 take up 716 and that bill is up on our documents. Is that right? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you for coming. I know how difficult that is. I was your next door neighbor for six years in the committee room next door, and I was there that day that Jim referenced, I recall. But thank you very much for your consideration and your support. It's good to see you. So I'm trying to remember who I, I think I was going to start with Paula Lefebvre. Are you here? I'm trying to see who's here. I am, Madam Chair. You are. Good. Okay. So committee, this is another bill that we got. So we got this from House Natural Resources Fish and Wildlife, and we got it on March 12th. And so I don't believe we've looked at it before. I don't think so. So I'm going to start, I think, with you, Paul, if it's okay. I know you're the reporter of the bill. I think you're also the sponsor of it. So if you could, I'm hesitating a bit here, because I can't remember who else I had lined up. Lewis Porter and he's here and Dan Dickerson is here. Okay. So Paul, why don't you go ahead and tell us about the bill. Okay. Fine. I am the presenter, but I'm not a sponsor. Well, I did amend the bill and it was passed. Anyway, the bill strives to grant free hunting and fishing licenses to all members of the four recognized Abonafki tribes in Vermont. And the bill also requires that the Fish and Wildlife Department in 2022 gives us a report on how many licenses were actually handed out under this prevent. There is some concern as to really how many licenses it's amount to, because we don't know how many, how many people are in the four tribes all. An estimate is difficult to come by, because each tribe has its own rules and regulations who can become a member. For instance, if an Abonafki marries a male outside the tribe, and which tribe she's a member of, they can either be a member or not. It's not so there was a little discussion there. There was also the exception that if you living out of the state were a member of one of the four tribes, also be entitled to free hunting and fishing license. So that's the basic bolts of the bill. We had 13 witnesses and we're on support from the Lieutenant Governor and the Attorney General. The Commission of Wildlife expressed some concern over the financial impact it would have on his department. But went ahead with the bill, thinking it was a long time in coming. These rights had been guaranteed in a late 17th century treaty known as King Philip Treaty with the white settlers, basically in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. And we thought we were basically regressing on oversight and putting this bill together. And we did get strong, strong support from members of all four tribes, with the exception of one of the chiefs, a woman who took exception to the fact that no one person could speak for all four tribes. And I think she felt that she had not or her tribe had not been really well represented. And she expressed concern about whether or not the impact would have on the Fish and Wildlife Department as far as programs go, it's camps, and it's hunting courses and things like that. They came out of committee 10-1. OK, let me see if there's questions anyone has. Sam. Hi, Paul. So I saw a letter from one of the tribes saying that they didn't support the bill. And so we have four state recognized tribes. I was wondering what the breakdown is of how many support it and how many don't. Well, I don't believe there was any kind of vote taken among all members of all four tribes. The woman that I remember who spoke to us and sent us some testimony was one of the chiefs of the Cossack tribe, Shirley Hook. And she seemed to take someone, take umbrage over the fact that the chief of the Malhegan tribe, a man by the name of Donna Steeves, was getting recognition as someone was speaking for all the other people. And so she voiced her opinion that he did not. And in her letter she sent to us, she said she was concerned as to how it would affect the Fish and Wildlife Department's conservation camps and fishing derbies and basically had questions about its overall impact on an apartment. So I have a, this is doing this by Zoom, this is where it's challenged. I have a letter that says that Chief Shirley Hook and Chief Wood have already sent letters of support. This is a letter from Carol McCranahan who is sending a letter of support. I don't know where those letters are. And so I'm not basing that on seeing the letter, I'm just telling you that the information I have is that there is a letter. So I guess I wanna know whether Sorcia has seen such a letter. Representative Ansel, I have not seen anything. I have other correspondence on this. So Sam, I don't have a straightforward answer, but I was going on the assumption that all four tribes did support this, but based on the information I've gotten, and I don't know if that's accurate or not, certainly three do from what I've seen. Scott and Pat. Paul, I guess I suppose this might be different for each of the four tribes, but how high is the bar to become a certified citizen? Well, basically it's, you have to be a member of a tribe in which is recognized, in which the state recognized. And I believe it's up, as I say, the rules and regulations among the tribes are not uniform. So there's, we didn't really get, or I don't recall receiving any bull by bull point by point discussion as to how someone became a member of any given tribe among the four that are recognized in the state. Could I become a member of a tribe? I, you know, that would be up to the tribe in which you wish to, I'll just step in. You have to be either, in your case, I think it would be a question of whether or not you married one of the women up from the tribe. Well, I mean, I just wanted to be part of a tribe. I can't do that because of some sort of- I don't think that would work very well. Well, I think they're looking for people who can show their abinacchi roots either through genealogy or any documentation they may have. I don't know what all goes into that documentation but I don't think they would take, I think they take membership in the tribe very seriously and just would not hand it out as a favor. Okay, I mean, I don't know what, you know, once you become a member of the tribe, what that entails, but I just would, well, I mean, this is a significant benefit. I wouldn't want to put ourselves in a situation where we have, you know, people becoming members of tribes for so they can get a free hunting and fishing license. That concern of fear was really never spoken to but while those chiefs who came in to speak to our committee, they took great pride in the fact that the state had recognized them as an average people, as Native Americans. And I don't think that's something they would just give away, you know, I can't tell you exactly how much goes into becoming a member but I believe it's not something that they take easily. But it sounds like what you're saying is there's a racial threshold. Well, yes, there probably is. Okay, thank you. Pat. Thanks, Madam Chair. My question is back to revenues and what kind of a hit that the agency may be taking. Do you have any numbers on that or did you discuss that at all? Yes, we did discuss it before Paul answers. Dan Dickerson is here with the fiscal note as well. So if you want to wait for Dan to present that or just have Paul answer. No, I think Dan might have some hard numbers for us. I'll wait. Yeah, he does. Okay. Let me see if there's other questions on the part of the committee. Scott, the question you asked is, I suspect that if the natural resources committee didn't go over that, the general committee probably has information on it because they do a lot of work on Native American issues. But if you want me to try to reach out and get information, I can. I'll reach out to them. I can do that in the same time. But I think that's where the information tends to be. Let me see if anyone else on the committee has anything. I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to shift the order of things a little bit and have Dan present the fiscal note and then we'll go to Lewis Porter and Steve Gomez. So Dan, are you prepared to do that? Yes, I am. Can you hear me okay? Yeah, good. Okay. So in the fiscal note, under fiscal summary, basically there are two areas where revenues would be impacted. The first being that sales of annual and five-year licenses would go down, which would have an impact on fish and wildlife operations. And then the sales of lifetime licenses that go into a trust fund for future use by the department, I think mainly towards land purchases would also be affected although to a much smaller extent because sales of lifetime licenses are smaller. So I based my fiscal note on a population of 6,000 members and this was taken from a seven day, was either seven days or a BT degree, seven days article. So I didn't confirm that number with the four tribes, but what I did do is I looked at five-year census data and based on that, between people that claim, well, let me make sure I get this right, people that claim American Indian or Alaska Native Heritage or a combination of American Indian, Alaska Native and white. It's about 7,500 people. There are probably some others that may be a combination of other ethnicities. So I wouldn't presume that the 7,500 would be just the four tribes. They're probably other folks that have heritage. So I think the 6,000 number is probably pretty close. I don't know if that makes sense to everyone. And then from there, I looked at data that I'd gotten last year from the Fish and Wildlife Department when they, I think when, actually when the House Fish and Wildlife Committee had gone over the fee changes, the Department had provided data on license sales. And so I took the percentage of the Vermont population that buys licenses and I heard Vermont population within the certain ages that buy licenses. And I applied that to the 6,000 members of the tribe. So it's imperfect. I don't know if the 6,000 members of the tribe tend to buy hunting and fishing licenses more or less than the Vermont population. I didn't want to assume one way or the other. So I thought the cleanest way to do it is just apply the percentage of the entire Vermont population that buys licenses. So based on that, under the annual and five year licenses category, I assumed, or I estimated that there would be a $30,000 to $35,000 impact annually to the Fish and Wildlife Operating Budget. Most of that is what I would presume to be Vermont residents, but there's some portion that would potentially be non-residents in that somebody living in New Hampshire could apply for tribal membership or tribal citizenship and then be eligible to receive the free license or the free lifetime combination license. So I built some cushion in for non-residents, but that's very difficult. That part is difficult to estimate. So there's about 5,000 cushion in there for that. And then going to lifetime licenses, I assumed, based on, once again, on the percentage of Vermonters that buy lifetime licenses that there are probably another 10 to 20 individuals that may, going forward, may have been inclined to purchase lifetime license, now won't because they're eligible for the free combination license. And that would be a loss annually of $5,000 to $10,000 because that goes into a trust funds, that money wouldn't earn on the investments. And so the impact would increase from there, but it's not a huge amount of money. And then at the end, I just made a general statement on how COVID-19 might impact license sales going forward. The bottom line is short-term, it sounds like it's been good, but long-term, there are a lot of unknowns. So it's hard to make a prediction, but that is the fiscal note. Right, let me see if there are questions. Pat, did you have questions about the fiscal note? Yeah, you go ahead. I think you're still muted. Okay, so I do have a question based on some of the information we just heard. And I'm wondering, I get the fiscal impact, to the agency, to the department, but I'm wondering, you kind of hit me with something I hadn't heard before, and that's non-residents being a member or possibly applying to be a member of one of these four tribes would then be eligible. And that to me, that's a non-resident hunting license and somebody from out of state is gonna walk into Vermont, apply to be a member of a tribe or maybe already a member of the tribe, but living out of state and are gonna be eligible for a free lifetime hunting license, that kind of blows my mind. And I think that the revenue impact be much larger than what we're estimating here. Especially given the circumstances, it's already a given that more people are going out buying hunting and fishing licenses now given the times, passes the time, and maybe they will find out that they enjoy the outdoors more than they thought they might and be hooked on hunting and fishing. So I'm really concerned that we are hitting an already underfunded department I think we can all agree that fish and wildlife is woefully underfunded and has been for years and then hitting them with what we're saying to be 30 or $40,000, but what I'm thinking might be closer to 80 to 100 if things really catch on. And that concerns me. And it also from another viewpoint concerns me that I'm a native Vermonter, been here 67 years and I waited 67 years to get my free permanence and now we're handing them out to other native Vermonters in my opinion. It just doesn't sit that well with me and I'm concerned about the revenue loss in particular. That's more of a statement than a question I get that, but I do think the estimates are low. Thanks. Jim. Two things I can address. One is there are out of state members of the tribes. In many cases they are members of the same family, most cases of the people under consideration who live in one town or another. They're not people who wandered in for him to hear there or the other. And they, as Paul said, different tribes have slightly different membership rules and regulations and whatnot, but they're all established. They're all either able to establish Native American genealogy, McMack, Abnackie or whatnot or are married to one. So I don't see the out of state problem that's really being an issue at all. And yeah, some hunt, some don't. It turns out that I'm Native American, Abnackie and McMack, but not a member of one of these four recognized tribes. So I'm not entitled to my free license yet. But thank you. Before I go to other questions, Sosha, did you have a chance to post that letter? So I made reference to a letter of support earlier, but I didn't have it. It's on the website now if you refresh your browser. Okay, and can you just post it, do a screen shot of it so that people can see it? Great. So this is a letter that, oops, I'm trying to move it. If you don't mind showing the signers, I'd appreciate that. This is a letter from Chief Ravenwood and Chief Shirley Hook, which were the two that I had not seen letters from, but I understood that they exist, that support H716 as it is. So I just wanted to close that loop so that everybody had the same information. So I have a question from Robin and from Sam. Sam, is it about the letter or the support? Why don't you go ahead? I was just gonna say, I was confused because I had one from a week earlier that said the opposite. Yes, and that's why these letters were written is to clarify and so on. So my apologies for not having it available earlier, but it's here. It just occurred to me, it's a very weird thing to pass a bill that somebody doesn't want or there's a big disagreement about. I just wanted to get that clarified. Yes, we had this on the schedule last week and that's why it went off the schedule. So, exactly. Robin. Thanks, I wonder if I might ask the representative from Natural Resources if your committee discussed this out of state notion, people getting free licenses who don't live in the state of Vermont and what that conversation was like and why you decided that was okay. Certainly, the conversation revolved around people who lived on the other side of the river, Connecticut River, it may be in Maine. We didn't think it extended much further than the general vicinity of the three states. We don't believe that anyone from Oregon was gonna come over and claim a membership in that particular tribe. It seemed to us the numbers we were considering who might be out of state and wanting to take advantage of that of the bill were miniscule. Same, and then I'm gonna go to Lewis Porter. Yeah, Paul, that just kind of brings up another thought to me which is what about the Northern border? I mean, this was, I don't know where the Vermont tribes extend to necessarily, but it was always my impression that there was a lot of going back and forth to Vermont from Southern Quebec and up to the St. Lawrence traditionally. I just, I don't know where that is now. Yes, that came up, but I guess, again, we didn't assume it would be any great problem or any great numbers. I'm sure there are some Avanaki folks who live in Quebec and maybe are members of one of these four tribes, but I don't think we're talking a lot of numbers here at all. Let me go to Lewis, River has, I think he's still here. Yes, I am. Good, how are you? As well as can be expected. Exactly, yep. Madam chair. Sorry, go ahead. You have callous internet, right? Yeah, exactly. You're freezing up. So go ahead and give it a try. But you know, if you turn off your video, we can probably hear you. He's also on. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Thanks, Lewis. Sorry. No, no, thank you. I have with me, Steve Gomez, our business and licensing manager. And Madam chair, would you like me to have Steve join me as I go along? Or would you like me to join you? Would you like Steve join me as I go along? Or would you like me to go and have him take notes and then follow up? You can do any way you like. We don't even have to put two chairs at the end of the table. So sounds, sounds good. We'll, we'll attempt the two chairs remotely here. First, I would like to say that I, I think that this bill recognizes a, a very long standing and very significant injustice. And it makes a gesture towards. Towards recognizing that I won't say undoing because obviously the, the land rights and, and other rights that were contemplated. In those treaties and which were, and which were not followed through on our much broader than, than a fishing and hunting license, but, but I do just want to say that it does. Recognize a long standing injustice. And it does, it does. That's a long standing injustice. Having said that, I also am in the, in the position of, of making this bill, if it passed into law, operational both financially and from a, from a management standpoint. And so I just want to go through a couple of points and then happy to take questions or comments on them. I agree with representative Brennan. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. As good as could be done with, with existing information. Probably does underestimate the, the impact of the, of the license. And in part, I think that's due to the fact that. People are much more likely to utilize a service that's free than one they pay for a price. Price point does matter and price does matter, including in hunting and fishing licenses. There's sort of two ways to look at that. Well, it doesn't, those are folks, if those folks wouldn't hunt with the cost of a hunting license or a fishing license, then it doesn't matter because you're not actually losing any revenue. They wouldn't have been providing revenue into the system in any case. The other way to look at it is that we provide services, biological and law enforcement services. For everybody who hunts and fishes in the state. And here's a group of, of people who would be participating for the first time or participating when they wouldn't have been otherwise. But we will still be providing those services of various kinds. So I won't make a judgment call about that, except to say that I think that that does underestimate to some extent the amount of participation that will change based on, on these free licenses. To the, to the praise by a couple of representatives. The other statutory. Permanent licenses that we have are restricted to residents of Vermont. Those include those over the years of ages of 66 is representative Brennan noted the legally blind. Those who, those who are paraplegic, 60% disabled veterans. And the special Olympics fishing tournament. We also recognize the point made by representative Maslin and Lefebvre. That these Vermont. Bands tribes were not restricted by the borders of Vermont and that they have. Members who's live outside the borders and family members who live outside the borders. And, and, and that they are also members of those, of those groups. So, we do have a little bit of insight into the use by non-residents through our lifetime licenses as the committee knows we, we sell lifetime licenses to Vermont to kids in Vermont, primarily those under one. They go and move around the country as, as many of us have done before coming back or, or for, for our lifetimes. And so, I think that's a great thing. I think that's a great thing. And I think that's, Vermont kids come back from the far flung corners of, of the world they go to, to participate in hunting and fishing. That's a great thing in my opinion. And I think the same would be true here. Also a good thing here, but I do think you would see. Members of those groups return to, to participate as, as the. Owners of the holders of, of lifetime licenses do. I think that's a huge difference from a, from a fiscal standpoint, but I think should be noted is we are talking about these, these licenses as, as a loss in annual revenue, but there really are structured more like our permanent or lifetime licenses. And the way that the, that the lifetime licenses in particular work is we, we gather that money from, from people primarily parents of kids who are under one. And we then, and we then put that in a trust fund to fund those services when they reach the age that they would have to buy licenses and a normal, if they didn't have lifetime licenses. So this is, this is giving a lifetime licenses, but not adding to that trust fund, which I think has the risk of exacerbating our already existing problem in the trust fund of, of getting the revenues upfront and, and providing the services later. The department has done a lot under Steve Gomez's leadership to undo historic uses of that trust fund, dipping into that trust fund and to try to restore that trust fund to a healthy state. And that's one of our, one of our maybe quieter accomplishments, but an accomplishment we're proud of is restoring the fiscal balance to that trust fund so that we, we've undone to some extent past mistakes by the department when we use that money for operating expenses rather than leaving at the trust fund. I'm not sure this has a similar question to the, to the, to our additional users actually increasing the costs or they merely not providing revenue. They went to provide it in any case, but I do think it's worth, worth noting the, the, another note that I think it is worthwhile is the bill contemplates that parents would, would certify that their minor children are, are the citizens of the state recognized tribes. I think that creates a pretty big loophole unless we were to require that the parent or guardian is also a member of the, of the tribe. In other words, I could certify that my child was, even if she wasn't. And, and I think it should be, should be restricted to the parents or guardians who are also members, if that makes sense. I'd also like to suggest that we, there's a report back in 2020, 2022, I'm sorry. That would only include one year of license, revenue of licensed sales. So it would just be the 21 license year. And what we know from our, from our requirements on that people check in if they're going to use permanent or lifetime licenses is, it takes at least three or four years before people catch up on what's going through, what's changed in terms of licensing operations. So even with our best efforts at outreach and publication, word of mouth still counts for a lot. And it can take several years to catch up. So I would suggest that report be moved out to a couple of years later. So we get an accurate report out on, on what's happening in terms of these new proposed, permanent or lifetime licenses. I'm also unclear on whether we would need language in this bill or not to require that people go through hunter safety before they could hunt under one of these, under one of these licenses. I suspect that the requirements of hunter safety would still apply to these and that this is, is more or less a change in fee. But I would want to make sure that our, that hunter education is required and that there's a mechanism for, for enforcing fish and wildlife laws and revoking such a license. As we do with, as we do with another license or suspending such a license as, as we do with other licenses. And then last, I would just note that. The effective date of the, the effective date of the, the effective date of the, the effective date should be January one of 2021. I would suggest to match up with other types of, with all of our other licenses, which go on a calendar year basis. I will just end by noting that, that the, in the house natural resources committee, I suggested that the fish and wildlife department cover half of the cost of this bill is if it goes into law. And the attorney general's office cover the other half as the attorney general is a supporter of this measure. I'm not sure the attorney general appreciated my suggestion very much, but, but, and in any case, house, house natural did not, did not go forward with that proposal. With that, if I could, I would turn it over to Steve to fill in any gaps or correct, correct anything that I said and, and then we're happy to take questions. Well, as before we lose you. I want to be sure I know what the recommendations are that you made. You wanted to remove the report date out to, to what date? I would say give three years of active license. So move the report date out two years to 2024. 2024. And the, I understand. The parent, your recommendation that the parent should also be a citizen should also be a citizen. I think that's a good question about hunter safety. And then the effective date was January. I'm sorry, what date we use recommending that effective. I would, I would say effective January one of 21 to match up with our other licenses. Okay. And did I know the recommendations that you made over those, the other than sharing it, having the AG. No, those are, those are them. I would just, I would say that the, I would say that the legislative council, if hunter safety and violations would be handled as they are for other licenses. That availed camp field and Robin and George all have questions. Nothing was mentioned. You haven't said much about the conservation camp. You see a hit on that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, you know, you know, I have to, I present you with a balanced budget. I'm already working on a new. Budget that contemplates at least an 8% reduction in general fund per the governor's directive. And while we have seen an increase in fishing license sales this spring, it's unclear if those are. I mean, I don't know if it's a year or a true increase in revenue. And I won't even go into the, the Byzantine effects that are going on in the federal aid system right now to spare the committee. But long story short. Reps into camfield. I have, I have a lot of budget pressures and I have one. Lionite in the, or one area that makes up most of my budget, which is personnel. And so I would have to figure whatever this, whatever the actual dollar loss is. I will have to figure that into my budget for future years and, and conservation camps are part of that budget. We operate the camps that are lost. But I don't know that I don't know that there's nothing specific to conservation camps. I'm just going along with the way this is reading the folks who belong to the tribe that live out of state, their children would come to the conservation camp too. They could come to the conservation camp now and nothing would change that. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what representatives of the faves reference to the conservation camp was. I don't think there's anything specific in this change to conservation camp revenue or operations. It's just general to the department. Okay. Yeah, just quickly. Janet, I wasn't sure if I heard on your list of things that we wanted to change. One of the things I had written down was also the ability to revoke or suspend licenses. Yeah, I guess I was including that in the hunter safety. Sort of compliance. Section, but yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So to mention it. George. Thank you for joining us, Mr. Commissioner. These recommendations that we've just listed if I ever saw them. Did you make those recommendations to the fish and wildlife committee? Some, I, some I did and some I did not. There's been, you know, significant amount of time and an amendment to the bill since I testified in that committee. And I apologize for that. I'm not sure what to make to them. They chose not to include some of these recommendations already. You know, I, I, I, I honestly can't remember in my testimony, which of those points I raised and, and which I didn't. And I apologize for that. The only one I'm aware of is, I believe we talked about the revocation based on violations or the suspension based on violations. And I believe that the house natural committee. I thought that that was covered, that that was not an issue within the, within the bill, but I will defer to your ledge council or to representative Lafave on that. And then my other question is. If you gave an opinion, I didn't hear it about the non Vermont residents. Being given the license I share representative Brennan's concern about that. I am honestly of two minds personally about that representative bill. On the one hand, we do restrict other types of reduced cost or free income. But I would say that the number of residents on the other hand, it seems to compound the wrong done to the tribes. To impose a state boundary requirement that was not historically part of their, of their lives or their tribal organizations. That makes sense. So I'm genuinely of two minds on that one. If you have to make a recommendation one way or the other, what would it be? We can't put both in the bill. I think I would defer to the, to chief Stevens and the requesters of the bill who felt as though, having this be open to members, wherever they, whether they're residents of would, would, would be the proper way to show deference to that. So I think I would defer to chief Stevens on that. To put it another way, you're not recommending we make that change to limit it to Vermont residents. Correct. And if press to make a decision, or I would, I would not limit it to residents in reference to the chief's belief that it should be open on residents as well. Are you all set. Yeah. Yeah. Couple of things. I'm following up on what. Commissioner Porter just said, I. I would agree with the out of state membership. I mean, there, there are members of a family who are neighbors here who now live in Massachusetts and we'll come back from time to time. And. There every bit as much abnacky as those that. Remain in the neighborhood. Yeah. The other comment that was made back a while ago, a question about whether or not. A parent of a one year old would have to establish that he. She. Was a member of a, of one of the Vermont tribes. I think that's quite reasonable actually. And that shouldn't be all that burdensome. After all, if. If it takes a little bit of time. Okay. But who's going to go hunting when he's one year old. I think that's a big deal. Because I don't want to. Except about it. The bill requires that the minor be a citizen of the tribe. And I think what Lewis Porter was recommending. Is that the parent who certifies that also be a member. That's the part that's not in the bill. Not. Not. I think that's necessarily implied, but it's not stated. I mean, for instance. If I'm having that key, my children are also. But that some. Some mechanism for establishing that I think should be. If the. If I go, my kids are grown up, but if I were to go get a hunting license. And the clerk would ask me. Find a member of a tribe and I had a membership card and that should do it. I think we're saying mostly the same thing, but with a little bit. Really, but that's, it's fine. I'll look at the bill. Thank you. So that brings up a question. And I don't know who is best suited to answer. But what if, what about a marriage. And I'm not asking, I'm not asking, I'm not asking that. And that NACI and a non. Native American. And I'm asking because I don't know, does that preclude the. A sibling, one of their. Children from. Do they qualify as their 50%. Native American at that point, would they qualify for lifetime license. And I'm not asking that if, if the chair would like. Sure. Go ahead. Thank you. So the bill, the bill contemplates. The, the, the membership of the, of the various tribes or bands. Are set the mechanisms are set by them. Are not the state does not have any involvement in that, nor any vision visibility into it. And I'm not asking that. If somebody showed up at our licensing office with a card. That said they were a member of the band. We would issue them a license. We would not have a role in determining who is eligible or not. And so I suspect that. I suspect that the, the, the, the, the, from, I know that those children would be. I think that the spouse, the non. Tribes spouse would be eligible in some cases and in some cases not, but in any case the band set their own tribal. Recognition or tribal identity requirements. And if they show up at our licensing office, we issue them a license. Madam chair. Yes. Go ahead. Thank you. I just wanted to get a word in here that yes, the, I must point out that in the bill. It does read that a person who is a certified citizen. Of one of the state recognized. Tribes. Has that credential on him to show that he is indeed been accepted as a member into the tribe. And secondly. The commissioner is correct in terms of the testimony we receive. Each tribe seems to have its own, its own mechanism for allowing membership. But I would also like to point out that none of the. Tribes. Abinac is a testified before us. All stressed rather all stressed it. They would comply with all state game laws. They're not asking for special treatment here. Basically they go back to the tree, the treaty, the land deeds of 1796 by King Philip. Which said that in change in exchange for the land. These Native Americans would receive hunting and fishing. And that's, that's really the ethical basis for this bill and this claim. So I just wish to point that out that, you know, that. Outside of the outside of those rights. The Indians got four bushels of corn and beans for the, the transaction. So it's, it's, it isn't as if. We're giving away anything here. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see other hands at the moment. Sure, go ahead. Yeah, I was still. I think what I'm hearing here is that each one of the four tribes has their own mechanism. And Paul, you can jump in or Lewis for determining eligibility. And I'm what, and none of them seem to be in sync with each other. So that kind of worries me. Like here, here's, here you go. Here's have a card. I know you married my sister here and. You know, in your neighbor, I mean, I just don't. There's no real mechanism set in stone that makes this a predictable process. So that concerns me. And I, if anybody has a better answer and can tell me that I'm wrong about that. I'd be happy to hear it. Yes, I will only point out. Pat that too much of the 20th century. And they have been acting felt themselves to be a persecuted minority. And they say they got by by being. They hit by being seen. So consequently, they didn't step forward with them with their Native American identity. They more or less try not to make an issue of it. And when in the testimony we receive, a lot of them. They were only half a dozen or so, but there were a certain amount of suspicion as to whether or not they wanted this bill. They said they were afraid it would bring them more into the limelight. And they would have to go through or deal with a whole new wave. Of discrimination. So I, I, I, I just add that as a, as a, as a cautionary note as to what's, what's really kind of unfolding here in terms of how we try to kind of square. Square history with, with our present day laws and regulations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There's other, other questions here. I guess I. I'm going to go back. Revenue and just make one brief statement, which is that this committee has been open and willing. To look at a fee bill for this department in addition to many others. And we really. I think it's a bigger problem than the scope. Stand ready to look at that issue. Madam chair. Yeah. I just, I would be, I would be irresponsible. I feel if I didn't make one more note for the committee, which is that, that this is a good, and worthy thing to do this bill. The fish and wildlife department has been called on for a long time to do many good and worthy things. That we don't get paid for, including active 50 review, including search and rescue, including boating enforcement. And many, many, many, many, many, many, many others. And I understand this is, it's really an issue, a question for your colleagues and house appropriations. But, but just given the point you just made, I would just say that what the committee, what the, what the department really needs is not an increase in hunting and fishing. Fees given the. By those who hold hunting and fishing licenses already and given the declining numbers on the hunting side at least. Contemplate is additional sources of revenue from. Those who engage in the regulatory review process to those who use fishing accesses, but you're not paying to the system now to others. To continue to support the work. And this is a, this is a good bill doing a good thing. It's one more example of, of a, of a, of a good thing that we, that we don't have a revenue source to support. And I take your point on our recommendations to the committee, and I will continue to work on that. So thank you for hearing us and for considering that and, and the broader context of this. Thanks. Thank you. And I appreciate those comments and I'm looking for a note that I have from Amy Sheldon, which I can also share with the committee, but the house natural resources committee. I'll read it to you, but I'll also forward it to social so she can post it, but she says, that our committee should know that house natural resources is committed to finding alternative funding for fish and wildlife. And that they have a bill that sets up a study to compile all the work done to date on funding options and make a suggestion for next biennium. So it is, it is a problem. And it's a problem that's really going to require the administration and the legislature to work together. And I, I, I think I appreciate your statement that this is a worthy bill. I think it's, it's not, it's not perfect way to correct Iran, but it's an important way to correct Iran. And I'll leave it to the committee, whether they want to look at the suggestions for changes. I don't think given the time that we're going to vote it this morning, I thought we might be able to, but what I'd like to do, I guess at the moment is find out from the committee, maybe sort of a sort of general sense of support on the committee for the bill. And then a question for people about whether they want to, make changes in the reporting deadline, the effective date and the requirement that a parent that certifies is also a citizen also get testimony from legislative council on the compliance kind of issue that was out there. Jim. And Scott. I'd just like to go back to the point on. The differences in tribal membership roles from, from tribe to tribe. And I would say kind of following what Lewis Porter said that, that each tribe can determine its own rock roles as it sees fit. But the differences among them are really slight. The issue is, are you abnacky? Is what you're talking about? Can you trace your roots back? And if you can, you are, if you marry someone who's white. Well, she's your spouse or he's your spouse. They are members of the tribe and their children. Have. Abnacky blood, abnacky heritage. And that shouldn't make a difference here. I think that's. The drug, the tribe. Band is Lewis also sometimes said. Determines that these individuals are member of the tribe. And that should be sufficient. It's not a. It's not a. What can you do for me? Kind of thing. A quid pro quo. It's to have Native American blood Northern tribes or not. So I just. Pass that comment on. So for the committee, I'd like to get a sense about general support for the bill. And it's not, not a vote, but I just want to know. If there is, if there are enough votes on the committee to support the bill. And I don't know exactly how to do that. Because I have two hands up at the moment. So. I guess I'm looking for a show of blue hands on whether you support the bill. Well, I should put me up there. So I've got one, two, three. Okay. I've got enough. So there's enough people to vote the bill out. That was, that was my main concern. Our question. So we'll continue to work on it. Do people want to see a redraft with the change in the report date and the change on the effective date? Generally. Yes. I'm going to see. Yes. To do those. And I think I'll ask for a draft on the. Requiring that the parent also be a citizen when they certify. Jim. I think made the comment that that would. Implied. I'm not sure about that. But we'll get a redraft that says that. And we'll have. Have legislative council and next time we take it up to talk about the compliance, hundred safety issues, just so we can either be reassured that they're covered or make a change. At that point. I will, once we have all that, I'll ask that we make a decision that is to. Get a, get a vote on the bill. And George wants to jump in. Go ahead. Yeah. The other. Unresolved issue is this. Issue of Vermont residency. And I, you know, I'd like to get a sense of the. The rest of the committee, how they feel about. About that. Yeah, I can speak for myself. not have a Vermont residence requirement, but let me get a few people to jump in, Emily. I think towards what Lewis said about the fact that we're trying to right a historic wrong that did not involve the specific borders that are now Vermont is a really important part of this to me. And so enforcing arbitrary borders sort of around Canada and New Hampshire seem out of the spirit of the bill. So I'd rather leave it as is. The people wanted to- Janet, I agree also with the exact reasons that Emily just cited that I think this is an important bill to address very, very serious past wrongs. Maybe I'll ask the question the other way. Are there other people besides George who would like to look at a residency requirement? Pat, yes, anyone else? Okay. I don't see anyone else. So I won't take it off the table. If you wanna get something prepared and try to convince the committee, you are obviously welcome to do that. At the moment it looks as though a majority of the committee would not wanna incorporate that change. So next time we take it up, if you wanna bring it back up, that's fine. So I think that is it. I have a same, I have a noon meeting because that's when I'm running to the finish line here about. Oh, okay. Maybe this can be really quick. I'm just wondering how functionally it would work. You would still get a license, right? That you have tags. It's not that you just have your card that says I'm a citizen of a tribe and you're free to hunt to any amount. You still need to have a license to the tags and that's what the revocation was about. But Lewis. I think that's right. And that's what we'll hear from legislative when we have a little more time to explore it. But yes, I think what this bill does is it says you get that permanent license for free, but if you meet certain requirements. But we'll delve into a little bit more. I'm sorry to be in a rush with it. I've got a meeting that starts right at noon. And so I'm gonna have to close this down before we're ready. Bill, did you wanna jump in before I did that though? Yeah, I just wanna, you're gonna have another draft. Did you mention changing the effective date that Lewis had requested? Yeah, we'll do a draft that changes the report, changes the effective date. We'll look at language on the parent being a citizen and we'll hear about the Hunter Safety Compliance question, but we won't get a redraft on that. And Pat and George, if you wanna prepare language on the borders issue, we'll look at it. My sense at the moment is that there wasn't support on the committee for that, but if you wanna make the case that we'll give you time to do that. So that is it. We're looking at education finance tomorrow. I may carve out a little bit of time for this bill if I can, if we're gonna have the draft ready, so we can make a decision and move it along. Thank you everybody for good discussion and we'll see you tomorrow, I guess at nine. Is it nine? It's nine o'clock and I am ending the live stream now. Great.