Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Ela Chapin]: I'm live.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Thank you.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Good afternoon. My name is Bradley Shulman, legislative council, and I am here today to do a walkthrough of a short form bill h six zero eight. I'm gonna share my screen here. I have permission now. So h six zero eight is a short form bill meant to permit property owners to post against hunting, fishing, and trapping using purple paints. Some background on this, the Vermont constitution chapter two, section 67 permits hunting, on any lands in the state, so long as that land is not enclosed to hunting and so our statutes define what enclosed means as a matter of law in order to prevent individuals from entering a property for purposes of hunting. This bill would amend how we post. Currently, we post with signs that must be registered annually. This bill would change that requirement from signs that must be registered annually to purple paint markings. The paint markings would be, this is a a method of posting property against trespass that is in the law on several other states, at least 15 that I could verify, perhaps more from secondary sources that indicated that there are more states that that permit this method of posting against trespassing with purple paint markings. Most often, the purple paint markings are vertical stripe about, one at least one inch wide and eight inches long posted every 100 meters. This bill would put us in, in line with that, and that is all it is purports to do at this moment. Any questions from the committee?

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Is there any assessment on the integrity of the length of duration? For instance, most forestry patients will go three to five years and then they're erased off the tree. They just dissolve out.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It is, this bill as written does not currently assess how often the the paint markings must be, repainted or things of that sort. However, it is most likely that this bill would contemplate making sure that the markings are visible and well maintained. Most often, similar statutes that have been enacted in other states have required individuals to place them such that they are clearly visible, and, invisibility is key. So if the paint is very weathered and it's hard to see, that may be an, an issue for for actually enclosing the land for purposes of the statute.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Representative Tagliavia. With respect to paint being weather, how are we going to file how what the definition of weathered paint is?

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The other statutes have that I've looked at have not defined weathered paint as as very specifically. What other statues have done is put the burden on the property owner to maintain visibility. And these paint markings, you know, must be a certain width and a certain length, and they must be posted most often than not, they're posted at least every 100 yards. And so I will pause here and allow Representative Wood to speak about this bill. Representative Wood, I'll let you speak cause I'm talking about your bill, and then I'll pick back up where I left off.

[Representative Teresa Wood]: All right. That was fast. Oh, it's nice and warm in here.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Good afternoon,

[Representative Teresa Wood]: everyone. Representative Teresa Wood from Waterbury. I also serve Bolton, Buells Gore and Huntington. A couple of things about this short form bill. Sort of the feedback that I've been getting from people once they saw it introduced. First off, it was a constituent request, actually multiple constituents, And really started out because of a town clerk in one of my communities sending out updated information, what was updated information about the requirements for posting your land. And I don't know all the ins and outs of all of the rules around posting, but it was being perceived as a change or a new regulation or requirement to having to post, update that every single year. So she was letting landowners know in her role as town clerk. Then started contacting me and saying, well, This just seems not doable. Why do we have this? So, I submitted this request, and then what I started hearing from were older Vermonters and people with disabilities who own land and said, this is something that we have wanted for a long time. After the bill came out, those are the people I heard most from by saying, I'm not gonna, I can't go out every year and post my land, I have physical limitations, I'm getting older and they found that as a real benefit to them. So that's just to let you know the feedback then, and those are people all over the state, they aren't necessarily my constituents, so just to let you know that sort of what started out as feeling like a response or a reaction to what people were perceiving as new regulation or rules, ended up also turning out to be an accessibility and accommodation for older Vermonters and people with disabilities who own property. Those are the people then I started hearing from. So that's about all I have. I'm happy to take any questions that you might have, except from Chris. How

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: do we remedy accidental postings?

[Representative Teresa Wood]: Like people on not their property, you mean?

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Yeah. Somebody goes out, even with the best of intentions, blazes a tree with this purple paint, and then it's found out that it's not on the line, or somebody accidentally posted the wrong land because they're just they they misread a map or something, and now you've got this this pain on trees. How do we remove it without damaging trees doing more harm than good?

[Representative Teresa Wood]: That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that. I mean, I I I think, you know, that's something that obviously have to be dealt with in the sort of testimony and understanding about this. I don't think that this this is Vermont wouldn't be the first state to do this. I don't know all the other states who do it. That question must have been answered in other locales.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: Hi, thank you. I just want to say I feel very strongly that people who own land, private land, have an absolute right to protect it or decide. So I want to say that. I just don't want purple marks all over Vermont. And I think there's a better solution. I don't know what it is, but I do wonder if Fish and Wildlife or somebody, I don't know if it's a study committee or I don't think you'd have to study it too long, but I think there's a better solution than the signs and having to do it every year. I just feel like in the world of technology or whatever, there is a better solution. And I'd love to, you know, explore what other options maybe that end up with the same result. But we don't have you know, we're not tagging trees like that with paint and they sell the property and they want

[Representative Teresa Wood]: Somebody wants to change their mind about Yeah, I get that. I think one of the sort of more immediate things that could happen is, you all will know better from testimony from the department about whether in fact there was an actual change in rule or just a change in interpretation, because that could satisfy a lot of people really quickly, if that was dealt with. As I understand it right now, the way the guidance came out, or the interpretive rule that they have to do it on a certain day each year.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: That seems odd to me.

[Representative Teresa Wood]: Think you have a lot of land. Yeah.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Representative Pritchard. Thank you, representative Wood. So and these will probably get directed to legal counsel, but I have a whole bunch of concerns, and I could you know, the bill's short form, so I know because of that, it it it's vague and, you know, it's just to bring up conversation. Here's here's some of the things that I'm concerned about. You you had mentioned visibility. You know, I guess I I would like to know how that's applied in the other states that do this because to me, that's subjective. Visibility, I couldn't see it, well,

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I could see it

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: fine. It's very subjective. The other thing is I would wanna know, based on that, how is there provisions for this? How often does this have to be refreshed? How often does it have to be visited to be refreshed? Is it every three years? Is it every ten years? Is it never? I would be interested in knowing if that's in laws of some of the statute of some of these other states. And the other thing that I think would be important too, and this is a conservative line, and I don't know if other states have addressed it, but I don't know what stops folks from going to the store and buying 10 cans of paint painting the state up. And then if that is done without owner consent or without being an agent, who is responsible for reversing that? What are the penalties for that? So there's a lot of questions I have. Those are the three biggest ones, but I can appreciate the concerns, and I don't know about other committee members, but I can tell you I got a ton of of emails from folks across the state. You know? And most of them with limitations of being able to get out, walk around, and I can appreciate that. So for me, you know, and I agree with Sarita. If, you know, we all have the individual right decision whether we wanna post our property or not, and that should be honored. But I think, hopefully, what comes out of this is what is there that we can do for these folks that can help? Because certainly I can understand their concerns, I can sympathize with So but I I just there's so many things about this that I I just have unanswered questions, and I just you know, Virginia, I I used to hunt in Virginia. Virginia has this. It's silver paint. Bad idea. Because I'm telling you, it doesn't you know, it it's very hard to see. So I I get the change in in color. But I just think there's a lot better way to do this.

[Representative Teresa Wood]: Certainly interested in whatever ideas you might have, representative Pritchard. Think that one of the things that this has illuminated for us is maybe closer attention to the needs of property owners who are older, who have disabilities, and how we might figure out a way to accommodate those needs as we look at this issue in general. And maybe hopefully look at clarifying for the department what legislative intent might have been around this annual thing. So thank you, and thank you for not expecting me to answer all your questions.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Senator Chapin.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Can you just speak more about the stories you heard? Like just, and this is your area of expertise also, just what experiences do people have with disabilities with aging? Are people saying they're paying a lot to have this done every year? No, I don't think it was the legislative intent that people have to pay a lot to post a win. There was supposed to be something you could do without the presumption is that people can walk onto other people's land unless they go out and post it. So, again, I'm just curious what you're hearing about specific situations and I

[Representative Teresa Wood]: heard a variety of things, everything from I just can't physically get out and do that anymore. I can't go out and put the papers up on the trees. So they want to be able to post their land, but aren't physically able to do it. And you know, the other extreme is people reported to me how they have tried to work with the people who are accessing their land for hunting that they have not permitted, and they feel like they're sort of beating their head up against the trees because people just continue to go on their land and hunt without their permission, even as it is posted. Those folks felt like it would be easier to mark the trees because you do it more frequently, I guess, on more trees. So, it was everything sort of in between, but mostly it was around the accessibility issues of not being able to get out in the woods anymore. I mean, sometimes these are people who have a difficult time just getting to their car to be able to go to the doctor's office. And yet, they own property, they should be able to, as you said, Representative Pritchard, they should be able to decide what they wanna do with their property, but they don't feel able to. This annual thing is what particularly highlighted it for people because then they realize, I can't do this every year. Their sense of ownership of their land and being able to decide who could be on their land, they felt was compromised. So, I appreciated the fact because I honestly wasn't even thinking about access, even though it's my field. Wasn't thinking about access for older Vermonters or people with disabilities and their land. And so when I started getting those emails, said, oh, this is something I hadn't even really considered. And so that's why I wanted to bring that forward in terms of that feedback so that if you decide to take up this bill or any other similar discussions with the department about how that requirement could be modified, that we consider the rights of landowners who are older or have disabilities in that process.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Paint does not define owner. It doesn't provide a contact methodology. And many of the signs for posted land in my area are posted by the owners, promoters or nonpromoters that may own the property, but they say on it by permission only with a contact. Many of the lands that get painted with purple will not have that ability. And the landowner still retains the right to let a certain number of people on their land at one time by providing the yellow sign that says permission granted by hunting, fishing, trapping by permission only, or maybe just two classes. They don't want trapping. So those signs are available. Paint, very, limited in its utility.

[Representative Teresa Wood]: Is there a question? I'm not sure what the question was. No.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Okay. In the writing of the bill, and it's made being legal, did they research other states? If there's 12 or 14 other states doing this, how are they accommodating the landowner?

[Representative Teresa Wood]: I think those are all questions if you decide to take up a bill or any kind of consideration of the posting and notification process. Those are all questions that would be appropriate to take testimony on for sure. Great. Representative North had his hand up a minute ago.

[Representative Rob North]: The questions got asked by other representatives before it got to me. Thank you, Theresa.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: Okay.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very

[Representative Teresa Wood]: much. Alright. Thank you. Thank you.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Appreciate it. Like we

[Representative Teresa Wood]: have a warm place here.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And before Bradley Sherman, officer of legislative council. And before I I continue to take questions from the committee, did wanna clarify. I think this issue came up currently. The current law says you have to post annually, and the the Department of Fish and Wildlife was considering making that a calendar year requirement as opposed to once every three hundred sixty five days. So requiring individuals to come out. If they wanted the benefit of the entire year, they would have to post on New Year's Eve or New Year's Day and to get the benefit of the entire year. And and I think that that was the impetus for some clerks to kinda reach out and ask, hey. What does the statute mean? And as we'll hear from representative Essex in a moment, his statute does amend the statute itself, and we can look at that language in a moment.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Questions for the presenter? Just to go back to the six zero eight Purple Paint bill, with posting the paper or the synthetic posters, they need to be refreshed or redated at least every year. The issue still comes up with the paint, how often they need to be refreshed, so it wouldn't be like I can't foresee it being once and done. So, the accessibility question may be a delay, but not completely alleviated. So, I just wanted to make that point.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Any other questions? Representative Chittenden?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: The sort of ease of contacting a landowner, if you want permission to hunt or be on the land, came up. How easy is it in this day and age for someone to be like, Oh, I see some purple paint on this. Want to figure out who the landowner is and how to reach them.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They might be able to they might be able to find the building on the property and and knock on the door if they're comfortable doing that. And they could also potentially search town records and ask for that if they want a kind of a more in-depth way. I don't know if they would be able to get contact information. And and, you know, I think in this day and age, technology has brought us closer together. But in some ways, you know, our phone numbers aren't posted in phone books anymore and things like that. So it might be more difficult to actually get a phone number for someone if you don't have more information about their property. So and I think that might be a good thing to take testimony on and to to determine how we might notify someone who wants to ask.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Representative Pritchard. And still along those lines, you know, what Ela mentioned, you know, if you have five or six properties that join each other, as many properties do, is it a different shade of purple to the next property? How do you know where you follow what I'm saying? I mean, because you just have one strip of purple paint, that may be five or six different properties, which makes it even, unless you have, I don't know, a Latin law reading or UTM reading for where you are at that specific time, it makes it even more difficult to identify, you know, identify the the landowner. So yeah. I I mean, I I just have a

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: lot of concerns with this. Yeah. Thank you very much for your testimony. And

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: and and before I I give my seat to representative Estes, would you like me just to pull the language of his bill up, or we could wait? Okay. Certainly. Please to get the statement of purpose.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: And besties.

[Representative Zan Eastes]: Hello. For the record, my name is Zan Eastes. I live in Guildford. That's all right. It's so common. Don't even I only correct it where I need to. So Jill knows how to say my name now. So I live in Guildford, and I serve Wyndham 1, which is Guildford and Vernon, so at the bottom of the state. So the story that I'm going to talk about is nearly identical to Representative Woods, except mine doesn't include my this I'm looking at here doesn't include anything about color. It talks mostly about timing. And the story that came to me, I'm responding to a constituent in Guilford who first contacted the town clerk about the new guidelines for when land needs to be posted. And then I was brought into the discussion. I know the clerk well. I had I just stepped away from being chair of the Guilford Select Board before I was elected here. So I know the clerk, so I was immediately brought into the conversation just so I'd be there. And so I began having a conversation with the landowner, and then it that he included a few other people in town. So it became kind of a community discussion. Then I took the question of the the questions that he had and just put them up to the House representatives and asked if anyone else was finding these questions. And there are five other, I think five, four or five other people that contacted me, representatives who have encountered the same question. So those people are cosponsors to the bill here. And, the the question I think the the the issue that we're trying to solve with this bill is just to put some flexibility into the guidelines so that it's not a requirement that land be recorded, that the posting be recorded on January 1. My local constituent was concerned about what happens to my land if I can't get to the town clerk until January 6? Is my land unposted by law? And so he was very concerned about that. So this bill simply suggests that whenever the recording is made, that the posting be good for three hundred sixty five days after that. Consequently, as same with representative Wood, I've been contacted by other people since that since the bill appeared, other people around the state who say that even as it's stated now, it's not adequate. So there probably needs to be further thought into if you decide to take this up into sort of really taking care of all the situation. So hopefully, it just needs to be very clear. I've also I will say that I spoke with, chair Sheldon about this bill, and the department is aware of this of the issues that are now outstanding. And there might be a way in which they would just solve the problem themselves without a bill, without legislative action. But here it is in case we need to move that forward. Happy to answer any questions.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: In the emails that you've got saying that there were other inadequacies, did any of them elaborate on the answer?

[Representative Zan Eastes]: Yes, I don't know. It's not like his expertise. I've got that all here and I could go through it. There were two or three instances where they want to make sure that the I guess it's about right now it says which date. The guidelines say that it has to be done on January 1, which doesn't work in any case because town clerk's offices aren't even open then. So then the question is which I guess there would suddenly be two dates. It would be either January 1 or the date that it was actually recorded. Which is the date by which the 03/1965 just needs to get clarified, that kind of thing. Yeah. Buttoned up, I guess. Representative. Jennifer?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Thanks. I think we've all been hearing Well, I don't speak for everybody. I certainly also have been hearing from constituents immediately starting this fall. Now we have like a million letters in our inbox. Do you feel like this bill is just trying to codify what the vast majority of the state has been operating under?

[Representative Zan Eastes]: Yeah, what I understand, and again, I live in Guilford on a property that's unposted, so I don't deal with this at all. So I never have dealt with this kind of issue personally. But what I'm understanding is that it seems like there has been a change of late that brought forth all this activity and these considerations. And since I don't know what it was before, maybe going back would be the way to go or just look at it more carefully for future. But yes, I think it's.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Maybe I'll ask the same question of legal counsel, because that was sort of my wish, is to try and codify what almost all of our towns have been operating up until last And this to me feels like what that was, but I'll

[Representative Zan Eastes]: I will say that when I was talking with my town clerk about it, he just felt very kind of stuck other than all we could do was hand out the guidelines and it wasn't helpful. He knew a way he wasn't being helpful and he didn't have any solutions either. Yeah. Thanks.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative North. Yes. Thank you, representative. Thank

[Representative Zan Eastes]: you.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Yeah. Was there any thought given to changing the posting date to an expiration date? Wouldn't that be just more clear?

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Just like on your license, there's an expiration date, and your license is obvious.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: It's not like three sixty five days from when you have to figure it out. It's pretty easy, but still.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: It seems to me

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: an expiration date would be a lot clearer.

[Representative Zan Eastes]: Might well be. I I also heard, why not move this date from January 1 to a date that has nothing to do with hunting at all, when people can walk out in their woods anyway, like July 1 or something like that? So I guess so that would be up to you. Any

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: other questions? Just Yes. I wanna thank you, mister chair. I'm reading the statute now. It says that the owner or person posting a land shall record this post from the town clerk's office of the town. Doesn't say jade. I have to advise if that's what I meant.

[Representative Zan Eastes]: Right, I think this doesn't say the purpose was to move it away from any kind of bad situation, I think, because the guideline now does say January 1, which is causing It's in the rules. It's in the rules right now.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Richard?

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Yeah. The other thing I noticed in in your bill zone was it was very specific. It said hunting, trapping, bitching. Yes. That's Didn't say anything about trespassing.

[Representative Zan Eastes]: Yes. Yeah.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Is that

[Representative Zan Eastes]: so That was not intentional. I think it probably yeah. And that that's another point. Thank you. That was brought up. There are multiuses. As I think you spoke about earlier, the signs that are actually on trees now often say pretty clearly what's supposed to who you can contact and what what activities are possible.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Those hunters carry cell phones. I've been called many times, and I always grant permission. They ask.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: Want to put QR phones on all Then you could just go, you know, and it would say, can hunt on here, or fish on here, or the date, and you could just keep changing it when you need it.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Is that a bill request? I'm

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: just wondering, with the date being an issue or whether we do every twelve months, what about some sort of, like, a grace period if there's a fixed date? Kinda like what you had suggested, maybe not January 1, but sometime maybe in the spring or middle, you know, middle of the summer when it's much easier to get out into the woods. It's going to be easier for people to know where to post where they'll all be visible anyway, because all of the leaves are trees. So that question would be alleviated, because visibility sometimes comes up.

[Representative Zan Eastes]: Yeah. I think so I heard from folks about the idea of moving the date to another date, and the very first person that contacted me was concerned about what you might call a grace period. Just how to clarify that could be tricky. And so, yeah. Three sixty five days from the date that's on this thing, don't come here, right?

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: I know. Couldn't be like that, yeah, yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, doctor. Thanks very much.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Yep. Thank you.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Pull up the language of the bill here and if it pleases the committee, I can do a walk through the language of the bill. I can talk about what this bill does and then the committee has some questions about what the bill doesn't do and we can talk about that as well. If that if if that is okay? Great. So this bill proposes to amend requirements for posting of land against hunting and fishing to clarify that posting annually means posting once every twelve months. This this bill does not address trespassing, and so that would be a broader bill. So this is this is a narrow bill meant to post against hunting, fishing, and trapping. And there's a specific statute in Vermont statute for that specific purpose. And so the the goal of this bill as written was to amend this statute. But if the the goal of the policy is to exclude other kinds of activities, other statutes may be needed to be amended. So right now, this is just hunting, fishing, and trapping.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Jake? Just so just to clarify, is that because the guidelines that force that fish and wildlife can you just relate that? It was the fish and wildlife guidelines so narrow that it doesn't touch trespassing?

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The fish I I'm not familiar with if the fish and wildlife guideline actually changed or if it's being proposed to be changed because I know that this is a developing issue. So I'd have to take a look at those guidelines and see. That said, to answer your question more broadly, this statute and this issue pertains to hunting, fishing and trapping. And so trespassing more broadly is unlikely to have been addressed in that rule such that that rule is interpreting the statutes. If that rule is interpreting other statutes or bringing other areas of law into effect to give landowners the right to exclude other people from their property, That that may be the case. I'm just not familiar.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: K. Representative. So I understand this clearly. So if you're not hunting, fishing, or trapping, you're you're you're okay to be on the way

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: for any other purpose. So and that is beyond the scope of today's conversation because for and those are good questions, but the what this bill does is prevent hunting, fishing, and trapping. And so there may be other laws and other policies at place that give a landowner the right to exclude people for other purposes. This this this statute concerns hunting, fishing, and traffic.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: So okay. So it's specifically prohibiting hunting, fishing, and traffic. Yes. K.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So this is the notice and posting requirement of the statute. And so an owner or a person having exclusive right to take game upon land or waters thereon, desires to protect their land, or private pronged or propagation farm over which the owner has exclusive control may maintain notices stating that shooting, trapping, taking game, fishing, hunting, fishing, trap excuse me. Shooting, trapping, or taking wild game is prohibited or by permission only. Fishing or taking a fish is prohibited or by permission only, or hunting, trapping, fishing, and taking a game is permitted or by permission only. So these are the the core things that this statute is is looking to enable a property owner to prohibit. And the rest of this piece, notices have to be erected upon or near the boundaries of land and notices at each corner and not over 400 feet apart along the boundaries themselves. And I think, earlier, I might have said other statues with the purple paint, set that limit at a 100 yards. I misspoke it as a 100 feet. Most of those statutes, so it doesn't necessarily mean that, yeah, that doesn't necessarily mean representative Wood's statute would have to be a 100 feet, but that's that's common. It's feet, not yards. And and and this is what changed. And I'll I'll speak to this because representative Essex spoke to this as well. So the owner person posting land shall record this posting annually in the town's clerk office in the town in which the land is located. So that's the statute as currently written. This bill would add language saying the posting shall be valid and enforceable for three hundred sixty five days after the date the posting is recorded. And so this gives the landowner the benefit of an entire year of having that posting be legally enforceable to exclude hunting, fishing, or trapping for three hundred sixty five days, and the date that matters is the date the posting is recorded. And that is like, up until recently, that that was the practice of most, if not all, town clerks was that you would just have to post annually, and that annual definition was by the date of recording. And so this statute and this amending the statute was meant to return to that status quo. Now there might be other issues that have come up and other other issues that this kid committee might want to consider in terms of how do we effectively post property to make sure that people know this information. But this statute, as amended, was meant to restore us to what we assumed was the status quo before issues started brewing with the Department of Fish and Wildlife saying that, well, we want annually in this statute posted annually, these these words I just highlighted here, to mean every calendar year as opposed to three hundred sixty five days after you record. And the rest of the statute talks about filing with the clerk. There's a $5 fee for filing and land posted as provided in subdivision B of the section shall be enclosed enclosed land for purposes therein highlighting that because I as I started my presentation out for representative Woods bill, it's a constitutional right to hunt in the state of Vermont on lands that are not enclosed on section 67 of the constitution. And so this statute lays the requirements for enclosing your land to hunting. And that and that's also why this statute only deals with hunting, fishing, and trapping as opposed to other kinds of trespass or other kinds of activities people could do on on a person's property. It's because it is meant to meant to address a very specific issue. The committee is, of course, welcome to broaden the issues, but this bill is is narrow in that sense.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Thank you, mister chair. Just a clarification. So right now, under sounds like a proposed rule or anything, is it the case that if I posted by land November 1, I'd have to it would just expire January 1? Is it, like, the way the liquor licenses used to all expire on

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the same day? I think that that would be the idea. What what is that and that is the the the proposal from the department. Okay. So this idea is I post my land November 1. It's good until November 1 of

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: the next year.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That that would be that would be correct. Okay. Thank you. Alright. Exposure would be October 30, but okay. Thirty first. Thirty first. Excuse me. Gotcha. I I almost did the knuckles. Cut it in. I just took a

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: took a gamble. So you gotta

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: keep sixty five minutes. Well

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Just go with that.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And, you know, as the committee's put pointed out there, there are a number of things that an individual could do to make this clear, and those are decisions for the committee to address.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: Yes. Can I ask Crystal a question? I just want to know, when we go out hunting, do you come like, let's say you wanted to go into this place. Do you can you get ahead of time, can you look somewhere to see if it's posted or if it's posted for what? Is it there's sites in the town clerk's office that could tell

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: you? Okay.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Well, you can actually, the state of Vermont has a website that identifies everybody's property, how much acres and and name. So it's it's easily you you could find it that way. It doesn't it doesn't give

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: you their, you know, a contact information. Map out where you're going to go hunting according to where you can go hunting. Right? Yeah. Which you you should do

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: with the landowner way way ahead of the time, not the day before deer season or something.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Any other questions to our presenters?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: So I would like to hear about what other states do. I think it's really helpful. So you said there's about 15 states, maybe more, but I'm curious about the constitutional piece, which is that particular to Vermont? Does that constrain or guide us in a particular way different than many other states? And what are the rest of the states do? Are there many states that post similar to us currently?

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: So Vermont

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: and and I I may be incorrect about the specifics. So Vermont was either the first or one of the first states to have a constitutional right to haunting and a state constitutional right to hunting. And and not many other constitutions do that. I know some states have amended their constitutions to enable a right for hunting, but Vermont is, if not unique, in is one of the few that that does that. And and so you're correct that a person's constitutional right to hunting and also their constitutional right to enclose their land does come into play. And there is actually a supreme court case, a Vermont supreme court case that in a footnote, so it's it's dicta, which, you know so that's not necessarily binding precedent. But in in in dicta, the court looked at the statute and said, well, just because you don't post in accordance with whatever the Department of Fish and Wildlife wants doesn't mean you haven't met the constitutional rights to enclose. Right? Because there's a balance in in any constitutional provision. There's always a balance, right, between one thing and another. And and because ours is constitutional, the statute that we pass and how we how we manage that, you know, if it were to arise to the supreme court, we we might be surprised by the outcome. But so suffice to say that there is a balance between a right to enclose and a right to hunt. And and so should the committee take a bill up, one or both of these bills up, it's a good thing to be thinking about.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: But part of the problem with the the new I guess it's a proposed rule with January 1 date be because Vermont has its hunting license, and I think its fishing license, go from January 1 to January 1, where other states go from August to August, I believe.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I'm not familiar with the policy impetus from Department of Fish and Wildlife. I think that would be a great question to have them in testify on.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: No further questions. Great. Thank you so much. Thank

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you. Thank you, committee. And it was a pleasure to have my first walk through with you.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: You're always welcome. Oh, thank you. Yeah. Well

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Well, your financial marks or anything.