 So like a great let's cancel. I'm not sure what he would like me to do No, I have a 2.1. I don't think I've sent it to Laura Yeah So basically what you had requested was Reflect in the finding section that there is currently a wanton waste prohibition for a migratory waterfowl and Then to make some conforming changes in those findings to reflect that So I added a subdivision in the finding that says Vermont prohibits wanton waste of migratory waterfowls required by federal law And then I made some they're kind of tweaks to say that for modest not fully compliant with the North American model Wildlife conservation and that they're not in full compliance and So it's just kind of it was more of adding that reference to the migratory waterfowl wanton waste prohibition Which is effectively the language in the bill is introduced And then making some conforming changes to the findings I'm sorry when you say it's effectively the language the federal wanton waste is effectively the ability Yes It's about waterfowl not all wildlife, but it still has that requirement to make a reasonable effort To retrieve etc Okay So over a weekend I was pouring over all this stuff and I understand what a strike all of you know And being new I had to ask this question because I am new with this Can I strike something out of there? Yeah, you can propose to the committee to do to change this language however you want so I would just like to let everybody know that I have a copy of the North American wildlife conservation model and when I was going through this they Copied pretty much word-for-word Number five On this which I'll read real quickly in North America individuals may legally kill certain wild animals under strict guidelines for food and for self-defense and property protection Laws restrict against the casual killing of wildlife merely for antlers horns and fetters So if you go to your 1.1 And read line one through 13 You will see that that Yeah And Just so that people know that this North American wildlife conservation model is A guideline that's all it is it was Teddy Roosevelt and another guy put this out back in the 1800s so do It's a It's a guideline. That's all this is this isn't set in stone. It's like something else that we follow We do follow certain other guidelines, but we don't make laws off this That's all it's trying to say if we don't make laws off of this And you know and I was looking at what is casual killing me, you know back in the 1800s when you're on your horse And there's a billion buffalo out there and you just casually kill a buffalo That's what that means to me. It doesn't mean that you know, we're out here in Vermont right now just Shooting at things. We don't do that So I would really like the committee to take a look at what I propose is if we strike all this out of there And then we can look at the bill again I Have no question, but I would like to address what Representative Bates has just said and that is that there are people in this room that are You know really against anyone going out the woods with a gun and shooting anything All right, so you have to have that mindset All right What's going on in this room right now? They're trying to change the rules of hunting in Vermont one thing This is why I'm opposed to this bill That we eliminate out of this one one bill on the first page 17 through 20 and then on the second page one Question for you Michael based on this This suggestion which which I understood Had a basis for concern is making this law Um Good you Could you help us with what the findings are and what they are? regarding law Finding sections are not binding the law. They are an expression of the intent or purpose of the General Assembly and why They are enacting a law to follow the findings And as such Then how are they published? They are published in the white books not in the green books I don't think you have copies of the white books anymore after the mold scourge They are used by courts as To determine what legislative intent is but they are not binding on a court And so in in in my lay My my lay interpretation Would you agree that that or disagree that my lay interpretation is their rationale for doing something they're not They're not the law at all They are not What I would call law they well technically they are law because they are enacted as part of an act But they are not binding What the courts often have called them before is truisms That they they stand for just what they say, but they have no binding effect beyond that And our office has a policy that they need to be supported by evidence For some factual basis So All of them are based on a factual documentation except maybe The subdivision for And subdivision five isn't the last the last finding of any finding is basically what you want to do I'm looking at one one Generally the last subdivision in any finding section as an expression of what you want to do based on the the previous So I would say that most of these findings are based on fact or documentation That I can provide to you On page three line seven on defense of personal property When I looked at state statute regarding hunting their section 4716 4828 Which addresses the taking of wildlife that causes damage to the property Is this necessary or can you reference? 4828 to illustrate this already in statute giving public the opportunity to address And potentially remove Wildlife that are causing damage to property such as You could do that There's more than one statute that that references the defense Property that authorize taking of game the defense of property. There's the you're doing damage there doing damage So there are others if you wanted a cross-reference you probably want to cross-reference all Okay, I thought that one is more of an umbrella one sure but But I think it's helpful maybe to cross-reference to show that there's an inherent interest to support the property owners interest to protect personal All radiance Yes I Can't say I can't answer that at all. I'd have to go back and look at each other principle I didn't do that Other That have some sort of wanted waste And and I think there's a It's fundamentally the impression I got is that it's trying to address not the issue related to law abiding hunters that are Stewards of the land Maintaining that their heritage, but it's really to address the and enable the game wardens to seek out those Unfortunate few that are Are Conducting a wanton waste or destruction of wildlife for various reasons and when I looked at the book Colorado in Utah's language is in particular It implied that they were concerned about the removal of heads or for trophies They were concerned about endangered threatened endangered species They're concerned about The Just the no waste of of wildlife just generally because of the whole construct of Intact system And so while I appreciate what Representative Bates had done in terms of trying to think about What would be the most appropriate finding to help these something like this? I Couldn't help it turn to the values of and the concern of the end of poaching just generally and of What other states have done in terms of what the purpose of a bill Of this sort so well it may not make sense to address a hundred-year-old set of a model It is helpful I think for the general public and for us in terms of what we're trying to accomplish It's to better clarify the purpose of the bill so that the intent isn't to Go against hunting now the intent is to provide our game wardens the opportunity to ensure That we are giving them the tools they need to address those actions that go against the public trust documents as doctrines as it pertains to And so so I welcome the thinking about how we then articulate in a finding Those for that purpose if it's not to identify This model it should in my mind Identify those overarching Values of hunting being a part of our heritage as well as The concerns about stopping poaching as described in Utah stopping the protection of Destruction for trophies and they've been in Colorado they spelled out The waste of destruction of mutilation for the heads hides claws teeth answers for its internal organs and feathers being taken in for a bandit and Then the final point I just want to make is that it's unfortunate in this international Situation we are in markets that there is a black market for trade of animal parts and their internal organs typically they go across fortunate to other places outside the US Preveyors uses and and that's probably something that that the late president Roosevelt had an emissions Certainly, we have neither and I think that was the intent to of some of the The states that to embrace hunting as part of our heritage are trying to address as well So I think you have many options for how do you tailor the bill? as you noted some states are specific about the trophy aspect or the valued aspect of it and some states To find their law around leaving the edible portion of the animal there Some states are focused pretty specifically on big game Some states apply it to any person Some states apply it just to a person engaged in hunting trapping or fishing So I do think you have options for how you want to do it and then the purpose That that is for you to tell me what your purpose is I understand fully your argument and I can come up with language on that Several people have suggested to me that and I have I have said to anybody who listen this is not about Sportsmen and women. This is about non sportsmen and women people who are not out there revering the wildlife Taking them for real purpose and enjoying the the Vermont Landscape and habitat. It's about the non sportsmen and women. So then People several people have suggested to me Likely these we'll just call them bad actors Don't even have a hunting license. So what good is putting 10 points on something they don't have So the question that I have is in order to to honor the concerns of people who are legitimate hunters That have a concern about hunting licenses being 100 licenses being Attack with points Could we sign points to the drivers to a driver's license instead of a hunter's license? and would that then And the result of that then would be You don't have a like the hunting license you get up you hit Your penalty goes to your hunting license and or to your driver's license Is that is that cross? Cross Discipline Finding if you will or penalizing Possible or appropriate um, I can't comment. I don't Breathe that's that's a decision for the legislature to make Legally you have done that for Issues such as domestic abuse That's a violence where you or other crimes where you suspended a person's license Or put points on their license because of their engagement in that crime the judiciary committees have recently been looking at that and and Have been trying to move away from that concept because of the limits it puts on Persons and rural Communities and their inability to access jobs daycare schools, etc And kind of the cycle that it creates So yes, you can I would want to coordinate with our transportation and motor vehicle attorney about that and our judiciary attorneys, but I think You could do that with that said a Few years ago the department came in There's maybe more than a few years ago now Vision wildlife violations are criminal violations and most of them except for the minor violations are adjudicated At the criminal division of the Superior Court The problem that the department was facing then was that state's attorneys Because of the workload that they had their case. So we're not prioritizing Fish and wildlife violations, so if someone wasn't paying their ticket on their waiver There was a backlog of fish and wildlife violations and and specifically From my recollection that the concern was that there were certain frequent violators who License was suspended Who just kept violating because there was no repercussion to them To address that you gave the department Administrative penalty authority and kind of I wouldn't say you beefed up their seizure authority, but you kind of reaffirmed their seizure authority and That was that was done to address that situation of the repeat violator who didn't care about Thank you The only problem there of Jim You're not going to prevent people from driving That's my 30 years of the Department of Corrections Somebody wants to drive. They're gonna every day in the paper. You read where the guy was under suspended license So I don't want to impact this Very brief on page three you list a number of Situations in which it's beyond control of the person and if I may suggest adding to that list Language that the state of Ohio uses in addition to these which talks about In the time in which a person reaches a point. We are here. She has no permission To be such as on a refuge Border of a refuge or private property And where they can go no further without Without permission or trespassing I'm sorry kid. So you want that to be an exception and now item number five Really cannot salvage Understeer a situation where they're at a quarter Where they have no authority to enter on to the property because it's hosted or otherwise prohibitive Good morning For the record Lewis Porter commissioner of the Fish and Wildlife Department. I apologize. I have a little bit of bronchitis So hopefully ability hear me. Okay? I Also, I just want to let the committee know I'm Testifying from draft 1.1. I haven't seen 2.1 So if there are things that I'm testifying on that it were dressed in one and 2.1 Just please point that out to me that would be very helpful or just understand that I'm going from 1.1 not having not having had 2.1 last night when I when I drafted my testimony Actually don't have a copy of it yet There thanks So first I just want to say thank you very much to the committee for Appreciating and understanding the original draft was really not not workable and and working with the alleged council to draft this new version And and and I see the the fingerprints here of a lot of the issues that we've talked about so thank you for that I'm just going to quickly go through the bill and then and make a couple of points and Frankly ask a couple of questions, and then and then we can have a discussion about anything that the committee would like There seems to be some there seems to be some Misunderstanding or confusion about the North American wildlife model This is a aspirational set of principles that has guided wild successful wildlife recovery And that's very important to agencies like mine and agencies like it around the country But they are like like anything worthy of aspiring to they are very difficult to achieve all of those principles And to meet all of those seven guiding principles And I don't believe that there's a state in the country that that meets all of those and and we certainly don't in Vermont either And that's something we strive to do in our regulations at the department and board But for instance, one of the principles is elimination of markets for game And certainly every country every state in the country as far as I know has either for markets for trapping or game farms For big fence something we don't know we don't have in Vermont, but they do in many states They have wild animals wild species as captive of captive animals, so I think it's just important to note that These are a set of guiding principles and not a set of regulations or laws To that I would suggest that that in places where you're finding say Bring Vermont law into compliance so that you say something like I'll align Vermont law more Completely or do better to align Vermont law with the North American model Because it's not it's not a first of all they evolve and second of all, they're not a Set of draft regulations there or laws. They're they're really more aspirational in nature in in on page two and in sub three There are a number of reasons outlined in In the the non-frivolous reasons for for taking wildlife I think there's an important one here that is not included in your in your list And that is just fostering the connection between people and their landscape and their environment That is a huge amount of what hunting fishing and trapping is about And I think it's a non-frivolous reason I think it's an important reason and and frankly any deer hunter in the state of Vermont can go to Costco and buy Pork at much much lower time and cost than it takes for them to harvest venison Meat is an important part of what we do. It's a driving part of it for some folks But really that that connection to the environment to the landscape to wildlife is really the reason the main reason Or one of the main reasons that people do these activities In the next sub for I heard Councilor Grady explained that the the version 2.1 includes the waterfowl Regulation, I think it's important to note that there are three other places currently in Vermont regulations where there are wanton waste Rules of various kinds which I pointed out to the committee in my prior testimony These are around black bear harvests moose harvests Taking fish by spearing these all have elements of wanton waste principles into our regulations In addition as we rewrite the deer regulations. I anticipate that we will propose a Version of that in the deer regulations also. So I just think it's I appreciate noting the waterfowl one There are these three other current examples Going down to section section 2 and lines Let's make sure I'm seeing lines here. So now lines 19 and 20 I Think that I would suggest eliminating the wall hunting fishing or trapping And make this apply to anybody who intentionally kills wild animals I understand that chairs concerns or or questions to me in my testimony last time about People driving and and whether that's really the same thing, but that's not intentional now that you have this Intentionality included I would say why restrict it to hunting fishing and trapping So I just put that for the committee's consideration in addition in above where it says wildlife and in this section where it says wild animal I Would suggest to the committee that they make this apply to game species And the reason for that is I think it it is makes it much more enforceable makes it much more Possible to be administered and if you look through counselor or grates very helpful Comparison of various states wanton waste laws. I think you'll see that virtually all of them Restricts what species these apply to in some form they do it different ways, but I think There if there's a one in there that doesn't restrict it in some fashion to not all species I would be surprised I have to admit I've not gone back and looked at the original sagy Thank you So on the on page three Where you address the the the things that would make Someone exempt from this requirement I found the defensive person or property a little confusing because these other categories of things are reasons that you might Want to you might be prevented reasonably from retrieving game and this defensive person or property You would have no intention of retrieving that game necessarily So I just think that's a little different than the other exemptions in this string if that makes sense to the committee So in general I just want to make a couple final points in general As I pointed out I think this is is fairly different than most of the other statutes in particular I understood that the Alaska statute was was a model for this the Alaska statute Restricts this to gain species. It has a I believe has a criminally negligent standard Would rather than the lower standard. I think that this that this law applies somebody who's a Actual lawyer and not just one who plays on TV like me would could tell you that much better And I'm unclear in the Alaska. I haven't had a chance to reach out to my counterpart in Alaska I'm unclear in the Alaska model. How they deal with Species like grizzly bears and wolves both of which are hunted Neither of which is commonly used for me And which I'm not sure Just in reading a plain plain reading of the language. I'm not sure how they deal with that You know in both those cases Typically hide or maybe head maybe pause or taken But that would definitely I would say fall into the trophy category And I'm not sure people don't eat grizzly bears commonly As they do black bears, so I'm not sure how they address those issues under the Alaska statute And I apologize for not having an opportunity yet to reach out to my counterpart there a Couple of issues that in they've come up in discussing this with biologists and wardens within my department Wardens routinely Instruct people who have shot rabies vector species that they believe to be sick They routinely instruct them to bury those animals if there hasn't been any contact with a person And I'm not sure I think that your exemption to health and safety would have covered that But I just wanted you to know that that's fairly common practice for wardens to tell people if you see a skunk That's acting strangely and you shoot it you use a shovel bury it Make sure there's no human contact and that's it We don't always collect those animals for testing unless there seems like there's a reason then I just wanted to make Sure that would be a covered another question. I have about this draft is We we often advise hunters, especially bow hunters That if they shoot a deer to not pursue it and try to recover it immediately In some cases if that's close to the end of legal shooting hours We advise them to go the next morning and recover it And I don't know if that would be a violation under this statute or not Obviously, it wouldn't be your intention to do that. The last thing we wanted somebody to chase a wounded deer Before it's expired and and push it farther away. Maybe make it impossible to recover it And so it's it's generally Accepted in good practice as I say to approach it that way I understand that that a lot of a lot of the impetus or interest in this measure in this bill is around coyote hunting and crow hunting and I'm not sure Whether the committee intends to capture those species and to Render a lot of coyote and crow hunting To be under violation or whether you don't and so I just think that's a question you have To answer it from a policy standpoint is whether you want to Largely prohibit A lot of coyote and crow hunting which occurs now Do you want people to do those activities? Return those species to their to their Residences or somewhere else that they have control over and then discard them or do you intend them to only take those species? If they're going to use the pelts or eat them I'm just not sure about your intent. I think that's a question. Excuse me. I think there's a question for you to answer It's also important to note that We already require that people Effectively require that people retrieve game species because you any species that has a bag limit You have a duty to in a tagging requirement You have a duty to a tag and retrieve and report that that animal So all the big game species report that animal to a to a check-in station So I just wanted you to know that that's already on the books And in addition the wardens have prosecuted at least some Of these types of cases under the litter littering law So people have hung deer longer than they should have the deer spoiled Not their intention maybe but deer is spoiled those people have then dumped the deer You know without using it without harvesting it. We have on occasion Prosecuted those cases under the littering law. It's obviously not a perfect fit But we have done that in some cases Before the littering The crow and coyote So yes, so we require that those for those species that have You know you required to report the big game species You must retrieve and report those animals currently because Once you kill them you must tag them. You must report them at a station Or you'd be in violation And so that that piece is is sort of covered It doesn't mean that we don't also need a wanton waste provision of some kind either regulation or law to address Some of these issues, but I just people do have you know, you can't shoot a deer and decide you don't are going to leave in the woods We will find you and we will take a cheek for that Very quickly, uh, I appreciated uh, representative mccullis driver's license suggestion Sort of fits into in keeping with my my idea that this should not be restricted to hunters anglers and trappers Um, I don't know if driver's license is the right Mechanism or not, but I appreciate that the the thought that this should Uh be broader, uh to other people who who intentionally kill wildlife and leave it Um, I think I answered representative lefave's question on on whether we're in compliance with other aspects other principles of the north american model uh And I also appreciate representative dolin's acknowledgement that We we don't want to put hunters in an ethical bind where they shoot an animal It dies on posted property and Maybe they go to the to the homeowner or the landowner and ask for permission and are denied Then they're in a dilemma They can either be an unethical hunter by crossing into posted land without permission Or they can be an unethical hunter by being in violation. So I appreciate that Um, so that's my that's my testimony. I'm happy to discuss any of this or anything else So the bottle open line for me is will the department support this? Uh, I I think I I under the the the concerns and questions I have outlined. I don't think we'd support this draft I do think it is worthwhile to consider how we can give wardens the ability to prosecute egregious cases of this kind of activity In fact, we spent two years trying to come up with a regulation That would would do everything we wanted to do and not do things we don't want it to do So I I do think it's important But this draft I think has has a number has a ways to go. I guess I'd say what's the percentage of poachers that The department catches we don't know because we don't know what's out there. We don't catch um, I can tell you that we have a better rate of Finding and prosecuting people than you might think because you think you know somebody's out in the woods alone hunting Who's going to ever know well People will inevitably say something to somebody and that person says something to their kid and their kid says something to some other kid at school And pretty soon there's a warden at your door. So we are I think quite successful in prosecuting poaching cases We certainly don't get them all. Um, but we the wardens are um Our community police and in the and I think the best sense of the word They're out there in the grocery store and gas stations talking to people and healing stories and they get they get they get a lot I understand what Dear bear and moose are classified in in berlanta's big game. Where does the crow and the coyote? What are they classified as they are neither large nor big nor small game? I don't believe under vermont under vermont law You do yeah, and we've we've moved in the last few years. We moved a crow season out of the nesting period um, we we have a crow season that lasts Seven months eight months 72 days 72, okay, uh, and it's but it's spread over the year but outside of the nesting period So we do have some regulations on crow hunting. Um a couple of a couple of questions, um in addition to I just pick right up on the on on the license To shoot crow and you do have a crow a season where it is legal to shoot crow We do and it's it's basically the weekends out of the nesting period and and um This also I guess you know kind of goes to your question. What's the intent of this whole thing? Is it to um another way to protect crows protect, it's not right or maybe shoot crow and coyote and and um, so my answer Because I've been asked that no, it's about the wanton waste of All animals With that in mind During the times that it is legal to shoot crow And and you are a license illegally licensed hunter Would would would have wanton waste during that time period How would that how would that play? With with the shooting of crow. Is there is there a bag limit for crow? There's not a bag limit. Um The population has grown a little bit in the time that we've had regulations on the hunting. I think about three percent over the last couple decades So crows are hunted Primarily, I'd say for for two reasons One is farmers sometimes enlist people to hunt them because they're having crop damage And the other is just because of the activity. They're they're they're very smart. They're hard to hunt And so that's one of the reasons that people hunt them. I think if under this bill this bill were to apply to crows People do not generally eat them Although I I do have an I I have also metaphorically, but not actually I think what you would see happen is People would probably retrieve the crows they shot and put them in their compost pile And I don't know if that's use or not Yeah, yeah, I'm I'm not sure if that's use or not. Yeah That's really for you guys to define Yeah, so so that does create somewhat of a massaging issue On my suppose and and should we develop a coyote hunting season, which we do not have now Would also create this sort of massaging issue about either bag limit or what you do with with the Dead bodies which have no real value because they're peltzer Well, they have real value in the winter. Um, but in the summertime. Yes Well, I think you whether you have a coyote season Or not I think you still need have to address that coyote issue and what your intent with this bill is towards that species Because they are not They are not generally the pelts are generally not used in the summertime when they're not primed, right? so, okay, so Could you would you You made the assumption that in a way Um, we have one waste around bear deer and Fish spearing could you could you explain that better? Sure? Absolutely. I I have the language here Uh, the under the moose regulation Uh And I apologize for not sending this ahead of me. I will send it to you after I leave um Under the moose regulation we require that People bring the uh Bring the parts we we specify what parts of the moose must be returned out of the woods Um, and I will send you this rule. It's a little bit convoluted So I'll send it to you and we require that they bring in uh female reproductive tracts Proof of sex All edible portions including the organ not including organs Um moose head hide lower legs boned out rib cage And need not be reported. Um, but both central incisors must be presented So we basically specify what people have to bring out of the woods including all edible portions On the spear on the spearing of fish We we were concerned when we passed this rule allowing spearing of fish that people are going to spear the allowed species Excuse me the allowed species And we're going to then dump them at the axis area or wherever they were wherever they're fishing. So um We say Uh, a person who takes a fish by handheld spear speargun bow or crossbow with line attached to arrow in accordance with 122 She'll keep the fish in his or her possession until the fish is permanently removed from the waters of the state and used or disposed of properly Excuse me. So I you could argue I want disposed of properly is I'm sure that in some cases When people are spearing large carp some of those end up in compost piles As you know as a gardener, you know fish make pretty good fertilizer Um, is that used properly in our definition that would be used properly? And and and we would leave it pretty open uh to how people use that In the black bear regulations um The black bear carcass shall be field dressed prior to reporting that is to try to get at the The concern that that a large heavy animal like a black bear um In especially in that early september season if it's not field dressed it may spoil before it can be used So we require that people field dress before they report to the reporting station So that's you know, that's a different these are all different approaches Based on the different species and the different way they're pursued. You already know about the waterfowl uh federal requirements we've adopted and and In no way I won't make that assumption. I'll ask you so A wanton waste bill Similar to the one that we've got Is that is that an is that in conflict? Would that be in conflict with the various aspects of the different um species you have uh wanton waste Ask not would that be not necessarily at all. No, uh and and Need it just like if we were to pass other board regulations that addressed other species It wouldn't be in conflict and my last question. Um, and then I can dream up a moment Yeah, it builds on a representative ternzini's question and of course it's It could be speculation, but um on your part But it would depend and I get that but So far I think that You have been asked to react to drafts that we presented and and The department hasn't reached hasn't chosen to be supportive of these drafts as written um I and I can't speak for the committee, but I almost desperately want our department to support this concept and and It's hasn't in the past been unusual for you and and other commissioners to work with our council to create legislation that works For them and and then it's up to the committee to decide if it works committee Would you be willing to do that if we're we're of course We're certainly willing to work on anything the committee asks us to work on My only caution is we spent two years trying to develop a rule That answered all of these questions on every species and weren't able to get to a consensus with a with a working group It's as as you guys are all Experiencing it's complicated and there's a million questions and Separate issues that need to be addressed I'm happy to work with lech council or anybody else um That the committee would like us to uh, but I but I you know The the nuances and the complicating factors are made. Yep. So you have made some suggestions that that um that Would appear to be good language changes and additions and so on and and um if if you did network with council To to make those changes and suggestions um You already have now a a working group That will put thumbs up their thumbs down on that and it won't take a bunch of months. It'll just take So so that part of your problem has been solved and then there's a hundred and eighty people who have to make that decision again Uh, so Thank you for it for that for that offer. Um, and we could only see where it goes if you get asked Well, uh, we'll make some suggestions, uh on on this draft And yeah, good. Thank you Thank you commissioner you know, um I grew up at a time when my mom was a good deal war role and constantly had a lot more fines and uh Teenages we used to go out and shoot pros and shoot, uh Witch hunts A lot of times we're invited to do so Pretty much new and we're buying fields Now the state has changed pretty dramatically since then and I'm wondering if If you're seeing now less less shooting and less hunting of those kind of Um Types of wildlife that used to be commonly referred to as violence And is there an indication now that there's less of that going on as far as the actual shooting of them? Secondly, is there any kind of indication that That we need a law that will prevent that or is the culture more or less taking care of it in terms of how it has changed? Yeah, great questions. Um This is anecdotal because we don't require those species to get reported Um, but I would say anecdotally. Yes, uh, the The small farms are are going away as you note So we may have just as many acres in in production or close to but by fewer farms um those those That's resulted. I think in a shift from people shooting woodchucks crows that they see um and to the professionalization of those larger farms using People whose job it is including USDA wildlife services to to handle a nuisance species um, so I think there is a there is a decline in that type of activity um, and I I I know from talking to both hunters and and uh farmers that although it still goes on it's less less common Um and and an increase I would say in the professionalization of dealing with nuisance uh nuisance species um I don't think the the removal of nuisance species for farming will ever go away entirely Uh, because there are still a variety of species Uh, which including species we do regulate which cause damage to farms and which are removed Or sugaring operations or forestry operations and which are removed for those So I don't think that will ever totally go away, but I do think that there's a decline in the in the uh In the do-it-yourself approach When did you step uh, when did the government put a season on the crows? And that's mark the answer that's always been there Mark Scott director wildlife. It's always been there. It's a migratory bird regulated by the us fish and model service But we did do recently and I don't remember the exact year he was together Recently then Few years we changed the hunting season on them to move them out of the nesting season That our own research You know found after we studied a little bit closer working with people who do a lot of learning So that that's that was a recent change down and we're limited to number of days That that hunters can hunt crows in the state. So we formed a work group to do that So there's an extensive amount of federal status Correct as a market theory word, correct You know, it's not it's not handled under the migratory waterfall status Well, I always said because you know Around the table when he was a commission has mentioned crow and coyote in the same breath Yeah, and yet although we have a season that Grow we haven't done that coyote Yeah, and that doesn't do that because it doesn't enjoy the same sort of federal designation Most likely yes, and the crow falls on the migratory bird treaty act Which is federal legislation in all states and I did reach out to my encounter parts of the northeast about Crow hunting within the last couple years and we really did our season because they had to do the same thing And I asked them were there's any intention Of enacting more regulations on statewide for crow hunting and I got a negative response One final Do you think this bill requires a group criminal provision? You know, I would actually defer that to the colonel if I could Given that his his folks actually do the enforcement so colonel backshelter Our colonel backshelter character of enforcement for some wildlife If this law is to be enforced as written or even with future Amendments and wardens would need the ability to enter property if that's denied They're going to need more on ability for that to happen. We'll have to follow a crime and criminal procedure Which the warrant would be required So yes That's a yes if if you wanted it civil and find these cases as we may and rely on rely on consent and and opportunistic enforcement civil would cover it It would certainly be less intrusive I've noticed over time that there seems to be an increase in population of ravens in our area anyway Are they Part of the crow hunting or are they a separate entity that they're protected? My question is twofold one is that In your mind I think and I'd like your opinion on this that we should even though we While we have language in the romant constitution about hunting One element that we had in here on page Two of my eight nine where we again Emphasize the last proud history and constitution right behind me In your mind, um, I would like to see a finding to to to include that Oh, and one of your opinion on that that's my first part of the question I think we where we talked about earlier we talked about obviously The public trust relate to wildlife but to to explicitly state about that Maybe helpful for here as a finding I think it's always good to affirm the importance of those activities. Okay. My second part in here is that We've received a number of comments about well who decides who decides about what is Wanton and here we don't explicitly talker And we just assume That it would be the commission official wildlife as delegated to the game wardens In your mind, would it be helpful to actually explicitly state that The jurisdiction over the interpretation of this language would fall on on to the department and the game So I I think it depends on what the committee wants to do Other wildlife laws are able to be prosecuted by statewide law by state law enforcement officers who aren't game wardens Um, in the reality is we know that 99.99 of these cases are going to fall to the warden So I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing to to to do But I would add one other thing which is I think Not only who makes the judgment, but on what basis they make that judgment is important So is that to the to the in the eye of a reasonable person who's familiar with hunting and fishing is that to a to uh to uh You know what what standard do you want that to apply to and on what basis do you want that judgment to be made? I never You never have to worry about Your population when I was hunting I had no effect on The years ago Yeah, we had a bounty both on porcupines and on bobcats believe it or not at one point neither of those exist anymore And Correct like most states we have a open season of 365 day season Yeah, they're they're illegal to hunt, but you have to have a license so but you but there's no closed period Yeah, right now there there would there would not be a penalty for that Okay, they would just unless unless they shot it from the road Or on posted land Yep, or or if they shot it with a light at night, okay It's open all day But you can't use a light and you can't use a night vision scope that casts a beam Even if it's not detectable by human eye I think that probably there are very few people here who would think that shooting an animal catching the fish and throwing it on the ice I think there are few people here that would feel that it's the right thing to do I think most people feel that it's the wrong thing to do We have to try to come up with something here that Will try to satisfy both sides if that's possible Now when there was reference earlier from the first time of the call upon Council, what's the difference between the council in this state while fishing while I board? I think you believe he was referring to ledge council. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Got you. So if if this committee was to Add to this bill Instruct the fishing while I board to rules Regulating what we're talking about here and report back to this committee and the senate action committee Kind of date certain. Is that anything that we could be sure would happen? Yeah, yeah, uh, this the committee's do that with some regularity and We would we would comply with that We we acting as staff to the board would would work with them to draft a rule through their current authority I would want it. I would want to check in with our attorney and make sure that there's no Restrictions on that authority that would prevent us from doing that by rule, but I don't believe there is I'm just wondering if the If this bill were to pass Would it indeed impose? A season on Because the only time they're worth anything is when their pelts are full That's some That's something I would ask this committee. Is that your intent? because No, it wouldn't I I think that if they if somebody were to shoot a coyote Out of prime and take the pelt they would not be in violation of this even if that pelt was not usable Or not worth anything. So I I don't know because I don't know if If it would effectively do that or not because you could legally still shoot them any time of year And provided you retrieve them and use them Um, and I don't know. I just don't know the answer. We'd have to figure that out as one of the questions I one of the questions I have Hey, thank you so much Thank you for having me I took a couple of notes. I'm sorry. Mike Covey executive director of Montradition's coalition Um, I took a couple of notes while councillor Grady was up here The I'm fairly new to the this degree of of uh creating legislation but The the statements that is not compliant with the north american model seems to me to be um Um editorializing And and to me that insinuates the need to defend the decision to make a law So I I question The value of something that needs to be preemptively defended Um, and I also found it interesting that mr. O'Grady Couldn't identify why we were not in compliance with the model. Um, yet wrote language which made that proclamation Into this bill. Um, I just found it a bit odd that That wouldn't be established Prior to writing that language in So I wanted to note those two items um, unfortunately, uh, the broad brush being used by several organizations to Paint this as a as a significant problem Not only ignores the simple fundamental truth that a few bad apples don't spoil the bushel But it strives to deny it entirely By painting over with a broad brush hunters trappers and occasionally even anglers as There are various terms that have been used cruel sadistic evil and and now we're at wasteful The concept of being non-consumptive is often touted And it's patently false We need only look at the negative effects of industrial scale soy farming to further clarify the fact That we're all consumptive users of wildlife by our very existence as evidence in a recent article from the world wildlife fund Which showed soy farming to be the second greatest cause of deforestation behind beef so None of us are non-consumptive The perceived deals and extent of the wanton waste issue are being driven by a narrative from this sector and we see it When we see leadership of those organizations captioning pictures of a hunter Who's loading his dogs with his children and saying photograph them and shame them whatever possible They're really driving the narrative and I feel like that's a lot of what has driven this bill Those statements are made through a lens of cultural superiority as if somehow by not hunting People are having no negative impact on our wildlife and I think that we need to really acknowledge as a whole That we all have that negative impact to some greater or lesser degree um I would ask everybody to ask themselves How How poorly they thought of hunters prior to the last few years? and how much uh recent statements have Kind of crafted that negative image So as I've listened to this bill and listened to testimony, uh, frankly often when I hear the north american model mentioned It's it's almost invariably editorialized to either insinuate or directly state that management of an animal for any Reason other than utilization is wasteful and boring to the model That being the case I went to the us fish and wildlife's website to see if there was What I hoped would be an unbiased statement of these principles and I found what I anticipated with no editorial slants no editorializing at all simple statements of of mission So rather than read all the way through all of them I will I will simply Skip to The fact that this is our wildlife and when we say it's our wildlife It's all of ours so it belongs equally to two hunters trappers and anglers as much as the casual observer and Both those groups have the opportunity to work with the department ensuring the well-being of our wild populations Both those groups are able to enjoy wildlife in their own ways as long as we're maintaining healthy levels of these animals on on the landscape The key is not to maintain every individual animal upon landscape, but to maintain suitable conditions for those individuals who are not harvested I'd like to draw your attention to point number four of the north american model Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose Wildlife is a shared resource that must not be wasted the law prohibits killing wildlife for frivolous reasons That's the entire statement as written on the us fish and wildlife services The website there's no no editorializing a simple statement and I take that as a mandate for management I sat in this committee four years ago when I heard a powerful statement made I'm not sure whatever gave focus the idea that food was the only reason to manage a species The hunting of coyotes and other predators is not frivolous In the case of coyotes, it's a metering tool, but it's not a negative population driver Though supporting this bill urge you to unnecessarily curtail coyote hunting based on the fact that it offends them while freely admitting that it's not a negative population driver The current management strategy of an open season does no harm and in fact may provide benefits Current management strategies can mitigate conflicts before they occur With coyotes already maligned by many why would we choose a path which increased conflicts when this was implemented in connecticut And an email dated february 16 to 17 2017 pardon me Connecticut DEP biologist chris van stated The DEP is well aware of the widespread threats of coyotes present to pets And in very rare cases to humans, especially when they become established in populated residential areas Although coyote conflicts occur year-round there is evidence that attacks increase during the spring pup rearing period Coyote damages are also regularly reported by livestock and poultry breeders in Connecticut And spring lambing and calving is a period of increased threats and damages Although difficult to measure some research has shown that coyotes may negatively impact some game populations Considering all these factors the DEP supported eliminating the closed hunting period in part of april and most of may To allow sportsmen the opportunity to take coyotes during the time of year that is considered most beneficial In reducing impacts on game species while also facilitating control opportunities on farms that may be experiencing damages The DEP is also continuously working to assist landowners and municipalities in addressing coyote conflicts In populated areas through education prevention and targeted control through professional trapping when direct control is deemed necessary We have this template available as evidence and that can save us the pains of experiential learning As the commissioner noted it seems like this has been there's been quite a bit of drive to Either purposefully or inadvertently to create a closed season on coyotes through this legislation by indicating that If the pelts are worthless, there's no value in hunting them I think we need to address management and acknowledge management as a legitimate purpose for taking coyotes As we hopefully determined to acknowledge management as an appropriate and legitimate purpose for hunting We should put together to arrest the crow discussion as well This committee served from several folks about the wanton laced rule applied to waterfowl This rule was propagated at the federal level as part of the migratory bird protection act This was first enacted to implement the convention for the protection of migratory birds between the united states and great britain acting on behalf of canada The statute makes it unlawful without a waiver to pursue hunt take capture kill or sell Birds listed therein as migratory birds The statute does not discriminate between live birds and dead birds and also grants full protection to any bird parts Including feathers eggs and nests Over 800 species are currently on this list While about 170 species are considered game birds within the act only about 60 of those species are hunted each year As the fish and wildlife service has determined that hunting is appropriate only for those species For which there is a long tradition of hunting and for which hunting is consistent with their population status and their long term conservation It is unlikely, for example, that we will ever see legalized hunting of plovers, Curlews, or the many other species of shorebirds whose populations were devastated by market gunners in the last decades of the 19th century In this federal statute Explicit provisions and restrictions are made to allow crow hunting in all states except for Hawaii I want to reiterate and clarify that point the migratory bird protection act Both prohibits wanton waste of waterfowl and simultaneously provides for the hunting of crows If there is a stronger argument for the fact that crow hunting is not wanton waste and has a legitimate purpose, I can't think of it A final note to the legitimacy Of these practices is the value of keeping people connected to the natural world and active in the field As we have discussions about the decline in hunter participation We should be seeking every mechanism possible to recruit new hunters and to retain those already engaged These pursuits provide opportunities to keep people on the landscape and what is an off season for many game species Many use the youth who enjoys calling a few crows with their father culling the local pigeon population Which are both invasive and disruptive Or keeping the local woodchuck population to a dull roar These pursuits on their skills provide some degree of pest mitigation to their neighborhoods And have no delirious effect on the broad population across the landscape Most importantly, they keep them active and engaged with the natural world If we want our youth to carry the torch of conservation, we cannot rely on simple indoctrination A few years ago, Jamie Fidel of vnrc asked me what my thoughts were on land conservation My response was teach people to hunt trap and fish Give them something to love offer them a place to do it And you will never have anyone more invested in the endeavor of land conservation I would say the same regarding water quality In an era of nature deficit disorder, we should be seeking to expand opportunities to engage nature in an immersive manner rather than seeking to curtail Engagements based on the uneasy gripes of a few who are fundamentally opposed to hunting in general and simply seeking avenues to pick a way at it Former warden Eric noose has been quoted in testimony as having concerns about the wanton waste of wildlife In fact, on march 13th this committee received an email containing mr. Noose's concerns from holly tippet of protect our wildlife supporter In the quote from mr. Noose dated february 19th 2009 He notes concerns, but he goes on to state that in the proposed vermont rule We explicitly stayed away from forcing utilization Once you get the animal home, it is your property and you can use it as you see fit The concept of harm versus offense is what needs to be decided Just because someone's actions are offensive is not enough to make it illegal And in democracy we put up with lots of offensive things Meaning no disrespect to this body mr. Noose closes with the point that the department the board and the outdoor community of the state Being more intimately familiar with and tied to the resource are most appropriately trusted with its stewardship He suggests a discussion of rules and he states It seems to me we hunters and trappers can do a much better job than our mostly non hunting and trapping legislature can do In another submission from this tippet dated that same day Former warden Don Isabel echoes that sentiment in an oft excerpted email dated april 1st of 2018 Mr. Isabel states I would rather see this type of regulation come from within the fish and wildlife department Then have a legislature sponsor and get lawmakers to pass a long waste bill that the department is not comfortable with I believe it's important that this committee hear that statement as I do not believe it has yet been explicitly excerpted from that piece These two men have been cited as the mandate for this bill yet neither support legislation But rather rulemaking which commissioner porter has testified is already ongoing on a case-by-case basis I urge this committee to dismiss h357 To allow the department and their skilled biologists to see to the welfare of our wild populations And to continue with more pressing matters you read the room with ball represented four guys made a proposal in terms of having the department come together I think it was a legislative council I don't mean to put words in its mouth but mine was quick to get it all But it was the idea that they've come to get that they work More or less with with a committee and try to come back with through us or to the legislature or something more Well considered More viable How do you come to your opinion? I I think that that's a good start Um, I my testimony was written prior to the current draft of the bill based on the previous draft from last week so And it was written previous to today's testimony. So there's some overlap there And I don't think that's a bad approach. I do think that that I think that there we're see we've seen testimony a couple weeks ago And then again today from the commissioner that as the rulemaking process occurs on various species They've been addressing wanton waste in a species appropriate manner. And I think that has probably more value than trying to generate a Blanket legis piece of legislation Legislature a blanket piece of legislation would be very uniform conditions in the field very rarely are Conditions in the field tend to be different between species significantly different between species being pursued and often different Simply based on conditions Who would you include in that discussion would include organization such as yourself as well as Folks who are to a constant a more non-consumer not hundred organization I I would hope that Stakeholders would be included in that conversation That would be my expectation. That's why I believe we have hearings. That's why I've been asked to testify today So I would hope that you know continuing in this discussion. Yes, I would I would expect stakeholders to be included Thank you I just have one comment And I appreciate the commissioner still being here in the room I think what we're looking at is a bill that's Significantly improved on our first act when I looked at the The comments and concerns that were raised emails and letters that were sent to all of us there were concerns about Making sure we're acknowledging that that stewardship element of Hunting and that traditionally used to the importance of that we would brought to our attention about How important it is to ensure that we we are clear about Who's making that determination on What is considered wanted we've heard about how do you determine reasonable? Yes, and we have we and that language came from federal statute under the migratory bird species Act and and in lieu of that we provided explicit Elements that describe what that would mean and I think we're we're Working on What those findings ought to be to help describe that this is not about Hunting it's about those bad apples or those you know that type of coaching that we're trying to avoid And so I only want to make a point that I think it's it's a market improvement. I think what we heard today is um Especially from the commissioner that there are some other considerations and I'm I'm hopeful that the commissioner sees that this is heading in the direction where there can be A collaborative spirit working with the commissioner to ensure that this is meeting their expectations I understand that the the commission isn't necessarily tracking annually Want to waste which is unfortunate because you always want to have evidence-based data to drive policy always but we do have some Historic information about that and from the very wardens and staff from the official department and which I mean look at gosh the majority of other states having something in the books I think there's an opportunity there, especially because when we're dealing with Those things that we didn't foresee a hundred years ago, whether it's That black market trade with rare damaging species and and the struggles when you rely on a Willmaking for species specific you you lose that opportunity to be more nuanced So I'm looking forward to that collaborative effort with the department to ensure that That what is being proposed here is actually going to benefit the department in their actions to be the stewards and the deciders on how to Ensure that this type of coaching is serious and and we're being responsible from state May I make one comment? I know it's a little bit out of order But I've been thinking about it since the end of our conversation. All right, lewis border commissioner official wildly department Given where we are in relationship to crossover I would just submit the committee could consider directing the board to do a rule a regulation around this and come back next year Given the crossover deadline. It doesn't doesn't seem likely to me that this will go through all stages of passage this year So I don't know that you lose time because of that. So just something for this committee to consider so You would commit the time to try to promulgate a rule before next session We in the we in the board are the legislators Legislatures partners in in these policy issues And so if you do direct the board and the department to devise a rule and return to you with a rule Uh, it I would suggest returning given the length of time it takes to go through l car and i car I would suggest returning to you in january with an update on where that rule stands Uh, you would still have next year's legislative session to amend move Any action by the board includes public input public comment public hearings particularly on an issue of this significance We would tend to do more. I mean we are doing we do a couple of dozen public hearings Every year on different rules that we that we promulgate We would certainly do a number of them here the committee would be Certainly able to direct or recommend or or tell the board What kind of public input they wanted to have but we do public comments and public hearings all of which are recorded You know record the comments from them and react to or some responsiveness summary to them In addition we have instituted In the last few years a comment period at the beginning of every board meeting working board meeting Those are restricted to two minutes per person just because the board meetings You know the board has to have time to do its work also, but we have extensive public comments in any way So, um, I guess I just want to be clear that I have this right Um back in 2008-9 when you had the working group and then It's my understanding that was actually really well agreed to it and on the board rejected The um changing rule on this You know, I wasn't with the department at that time But I believe from talking to folks that were that what happened was we were we were close to an agreement And then various parties including perhaps people within the department Had issues that resulted in us not reaching a consensus on that. I don't think it was board action to reject it I believe it was the The working group wasn't able to come to a consensus I may be wrong about that not having been part of that conversation, but that's that's my understanding what happened Yeah, I'm sorry Lewis if we decided to go the wrong route is this something that can be expedited Quickly or is it something that's going to be long drawn out process like the last time? It will I think it's important that this be a process a long enough process to address the issues and to provide for that public comment In addition, we have a pretty heavy rule docket over the next year including a total rewrite of the deer regs add to that the the Apa and statutory requirements on the length of time that people have to comment Going to icard going to elk are, you know, it's a lengthy process What I would recommend is that the is that the committee have a check-in with us when you return in january And at that point you can say no board and department You're moving too slow or you're going in the wrong direction or we don't like something about what you're working on And we're going to do it through statute I don't think you'll lose time given that we're after crossing it, but I don't know the details of that Just a quick question. Would it be helpful for us to urge you through a bill to Go through the rulemaking In the past the committee's done it in bills You've done it and just by filing a letter to us into the board asking that we do that or telling us to do it Let's be honest So I think either one of those paths would work Is that like a memorandum of understanding that would exist between us and your department in terms of what you promised to do when we expect to receive? I think uh I think that an mo you would probably Uh, would probably diminish your authority Um in the past it's been a letter that says The board and the department of our creation in part of the legislature Go do this, uh, please Representative McCullough has written a few of those And uh, and we will do it I can't promise that we'll have a finalized finished rule by january because of the time That it takes to go through the rule process in particular that's then complicated, but but you could outline in that letter Uh, and and we would be happy to react to drafts to that and tell you whether we thought that was reasonable or not But I I don't anticipate that being an issue. Does that make sense? Yeah If it's an if it's an mo you that we have to agree to I think that diminishes your authority a little bit So the president of the bill alone sitting in reserve to be taken to into action at any time would be The uh, instead of do or the stick you need to uh, you know something We would make our best effort. Like I said, we spent two years on this unsuccessfully. So I can't promise success I can promise you our best effort and I would suggest that a letter outlining what you're looking for Would be an effective guide to us So alternatively it's happened in this building that Issues of particular difficulty get worked out among the stakeholder groups essentially with a facilitator Absolutely, we've done that in the past. I think we could we could make that work it it adds a level of complexity uh In terms of develop you developing the process And obviously adds a commitment by somebody from this committee to to be engaged in that process But Would we I believe we've done that in the past also. So that's And then return to you with a rule or return to you with a statute or or whatever the that group decided I've seen that process play out successfully it does add You're rather than us Developing a proposed rule and going to the board with it. It does add us an additional step, but that's up to you No I've learned uh, I've learned after a few years not to mention the other body No, I mean we we would have that kind of Task force working group at the front end, and then it would go to either a regulation or or a statute So it adds an extra Component that's beyond we would still do a regulation Process which included all the public input and all the apa department. So it would add It would add some time and add some process to it, but that's not necessarily a bad thing Does that make sense? Yeah One more Yeah I'm thinking Sort of the way I understood the chair's question. I it could be wrong is That would you support a a working group? For this legislation and would you participate in it and likely with our council? To create a compromise and appropriate legislation And Title h357 that moves forward through the process sure that that's somewhat different I think than what you were kind of just saying. So, yeah, that's what I thought you said first and then Yeah, good. Yeah, absolutely. We'll we we work in concert with your director. Thank you Thank you. I'm sorry to extend your time there a little Late What I want to make you aware of is yesterday we took testimony on slate quarries You know that Friday afternoon, we will hear from the natural resource board attorneys On how slate quarries are administered now. We'll have ellen walk us through the proposed language In the committee bill. So we will be following up on the slate quarries And then we will have to have a conversation about how if and how we want to include them in this Today I've asked ellen to go through the changes we asked for to do for administration appeals I think we will also by time next week to hear from judge Creerson. Yes About the administration through the courts We just know that that's on the on the docket to use the court language and So today it's our hope to walk through the draft Like I said the proposed changes from the other day and then move to Climate change if there's time we will probably have a long We'll have a lot to do on the floor today, but it may not be long depends on amendment So we are scheduled to start 10 minutes after the floor again this afternoon on whatever wherever we left off On act 250 without I get everything Yes All right ellen jakowski office of legislative council. I'm here on Act 250 and we are on draft 6.1 As we made changes to the last draft So it is on your committee page and it is Posted and you have hard copies Correct it is now Yeah, well 5.3 contained only a small handful of changes So there are more there are quite a few changes in this draft and they are highlighted in yellow for your easy identification So this draft is as far as we've got to this point, is that correct? This Is it's comprehensive to the fact of where we are in the bill The discussions we've had and the changes we've made. Yeah, it's going to be represented in this. Yep. Yeah It also contains things we haven't discussed I did ask for a couple things that we we have not discussed All together right but that we discussed in here. Yeah So we can try that the appeals language Related to the the the new board starts on page 14 and what we decided on friday was that the The vermont environmental review review board Shall consist of a chair four members and two alternates So i'm on line seven of page 14 The chair members and alternate members shall be nominated appointed and confirmed in the manner of a superior judge The chair shall be a full-time position I I was unclear if we had decided Just the chair would be full-time or if any of the others were going to be just the chair Okay, and uh So then the next Edition of language is on page 15 Initial appointments of the board shall be made so that the terms of the chair and the members expire in a staggered manner The initial appointment of the chair shall be for a term of four years The initial appointment of one of the members shall be for one year Another shall be for two years Another shall be for three years and the final member shall be for four years The term of each appointment subsequent to the initial appointments Shall be four years um, i'm i'm questioning The the uh the manner of staggering with the initial initial one being one Did did the committee decide that one year was okay for the first one or was too short because that question did get raised By me by the way, but i'm just not sure where the committee was on on that What was the original Um, it was to be determined I think it was still to be determined So Is one good starting out with one I'm the one that's suggested one two three four. I think it's good in that quality The initial appointment The one year term is one way for a very short term But what you have to look at is the future you've got to get through these first four years And then everybody's going to be on a four-year schedule Good good. Yep, perfect. They also can apply for reappointment. Yeah, good. Good. Thank you I I'd like to go back to page 14. Sure. And uh, you know, and just in terms of What we have since what we are doing is a change in what is present. I would like that to be more or less highlighted Like upper montan environmental review board replace will replace the environmental court in terms of a very very active I'd like that up front so someone knows looking at this bill what we're doing with this What we're doing with this uh, with this review board That it is going to be It's going to change how the act is uh, how the act is as a minister and I just think it should be up front I don't think There's no where in the there's no indication what's why everybody that that's what's going on here and yet we're making very uh I would say a very transformative Sure, so I would uh direct you to page two um so page 14 amends 10 vsa section six thousand and twenty one And all the language that's stricken in that on that page will not appear in the printed statute and so It will perhaps read a little bit better, but on page two at the bottom of page two The purpose of this bill is to replace the natural resources board with a vermont environmental review board Which would hear appeals from the district commissions and the agency of natural resources In addition to the nrb's current duties the environmental division of the superior court would continue to hear enforcement and local zoning appeals so So the the intro section to your bill the purpose section does contain a more direct statement But the actual mechanics of amending the statute um page 14 just Starts with the establishment of the board and the duties of the board Are further on um, so it If you'd like to add something on page 14 um These are the big things that are changing which I think does address your concern except if I just want to know is it would this be in session all the way? No, just would be in purpose. So if we wanted it to be we'd have to change it Yes So like when we're looking at on the floor Say we passed this bill They appear at the beginning of the The bill as print as printed so probably not in the calendar, but when you Discuss it The purpose section is on every bill that is printed as introduced when it gets put into into The books at the end of the year when it when things are passed That is not included but there but and uh There's an act summary Yeah, and where's the act summary? Those are compiled separately uh in what the the act summaries for everything passed. Yeah so so In in subdivision a on page 14 you could add more but the structure of it currently is just that it is establishing the board who it who it who? um is on it and then And then it gets into what it does represent on the come so then to build on the on the vice chair's kind of question rather than just moving on First asking you and then and then depending on your answer asking committee Online six page 14 um Instead of what we have there a natural resources which is Scratched out which gives us a little hint about what's going on And because later board is not scratched out Would it would it be appropriate to say? and and and uh Well, you may need to help with this because it was your idea, but the natural resources board is is out of business And the the vermont environmental review board is created the nrb is Is is out of business then? A very busy business. I don't know quite how to word that but Is it would it be appropriate to make that statement? complete there no But we but what we could do on starting on line six we could say establishment the vermont environmental review board is created to hear appeals of Decisions by the jurisdictional coordinate by the district coordinators and commissions And and conduct rulemaking on behalf of the agency or we we could put it right there in lieu of I would just caution against leaving sort of ghosts of past You know when a statute is as amended You don't usually leave remnants of what was there before right? We want to get rid of we want to get rid of the nrb and replace it with Yeah, in our thinking so I just don't want to leave the impression that this is all this is settled I think the question still remains as to whether or not the the new environmental review board will replace That testimony on both sides and it seems like it's still Still at play and I the way this reads to me is that's no longer an option. So I just wanted to make it To give some indication that it's still very much alive In terms of what we do Well, whether or not the the environmental court should stay in place Keep its present status You've had testimony now from uh four judges We've got a judge coming in next week to testify on it So, you know, I just kind of I don't want to preempt that possibility And when I'm worried with the language does that But I'm kind of a little more I must say I'm I'm you know, if we do it in an iteration if we do it in the next draft that decision is to go with Bill is now proposing to do then it'll just disappear I don't want to disappear right now I'm sorry. You confused me so So you're concerned that this language suggests that we're Uh Disbanding the environmental court correct so So This is this is just dealing with the establishment of a board right the pages um Down in the if starting on 59 is when we start talking about The court itself. So so the court is Is still in stat we're not deleting any of the court establishment We're just we're taking some of the powers and adding it to this board I'm sorry. Where are you with so well, so I'm just just talking so the the appeals process In this bill is broken up into two areas, which is We are creating a board and giving them powers And then later in the bill. We are taking those powers From the court while still leaving them with other powers It's and those two things reside in different parts of the statutes. They're they're in different statutes Okay, so on page 15 um I did just want to make sure Line 16 that we had decided on four year terms I actually had written down both four and six years, and I wasn't quite sure what the committee had decided on I think we hadn't decided but I I would I would suggest the four-year term Yes None of these how does it address it? So the existing board that exists they are these are four-year terms and the the chair serves at the pleasure of the governor And that's all the states So it is for it's four-year terms currently Indicating that this is the initial appointment of the chair shall be for the term of four years Is there anything in here that indicates that the chair serves at the pleasure? No, the board that you're creating now the the chair does not serve at the pleasure of the governor They're appointed by the judicial nominating board We're on page 15 Okay, and so then the next change is on page 18 So this is the section about The board having the power to retain personnel so regular personnel The board may retain legal counsel scientists engineers experts investigators temporary employees an administrative Personnel as it finds necessary in carrying out its duties And I changed the following language to clarify based on what we discussed last time And may authorize the district commissions to use funds to retain personnel to assist on matters within its jurisdiction Including oversight and monitoring of permit compliance Personnel employed by the district commissions shall not report to the board So we did have a conversation last time about if a district commission wants to retain an expert and then that uh decision By the district commission is appealed to the board whether or not there's um A conflict of interest that could arise So, uh, I did attempt with this language to sort of wall them off Uh personnel employed by the district commission shall not report to the board um So that was my attempt to address the concerns of the committee So you're trying to remove any appearance of the district administrator So the district, uh, the district commission is made up of coordinators and a district chair And they Are trained by the board and overseen by the board and I I don't know the exact nature of that Um, and so I would maybe want to check if report is the correct word with the natural resources board If they have an opinion on that but currently There is a relationship between the district commissions And the board Okay, so That So those are the only changes that I made based on our conversation from friday So the language in graph five two Sure, so the the rest of the appeal section starting on page 59 We discussed on friday and we did not make any changes Most of it is language that is carried over from existing language Goes all the way to page 77 that section goes from page 59 to 77 Question Yes So, um on page 72, uh jurisdiction environmental division What I think what I Get out of this section is that That's the environmental court and this is what they're going to be left with is that is that right to say after we bifurcate Yep, okay That was short and after we Create the verb and pull a bunch of stuff away from Yep, so the way that the the vermont statutes are laid out the judiciary has its own Section and it's not in title 10. So the environmental division of the superior court its powers are in the judiciary title So that's what um starts on page 72 So Um, but my question is about um back on some of the changes you made on page 14 Where we talk about that the The appointments of the chair members Will be done so in the manner of a superior judge How is that? How is that So currently there is a judicial there is a list of uh names from the judicial nominating board And that list Is then so what happens is um the judicial the judicial nominating board seeks um applicants They uh compile a list of people that they believe to be qualified for the position And then that list is then provided to the governor the governor then Selects a name or in this case a few from the list and then Asks the senate to confirm the selection 2020 now to I think it has to be uh Certainly that data's becoming increasingly competitive So maybe we should make it less less Hey, I don't know if you need it in the draft, but I'm just calling your attention to the fact that it's there Sure on the Okay for the budget Sure Yeah, the the dates in the effective date section will um There will be sort of a a waterfall effect of a Yep Section Well, so currently the fee the fee for filing an appeal with the court is $295 and this bill sets it for filing with the board for $250 um I don't have any research on That there are differences between the administration of a court and the administration of a board um, and so you may want to take testimony um There are policy considerations about sitting setting a fee At high because then it bars who can appeal I mean, it's a nice that that number sounds somehow familiar Sure, so I haven't um Seeing you all in a few days But I understand that you may have heard testimony related to the road rule So I have added the road rule. It's on page seven And I am not an expert on the road rule. I can only tell you a little bit about it um The road rule was repealed in 2001, but it was a different jurisdictional trigger Um, and so it adds Yes, it's in there was a road rule I'm going to perhaps ask this Question my answer to be verified By greg in a moment, but uh previously there was a rule it was in the the environmental board's rules related to When in act 250 permit was needed For a road And it was based on 800 feet So that rule was repealed in 2001 and I have added the text of that rule to your jurisdiction section back on page seven So it reads as follows The construction of improvement for a road or roads incidental to the sale or lease of land To provide access to or within a tract of land more than one acre owned or controlled by a person For the purposes of determining jurisdiction Any parcel of land which will be provided access by the road is land involved in the construction of the road This jurisdiction shall not apply unless the road is to provide access to more than five parcels Or is to be more than 800 feet in length For the purpose of determining the length of the road the length of all other roads within the tract of land Construction constructed within any contig continuous period of 10 years Commencing after july 1 2020 shall be included so If you are going to construct a road 800 feet in length or more within 10 years It will require an act 250 permit I don't know. I'm sorry. I walked in. I just have one thing to say You know, which is that I passed it for this I don't know how you introduce this Okay, I just wanted you to know that that was my request and it was somewhat based on testimony that we get taken Around it and it is for me in my mind. I for consideration around You know, we're taking testimony around forest fragmentation that If anybody you talk to maps are a good idea to use or they're not a good idea to use for jurisdiction and this is another possible tool to use in addressing Forest fragmentation Possibly Also concerned about forest fragmentation, and I'm wondering if We've got an 800 foot trigger You could how long can a driveway be? I I did a personal analysis of driveway links. I Thought I put it up in my shared file. So I can share it with all of you. I will look again There's a pretty good spread of driveway lengths almost up to a mile That is in it's not it's not it's not a perfect data set But there is a in the e911 data set there is a list of them and you can get kind of a rough estimate of Private road driving links That are out there What was the old This is intended to be the overall goal. I asked to just grab the overall goal so we can start with that I feel as though we heard testimony last biennium 800 feet pretty long and really really dig into the forest So I wonder if it's too long What we know now is Uh that would require a bit more research, um it Was done in 2001, which is a bit It was a while ago I have a little bit and I can certainly provide more my understanding Once or is and I know I wasn't around either at that time but my understanding is that The board um and I think interest interests of partners as well found that this particular rule was difficult to administer And in some instances created tracks or created projects That um in order to avoid the rule rule It created projects that were that's that's set up like um Parallel roads on parallel projects In just in order to avoid the road rule. So in fact, some people believe that That this version of the road rule may have led to more unnecessary impact on forests And and that coupled with the with the difficulty in administering the rule The board felt it was appropriate to To strike the road rule nothing's come up in its place in the in the you know interceding 20 years But you know, that's just a very cursory over the role of the road. I'm happy to do a little more research I would also just add that upon the repeal of the road rule that the The subdivision threshold was lowered. So that previously 10 subdivision 10 lots triggered the subdivision rule, but now it's been lowered to six To sort of Right, so it lowered it. I think in or I was reading last night to sort of compensate for this This loss threshold Good morning What I've heard is consistent with my understanding I would add that one of the reasons that the road rule may not have achieved its goals is that as written It includes only roads and not driveways And so assuring that cumulative impacts are addressed means making sure driveways are also included I I could be corrected on that if someone else knows I thought it was the definition included Did you find a definition of road in their element? Did not So that requires some more ridership for me and our seat can speak more to this It's a productive driveway. There was kids love had a road with many things going on with it and causing issues What year did you do this repeal? 2001? Yeah, well It's all other roads constructed within a continuous period of 10 years You might also be interested in contacting new glory who was the former executive director for a number of years at the natural resources board And also a former district coordinator So he had the practical experience of actually applying former road rule And he was also around as an administrator when the road rule was revealed So I think he'd probably be able to provide a lot of important historical insight I don't know if This is something we need to deal with in the context of 50 but I just want to throw it out there I have a bill h 391 which talks about Concerns that private roads and driveways have on municipal road infrastructure In particular when municipal when private roads and driveways, especially at 15% rate Are delivering runoff onto town municipal infrastructure and culverts they can silt up The counted the structure and blow them out during flood events. I'm thinking you nine your head is As compared to my former select board have we saw that kind of time again in fact 50 percent of the road miles In the matter of the valley are private roads and driveways And many of them are 15 percent rate So Require municipalities to adopt road bridge standards and then the updates of road bridge standards Include a private road I only grace is because it's more than just fragmentation We're concerned about certainly How to minimize those cumulative impacts on town infrastructure or on water quality, especially in headwater area tributaries It's it's be both sorts of impacts. We should be considering as well and So regardless of the length maybe the length makes it That much more of a capability to For at least for active 50 purposes to create a threshold for jurisdiction, but I just wrote that out because It's more than just fragmentation. It is about addressing And supporting municipalities and how they're trying to manage their own road network when they could in fact be Seeing major impacts on the sanitation costs from the run-on from private roads For sure don't Those are issues that that are really water quality and important issues But with the issue with the concern at hand for the next iteration of the road rule I'd like to keep it in for the next iteration I think Kate McCarthy's Comment about Driveways what is the road and what is the driveway is a real concern? And and but we do need more testimony and and we've got a good source on that we're going to ask about that Uh, I and just comment during the shorelands debate Roads versus driveways was an issue and we had to somehow delicately work with that. I don't remember the details, but so I look forward to to um Greg, I'm sorry, who did you recommend today? Lou Borey. Yeah Lou Borey. I look forward to Lou's testimony around Around everything that Greg mentioned and and I'm sure it'll address the driveway issue and the other issue of About a shorter road with lots of little driveway extensions So I want to keep it in for the next iteration Mio A number of counts Following up on uh, for example on a number of towns that accept it standard See the part of uh, great money on Road construction. So how that's one time of this. I don't know, but there are some standards out there Any thoughts on this? I've got one question so far as Um Should there be anything in here to indicate that the chair Plus Are all voting members in some cases the chair is necessarily Unless otherwise specified here does vote your question about is whether or not When there should be spelled out in here, you know, in some cases The chair is only allowed to vote to make Something that should be Well, I know um from being on the hearing officer, but the public is only here so I'll put it in my life the Board chair was one of the never Fun melody because they're small typically they're relatively small boards And their interest is important to provide that kind of chair type of perspective So it's never been a need Unlike a legislative body or something Speak or something Senate kind of governor Here It's really about making some decisions in a collaborative way to um minimize I guess I was assuming they would vote I have to say Because it is a small board I was good. I can look but I suspect that the So the the board adopts rules for the procedures um, and so I suspect That is probably in the rules not in this section of the statute, but I I will I will check So you would say the board of south would be terminate the chair Right like they would establish their procedures for deciding a case and you could decide to put that in statute I'm looking for it right now And I suspect right now it's currently in their rules, but I Will I will look I'd like to start with climate change. Would you like to start with the? criteria or You know last time I walked I walked through the language Of all of it starting with the amendments to the capability and development plan As well as the relevant definitions and then there's the criteria I think that um, so we didn't make any changes Based on our last conversation Um, it starts on page three. I guess the question is since since we've done the walkthrough We did a fair amount of testimony on the climate change sections. I don't think we need to Read everything here But Yep, so just Yeah, by by way of review the capability and development plan was adopted in 1973 So a couple of years after act 251 into effect and it's 19 Further legislative findings And so it's it's more detailed than the original findings in act 250 and They're not criteria, but they're sort of the They describe What act 250 is supposed to be used for So This language starting on page three adds a new finding related to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. So it's adding a um A statement that act 250 should be used to address climate change Uh, sure Yes, one of the one of the pieces of testimony we got suggested there might be Instead of just tagging us onto the end that there might be a more Replace for it a higher in the list. So I wanted to look at that So it is uh, if you have your binders nearby it's printed. I think it's appendix two It might be appendix. Uh, it might be appendix three though Also, I mean, oh, let's see. It's also in I know but they are it's also list they're listed in the report. They're listed in the report. Also the full text is um It's appendix five in the report, but they're also listed on page No, no, they're in the act 250. They're actually listed in the act 250 report on page 10 here are the the the short Summary summary of the capability and development plan Um Yes, so the high level of discussion is Do folks support adding in the statement about climate change? Indicate the building development plan I mentioned this before I just wanted to just add it again, so it's um I'll just not something like 12 to put safety and safety after human health Sure, so that it would read climate change poses serious risks to human health Public safety or health and safety human health and safety. Okay human health and safety functioning ecosystems that supported diversity of species and economic growth and vermont's tourist forestry and agricultural industries Human health and safety Okay Uh Is that a change? So on my last two Uh versions I have I wrote We were going to change the public health and now my second one I have public health, so I don't know Yeah, maybe that makes sense Public health and however, but I just say that Or just instead of human health just say public health and safety Well, the only thing that I would say about that is that might not take into account that The individuals Are impacted even if a whole community isn't impacted if they are located. It's not just publicly. Yeah Well, I just assumed When you say public safety you're talking about Anyone one person. That's typically people ways that but if you think that that's fair or not Um Yeah, so that is a great question I think And So I would just say that these These are the goals and act 250 is the tool to achieve those goals So this is the statement of the goal and then the text of the statute is what you use to achieve the goal So this is a statement of the goal Did we come down on line 12 exactly? Health and safety human health and safety Or public health and safety that's a question So, do you know what what? It seems to me that the issue was raised Public health and safety Was good and I immediately bought into that and then the idea that public health You might not public health is the greater public maybe versus an individual people's health and So I don't know where we landed on that as a committee For direction Do you know where we landed on that? I wrote down risks to human health and safety I think That You could wordsmith it either way It was just I think human was in was used to differentiate between The the sort of biodiversity that's in the next Okay Works for the committee And then on page four Is another is an amending is amending one of the existing findings. So so yeah, so the first one adds a new one This is amending one of the existing ones To add ecosystem protection So I don't have any notes on this one either There was We did discuss it previously but Again, this is one of the sort of policy statement goals That act 250 would be used for so it's ecosystem protection and utilization of natural resources so that starts on page Actually, no, it's yes the bottom of 32 Is criterion one So to review this draft Takes the existing Criterion one Which currently contains both air and water pollution and it separates out water and houses it all in criterion two And so criterion one is now Solely about air pollution issues Highlighted is that we added the phrase greenhouse gas emissions So that criterion one now reads air pollution Will not result in undue air pollution In making this determination the district commission shall at least consider the air contaminants greenhouse gas emissions and noise to be emitted by the development or subdivision if any The proximity of the emission source to the residences Population centers and other sensitive receptors and emission dispersion characteristics at or near the source Line three starts criterion one a air contaminants A permit will be granted whenever it is demonstrated by the applicant That in addition to all other criteria the emission if any of air contaminants By the development or subdivision Will meet any requirement under the clean air act 42 usc chapter 85 And the pollution control regulations of the department of environmental conservation And then we didn't make any The next change is on page 34. So I don't know if you want me to read keep reading through but There's a small change on page 34 Question before we oh sure already before we left that that long list of the What's in the capability capability and development is You know, you were wondering about What order we might put things in and then I was looking at it and also thinking You know, we put something about waste, but there's something about recycling there's Other things that this committee as a natural resource committee could think about Putting in that Yeah It might be worth you be willing to do that Bring us some suggestions back All right So you guess we're saying something There's a section in the report About the capability and development plan if you want to read a little bit more about it to start your research This is trying to help you Thank you so much So so criterion 1 b is added to On greenhouse gas emissions So slightly different than air contaminants and it adopts Avoid minimize mitigate and on page 34 we added language to line 7 to read The sub the development or subdivision will employ Design and materials that are sufficient to enable the improvements to be constructed Including building roads and other infrastructure To withstand and adapt to the effects of climate change Including extreme temperature events wind and precipitation reasonably projected at the time of the application So we've taken a fair amount of testimony around this because we had a lot of questions about it And I just would say that I learned a lot about how the agency after resources is evaluating our life cycle impacts of solar developments, for example, I'm just Reminding the committee of That because we sort of went down a path and explored what's happening now and What's happening with the energy? code That's related to all this but we took that testimony as it relates to the climate change suggestions in this bill and We learned about the passive house for example, which is one version of the net zero house We tried to get a clarity on where we are as a state and moving forward on our goals around renewable energy and net zero standards And so that that's the part of the testimony we take in that I want you to apply your mind to when we're thinking about this language and I guess I think this is Crete and aspirational language. I don't know if we are ready to codify it I know you want to see Go for it. Um, I was actually hoping for a response to what I say. Yeah, and it was a response I appreciate that outline because I went back to some helpful testimony by Richard phasing who talks specifically I think we asked him to don't work In terms of better understanding this and as you know, I my line of questioning was on How how would that this language be interpreted so it was helpful for us to kind of Dive down into what that would play out if you may recall I was making and As to whether we needed to Encourage a room making process to be added to that to help flush that out or is this adequate enough? and and what I had heard from both the testimony of The national resources board that This new appeal structure Will better enable The board to make technical decisions That are going to be relevant to future decision-making on key matters such as this new And And that they they've had some on that database that they showed they had some hundreds or so technical decisions that We're influencing and providing up a capacity of the board to be able to Calibrate the eyes and the decision-making authorities of the district commissions in such a way of being able to build on that So that gave me confidence In recognizing that there's a new appeals board can really help to support the civil law and number two The combination of of richard faze's testimony and information that he provided indicated That this approach of As described in here avoid Minimize and mitigate Is workable And he had some examples in which just for minimization, for example was would be where you would Hope to see a maximum maximization of energy efficiency For example where he referred to the void is how to drive a net zero to help Whoever the landowner is to maintain their Their Use their building to help save their money save money a lot So that all gave me confidence from being able to dive down into the hearing the testimony that this could this is a Workable approach without feeling that we had to micromanage the process itself to drive To flush out what that would mean. So I just wanted to I appreciate That ability for us to have that line of testimony gave me confidence that this is a workable representative color What I think I heard was to to your query Yes, we ought to do this and and and that The process will work itself Out through through decisions and appeals and so on but I think that's what I heard and and and and I would additionally add that That we must be putting this type of new criteria in an order even for it to be Considered it is not in that won't be considered and we must start considering these types of of issues How as we as we Will need to adapt to climate change Representative Bates will fade and then we adjourn for lunch I'm confused here. Well a lot confused now. So I'm looking under Line 20 about the criteria air pollution, right? And we're adding greenhouse gas emissions Does that get added into The criteria then like what I'm reading here. Does that get added back into the air pollution criteria? I don't I don't know what you're pointing at. I'm looking at all the criteria or something everything So then greenhouse gas it would then get added to the existing Air pollution because it talks about noise and talks about all that stuff. Yeah, but it doesn't say greenhouse gas So you'll add that into that Now Monthly comment was In response to what you had to say earlier About it or not. We're there yet as far as the criteria goes They think a lot of that You know, we what's desirable or There's also a gap in what's desirable and what's Possible the rap group there was very very illuminating, but it also Costly at once to make me so I think what you projected there is Basically does have to have some sidewalks on it as far as cost It's like a whole other Okay, I