 We walk through the letter with you, and then we'll see if we have questions. Okay, so we're going to use the, I don't know, Barry's edits to the letter, that document. Is that those others? I don't know what you have, so we're going to be safe with this. You have a very edit, and you have an email to me, so yes, there's one that looks like the letter. I have one, so I use this one. Okay. So, this is a letter from the chair on behalf of the committee to Commissioner Porter, Mike Covey, Vermont Traditions Coalition, and Barry Laundere of Vermont Humane Society. It's to summarize the efforts that those three persons who represent on the podium made outside the committee to address the issue of want, place, and retrieve a little wildlife. And to seek assistance in moving forward. You then thank them for their participation. And that continued participation and input will be integral to the committee as it pursues the issue of want, place, and wildlife retrieval during the remainder of the biennial. You then summarize how the issue was put before the sub-working group. It was presented to the committee in 1857. During testimony, it became clear that there were substantial issues of disagreement between the various parties that they likely would not quickly resolve and committee. As a result, the chair asked Representative Odey to form a working group with your organizations in an effort to consent to some line which were addressing want, and waste, and retrieve a little wildlife. Representative Odey reported that this working group met several times and you each worked cooperatively and courteously to discuss the issue and the potential language. To this end, at the last meeting, Barry proposed the following language. So a person shall not intentionally kill a game or small species and intentionally knowingly or recklessly fail to retrieve and dispose of a game or small game species, any game or small game. Taken must be immediately made part of the daily or seasonal bag limit. If applicable, shall not be considered lawful disposal for any person to place, leave, dump, or abandon. A game or small game carcass or parts of a carcass along or upon a public right of way or highway or on public or private property, including a waterway or stream without the permission of the owner or tenant. In addition to the requirements above, a person shall not intentionally take a game or small game species during regulated open season, intentionally knowingly or recklessly fail to salvage or reduce the double portions of the carcass or useable portion of the fur or hide of the animal. Barry's edit is why he wanted to provide his intent and that he would like the letter to say that it was his intent to address the concern that H357 would create a defect of closed season on coyotes by retaining the utilization requirement in H347 for bearers subject to a regulated season while applying a retreat and dispose requirements for product of the species including coyotes. The letter goes on to say, Commissioner Porter, Mr. Covey expressed their appreciation for making a proposal but expressed concerns and proposed changes to the language. Mr. Porter noted that law enforcement and state employees are often asked to move or dispose of dead animals on highways and other places on the exceptive practices and move the carcass out of the right of way but leave it on the adjacent land. Mr. Covey noted that they recommended a method of retrieval of some game species involves harvesting the edible or useable meat or fur in the field and disposing of the carcass at the harvest site, prohibiting a hunter from leaving a carcass in the field of conflict with generally accepted hunting principles. Mr. Covey noted that regardless of accepted hunting principles for disposal of a carcass, a hunter should not leave a carcass on private land without permission of the landowner or owner's agent. And Mr. Covey also noted that the language addressing disposal on a waterway could be problematic. Disposal of a carcass in water is already prohibited under state water law, probably under state waste law as well. Commissioner Porter then proposed that Mr. Laundrie's proposal would be amended to apply to fish or game the bag or Creole limit instead of the game or small game species. Mr. Laundrie, consider the proposal was concerned that it may be too narrow for the purposes of disposal. Laundrie requested more time to consider the proposal. Commissioner Porter, Mr. Covey also noted that they would need to consult with staff or persons within their organizations. Commissioner Porter expected he would receive input from this technical awarding staff. Mr. Covey noted that he would need to consult with his board. Mr. Laundrie also noted that he would need to consult with other parties. The working group then discussed how the need for consultation with staff that are associated with other interested parties coupled with the relatively short amount of time left in the 2019 legislative session will make it difficult to move H3 57 or another bill addressing waterways for wildlife retrieval. Thus it would propose that this letter be written and sent to the members of the working group to ask for official input or positions from the relevant staff or interested parties. And then you get the provision about the request for input on proposed language. To further the discussion on the appropriate state law addressing water and waste and retrieval of wildlife, the committee asked that you circulate the language attached below to your staff members board. For other interested parties, please collect any input that you believe is relevant to the discussion of water and waste and retrieval of wildlife. Please also propose any changes to the language most specifically. Please ask for comments on whether the language below should apply to game or small game, fish or game with a bag or creole element or some other alternative. The committee will schedule meetings early in 2020 to receive input from you, your organizations and other interested parties. It's likely the committee will attempt to act on lots and waste or retrieval of wildlife bill next year. Hopefully the input and comments you receive from your organizations and interested parties will fill a consensus that will allow the committee to quickly move the bill and you thank them and that your assistance is greatly appreciated, et cetera, et cetera. Then you get to the proposed language. So the red line here is edit, proposed edits by Barry. He is concerned about having the fish or game with a daily or seasonal bag or creole element being the standard for disposal or failure to retrieve. He would like that language to just say game or small game species or potentially or other alternative. And then on the second paragraph, subdivision 8-2, there's the Barry would like the language to say public greater way or highlight or on public or private property. I don't know if public is necessary there or it could be clarified combining that last sentence where the subdivision shall not apply to the law enforcement officer or state employee or to the disposal according to generally accepted hunting principles on public land where hunting is allowed. So maybe what needs to be tied down is the public land where hunting is not allowed. And then Lewis had some input. Lewis was away and didn't get me his edits. Yesterday, Lee, I think his input is good. First, he wants to make clear that there are still some issues that the group did not reach consensus on at least yet. So something along the lines, although substantial progress was made during discussion on a variety of issues and concerns, there were many several matters on which the group was not yet able at least yet to reach consensus among those were how fish, including bait fish would be dealt with, the wording of an exemption for law enforcement state municipal workers and utilities, exactly how Coyote and Crows would be handled in the disposal retrieval section and definitions of edible and usable and others. And then he did want to recommend that the proposed language include the exemptions that he would already discussed slash agreed upon, including things like theft of the wild animal by another person, unanticipated weather or overactive god, unavoidable loss in the field to another wild animal, defensive person or property. I think we were talking about sick or diseased animal. Is there another one? State municipal employees and dispatchers. That's kind of already in there, but I think he's ready to clarify a little bit. Where's the list you're reading from now? It's in the last version of the amendment that you were looking at. And so that's what Lewis provided. Barry did respond to that. He said I agree with both of the commissioner's suggestions. I think his summary of the key pending issues is accurate and he would be fine with including that wherever it best fits. And he agrees that inclusion of the exemption language would provide context and probably save time in explaining this to other parties. Plus there might be feedback on the exemption language useful as we're working towards a final product. And then I used Barry's wrong organization. Thank you so much. Thank you for everyone. Nice and Barry and Carol. The huge thanks to Michael Grady who knows everything. It was those three guys that were working hard on Frank. They were all great. I was so impressed. It was just unbelievable because it is so complicated. And I really do think Amy was so smart to send everybody away because the kind of nitty gritty detail you can't, you know, you can't do. It's way complicated as I've longed. So today I just wanted to make sure that the, that our committees gets a chance to ask questions and it sounds like there's agreement that we can make these proposed changes and moving toward some information that could be shared over the summer with stakeholder. Yeah, I think it's going to be pretty easy for me to add the paragraph that Lewis proposed into the letter. I think it's also going to be very easy to add the proposed exemptions into that proposed language. I think I can easily make the tweak about disposal on public land where hunting is not allowed to clarify that. My key issue is how you want to put in the alternatives for disposal and retrieval. I don't know how you want to do that. Do you want to provide alternatives? Do you just want to put game or small game species? Do you want to put game or small game species or some other specific alternative? That's my, that's the one issue that I don't, I don't really have an answer for you if that's kind of a policy call. So are you looking at paragraph two in the proposed language? Paragraph A and A1 and A2. Okay. That's kind of, I don't know what you want to do with that. Alternative one. Alternative one was game or small game species. Alternative two and what I drafted up was Fisher game with a daily or seasonal bag or Creole limit. That was kind of what we started talking about but then Barry, during our working room meeting said that he was uncomfortable with that and he has his reasons. I don't know if I can explain what they are. And so he asked that alternative two be struck in A1 and A2. So can you help us understand the differences between the two? Game or small game species? So game is, how did I get it? Small game are game birds except for turkeys. Game quadruped except for big game fur bears and other wild animals. There's a real issue as to whether or not this includes other wild animals because other wild animals is everything. It's birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles other than domestic animals. So that's what I'm talking about. So that's what I'm talking about. That's what I'm talking about. Fish, amphibians, reptiles other than domestic animals, domestic fowl, domestic pets. The way that this reads, it could mean it could just mean game birds and game quadrupeds except for big game and except for fur bears and except for other wild animals. But that's not how it reads because of the use of the semicolons. It's game quadrupeds except for game for big game semicolon, fur bears and other wild animals. I did not draft this thankfully. Lewis kind of was like, you drafted that and I'm like, no, I did it and I checked and I did not draft it. But it's, it's that's really an issue because if you include game or small game species and it includes all fur bears and all other wildlife then you're back at where you were when you started 357 and the concern about how broad of a scope the bill has. And that's one of the reasons that Lewis said, well, why don't you narrow it to those animals that have a daily or seasonal bag or creole and that kind of that makes sense in B. So a person shall not intentionally take fish or game with a daily or seasonal bag or creole limit during a regulated open season and intentionally not only or recklessly fail to salvage for human use. So during that open season you shouldn't be intentionally taking those fish or game with a daily limit and then not failing to salvage for the use of edible portions or useful portions of fur hot. So that's what the group agreed on that that kind of is a, is something to put out as an alternative it does make sense there to have that but I think Barry is concerned. Yeah, we'll hear from you on this for sure. I just wanted us to understand the legal differences. Right, and so I think part of the issue is if you go forward with a bill I think you need to clarify what small game means. Maybe you mean it to what, mean it or want it to mean what it reads as right now but if it does then it really has no distinction from the definition of wild animals. Because if it includes wild animals and wild animals is everything then small game is the same thing as wild animals. So I don't, the only distinction is would you be you would be accepting turkeys and big game, the big game is game. So it's, it's. This is why we sent this off because it hurts your head to think about it. So that definition is a large, is a kind of a big question mark. That's basically the letter and the issue. Again, I thought everybody worked well, the productive working group who said that. Representative Allen. Do we have in definition those terms game, big game, small game. Sure, game is game birds or game quadrupeds. Game quadruped or caribou elk moves deer, gray squirrel, rabbit, and black bear. What is big game accepted and what is big game? So big game is deer, bear, moose, wild turkey, caribou, elk, and Atlantic salmon The difference is there is because there are different penalties for taking big game and violation of statute. But what happens right now today if it's, it's moose season and someone has a moose permanent and they kill the moose and leave it. Never retrieve it. So, so the moose rule does have a retrieval component and other. And so, a warden could issue a violation for that. Is that the same for other being in attack also? It is not the same for deer. Deer does not have a retrieval aspect in the rule. It is there for bear and it is there for, it's not the same requirement as moose or bear for migratory waterfowl which is not big game. There is a retrieval requirement as well. And migratory waterfowl would fall under game turds. And then why are turkeys accepted in this? Not turkeys. Because turkeys are big game. And so do they have a retrieval component right now? I don't know about turkeys. I would have to look that up. So, for big game they're required to be tagged and reported? For the record. For the record, Mike Covey from our Traditions Coalition. Big game are required to be tagged and reported which is a de facto requirement to remove them from the field. For all big game. They have to be taken in person to a reporting station for all big game, yes. They're separate from whether they have a rule or not. So we need to be retrieved. But then some have a specific rule. By law they have to be retrieved because you have to place a physically place a tag on them and then physically take them to a place of reporting. Okay. Other questions? I think if you would the next step be to draft up the additional which was changes and then leave I don't know what is the committee's thinking on the question that Michael has posed to us on game or small game versus fish or game with a daily or seasonal bag creole limit. Representative Bates. For putting that fish or game with a daily or seasonal bag creole limit I believe that should be in there. There are other alternatives too. That's one of the things I wanted to put out for you. This is what was discussed in the working group. And I don't know the universe of all the alternatives but you could probably come up with other alternatives as well. Okay. So in this case independent of what I think I will want to support the final product of the working group. I may not like it. This has been the situation in the past with working groups but it's been our committee's position and me as part of the our committee to honor the work of the independent working groups. Except when they said they couldn't get it done and we sent them back to get it done. That said we don't have their final report yet and I do want to suggest that as Michael pointed out using the word game and I think because I understand that small game is game. There isn't a real distinction between game and small game. First of all that's a question of the council. There is. Because game means game birds or game quadrupeds game quadruped is caribou deer, gray squirrel, rabbit and black bear and game birds are quail, partridge, woodcock pheasant, clover, snive, other shore birds quail, wild duck, wild geese and wild turkey. Those are limited universes, both of them. They're all game though. No, one's game birds, one's game quadrupeds and then yes they are both game. But then small game means game birds which I just read to you except for turkeys. Game quadrupeds I just read to you except for big game. Fur bears so all of the fur bears and other wild animals. So small game is much broader than game. It's important to hear that for me to hear that and the committee to hear that and that in my estimation looks us right back to the beginning where people are concerned their grandchild will get arrested for popping a chipmunk to be begun. And we don't want to go there. I think we got to get away from there. All reasonability says no we're not going to get a game warden showing up in your backyard and taking your grandchild away in coughs even admonishing that child. But that was a fair amount of air was expended on that and we need to get I think we just need to get away from that. So my question Michael is that what are the consequences to the principle of wanting waste and do you see if we strike small game? I think you need to talk to the advocates about that. I think you need to talk to those interesting parties because it becomes a policy issue. There are interests involved that if you use small game or if you use furbearer that would not be addressed if you use the daily language. So coyote is one. So that is something you need to talk to the interested parties about. And why there is that there's still that to be about the scope of the bill. And the interest of parties are in the room and you may hear from them and get an answer from each of them to that question or it may end up being a question that gets resolved and later later iterations that come from this. Thank you. Any questions? Under understanding the issue of dealing under alternative to official game with updated system what's included or excluded by going that way with that definition? Yes it is. Yes coyote don't have that daily or seasonal bag or cradle limit. So some of the furbearer I don't think the furbearers don't have a daily or seasonal bag. I believe there are daily limits on furbearers or hunting there are not for trapping night or day 24-7 there's no limits for certain furbearers I believe there are daily limits of hunting there are not daily limits for trapping. Alright So it's more complex than just the yes or no answer. Final questions from Michael Green representative? Yeah just real quick do you know of any states that have a season on coyotes? I don't at the top of my head. I haven't researched it so I don't I'm just curious if we're going to be trendsetters and leaning toward that way. We're always trendsetters. We've got to research California first and then the model following. So I'm just curious if there's maybe I don't know maybe a barrier somebody can let me know. We're actually not open. Alright thank you I'm good. Thank you representative Morgan. Why is it that a coyote during the prime season is the coyotes are worth a lot of money as many people can tell you why do we as a state or any of the states why don't we consider those fur-bearing animals? Coyote is defined as a fur-bearer. It is defined as a fur-bearer. And I believe there's a there's a trapping season. No trapping. Might copy again for the record. Yes there is a trapping season a closed trapping season. Trapping is only allowed from October through the end of December. And I just looked and I stand corrected there are no daily limits on fur-bearers for hunting either. How many more are participated? Are we going through the summer? Or is that kind of what's being looked at? Hopefully you get this letter Don in the next 20 seconds. 20 seconds. Do we need more discussion? I'm going to actually talk about a set of representatives who's been the convener. What is your expectation? I think we should get this letter done. Our committee should say okay to this letter and send it off because these people have to check back with all the people involved. And I think that that will be a good process for us to go through. I would like it if you would draft those changes. We can leave the questions here for now in this section, but make all the other additions and then I'll check back with you on it. And then in our remaining time I would be opening from the other members of working group, Gary and Mike if you have stuff to share. Thank you, Michael. Could you put the language back up on the or do I have to control that? I do? Wow, sorry. Can you do it? Yes, that's great. There we go. I do have an iPad if I'm like I'll open it now. Thank you. So I'll just jump right into the question of well let me first explain this was as the letter states language that I kind of put forward at the last meeting and the intent of the language I put forward was to try to address some of the concerns that we touched on that Representative McCulloch touched on. And how can we retain the utilization standard that was in the underlying bill for certain species of that we want to have that applied to knowing that some of us and folks outside and here in this room would like to have that standard be applied across the board. But we ran into the issue of some chipmunks and other groundhogs I think was another concern somebody should that be included in what if kids are engaged in that behavior and then the question the big question of coyotes and what do you do about that. So that was the reason that I put forward this language and it's been redrafted a little bit here after our discussion but essentially it does is it separates the standard and says for small game game and small game and in my drafting of it you should know I did not I do not want to reopen that issue that Representative McCulloch had. So when I used that it was mainly a term to capture furbearers as a way of of including them into that language but I agree with Michael Grady that either we need to come up with a little different terminology or we need to revisit the small game definition to make it clear one or the other because you could read it to be all wildlife I'm not sure that's intent of small game and I don't know why you would have a definition that includes everything but when I put this language forward I was either I was really focused on what language could we use to include furbearers and include game species but exclude coyotes. Admittedly trying to exclude coyotes because I was trying to solve the problem of how we move forward with some protection for coyotes but obviously the concern for some that if you if you held it to a meet and fur standard that and I will put my personal opinion here that you know I find it troubling that we're going to essentially create a carve out for coyotes because there is no and I mind you kind of legitimate reason you would be killing them in the spring or summer if you weren't protecting yourself or protecting your property they're not worth anything people don't eat them generally but acknowledging that we weren't going to move forward unless we address that issue the goal here was to say let's apply the utilization use of meat and fur to the species that we can agree upon and then use what they retrieve and dispose standard which is again something that's used in other states to apply to a broader set of species that we can at least set up an understanding that if you kill an animal you're going to remove it and you're going to dispose of it in a way that's accepted that was the intent of putting the language forward so my problem one I have an issue with the use of daily and seasonal bag limits even in subsection or section B because if you do that as Mike just mentioned you're going to exclude coyotes and you're going to exclude all fur bears because none of them have a daily or yearly bag limit so that kind of defeats the purpose of trying to segment you know it off to say here we're going to have a meat and fur standard for fur bears in game and a dispose and retrieve generally for all other species if in doing so you exclude fur bears so I think that's why game or small game I think is a better way to go about it. I'm open to other alternatives I'd be happy if the letter was revised to just say or other alternatives to meet that objective and I really have and why I propose removing it from subsection A is because clearly if you're trying to create a different standard and a different group of species that the standard would apply to if you use the same language and all throughout the bill you're just applying the same standard you're applying the standard to the same group of species so it sort of defeats the purpose of trying to pull these two issues apart coyotes and other species if that makes any sense to you guys so I would define if the letter was rewritten to request other alternatives for game and small game and I would agree too that at the end of the day we're either going to have to redefine small game or we're going to have to come up with another terminology because you're right Representative McCulloch you just use small game as it's currently written you could be right back into that issue and one thing I will note is the furbearers the definition of furbearers does not include chipmunks and groundhogs so if you use something that you say the term one option might be game quadrupeds game birds and furbearers as a terminology to use that captures pretty much the things we wanted to capture but doesn't open up the problem that small game presents of all other wild animals being thrown in there too so I would say game quadrupeds game birds and furbearers as a substitute for game and small game to capture the same universe of species that I think we were discussing in the working group and that we had come to some agreement should be covered with that being said I agree that you either need to reconsider the definition of small game or you need to come up with another terminology to use for that but I just want to be clear that the point of the language I put forward was to try to create essentially a minimum standard of retrieval and disposal for a broad number of species and then for those that are that are game and taken during their season and that was that's a key point if you look in subsection B during a regulated open season well coyotes we could wordsmith that but the intent was to say coyotes are subject to an entirely open 365 year season so that I wouldn't be regulated it wouldn't be limited and maybe there's another word to use but the idea was to say if you're talking about species that are essentially have no season applied to them because there isn't one affirmatively put on them then they wouldn't be subject to the meat and utilization standard it's essentially a way of trying to carve out coyotes to be honest with you it's not something I wanted to do going into this bill but I think it was the only way we were going to move forward is to try to bifurcate the issue and address part of it with coyotes and what the standard should be for them and then game and other species that have a regulated season in some way a heightened standard to use meat and fur yeah so if we could someone put a pair of seasons in a coyote what would that do in terms of this bill I think it would well I mean it would depend on the so if the fish and wildlife board or the legislature I think decided they wanted to institute a regulated or limited season then they would fall under that category of however those that category of species would be treated in the bill so that would be depend on action some point down the line if the decision was made to be to have a season put on them yes and do you know who has jurisdiction on that the fish and wildlife board can make the season a rule yeah and I know that there's efforts and I was up front in the working group I one of the reasons why I put forward this language to try to get us to some kind of a consensus is that I believe there should be a season on coyotes I believe that there are months of the year where it's just no reason to be hunting them and but I think that's an issue that should be dealt with through settings of setting seasons not through and is there to get to your question about seasons I don't view this bill as setting seasons limiting any time someone can hunt or trap any species and that was what I was trying to get at in the language I put forward is to acknowledge that try to move us forward in a way that we would hinge whether or not species would be covered based on whether a season was put on them and we can like frankly fight that out on the Fish and Wildlife Board and other places to try to put in place that I think should be a season for certain months of the year. Thank you for being honest. Thank you for being up front about that. Again I just think it's important that we understand that if you use the term bag limits you are excluding all fur bears that would even be bobcats, fishers I mean and I think we emailed a little bit after the meeting with and I commissioners not here in some of the emails that we sent after the meeting I think there was a general understanding that for subsection B we were trying to talk about fur bears excluding coyotes that was the intent behind that section is to get at language that would address fur bears generally but not pose the issue related to coyotes where you would have a de facto season put in place by virtue of the long-based law removing the reasons why you would be you know potentially removing the reasons why you would be hunting a coyote in certain times of the year. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Would you like to make a comment? Sure would. Thank you for the record Mike Covey we want traditions coalition. My only concern with striking that language out of the letter itself and I spoke with Mike about this yesterday the letter that he drafted shows kind of the point that we've come to and I think there's value in showing all of that point whether or not it's where we land I think we're going to send a letter out at this point it should have all the various options that have been discussed I kind of feel like by eliminating options where eliminating work that's been done towards consensus I don't know if that makes any sense. So your thing send out a letter with full alternatives isn't it? Yeah I think Michael's initial letter gives anyone who looks at it something to chew over rather than being a solid statement it says this is the point that we've come to thus far how do you feel about it? I guess I'm wondering how far we are apart but there is a way to wordsmithing and that perhaps we're pretty close that we being kind of you and Barry could and the commissioner could get to I feel like we've come quite a ways there are still a few sticking points very mentioned coyotes and trying to find a mechanism to ensure that there's no de facto season on them but that it kind of leaves out crows in my earlier testimony the one waste of waterfowl has been brought up a number of times but in that same suite of federal statutes there's a provision for cologne so we don't want to create a de facto inability to hunt crows either and they have a season so there's nuance as Carol noted representative Odie, Michael was noted there's nuance to almost every aspect of this it was actually more intricate than I anticipated in fairness I appreciate all the effort you put into it thank you what about the suggestion of changing the definition of small game would that is that germane to this bill is that something you can do within this bill what do you think you're figuring out oh, yeah, sure we can we can change definitions yeah, I think that would have to be a discussion I would certainly want to hear the commissioners and put on that just to be more knowledgeable and probably we would want to hear from the warden service just based on the nuance of the enforcement I'm just wondering if that's the way we could address the issue and maybe well, there may be alternatives other states have a wildlife damage control section in their statutes where they're down five situations where you have some wildlife species such as groundhogs where any kind of addresses that if you have a type of species such as a groundhog that's causing damage to properties in that way you're not having an unaccounted consequence of just adjusting a small game to allow for those takings that might result in an outcome so you're not seeking well, the rest of the bill does that so I think looking at this with that language in there will be helpful to us so let's so Mike's comments are well taken and that if we adopt, if we adopt very straight through in our letter it doesn't show the full participation and everybody's input but what so but what I might suggest is that that that as we see it today draft pose language for common unwanted waste and wildlife retrieval and then say red straight throughs very long so they're there so they're still on the table and yet we're not if you will dishonoring or ignoring other contributors I would go so far as to suggest that very straight throughs are a continuation of the work of the group so as if they're on there as straight throughs I think that's absolutely viable Andrew so we're going to make that change under alternative one to small game so under alternative one everything else I I know I can say I don't have very sorry I leave it to the department and whoever to come up with what they want the definition for small game to be I don't I just think it may have been drafted an error I think the definition might have just been drafted wrong to be too broad so I would defer to the department of what they want to consider small game but depending upon how they would want it small game then that's going to influence how we draft the bill so they take out just wild animals then fine it still includes fur bearers but if they want to take out fur bearers too then we would need to draft this bill to save fur bearers in addition to small game thank you I mean we're all acknowledging that other wildlife is an issue so why don't we just change game or small game to game quadrupeds game birds and fur bearers that's starting quite for the next round I think we should because everything has so many everything has so many consequences I can't answer whether that sounds sounds but I would leave until you you've got to hear there are so many things to listen to when anything has changed that's why I was suggesting an alternative which other states have done would you specify the card out or those type of species that potentially can cause damage to the property and therefore you avoid the other type of consequences of other wildlife that might end up being claddled in then it has that in it carrying out woods up for property protection it has property protection that's why it kind of addresses represent the colors represent you know I think we've done our job by creating the study group and this is a report and we're all less on their progress or the status of how far they've come and I think they have come a ways to start up any way to make me think that there is a reconciliation in the road so I don't wish to have anything changed I would like this to be going back and then to come back to us but basically what they have decided they can live with and we will leave their stuff there so one more round so I would like to I'm into the honoring business today I'd like to honor the statement that Harold made we shouldn't just this committee this morning shouldn't change scratch small gain and put in quadruped and curb errors for the next iteration I think that we need some method because I've ID this issue heads have been nodding right from the beginning popping a chipmunk is an issue it's a real issue and so I think I would like to do what Trevor said but also do what Carol said so in the same way this can be done people in the same way we're having a red line strike through buried we could have a green line strike through credit the committee that suggests for the purpose of this bill so the green line strike through would be small gain and then the new definition would be quadrupeds and curb errors did I copy that down? I'd strike a small gain okay so a green strike through for those four words then underline as is our practice quadrupeds and curb errors and game birds and then that be acknowledged the committee it keeps it all on the table it keeps it highlights this as an issue the commissioner can still weigh in everybody can still weigh in so that's a thought that gets it done right? ultimately the audience for this language is essentially the general public and I know that we're helping clarify the issues of people who are going to want to provide us input just thinking of the purpose where we're going with the language I would push back a little bit with this red line blue line, green line comments on the side is incredibly common in consensus writing but you know that's a thought I can leave it the way it is the two main players or the four main players are in the room Michael and Barry and Michael again and Carol and so they've all heard this ad nauseam and can deal with it or not the commissioner is on here and thank you Brad did you want to make a comment? yeah our members for the record I just want to share just only concern that I have is that my group is really looking forward to having wanted to waste a lot of lives for bears which we need animals who are trapped for bears that are hunted, bobcats are hunted I spoke with Jerry a couple of weeks ago and he told me that this wanton was always only going to fight animals with bad limit that essentially eliminates otters and beavers and all kinds of animals so my group is primarily focused on trafficking reform so if the furbearer component isn't covered and we're really only offering protections to big game where I really don't think you probably have loose and bear and deer you're offering this wanton waste protection to the animals who perhaps need it the least and not offering it to the animals who need it the most so I would like to think that we work closer I have to be honest in my concerns about if the wanton waste isn't applied to furbearers both for trafficking and hunting thank you for that comment alright committee I think we're going to have another round of this I'm working with Michael Grady on another iteration and hopefully we'll have time to look at it together again before we turn