. I think partially driven by the fact that the prices for cold dairy as well as calves have come up a bit so people have responded a bit to those market drivers and have been at least anecdotally seem to be hanging on maybe to those calves a little bit longer. So I think we need to do some more work within the livestock council to determine whether a legislative fix is really the best way to go or whether that is something that the market will drive and the education and providing outreach to folks is a better solution. So we haven't forgotten about it but nothing to recommend at this point. Great, thank you. Yeah, thank you both for being with us this morning and when we get to these sections, well, Michael's with us anyway, so he's got it under control and so we'll deal with it and thank you both very much. Thank you for your time. Yeah. Appreciate it. Bye. Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome, bye. So getting back to Chris where you guys left off on 656, did you want to pick up at that point? And maybe, yeah, and Michael you have where the committee left off on running through 656 the other day. Ruth, would you be able to meet on Tuesday into the noon hour? We're gonna have, Anson can come and meet with us. I tried to get him on earlier to talk about the Recovery Act but he's gonna be tied up, he said with the governor's office so I was wondering, he can be with us at noon time on Tuesday and if you could work through the other four, three can work through the noon hour to some point. I shouldn't think it would take more than a half hour or so. Yeah, that's fine. I can do that. So would we start at noon or start right after the floor? Well, we're gonna start right after the floor on Tuesday with our committee meeting. Okay. And then, but we'd have to run a little bit into the noon hour to accommodate Anson. That sounds good. And the main reason I'd like to do it Tuesday is because Wednesday we've got a joint meeting was set up from ACCD in regards to the recovery money and that's gonna be Wednesday and I think it'd be good for us to be versed on the ACCD stuff prior to getting into that meeting. So that's where we are and we'll move forward. Any questions on that from anybody? No. So we'll get right back to where you folks left off I think on Wednesday maybe. Hello, good morning, Michael. Looks like you had a good shave this morning. Yes, yes. How are you feeling? How would the operation go? They just took my eye out and I've got a little black patch. I'm gonna be able to, no, it went very well. Yeah. I can actually read without glasses now and well, as good as I can read. No, it went very well and my eye is sore but that isn't a problem. I can see really well with it. That's great. Good to hear. And so anyways, I'm glad to be back and rocking and rolling. So on Wednesday, you stopped, the committee stopped on page 17, section 16 of the version of the bill that's posted on the committee's website. I'm hoping that Linda can put that up on the screen or make me a co-host so I can share. Here it comes. Before you start, Michael, are you going through a section and then discussing it to see if it's fine and okay or are you just going through it without too many questions? I've been summarizing it for the committee. There have been questions. Leave it to the vice chair to say if you've been approving it or not. Chris, have you been like okay in these sections as we went or questioning sections if committee members had questions and gonna go back to them or maybe Chris is missing? There he is. All right, sorry. We were just sort of rolling through it, understanding what they were doing and I think not actually having a lot of questions but we would have been doing them as we went. Is that what your question is? Yeah, and sort of approving them or needing or asking Michael to put a check mark there. We gotta go back and fix something or talk about something. We wouldn't have dared to do that without you, Mr. Chair. Come on. You know I've got a lot of faith in you guys. So anyways, well- So now we were just cruising through it for an initial introduction. That was- Okay, so sorry to interrupt you Michael but let's go. So you're on section 16, page 17. There would be a new section that would be added to the Ag Water Quality chapter. Currently, there are farms that are importing onto their farm, things like food, residuals and putting it into their digester or into their manure pit. The Agency of Natural Resources was previously tracking that but their authority is over waste and they've come to revisit their opinion about whether or not this material is waste. They've now concluded that it's not because it is subsequently being used as either a production input for a digester or for nutrients in a manure pit. So they're no longer going to track it. The Agency of Agriculture would continue to like to track it and know when it's happening. So the first thing the section does is define what they're going to track. They're going to track non-sewage waste any waste other than sewage that may contain organisms, pathogenic human beings what does not mean stormwater runoff. And so that's basically going to be food substrates and some things like glycerin and other things that may be put into these digesters or manure pits. It's not going to extend the Agency's jurisdiction over the land application of sewage and biosolids, A&R is going to continue to regulate that. So then you go down to sub B, the Secretary of Ag may require a person transporting or ranging for the transported non-sewage waste to a farm for deposit in a manure pit or for use in a digester to report to the Secretary one or more of the following, the composition of the material, including its source and the volume of the material. And then after receipt of that report, the Agency may prohibit the import of non-sewage waste onto a farm upon a determination that the import would violate the nutrient management plan for the farm or otherwise present a threat to water quality. So why is stormwater in there? Because I know Ag does non-point, right? And A&R does point source. So why is there a reason why stormwater is listed in there? Right, so there are, you would think everyone would know what sewage is and that there would be a uniform agreement of what sewage is, but there's a few different definitions of sewage in statute and this is to clarify, one of those definitions says that sewage includes stormwater and so they just wanted to be clear that for the purposes of this definition, sewage isn't going to include stormwater runoff under 10 days, 1264. It's because of the multiple different definitions of sewage that are in statute and being clear that it's not gonna include the one that has stormwater in it. Yeah, thanks. Okay. What, could we scroll up, Linda? What, thank you. So there's a, I'm just noticing this step here. The agency may require, actually scroll a little bit more, Linda, thank you. May require a person transporting a ranging transport that basically they have access there to understand what is being transported and after that, they can intervene. Correct. But that hinges to the transport, not the act of burning something in the digester and I'm just, it just seems a little, I'm intrigued like if it was my digester and I was transporting, can you just help us understand why that's the only nexus? Well, the digester's already regulated. Okay. The production of energy from agricultural inputs on a farm is farming and it's regulated by the agency. It also has some overlapping regulation with if it's connected to the grid, to the PUC. So, There are things like air quality. There are some requirements for digesters in air quality. I'd have to go back and revisit them. My recollection is, I don't even wanna, I had to go back and revisit the air quality. It's been a couple of years since I looked at that. But somebody's on top of that, you think? There are requirements for the missions from a digester. I don't even wanna characterize the scope of them because it's been so long since I've looked at them and I had to go back and double check that. I can do that for you. I'll make a note to do that. It's okay. You don't need to do that work out. But so going back to the transport then, that's really the avenue. Right. So it's basically the method for them to monitor the income or the import of the material onto a farm. If they don't want it coming in because it would violate the nutrient management plan for the farm, that's what they would do. They would prohibit that transport onto the farm of that material. If it's going to create a water quality problem, they would prohibit its transport. See that, I don't know, that's been an issue with putting milk in manure pits. It changes the makeup of the manure pit. And so when that happens, it alters the manure management plan to spread how much to spread on fields. And probably this is the same issue. Right. They have to account for the nutrients in the material. And if those nutrients are going to somehow lead to a violation of the plan, then the material shouldn't be imported onto the farm. And if the transporter resists and does not provide that information, what happens then? The agency has its general enforcement authority under Title VI, Chapter I, for any violation of any law that administers and enforces. To halt. Yeah, they have the authority to issue an order to stop. And they have the authority to assess penalties. It's their full suite of their general authority, enforcement authority. Thank you. And Michael, in this section here, what about our food residuals that farmers transport to their farms for chickens? Is this only waste that's going into the pit or can we use, could we use this section for something to deal with our food residuals for chickens? Well, this is only for the transport. And you'll see that in Sub-B to a farm for deposit in a manor pit or in a methane digester. This section and the food residuals for composting, the agency I think would like to have a broader authority or kind of a residuals management program on farms, not just food residuals or these non-suage waste, but there's the ag plastics and things of that nature that they would, and you may hear from them at a future date about giving them authority to establish a program like that. But right now this is just focused on those non-suage waste coming to a farm for a manor pit or a digester. Yeah, that damn plastic gotta be taken care of somehow. We've had an awful time for years with that. But anyways, let's roll. Okay, then moving on to the next section. This is a change to Title IX and the definition of what is local for the purposes of food. And I think, I haven't been in your committee on the school nutrition bill this year, but I think you probably have had some discussions about what is local. Currently, this is a consumer affairs definition. It means that the goods being advertised originated within Vermont or 30 miles of the place where they are sold. And so the agency is thinking that that there needs to be some greater detail and specificity for the type of product in defining what is local. So they have proposed after coordination with the attorney general who enforces the consumer affairs provisions. They have proposed this change to what is local. First thing they're gonna do is they're going to add some additional terms. So it's not just local, it's now local to Vermont, locally grown or made in Vermont. And then you should look at the definitions of what is a processed food. It's any food other than a raw ag product and includes a raw ag product that has been subject to processing, which includes canning, cooking, dehydrating, milling or the addition of other ingredients. And it includes dairy, meat, maple, beverages, fruit or vegetables that have been subject to processing, baked or modified into a value added or unique food product. So that's what processed food is. And I bring this up because there's gonna be different standards for different types of food. So a raw ag product is any food and it's raw or natural state without added ingredients, including pasteurized or homogenized milk, maple, sap or syrup, honey, meat, eggs, apple cider and fruits or vegetables that may be washed cold or otherwise treated in their unpeeled, natural form prior to marketing. So that brings you over to Sub-B and Sub-B, you'll see that the new term. Michael, can I just interrupt? I just want to, can you reiterate the milk situation? So milk as we know it, buying, as consumers know it, buying it in the grocery store in those plastic jugs, that would be considered a raw agricultural product? Yes. Okay, even though it's not technically raw milk. Correct. Okay, got it. Okay, thank you. Okay. So the first thing you'll see in Sub-B is those new terms local to Vermont or made in Vermont. And then you'll see the old standard for what is local being struck. And then you'll see that it has to have the following meaning based on the type of food or food product. So the first one is for raw agricultural products, local to Vermont. That means the product was exclusively grown or tapped in Vermont is not milk and was derived from an animal that was raised for a substantial period of its lifetime in Vermont is milk, where a majority of the milk was produced from Vermont animals or going on to the next page is honey produced by Vermont colonies located exclusively in Vermont when all nectar was collected. And then you go down to the next. And so this is what for products that are processed food local to Vermont means the majority of the ingredients are raw ag products that are local to Vermont and a product meets one or both of the following. The product was processed in Vermont or the headquarters of the company that manufactures the product is located in Vermont. So you can have the majority of the ingredients that are raw ag products that are local to Vermont and the product was processed out of state but the headquarters of the company and manufacture the product is located in Vermont. Who's gonna, indeed Michael, who's gonna be the bee police? The bee police? The bee police to make sure all the nectar was collected in Vermont. Well, most of these, well, first let's step back. What is this definition gonna be used for? It's gonna be used in one respect for the consumer protection aspect of it so that people aren't out there marketing products as local to Vermont or local Vermont products are made in Vermont when they aren't actually made in Vermont or local to Vermont. The attorney general has addressed those issues in the past people have labeled or marketed their products in a way that potentially deceiving and leading a consumer to believe that it was made in Vermont. So I expected that type of scenario or that type of act will continue and the attorney general will be able to use this to provide more specificity or detail in their enforcement. And that enforcement largely is consumer driven. I remember when Elliot Bird was at the attorney general's office, he brought into the committee things like the one I remembered distinctly is he brought in waffles that were made in Japan that said that they had Vermont maple syrup. And it was clearly not Vermont maple syrup. And so there are products out there that are just plainly mislabeled and he got a complaint about it and he tried to follow up with enforcement. So I think you'll still see that type of dynamic. What this is also going to be used for is to help the agency and potentially nutrition programs and food, local food programs kind of build boundaries about what is local and bringing it a little bit more home to Vermont and more specific to each of these products. I think that's a key part of why the agency wants to change this because I think they wanna to have a greater focus on what it means to be made in Vermont for specific types of products. Yeah, any other questions? Yeah, I have a question. So I wanna talk to me about the headquarters of the company is located in Vermont. So one of the things that comes to mind is hood milk. A lot of the milk is created in Vermont, is milked in Vermont, then it leaves. This is coming up in school, local buying local in school lunches all the time. I don't think that they are headquartered in Vermont but they do have a company, a presence in Vermont. So was that deliberate? I believe it was deliberate. I think it's about having a Citus that the company is a Vermont company and not just a branch of a Texas company. So hood is not headquartered in Vermont and it's not processed in Vermont. So this hood, for example, would not meet this criteria. But Cabot is, some of it's processed in Vermont, some of it's processed out of Vermont, but are the headquarters technically in Vermont or are they in New York now? Cabot, I don't know that answer. Are they used in Vermont? I don't know that answer. They used to be headquartered in Vermont. I don't know if they currently are headquartered. But they're owned by Agra Mark. Agra Mark. Organized in Delaware. I don't know where they're actually sent. I think they're headquartered in Mesh. Yeah, that's what I think too. Oh really? I thought it was Syracuse, New York or something like that. But we had this conversation about butter, Cabot butter and whether that counted when we were doing the school foods bill. No, their butter comes out of Mesh. Yeah, it does. Their butter is gonna be a processed food and we haven't gotten to the processed food, right? Oh, I see, okay. Actually, no, that is, we just walked through the processed food, I'm sorry. That is, this is the definition, I'm sorry. Okay. So let's talk about Cabot Cheddar then, which is made in Vermont from Vermont milk. Does that count? But they're not headquartered in Vermont. Well, I'm not so sure that, well, some Cabot Cheddar is made in Vermont, some is not. Yeah. So the product needs to be one or both of the following, right? So if it was processed in Vermont, it is local. Okay. Yeah. Any other questions? No, go ahead. Okay, Michael. Moving down to bakery products, beverages or unique food products. It has to, the product is, it has to meet two or more of the following. The majority of the ingredients are raw agricultural products that are local to Vermont. Substantial transformation of the ingredients in the product occurred in Vermont for the headquarters of the company that manufactures the product is located. In Vermont. Yeah. Any questions? Good. All right. So then when referring for this consumer affairs, consumer protection aspect of the chapter, when referring to products other than food, local and any substantially similar term shall mean that the goods being advertised originated within Vermont. Yeah. All right. Moving on to D. And this is kind of a, with the geographic location, how you can use a terminology or reference to geography and how that would be appropriately used. So local, locally grown or made in substantially similar terms, maybe used in conjunction with a specific geographic location provided that the specific geographic location appears as prominently as the term local and the representation of origin is accurate. So if a local representation refers to a specific city or town, products shall have been grown or made in that city or town. A local representation refers to a region that precisely defined political boundaries, the product shall have been grown or made within those boundaries. If local representation refers to a region that's not precisely defined by political boundaries and the region shall be prominently described when the representation is made or the product shall have been grown or made within 30 miles of the point of sale, measured directly point to point. Anyone have questions about that? Yeah. I could think of New England would, you'd wanna maybe put it on your box of crackers, but help us understand is this envisioning a hyper local, Burlington beer or, you know, throw a yogurt like what help us understand a little bit. So I think it's both a hyper local issue and it's both that the issue of some of the products are being sold in areas where you wanna say local to the upper valley. And it may have been produced in New Hampshire or you wanna say local to, you know, the Connecticut River Valley. And again, it could be New Hampshire, it could be Massachusetts. So a farmer that goes to a farmer's market can say that their product is local, even though it was produced in Massachusetts, right? Cause if it's 30 miles from the point of sale, then that's a legitimate assertion of the local nature of the product. All right, that's helpful. Okay. So this, I'm sorry, Brian, didn't mean to jump. Just a quick one. Does that mean that it could cross international borders as well as long as it's 30 miles? That's a great question. I think technically reading this language, yes. I think someone wanted to say that it was local to the, I don't even know what they would use as the region. I don't even know if it would be a reference. I mean, local to the border, I don't know. Okay. I like the region, the Northeast Kingdom, Richie Westman down LaMoyle County, which isn't part of the Northeast, they're always trying to work into our region with something. So we would keep LaMoyle out that way. Michael, I know you weren't in our committee when we were talking about the school lunch bill, but this was one of the issues was the 30 miles. And this would, if in some circumstance, we were making requirements about buying school food that would have to be local, if there's a school district on the border of New York and they're buying their apples across the border and that we wanted to be able to include as local, this is the provision that would establish that as local. Is that correct? I think you could, yes, I think you could use this and say, well, first I believe schools have the, to have the authority under federal audit to find what is local for themselves. But then you can set whatever the benefit is for the benefit you're gonna provide, you can set what local is for that benefit. And I think you could say that food that's grown, that meets subsection D would qualify for that benefit. Okay, great, thanks. Yeah. Next section. There's an inventory exception at the end, a person, a company who sells or markets food impacted by the section shall have until January, 2021 to utilize existing product labels or packaging to come into compliance with the requirements. This just gives them the ability to use their existing inventory of labels. Should I move on? Yeah. Then you get into the wait and measures. Yeah, just a second. Do you think that date is out far enough so that companies can use up their inventory or packaging? Because if we don't get this done and well be done by July one, I guess. So six months is, do you think six months is long enough? You know, that'll probably depend on each producer. I know some people have a buy their labels in kind of a year supply. Yeah. So, I think that's a- We may wanna think about that date. Yeah, we may wanna make it like correspond with the fiscal year, but we don't need to change it. You know, like until June 30th of 21, instead of January one, because of labels that people have bought. Yeah, I would be okay with that, especially given the pandemic circumstances and supply chains being a little funky and stuff. So, would you like to move that date to July one of 21? Is that okay? Committee, any concerns? Good. Fine with me. Finally. Sure. Yeah, so why don't we do that, Michael, and that'll give them a year at least to utilize their packaging and stickers and all that good stuff. Okay. We'll do. Thank you. So, moving on into section 18, this is about weights and measures. As I think the committee knows, the agency of AG is the entity that enforces weights and measures, which includes all scales, weights, scanners, pretty much everywhere throughout the state. One of the issues that they're having is that when they go to inspect a scale or other type of mechanism, that the owner is not making that available for them to inspect. Yeah, they had a wicked trouble last year with some, I think it was an oil dealer trying to check their oil meters. Can you stroll that up a little bit more so we can read the, yeah. Thanks. So what is being added, and I think, Linda, you need to scroll up a little bit more, is to give the agency the authority on request by the secretary, the owner or person responsible for a weighing or measuring device shall make the device available for inspection during that business's normal operating hours and shall provide reasonable assistance that's determined by the secretary to complete the inspection. So this addresses those situations. It's happened with oil scales. It happened with some truck scales where the people were not being cooperative and now they have authority to require it. And then that goes hand in hand with section 19. The penalties that exist in law right now that the agency has for violation of weights and measures, they are fines and imprisonment. So that there are criminal penalties and the agency is a little bit reluctant to assign criminal penalties for some of these violations. So they've asked for administrative penalty authority and the ability to suspend a regulated entity's license. So in addition to other penalties, the secretary may assess administrative penalties for each violation of the weights and measures chapter. That reference to six BSA section 15, that's the agency's default administrative penalty authority, max distinct violation is a thousand and then the max total penalty I think is 15,000 but let me check. And you're, scroll that up more. There we go. Now the max total penalty would be 25,000. That's if you have a continuing violation each day's continuance can be a thousand dollar penalty. So that's basically what they're doing. They wanna have the authority to request or require the person that's in charge and control of a scale to present it and cooperate with its inspection. And then they wanna have some administrative penalty authority and the ability to suspend or revoke a license issued under title nine for any violation of the chapter. Michael, until this language, they've been powerless. It's been a basically a volunteer. No, they're not powerless. Their authority is criminal authority. Yeah. They would have, right. There's imprisonment contemplated in that chapter for violation of the weights and measures provisions, which in some instances can be appropriate. You know, there are stores that have intentionally rigged their scanners or scales to provide them with a economic advantage. But the agency also wants some ability to assess non-criminal penalties. And that's what they're asking for. Yeah. I think that's a good move because then like that oil dealer, he would just go and hide on them and not get back to truck out of the building so they could check the gallonage. And that's all polluting in. I think that's probably a good move because if you're down in Bennington County or way off and that's the last place you've got to inspect and then you come back to Montpelier and you've got to go way down, you know, travel 150 miles or 100 miles to test that one outlet that makes it kind of miserable. Michael, with this... Sears. Sorry, Chris, go ahead. I think they can call Sears. He'll take his gallon jug down there. Yeah. I don't think we see that well long. Michael, does that... This doesn't eliminate the possibility for criminal penalties. It just adds the administrative penalties. Is that right? It just adds the administrative penalties. You can see on page 22 in addition to other penalties provided by law. Got it, okay. So those criminal penalties still remain available to the agency. Okay, thanks. Okay. So moving on from weight to measures, you come to the Vermont Ag Credit Program. I think you all know what the Ag Credit Program is at VITA. One of the issues that's arisen is that as more farms get into farm tourism, they may need some financial assistance to set up their farm tourism operation, but the way that the statute is written for the Ag Credit Program, what they can provide financial assistance for technically doesn't include agritourism. And you see that definition of a farm operation. That's what they fund currently. And if you read that definition, you'll see that it technically doesn't include any agritourists. So what this section does is it ends that definition to say farm operation shall also mean the operation of an agritourism business on a farm subject to regulation under the RAPs. So if you're a farm subject to RAP regulation and you have an agritourism business, VITA can provide you financial assistance. Yeah, I think that's a good move. Yeah, are you guys all set with that? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, very good. Moving on, this goes back to the testimony that you received at the beginning of this meeting from the agency in the Department of Fish and Wildlife. This is about the Farrell Swine Authority. The agency summarized why they are looking for it because they have had some instances of escaped domestic pigs and some instances of actual Farrell Swine from a captive hunt facility in New Hampshire crossing the Connecticut. And they want the ability, the specific ability or authority to address those threats. So going to page 25, this is an amendment to title 10. This is Department of Fish and Wildlife Authority for the Transport, Importation, Possession and Stocking of Wild Animals. So the first thing that's done, there is already a requirement that the Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife must issue a permit for the importation or possession of certain live species of wild animals. And that includes Farrell Swine on top of page 25. And then there's a definition or really a further definition of what Farrell Swine is. And it will now include a domestic pig that is outside of an enclosure for more than 96 hours and is free roaming on public or private land. So in that scenario that Dr. Haas described earlier, if those pigs weren't recaptured and enclosed, there would be some authority for the departments to deal with that. Farrell Swine as well. That's a very short time though, four days in there Farrell. Yes. That's a pretty short period of time to classify a domestic pig to be wild. Farrell, isn't it? This is a recommendation of both the agency and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. I don't believe the House really talked about the time period when they're out of the enclosure. I mean, I don't know, but what do you folks think? Four days is pretty quick, Brian. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to hear from Dr. Haas, I guess if I'm reading that, it means that 95 hours would still be a domestic pig, but once they turn that 96th hour or something happens and I don't know what it is that happens or why it's not a week. So she must have a reason, I just don't know what it is. Yeah, make a check mark there, Michael and Linda and we'll get them back in because that seems pretty quick to me that a domestic animal would turn to be a wild animal but any other, see, Chris and Ruth, I can't see you on the screen the way it's set up, so if you have a question, just jump in. Okay, I have a comment. Reading this 96 hours does seem short and I wonder what the switch is like Brian does. On the flip side, my understanding from talking to one of our colleagues who represents the district where those pigs did get out is that there was a little bit of foot dragging about catching them and they did quite a bit of damage over the course of four or five days. So it may also be just, if the pigs are out for four days, they can really rip up a bunch of people's gardens and do a lot of damage. So it may not be something that changes in the pig but just a time period after which they really, providing an incentive for the owner to corral them. But yeah, I think hearing from Kristen or others might be helpful for our understanding. Yeah, and we didn't ask if there was administrative penalties on this either. I don't think earlier today. Are there Michael? So this is in title 10. And in title 10 part four, these are fish and wildlife violations. Fish and wildlife violations are criminal violations unless they are designated as a minor fish and wildlife violation. So anything in part four in title 10 is a criminal violation. See, that's, yeah, it's pretty, I mean, that's really bad. That's where you go to jail. We may wanna talk to them when they come in about doing something about an administrative penalty for pigs that are out for more than 96 hours or something like that when we chat with them. Well, I wanna put a finer point on what I just said. Everything I just said is accurate, but this section really isn't about and imposing a penalty on anyone. It's about giving the department of Fish and Wildlife and the Agency of Agriculture authority to deal with feral swine. They feel that it's not clear in statute what they are authorized to do. The existing animals livestock at large provisions in title 20, the public safety chapter, this is public safety title. They are very antiquated. They include things like if your cow gets out and damages the cap town common that you have to pay $2 to the town. And that's a pretty fair deal. So they're looking for something that's very specific about feral swine and the threat of feral swine. And that's really what this is about. It's not about imposing a penalty on that farmer. It's about giving the department and the agency authority to deal with the threat. And Michael, are they completely barred from doing something on the 70th hour? Like I gather it's a sort of right of possession almost that changes after 96 hours. So if they had to take the swine down, they'd be within their rights or whatever. But like if the farmers engaged with them after 12 hours, are they allowed to be part of that? Can you just help us understand some of that, Daniel? Well, part of why they want authority is because under title 13 animal cruelty law, the killing of an animal that is not yours without the permission of the legal owner is animal cruelty. And it may even qualify as aggravated animal cruelty, which has up to I believe a 10 year prison sentence. So they wanna be clear that they have this authority and that they're not going to violate animal cruelty laws. It is discretionary authority. It's not if the clock tolls 96 hours and one minute that they're gonna go out and kill. The animals, it just gives them that authority. They would prefer to work with the farmer, but if a farmer is unable or unwilling to work with them, I think they want the ability to manage the issue after that 96 hour. And that's just for the domestic pigs that have escaped their include. There are animals that are, and you'll see the characterizations on page 25 sub B. There are animals that are not domestic that exhibit or actually they may have been domestic, but now exhibit one of the following skeletal characteristics. If they have an elongated snout, they have shoulder structure, the razor back, they have hind quarters proportionally smaller than the four quarters, and they have visible tusks. So apparently domestic swine, if they remain out of their enclosure for prolonged periods of time, can develop those characteristics and then can breed those characteristics. And then there is the language that you saw a little earlier, an animal that's genetically determined to be a Eurasian wild boar, Eurasian wild boar domestic pig hybrid. This is the language that the agencies have asked to strike that reference to testing conducted by the National Wildlife Research Center. Yeah. But there are animals in the United States that have been imported here for the purposes of hunting that have escaped their enclosure and that are Eurasian wild boar. You may have seen the picture of the super hog that someone hunted or took like two years ago. It was close to a thousand pounds and taller than a six foot man kind of thing. And so there are animals out there predominantly in the Southeast, but as I said earlier, there's a captive hunt facility in New Hampshire where some of these hogs are located. Yeah. Should I move on? Yeah, we need to get done about 20 after so people can get ready for the floor at 1130. All right, so let's go to page 26 sub four. And this is really the authority that's granted. Any furrowed slime may be removed or destroyed by the department, the agency of AG or USDA's APHIS Wildlife Services. The department shall notify the agency prior to removal and then the department shall notify the agency of AG of the disposition of the feral swine. Any person who kills a feral swine shall report to the state game warden and shall present the carcass to the warden within 24 hours. And the state or its designee shall not be liable for any damages or claims associated with the removal or destruction of feral swine provided that the actions of the state were reasonable and that the removal or destruction of feral swine shall be deemed reasonable or the department acted in accordance with subdivision four, the notice provisions. The department determines that the swine as a threat to public safety has harmed or posed a threat to any person or domestic animal, has damaged private or public property or has damaged or is damaging natural resources or the department determines that the swine constitutes or could establish a breeding feral swine population in the land. And that last subdivision five, that's where the agency wants to strike the consultation with APHIS. Yeah. Then you get to- Go ahead Michael. Section 22, that amends the animal cruelty chapter to say that activities regulated by the department of fish and wildlife including the act of destroying feral swine in accordance with the authority you just walked through is not animal cruelty. Yeah. And then the last feral swine section is putting a section in the public safety title that the general assembly finds feral swine to have potential to create damage or destruction and later the potential impacts of feral swine, the department of fish and wildlife may destroy or euthanize a feral swine in accordance with the authority that you just reviewed in 4709 F. And that's basically the feral swine sections. Yeah. And so we have what about a few more pages we can pick up on later? Yeah. A good part of what's left is the hemp bill that you passed out of your committee. Coming back to you on this, the hemp seed bill. Okay. And then the ecosystem's restoration working group making that giving it authority to continue operation for the next year. Yeah. So are we all, Chris? Well, did that require money, the working group? They did not give it money. I'm gonna read the feral pig thing. I might have a couple more questions. So I don't wanna say call it good. It was a lot and we did it fast. So. Yeah. I expect you to revisit the pigs. Thanks, Michael. So we'll quit here. We got to be on Senate thing in eight or nine minutes. Yeah. Yeah, me too. Thanks a lot. I think we covered quite a lot of ground. And so we'll pick this back up Tuesday along with if we do, we may do a quick run through on that 254, I believe that's a number on the housing or sheltering. But anyways, if you folks have anything that you wanna get on the schedule, be sure and let Linda know and we'll plug it in. So you're on the floor. Bobby, did you email I sent you after Wednesday? It was sort of our sketch of the discussion that we were hoping we would have around the dairy assistance and all of those relief work and I included some other ideas we could talk to. So. Yeah, we'll get on to that. I hope next week I'd like to meet on a pretty regular basis and we'll have time I think to get to all that. You know, once we get the house bill out of the way, we may even wanna add some stuff onto the house bill that's on your list. So anyways, thanks and thank you, Michael and Linda and we'll catch up in a few minutes. Thank you. Bye.