Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Good afternoon, Heidi. Chair of Labor, are you with us? It's muted.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Heidi, you might have to unmute yourself. And we can move on.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How she doing? Yeah.

[Heidi Rock (Huntington Town Clerk)]: Hi. Sorry. The office filled with people talking loudly, so I had to move.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Thank you, honey.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. We

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: are live, so you can start anytime. Please introduce yourself.

[Heidi Rock (Huntington Town Clerk)]: Okay. My name is Heidi Rock, and I am the Huntington town clerk. And I said I would testify because I've gotten a number of calls from people who are concerned about the new interpretation of posting and the fact that it expires on December 31. We had all been operating under the assumption that it was good for a year from date of posting, although that does kind of fly in conflict with putting the year on the sign. I will say that right away. So I put out quite a lengthy post on our local social media sort of giving the background of the fact that Vermont treats private land differently than a lot of other states and explained the situation with the having to update the signs in early January when it's cold. The concern is that a lot of people can't get out in the snow, older people, and that it's mostly the people who do not want to have hunting on their property feel vulnerable now with this. So along came 06/2008, and so I read that and I put that out there to get comments from community members, and I will say that the farmers like the purple paint, as far as I can tell. They're busy people, they don't want to have to go out there and be updating signs, dealing with this all the time. The purple paint seems straightforward. It seems unlikely that any of them at this point, I'm speaking generally of course, would be all of a sudden taking hosted land out of posting. And many of these farmers have animals, obviously cows, sheep, goats, and they want to protect their farm fields too. They're also dealing with people taking signs down. One farmer who got in touch said that she found three deer blinds on her property and nobody had even asked to go on there. So the signs are a factor. The purple pane is easy. The question more is how do you legally post so that people know that this property is posted. And even though there are signs up, Chris Clark, who used to live in our town, had told me enforceable unless you do every step correctly. So what I would like to see is that the purple paint be implemented, the, property owner registers with the town clerk, and the effective date is from the date of registration for three sixty four days and then they come in re register and we deal with the same carbonless form that we that I've been dealing with for twenty years here. And that said, I also got comments from people who felt that it shouldn't be easy for people to post their land. Know, make it tough, make them have to get out there and walk around and fix their signs and they might not do it. Then that would be more open land for people to hunt. And so that's one interpretation I'm as feeling like I need to give a balance. But me, as town clerk, I would like to see the paperwork in the office the way it always should have been. And I would like to see something that doesn't force people to have to always go out and check things to make sure that there isn't something that happens because of a technicality, like a sign falling off or a sign being taken, a tree blowing down. So, that's my position on that. Do you have any questions for me?

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Thank you, Heidi, so much. We're listening right now you know, to both sides of this discussion. And one of the things we were thinking of this is if this is just a thought, you know, if we lengthen the time that you had to renew the post it, if that would be helpful. Like, two years or four years?

[Heidi Rock (Huntington Town Clerk)]: Okay, that's a new thought. Had also looked at the other bill that came along that the language was merely three sixty four days. A two year posting might work much better. I do think that from the comments I got from the landowners who post, they would like to not have to keep going out and changing things, you know, annually. It takes a long time if you own, you know, 900 acres or 1,300 acres or you know. I will say we don't host our property and we also don't hunt and it's not a problem for us. My family told me not to say this publicly because we don't want to be swarmed, but I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I'd like to see people out in the woods enjoying nature and if they like to hunt. My dad was a hunter. We happen not to be in our family now, but anything to encourage people to go out and maybe I think I'm rambling, I apologize, I lost my train of thought. No, it's fine,

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: thank you. Representative

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Pritchard.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah, hi, Heidi, thank you. So I'm curious as to, I think a lot of the members on the committee have received a lot of emails, and the majority of the ones that I have received, would be people that would like six zero eight, the purple paint, is people that are elderly and have a hard time getting out and trying to get their land posted. And I'm just wondering, are the majority of the folks that came to you, did they have the same concern? Was more folks that just mobility to get out there and try to do it every year?

[Heidi Rock (Huntington Town Clerk)]: Well, first of all, it's a novel idea for us to think about, And the fact that the reading that I did online about thisbecause before I posted this, I'd like to make sure I do my homework so I don't look stupidand I did read that 20 other states implement something like this successfully. You know, I don't have the details, but I think in general they tended to be working farms. Not a lot of elderly people come out, and the people who didn't seem to like it had things like, well what if the property gets sold and someone is willing to allow hunting, how do you deal with the paint? And so I don't have an answer for that, and I did read that the paint has to be maintained, so if it's faded and looks like nobody cares, then maybe you can make an assumption that you can go on the property. Personally, on our property we ask people to check-in with us. It's one of the few properties in this village that is not posted, and you get too many people in the woods and it's not safe. So we like to make sure that if somebody's in there, hunting by permission is fine, but the purple paint seemed to be what people it was kind of like the novel concept, and hey this could work and it might work really well, and it's worked in other places. I know I didn't answer your question because the people who responded to me who liked it, who were the farmers, are not elderly. 79 year old farmer up the road is not a 79 year old farmer from the 1950s, and so I tend to think of him as being young, but it's all relative. He's not 30 either.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Other questions for Heidi? Mhmm. Heidi, this is the chair. I'm going to present you with a scenario like your allowance to answer. Okay. Some of the purple paint pills that we've examined all for two stripes, inch wide, eight foot eight inches to a foot long parked on the trees. Others, one stripe. But none of the stripes contain the information or the viewer of who owns the land, how to contact them, and whether it's just for hunting or whether it's just for trapping or whether it's just for fishing or whether it's for all three. Whereas a sign, the old yellow posted signs, delineate that. So my question is, if you have the old yellow signs remodeled with that information on them because cell phones don't work everywhere in the woods. Mhmm. QR code is useless in my area because there is no coverage, and that would make it very difficult. However, if that was extended to a two year or longer posting and annual reporting at the town clerk's office with the fee, how would that set you think in your community?

[Heidi Rock (Huntington Town Clerk)]: I I would be willing to put it out there and ask people what they think. I can't answer the question now because would be, you know, having heard from both sides, I don't know how that would affect what people have already said to me. So you're talking about still putting up physical signs on trees or fence posts, is that correct? Right. So it still begs the question of what happens when they get taken down or you know blow down or you know what fall off the tree or the fence post, how is that able to be enforced? Because doesn't it have to be 400 feet between signs on every perimeter of the property, and so if you happen to not go up in your woods for a while and the sign's down, all of a sudden it becomes not really posted anymore. One of my sons was telling me about some friends of his who have a camp in a hunting camp in Ohio, and he said that the only sign that was required was to be in the dooryard of the house of the people who own the property, and my first reaction to that was I don't think that's practical. We have these rolling hills, we have roads, public roads going through farms, and if you're a mile away from your farthest point on your farm, which is up near Camel's Hump, and something happens, how is somebody supposed to know that it's on the main road a mile away that is legally posted. So I don't think that that's a good idea. I can see your point about trapping, hunting, and fishing, and I don't have an answer for that right now. I can put it out there and see what the creative pool of people who like to respond to these things have to say about it.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Heidi Rock (Huntington Town Clerk)]: Yeah, I can come back and talk to you again with more answers if you want. I do have an interest in this.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative. I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: think I remember, I'm not sure if you heard the commissioner's testimony, but I think he was leaning toward if we wound up with a a poster that the dating would go return to what you described it for years had worked from whatever the date was to the date it had, not January 1 to December 31 because apparently that that kicked up a firestorm.

[Heidi Rock (Huntington Town Clerk)]: Yes. Well, it's better than the way it's being interpreted now, and that would be, I believe that's the other bill that talks that I don't have the number in front of me, but that addresses that. I think with the exception of specificity for what's allowed and what's not allowed, know, maybe you have I'm thinking out loud here because this is, you know, you just presented this You have one line for hunting, two lines for fishing or something, and that's what's not allowed. And then you know, if you want nobody on your property ever, then you have to put signs up and say this is private property, just like you would at the end of your driveway if you didn't want someone to come up your driveway. But I don't think it's an insurmountable problem, it's just more of an education, you know, telling people what the stripes mean. Should work.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Any other questions? Thank you very much for your presentation, Heidi. Thank you.

[Heidi Rock (Huntington Town Clerk)]: Alright. Thank you. Bye. Keep up the good

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: work. Bye.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Next presenter is Nick and he's also on Zoom. Should I start? Yeah. To be my guest, please introduce yourselves.

[Nick (Vermont resident)]: Okay. I'm Nick. I'm a two year resident of Vermont. My wife is a native Vermonter. I'm a psychologist and am from the start. I want to say I'm not opposed to hunting or responsible gun ownership But we moved here and the house has quite a bit of land attached to it, it was from a relative. Neighbors use the property quite a bit for hiking, skiing, and we have a pool that the current governor's former construction company built and neighbors use that and their children use it. We would not know when someone was on the land hunting unless they were very responsible and informed us. So because of all of that, we were opposed to having anyone come on the land to hunt. Fishing, we don't care about hiking, don't care about skiing, but hunting would be an issue. So we had to post the land. Two years ago it cost us $1,000 to have someone do it, and he was giving us a big break. Last year several neighbors volunteered to help us with posting, but I can't ask them to do that every year. I am unable to do this at all because of a medical condition I have that doesn't allow me to walk without a walker. We have a forested land that's hilly. My wife is 62. She can't do it by herself either. So this is a financial burden on us too. We are on a fixed income and a lot of people are. I would like to request that either the purple paint bill or something similar be enacted to help landowners, especially elderly and mobility impaired. The use of some modern technology might be considered. I don't see why the town halls or town centers can't have a list of properties that allow hunting and hunters could check that electronically. They don't have to be in the forest when they do that. They could do that at a time. I believe there is always a mailbox or something designating the address of the property and that could be online. But anything that would help the landowner financially and also physically would be a great idea. And I don't really have anything else to say.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, thank you for taking the time to talk to us, we appreciate it.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: And thank you to to Vermont.

[Nick (Vermont resident)]: You're welcome. I do have one other thing, The signs, using them, I think they're ugly and they eventually end up on the ground and it's damaging the natural landscape. I really think that they should not be used or used as a last resort. And I am definitely through that.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Any questions? Representative? Thanks

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: for your testimony. I was just we've heard from a lot of folks who can't post their land on their own and apparently hire or find someone who's willing to do it for them. Like, how do you go about finding someone? How did you go about finding someone who would post? Is there sort of a sounds like there might be a bit of a market out there. You said they gave you a discount.

[Nick (Vermont resident)]: No, I don't know. I just happened to be a friend who said they could post for us and they gave us a really good price to do it. And then our neighbors volunteered, they knew that we had posts and they just volunteered to help us. We gave them a nice dinner to do that, but otherwise I would have no idea how you would find someone to do this, and I think it would be very expensive.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Thanks.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you. You're welcome. We will move on to Morgan Gold and that is also not soon.

[Morgan Gold (Peacham farmer)]: Hey there everybody. Thank you for having me today. My name is Morgan Gold. I am a farmer here in Peacham, Vermont. Our farm, we raise ducks, geese, cattle, trees. We actually have, I believe, I've been working to try to further verify this, the largest commercial duck or goose farm in Vermont. And we post our land. I personally do it myself. It's a 160 acre property. It's roughly about a 10,000 foot border around the perimeter. About two thirds of that border is not easily markable, right, between, you know, kind of my back lot, wood lot going up to my neighbor's back wood lot. And so, you know, finding that line is always a little bit tricky. When I post my land, I, you know, do the updates to the signs every year, it's roughly 45 signs that are required for me to be in compliance with the statute based on the perimeter and shape of my land. When I go up and update those signs every year, which I typically do in August, I will find that somewhere between four and nine signs each year go missing in that time period, whether that is a squirrel, weather, vandal, it's always hard to say, but it does consistently occur that I'll have to replace signs, not just update them. The other issue that happens is I have had conflicts with hunters on my land before who've come on when my signs have been slightly out of compliance in that form where, yes, I might have registered with the town clerk. Yes, I might have updated my signs in August, but say, come May, maybe there's a sign or two missing that I haven't checked for. That process of updating my signs too, it takes me about a half a day's worth of work that I'm not actually working on my farm, not trying to grow my business. I'm just out wandering the woods with a stapler and some signs and nails and Sharpie. And so it always strikes me as very odd that I actually believe in the open land laws and the way it's written in the constitution. I actually think that's an important and unique and very positive part of what Vermont is. But the idea that the state makes it so onerous and so complex for the landowner to maintain compliance with that dual system, both with the town clerk and the sign postage, as well as those sign updates, as well as the number of signs required within that space. It strikes me as it seems like you're setting the way the rules are written, you're setting up landowner hunter conflicts where nobody necessarily has ill intention, but because it's so hard to be in compliance and for the landowner to exercise their will, it, like, it almost seems inevitable that you're going to have issues. And so I would strongly encourage a purple paint law. I think the permanence and kind of deeper marking of it actually makes a significant difference over just what happens when you have basically tie back signs that you're fastening to either wood or to trees. I also think when it comes down to you know, the gentleman asked a question earlier about contact information. You know, states like North Dakota already have an online registry system. The state of Vermont already has the infrastructure set up with the town clerk reporting that if you just wanted to include an email address or a phone number, you could have that readily easy contact information. And so I often feel like the the argument for the sign is just simply the onerous nature of maintaining those signs. Because, again, even the information that's currently today contained on those signs isn't actually a phone number. It isn't an email address. It's actually somebody's physical address. So, like, I guess I'm confused as to why somebody would say that that's actually a tool to help contact the landowner because I don't know about you guys, but going showing up at somebody's house is not necessarily the way to get the easiest form of permission. And so I would strongly encourage Purple Paint. I think the annual update and reporting with the state clerk or the town clerk is actually a good one. I just think actually aggregating some of that data could be more useful. There are several other hunting statutes that the state has related to the, like, access on land and tracking animals that actually already require things like a cell phone or GPS or other reporting. And so to say that like, Oh, we shouldn't make hunting requirements connect to that either, I don't know. It seems like it's confusing to me or in conflict. And yeah, so I guess that's my piece. Folks have questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I do go out and post my signs every year. I have had issues. I'm happy to speak to that.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Questions?

[Rob North (Member)]: Representative Chittenden.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Thanks for your testimony. It's helpful to hear from a variety of folks. Guess I just in my mind, I'm trying to debate between like, if we just make it every two to every five years that signs need to be updated, does that solve any of your problems?

[Morgan Gold (Peacham farmer)]: It is better. Like, I think the annual is really bad. I think two years is better. Five years is even better. But again, keep in mind, right, I have like 45 signs that I'm putting up. Some of them are on a back property line that is, you know, not accessible easily by any sort of vehicle or like you can really only get to it by scurrying by foot. It would actually even be impossible to get to in winter. So like when there's a discussion of like requiring January updates, like there was like gonna be no way I could safely update that. So I think multiple years is better, but I think trying to find a way that it can be a more permanent system like Purple Paint, which somebody would either have to actively scrape off or remove and which then actually leaves evidence of damage versus a sign, like again, a stapled sign to remove that and take it away, there's no measure of evidence that remains to say, oh, was there even a sign there truly? And so it's better, but I don't think it actually solves the problem. And if one of the objectives of this committee is to reduce landowner hunter conflicts, it seems like a no brainer to me to pursue something like Purple Paint.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Yeah, it just, It occurs to me that if you are finding by May, 45 signs are gone every year, in fact, if anything, you need to be posting your plan twice a year, not checking your signs every two to five years. I guess I'm just not I'm having a hard time seeing in your case how a two to five year extension would actually make your centric

[Morgan Gold (Peacham farmer)]: I mean, like I said, it doesn't. You'll here here's actually the the one thing it saves for me. I have to go through and with a Sharpie write that year's date on the sign that is already there. And so it would save me that much work. And so probably a job that currently takes me about five hours to do to kinda do the full posting of the property, man, I'd probably get away within about three hours. I mean so it's it's not really a benefit would be how I see it.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Yeah. Thanks.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Zachowitz.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: You spoke of having some conflict with hunters, and I'm wondering if you have any sense of of whether the hunters that have come onto your property, even though you thought it was posted, whether there was sort of just like an honest mistake, like one of your signs fell down during the course of the year as they can just do all by themselves. And the property really did seem like it was not posted? Or do you think it was more about people taking advantage of the fact or, you know, like, do you have a sense of what the nature of

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: the law?

[Morgan Gold (Peacham farmer)]: Just to make sure I wanna catch the spirit of your question, it's the idea of like, is this people willfully going through or is this just, hey, honest mistakes because of, you know, unclear posting? It's hard for me to say. So I've been here ten years. I I can say that specifically, I can point to you eight incidents on the farm of conflicts with hunters coming onto the farm over that span of time. Some would say some I would say are 100% honest mistake and just somebody missed a sign or something happened, which is which which happens. I I get it. I think there are a few incidents that are actually more directly connected to hounds in pursuit of game like bear going onto my land. And again, I don't know dogs that can read posted signs, and so that's a whole sticky wicket unto itself, which we might wanna hold into abeyance for today. And then there's actually a couple of incidents where I could point to you that are I I would in my opinion, these are folks who knew darn well my land was posted, but were coming on anyway just because. And so I can't say that every single one has the same motive.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you.

[Morgan Gold (Peacham farmer)]: Does that answer your question, sir?

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. I'm just trying to get a sense of what the nature of conflicts are out there.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Any

[Rob North (Member)]: other questions for our presenter?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Seeing none, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Thank you, everybody.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Last but not least, we have Jeff Mac Landover. Hello.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham resident)]: My name is Jeffrey Mack. I live in Charm. I'm sick. Yes.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's the hot seat, Jeff. That's the hot seat.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Now

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you're on candid camera. Okay.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham resident)]: I've lived in Vermont all my life. I now live in Charm. I have 10 acres of land surrounded by a lot of farmland, and I happen to be in an area that has heavy traffic of coyote hounders. I've had many, many experience with the hounders, and my view of hunting is just fine. The hounding is something that I don't approve of, so I post my land every year. Now I have 10 acres, so it's not a hardship. But when it comes to yellow tieback signs, when you guys talk about extending the period at all, Like mister Gold just said, every six months, you show around, check your signs. They just don't last. March 2022, I had a hounder directly across from my property staring at a tree with a sign on it. He yelled out the window. I bet you his land isn't legally posted. I'm gonna release my dogs on his property. I call up my game warden, and he said, please, you know, don't shoot his dogs. I said, I don't have a firearm. I'm not gonna shoot his dogs. It's not a dog's fault, but he knew they know that there's probably one sign that you're not gonna be in compliance. Something's gonna be wrong. Let's fast forward to Christmas Eve at twenty twenty five. As I'm out my window looking out my window, I see a coyote running for his life across my property. I look and see a truck pull up on the road, stop the hounds right there. And with intent, he let the hounds go directly across my property. Everybody in the town of Shoreham knows me, and they know my land is posted. I called the game warden. They eventually came out. The first thing he did was take his phone out and said, let's go around your property and make sure every single sign is what it should be. You register with a town? Yes. I registered with a town. We measured exact distance between each sign until he came to a sign that was not dated 2026. He said, you are not legally posted. There's nothing we can do. Everybody knows what my intent was. Down to the line, I did everything right except one sign, didn't have the proper date on it. Purple paint would have made the conviction 100%. These guys know they're not welcome on my land. It's made been made very clear for ten years. And for commissioner Batchelder to say and admit he wants it make wants to make it more difficult for landowners to poster land and have no chance of conviction. I'm a Vermonter. I'm a taxpayer. I should be able to walk my 10 year old lab with dementia and my 12 year old lab with bad hips and not have to worry of being approached upon with coyotes and hounds. But like I said, he stopped his docs. He could have loaded them in the truck right there. With intent, he just let them go. Knowing that there was probably gonna be one sign that wasn't right. This guy already had five points on his license, would have been five more, but instead, there was nothing. Nothing just like a game board said. There's nothing we can do. It should be up to the hounders to know exactly where private property is and posted land is. I was just talking to a gentleman today. He said there's an app called Onyx. Onyx, they just have to look at their phone. You don't want purple paint on trees. You don't want yellow signs on trees. Yellow signs don't work anyways to make you can't legally post your land like mister Gold said. Their signs are gonna be down. He could try to press charges and have save, you know, put points on their license. We can't do it because there's gonna be one sign that's not gonna be right. On X would say exactly, it should be the hunter's responsibility to know exactly where he is and exactly if he's on private property and if it's posted or not. That would take care of purple paint and the yellow side. But if we're not gonna do onyx, then I'm highly in favor of purple paint. It would be clear. It would be legal. They couldn't say it wasn't dated. It would be it would last for at least five years. It would take the burden away from the land owner and the property owner and everybody should be able to the conflicts should calm down because I've been in many conflicts with the Coyote hounders, and it's it shouldn't be my problem to keep these people off my land. And then when you try, I'm not compliant, so nothing happens anyways. Any questions?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You give me the brand name of the paint that last five years.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham resident)]: I would do research on that, and I would definitely come up with a brand name that last five years.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Thank you.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham resident)]: Like I said, I want I want the conflicts to stop because there's been many. And when they intentionally release their dogs on my property, knowing that my land is posted, that's pure malice that they're just asking for trouble. And there shouldn't be conflict between hunters and landowners, not the amount of money that we pay for taxes to live here in Vermont.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Chittenden then representative Austin.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Thank you. Well, I just wanna say thank you for sharing with us your experience. And it's also sort of the Today I'm really hearing this story that we did. We took some testimony last week, and I guess today I'm really hearing this piece of like, our laws are setting up for monitors for cuff law on both sides. And I don't think that should be the way it is. And I really just appreciate you helping us understand that point. And that is very much our role to make sure that

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham resident)]: Thank you.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Laws of our state don't set

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That work.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Up for conflict.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Rather make them clearer for both sides. Yes. Just wanna say I'm sorry that you've had those experiences.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham resident)]: Thank

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you very much for coming in.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Do you think that like 90% of hunters are responsible, good hunters, and it's this like bad 10% or small portion that are, you know, like almost with gun owners, you know, I feel like there's a small percentage that really makes it very difficult for people, you know, law abiding gun owners. I mean, and I'm just trying to figure that out because I feel like if you have private property and you don't want anybody on it, no one should be on it. I just feel very strongly that way. And so I know there's a solution out there. I mean, I think we have to like think about it or in terms of not the signs, maybe not making it, extending the time period. I don't necessarily like the purple paint. I mean, I just worry that someone's gonna get a bucket of purple paint or just go around and spray paint trees that aren't there some evening. And that concerns me. And also what happens when the property is sold. I mean, paint over it, you cut down the tree, you know, just, I worry about that as well. And I also just personally would rather something else, maybe not purple paint, but something else that would, you know, mark, put a mark on a on a tree maybe or something else that was not purple. So

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham resident)]: Well, to your first question, I have no conflicts with deer hunters. Until the coyote hunters hounders came around, the deer hunters, they used to pass through my property to get to the property in the back, and I had no problem. My conflicts every single time is hounders. It's been going on for ten years, and if I could someday talk to you about some of the stories, you'd be absolutely horrified. But I post my land strictly now to keep everybody off because of the hounders. I won't let anybody come through my land for deer hunting. I just want nothing to do with any of it. And your other question is, there is onyx. Like, I just talked to and I think that's a great plan. Again, why is it the landowner responsibility? And the law has to be 100% conviction rate where, oh, that sign's not dated. It says 2025. It doesn't say 2026. It's the second time it's happened to me with two people on my land with dogs. So I'm batting zero, and my land is posted. Yes. So like I said, onyx, it would take the burden off the landowner. The hunter could look. It's really simple, and they would know exactly who was posted, and they would know exactly where they're not supposed to be. Like I said, deer hunters, I've never had a problem with. Any other hunter, the hounders. Rest. Sophie stopped hounding in this state?

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I was just thinking about that.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham resident)]: I've been going at that for the last ten years also. So but that's my opinion.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. Thank you so much.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham resident)]: You're welcome.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I really appreciate it.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham resident)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Hey, Bob. You later.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Thank you. Bradley Sheldon is on Zoom.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: He's on Zoom.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Yep, if you wanted to scroll that to his testimony, but it's up to you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Let's roll right into it. Sorry if I can just

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Let me

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just fix my camera. Just one moment, please. Sorry about that. Good afternoon. Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Council. I was asked to meet with the committee today to discuss posting of land. And it seems that the committee might have questions, specific questions for me in mind, and I'm happy to hear those.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Representative type, we heard a lot of testimony today and the word permanence seem to come up. A lot. Concern I have with permanence in posting is the land doesn't stay in same ownership. Sometimes it does for generations. Sometimes a particular property doesn't stay in ownership for very long. How if we were to adopt a purple paint, how do we deal with that issue? Permanent to purple paint out, a lot of cases, going to outlast land ownership, trying to figure out how there could be, if at all, a hybrid where the landowner would still on a regular basis need to register their land and be required to maintain in a certain state the quality of the paint stripe or whatever square or whatever is decided. The permanence issue to me is there's

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: not

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a lot in life that's permanent. I could see in five years the purple stripes down all of these roads all the greenery, and then all of a sudden you have got this purple stripe everywhere. I am trying to make it make sense.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And is the question for me, would you like me to propose possible solutions or is that the question

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: that you're asking

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in this situation?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right, with the actual need to put a poster up and date it, there's maintenance obviously that needs to happen. If that's the way we go. With the purple paint, it implies, I think there's an implication that I can go five or six years and not have to worry about it, not even do any inspection at all. And I'm trying to figure out if that's really the way we want to go.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This might be just stepping out of my role as an attorney, but perhaps to help problem solve for the committee. You know, if there are purple paint markings and the landowner changes their mind or a new owner comes in and wants something different, you know, it could be possible that they paint over the purple markings with a black paint or some other color paint to make it not purple. Just shooting from a problem solving point of view, that might be what a property owner might be able to do. I did listen to some of the testimony earlier via YouTube and there was some discussion about how long the paint lasts. And I can't tell you based on my experience how long a purple paint stripe would last outside given weather conditions, especially in a state like Vermont. And so those are definitely valid questions to be asking. But I do know through some of my research anyway that OSHA actually has a specific color of purple that is for visibility markings. And it is I just had it up. It's called like OSHA purple, and it's for visibility purposes. And so there are people out there who are designing paint for both visibility and longevity types of purposes. And my kind of problem solving. Thought in this situation is if someone changed their mind, paint over it in black or brown or something that would that would very clearly change that from an OSHA purple or or whatever purple that it is to something that's not recognizable as purple.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Representative Pritchard and representative Chittenden. Yeah.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: When we when we talked yesterday, you know, or or the other day, we talked about, you know, here's my concern with six zero eight. It's a short form bill. It's vague, it says absolutely nothing. Get purple paint, paint your tree, you're good to go. We had talked about, I had brought forth some concerns and because you had identified other states had these laws in effect. I would like to know how they treat some of the issues that I asked about yesterday. I have a real concern with this paper, the purple paint thing. As representative Austin, one of my big things is what stops people from going down to the hardware store and buying a case of paint and painting up the state? And if they do that, what are the repercussions for them? What do they have to do to make that right, and what responsibility do they take on? I mean, these are big issues. Six zero eight to me is a big can of worms. And I just have a lot of concerns about it. And I think before we even got into the discussion on this, because it's so vague, is to look at what other states do, and how things are listed and laid out there. I just have so many questions about six point What I gathered out of this whole discussion is there was a lot of folks, elderly folks, that didn't have the ability to do this. And I can sympathize with that. And so that's what I'm focused on. How do we make that issue easier for these folks? And to me, personal pain is not in the form that we're looking at right now, just not the answer. It's just a no starter for me. You could provide those, you know, we had talked about providing what some states do now and the regulations they have. I'd really like to see some of those.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To answer that question, state laws, there's actually about 20, maybe up to 23 states that allow some kind of color of paint. Most of it's purple. Sometimes the state chooses a different color. I think Montana is orange.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Virginia silver.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, and Virginia silver. Yes. And so states tend toward, I shouldn't say all states, because sometimes the law will say use purple paint markings and then lead it up to an administrative agency to make rules regarding the purple paint. And then some of the laws kind of tend toward a, I shouldn't, I won't say uniform, but tend toward a certain set of rules about what that purple paint marking is. And so that marking is, let me just pull up my purple paint notes, at least one inch in width and eight inches wide. It's between three and five feet off of the ground. It's a vertical stripe and it's every 100 feet. Now,

[Rob North (Member)]: to

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: your question about what happens if someone posts who's not the owner, perhaps someone who just decides to paint purple paint markings and to cause confusion or something of the sort. I'm actually not familiar with any state that would have a specific criminal offense to that specific action. Feasibly, the landowner might have a remedy in that situation if they could identify the person right in either a tort or a criminal trespass violation, not necessarily relating to the posting in and of itself, but to the act of entering the property and causing damage to it by painting kind of the same way as if someone bought a can of red paint and decided to paint a stripe on everyone's door just because they're causing trouble. They might get in trouble under criminal law or under tort law, provided that the owner or the police could identify the person who's doing it. That does raise an interesting question. And it might even be one that the agency could ask for rulemaking on for the agency for the Department of Fish and Wildlife to make rulemaking on if it did change the way it was posting from signs to paint to ensure that there is some kind of remedy for a landowner who is the victim of

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: unlawful posting.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I will, but go ahead.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I

[Rob North (Member)]: think Ela was in line before Thanks.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Let's see. I have a variety of thoughts, but I guess just in this line of conversation, I'm curious what the penalties are for someone who's caught illegally taking, unposting somebody's land. I guess I'm hoping that there's similar repercussions for people who are unposting somebody's land and are without their permission posting somebody's land, whether it's paint or signs. And I guess I just would also I am curious. I know this is a relatively new job for you, but I am just A curiosity comes up. Like, are people out there taking signs and Sharpies and walking around illegally posting people's property now. It doesn't seem hugely more difficult than a can of paint, maybe a little bit more to carry. So I guess I'm curious if this is an issue already, and if there are full penalties for unposting or posting somebody's land. Again, I think just this conversation today is about sort of like, we should be making sure laws are like reducing conflicts between Vermonters and making things clear and appropriate so that there isn't confusion and thus conflict. And that seems to be a bit of a theme today.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And just one moment.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Automatically turned on. It did not want that in the background making noise. So that's an interesting question. And I think the Department of Fish and Wildlife would be better suited to, because they would be the ones who have received the complaints. Right? And so that is, and I'm not familiar with data reporting or anything of that sort that the Department of Fish and Wildlife might put forth about people who have unlawfully posted. And they would be the ones to have that data because there's also in the statute and in the subsequent rule, there isn't a legal requirement from the legislature for the Department of Fish and Wildlife to collect that information and make it public in a report or something of that sort. So that's not information that we specifically have access to. I can tell you though, is I know the committee has rightfully has questions about the difference between posting against fishing, hunting and trapping and posting against trespass. And one is boasting against fishing, hunting and trapping is a civil law that is meant to balance the constitutional right to hunt versus the constitutional right to enclose your land to prevent hunting from taking place on your property. Those two conflicting constitutional rights are being addressed in 10 VSA 5,201, which is the statute that we're speaking about in Representative East's bill. And so the civil bill and the corresponding rule doesn't have a penalty. It doesn't have some kind of mechanism there to punish someone who's unlawfully posting land. There is a penalty in the criminal law if your land is posted against trespass generally. If your land is posting against trespass generally, the fine is, I just have it up. I'm just gonna pull it up so I get the dollar amount exact, dollars 500 or three months in prison or $500 or both if you violate a trespass posting. And owners for criminal violation, owners can say that can give verbal notice to individuals that they're trespassing. And if they refuse to leave, contact the police. And then the police can take action to enforce the criminal law if someone won't leave after telling them to trespass. Now, I've opened a can of worms because I raised the issue that there are different kinds of posting to keep people out of your property. One is to post against fishing, hunting and trapping, and one is to post against trespass more generally. And the question this committee might have and other committees have had is does posting against trespass generally encapsulate posting against fishing, hunting, and trapping? And the answer to that question is we don't have clear instruction from the Vermont Supreme Court. There have been cases that where the state has asserted that posting against trespass is a general prohibition for a criminal law, but that does not encapsulate posting against fishing, hunting, and trapping. However, the facts of that case did not require the Supreme Court to issue a ruling on that specific narrow issue. The court disregarded that issue and ruled on something else. And so there are reasonable arguments on both sides to say that a no trespass sign should prevent people from entering your land from hunting, fishing, and trapping purposes. But on the flip side, because of the constitutional right to hunt, there's an argument on the other side of that saying that that no trespass sign does not meet the requirements to enclose your land as required by the constitution as carried out in sections 10 VSA 5,201. And that's that's potentially a live issue. And that's the issue that this committee is dealing with and how to make it clear for people to comply with the law and to avoid those circumstances. I will point out you did hear from testimony today explaining how some of that enforcement might work. A game warden might come out and examine the signs and determine whether or not you've met those requirements. On the flip side, if land is posted against criminal trespass, a landowner might contact the police and the police may come out or the police may not come out and say it's a civil issue. And those are kind of on the ground questions about how this law works in practice and the daily experience of property owners that committee has a task of kind of grappling and dealing with here. Legally speaking, there isn't a slam dunk on either side.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative North.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yes, thank you. Let's see. Probably several legal questions here. First of all, is it legal to post more frequently or more often than every 400 feet? Yes. Okay, so it would not be violating anything for a landowner to post their property say every 100 feet?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's correct. Alright.

[Rob North (Member)]: Good. Because I've seen that done very frequently in the area where I live. People post their land very frequently. That's making it much more foolproof that somebody's worried about a sign being torn off or blown down or scratched off by a squirrel, there'd be signs every 100 feet. Could lose three in a row and still be compliant. So I would highly suggest that if anybody's really concerned about their land being posted properly and in compliance that they post every 100 feet. Thank you for clarifying that that is still legal to do. Third, I thought, think it was Mr. Mac, Jeff Mac, made several really good observations. Let me just summarize here what some of the problems we're trying to solve. As an engineer, always like to make sure we understand the problems before we start proposing solutions. Some of the key problems that are setting us up for failure, was pointed out very clearly earlier, setting ourselves up for failure. First of all, requirements are for a 100% perfect compliance. Otherwise, the game wardens can't do anything. That seems to me like we are absolutely setting ourselves up for fair. If we require the landowners to be 100% perfect compliance, If there's one little thing wrong, their whole property is now vulnerable to being hounded or whatever else they might be trying to protect against. There are already two layers of protection. You have to be registered at the clerk's office and you have to be posting every 400 feet. That seems rather steep. The requirement of perfection, I guess, what bothers me most there. Now we're considering adding a third layer, which again, didn't necessarily think it was a bad idea, this online electronic mapping. I'm going to get to a question related that earlier or related to that after I go through my problem. That's one problem, requirement for 100 compliance with multiple layers of compliance. Second key problem is the lack of durability of the current signs. They don't even last one year. We're requiring them to be posted every year. Okay, fine. But the signs don't even last one year. So to me, can't we find some more durable sign? For heaven's sakes, that just seems ridiculous that we can't find signs to last a year. Third problem is the requirement to annually get out and update all the signs. Even if you're not changing the physical sign itself, you're updating with a little Sharpie, updating the date. That seems like we're setting ourselves up for failure just by that requirement. And the fourth problem, which I think we've heard in all the testimony we've gotten is the lack of sufficient information on how to contact the owner for permission. You just put your address or many times there's nothing there. How do you know who you're supposed to contact? Those to me seem to be the four everybody else came to the same inclusion idea, but they're kind of the four key problems that make it really hard to maintain this. So I would like to discuss some potential possible solutions from a legal perspective. First one you've already addressed, is it legal to post more frequently? Yes, it is. Okay, so that is a way to resolve the signs getting lost, scratched off, broken, ripped off, whatever, they're more Second question for you. How would a third layer if we're gonna add a third layer of this electronic mapping online, how would that be included for foolproofing? And really, how would it relate to the other two layers? The registration at the clerk's office and the posting with the signs. Where do we draw the line to be considered to be in compliance? I mean, if we put this electronic mapping thing online so that that clearly defines the boundaries and and where you are allowed to be and what and the contact information and everything else, would you then also have to have it visibly posted with signs and then also have it registered at the clerk's office? Looking for a legal opinion there.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so the statute as written does not contemplate online posting. It contemplates physical posting. So the statute would need to be amended to incorporate online posting. And in so doing, it would be a policy decision whether to make the online posting in addition to or in lieu of physical posting. And it would also be a policy decision to include the certain elements that you had wanted in there, like in terms of contact information, how to get ahold of the property owner and things of that sort. That could be done by statute or that could be done by asking the agency to engage in rulemaking to implement the rule, to include reasonable contact information and to make that easily accessible.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yeah, okay. So I think what you're saying is that we could design the law to accommodate some level of hierarchy and where compliance could be met by some fraction thereof of the different methods.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It could be either or like you meet one, two, three or four, one, two, three and four or something of the sort.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. Right. Okay. Okay. Thanks. In current words annually, the annual requirement. Do I do kind of like the idea of landowners being required to at least rethink about or re up their desire to keep their land posted on an annual basis. I think that makes sense. I mean, hunting licenses and whatnot are annual. So everybody has to work on an annual basis. But if the sign itself, if we can avoid having to traipse out through the woods every year, that would be, I think, a big help to most people. So, would it be possible to put, say, up to five years on the same sign? From 07/01/2026, 07/01/2027, 07/01/2028, put five years worth of deeds through which the sign would be valid all on the same sign. And then still have to do your online updating and or clerk's office updating every year, pay a new fine every year. Not fine. Fee, not fine. Every year. Is something like that a possibility?

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is certainly possible. And, you know, I think those kind of practical solutions, you know, you'd frame the statutory language saying that, you know, the sign shall be dated from the date it is posted and then through the date it is valid through. Because right now the law says the sign shall be dated annually. And the Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that to mean just writing the year on the sign. And that has brought us to this conversation. That has brought us to this issue because instead of writing 09/01/2025 through 09/01/2026, It's just 2025 and that creates ambiguity. And so there could be a legislative solution stating that the sign shall be dated on the date it is recorded with the clerk's office up through the date it is valid through. Perhaps more artful language than that, but that would be the idea.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. My last question is regarding the contact information on the sign itself. I mean, there potential legal or privacy issues and putting either your name and or your phone number or some contact information on the sign to talk publicly where everybody can view it? Some people might be reluctant to do that, but yet still we'd like people to contact the landowner to get permission. What's a good legal way to require people to contact for permission and provide that information but not violate privacy issues?

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so let me I have the rule up, and I'm taking a look at it right now because in the section where it says by permission only and this is the rule, so not the statute, but the rule implementing the statute. In the section that it says that if you're posting signs saying by permission only, one of the requirements to be on the sign is that it shall state the landowner's name and a method by which to contact the property owner or person authorized to provide permission to hunt on the property. And so that makes sense for that piece of that regulation because it's by permission only. So you would want the sign to say, how do you get permission?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Let

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: me just take a look to see if there's a corresponding

[Rob North (Member)]: required. That's already in rule. There's already kind of a methodology for doing that.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For the permission only piece. So there's two different ways that you can post. You can post, this is all prohibited or this is by permission. And so for signs that are posted by permission, you have to put your contact information on there already. That is already the current practice. It does not I appear that there

[Rob North (Member)]: think that answers my question. Yeah. So there is a methodology. Okay. Thank you. That was my, thank you very much for answering the question.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Somebody ahead of you. Representative? No. I'm good. Mike?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think to just talk a little bit more about what representative North was saying. The electronic posting thing, I think, is gonna become an issue because there's already a lag with posting of town records online anyway. And even these electronic hunting apps, they have a disclaimer that you need to verify who owns because if any town is doing updating, there's always a lag, and then the electronic app has to go through and update those apps and their information. So, on the day of, if you get stopped, that doesn't mean the gap is accurate. And then, who's on the hook? So, you need to keep that in mind. And there was one other thing. Oh, with respect to permission. We're talking about Vermont, right? We're talking about either hiking or hunting or fishing. If you can't walk up to someone's door and knock on the door and start a conversation, you shouldn't be on their land, period.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Thank you. I'm just again, I'm gonna say I think the majority of hunters are responsible, law abiding hunters, and I think it's unfortunate that we're gonna create new regs or whatever because of the group of hunters that aren't following the law. And that bothers me to do that, it is a reality. I'm wondering, could we put up signs that just say hunting is permitted?

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that is an interesting question. And my my legal opinion on that piece is that the constitutional provision says that you have a right to hunt on private property on land that is not enclosed. They spell it with an I, not enclosed to hunting. And so the constitutional question for the legislature is what constitutes enclosing the land. Feasibly, the legislature could draft a statute saying that all land is enclosed unless there is a sign granting permission to enclose the land. So it kind of flips the requirement from the property owner having to say no to the property owner having to say yes. I imagine that would run into a constitutional challenge where both sides might have a reasonable argument to say that that would be an ineffective way to, an ineffective balancing of the right to hunt on private property versus the property owner's right to exclude that that activity on their land. And I think both sides have reasonable arguments. And I think the Supreme Court would ultimately decide whether a statute in that way is constitutional. And that is a question I do not have an answer to. Other than to say, I think that would be close.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Also, do you what's the regulations with hunting with dogs?

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hunting with dogs. There are special permits that you need to get with hunting for dogs. It can only take place at certain times of year and for certain animals. And that is a, beyond that specific types of hunting and then how an individual will go about that are beyond my area of expertise at this point. If there's a bill or a specific legal question about hunting with animals, I'm happy to research that or draft language to address that.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Okay, great. Oh, gotcha. Hey, I think that's it. I just, I didn't know if you know this. Is there, maybe, okay, I can ask the members of the committee this question. So I think I'm all set. Thank you.

[Rob North (Member)]: Was

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: just curious if you were familiar with a bill, and I guess I just sort of want to put it on your radar, if not already on your radar, a bill that was introduced in 2023 on the Senate side for purple paint law that is not a short form bill is a full bill. And I guess it sounds like you've looked at bill looked at this language in other states. But if you have looked at that bill, does that sort of capture what we're talking about in terms of purple paint? It might be a useful reference for our committee.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Allow me to refresh my recollection on that bill because I have looked at a number of different laws. And after a certain point, they I do have a hard time keeping them separate unless I have a specific note. And can you

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: repeat the the bill?

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Yeah. It's s 22 from last biennium. I guess I'm frankly just curious what hap like, if there were conversations about this couple years ago. I can't even do that.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this bill would maintain, I'll read that out. Maintain paint markings on trees, posts, or other objects provided that the marking shall consist of one painted line of purple paint that is a minimum of eight inches high and two inches wide. So it is a little bit wider than some other states. It's usually at least one inch. Shall be painted three to six feet above ground and painted on a tree, post, or other object that is visible to a person approaching the land and then to comply with the other regulations about posting as provided in the statute. And let me see if it amends anything else. Looks like the statute also contemplated notice, written notices, as well as purple paint markings.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: An and not an or. Yep. The either one was sorry. An or, not an and. Right. And they meant the same things to anybody who saw them.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it did create a requirement for a person posting lands with paint markings under the subdivision shall record the posting with the town's clerk office in the town in which it's located when the land is originally marked with paint and should not be required to update a notice annually. So that's an interesting piece in that law in particular is that there is no requirement to update the posting annually when you post with paint. That's a policy choice that could easily change, but that was the policy choice of that bill. Let just take a look to see what happened in the committee activity on that because it looks like it was taken up on yeah. Yeah. Looks like it was taken up and then did not go very much farther.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Yep. Thank you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Bradley. When I look at the volume of emails I've had referencing six zero eight and the number of conflicts that were not voiced, but written into those emails of it's probably 10 to 15% of those emails were sent to me because of a historically, there was a conflict between the landowner and the hunter with hounds. I guess my concern is lack of civility on the hounders and respect for the landowners. Right now, we're putting all the onus on the land. I think the onus has got to be the hunter who is disrespectful of the land. But we're not showing that in any change of the rule or law. Somewhere along the way, they gotta be held accountable if everything else is done right, but it doesn't seem that that's happening. I think the fines should be adjusted all. In the course of that person's history, one, you give them a warning. Two, you give them a fine. Three times, you snap their license, period. Graduate the fine based upon the prevalence of disrespectfulness. I don't know how you got word that. That's just my thoughts of a lot of this would go away.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If the hunting with dogs is not necessarily germane, well, I guess germane in the sense that it kind of peaks the question. You know, this bill in particular, both representative Easton's bill and then representative Woods bill don't necessarily talk about what types of hunting. And so if the committee determines that maybe this is less of an issue about posting and more of an issue about certain activities, I do think that that's at least a new language for the bill, if not a different bill entirely.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Chittenden?

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Yeah, I think it's a really great point that our chair is making. But I would add that I think we're really hearing two problems. We're hearing about these conflicts that are set up because the laws are not clear enough or are so extreme in terms of a 100% perfection on the landowner's part, but there's just these ongoing conflicts and maybe there's not enough enforcement ability or not strong enough you know, not strong enough enforcement penalties. Sorry. That's why I'm not but there is this other issue that we have heard the most from, and that is around the ability of landowners to actually simply post their land. And those folks that is much broader range, and those folks are saying, we literally physically can't get out there to do this regularly. And they've been asking for this purple paint because it's got this sort of longevity and more permanence of the paint. So I guess I just wanna make sure we're I feel like we are being asked to solve two issues and I just wanna make sure we're articulate. You said four, but I think those two sort of boil down to two primary issues. Did I miss something? All four

[Rob North (Member)]: of my issues fall under the first one. Okay.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Formulate this into a question, of just a statement, am curious about What was I curious about? I'm curious about the 100% perfection. And is there room for us in this constitutional language around enclosure to say that when a warden goes out and says, oh, somebody's been on your land. It's like the second or third time they've crossed your property intentionally even though they know because they're commute clearly, I just wonder, does every sign have to be perfect? Every sign have to be perfectly dated? Could we do something there that would be clearly legal, that would lower the bar and frankly give room for enforcement to do their job because they have discretion and law enforcement always has discretion. And they can say, this is a first time they missed the sign versus I know that person. I know they've been on multiple people's property intentionally without permission. So I guess I'm just looking for more tools in the toolbox for law enforcement.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, and so it's curious whenever law enforcement would exercise its discretion to require 100% accuracy and to such a level that you could have 10 posted signs and one is misstated and then the whole property is not posted. That is curious. And so a potential legislative solution might include amending fifty two zero one in the notices section. So it says notices shall be at each corner of the property and not more than 400 feet apart at the boundaries thereof. You can design language stating that, you know, these signs shall be of standard sign and design as the commissioner shall specify and de minimis deviations from the rule set forth there and shall not mean that the property is not enclosed. We'll have to get better language in that. But that's just pulling from my brain right now is providing a de minimis exception to having an error on the sign. You know, a date could be wrong, a sign could be half torn down. Would that mean the whole property is not enclosed if one of the signs is half torn down? I could see a game warden making that determination and by the plain language of the statute might have authority to do that. And perhaps stating that a de minimis error in the sign when the rest of the property is so enclosed shall not mean that the property is not enclosed for purposes of the statute might be a good idea. And it's certainly possible.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Great, thank you.

[Rob North (Member)]: Representative Kristi. Thank you. And that was going to

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: be my question, was the lack of 100% compliance on the landowner part on signs. And I wanted to point out that may be not a law enforcement, that may be a judicial interpretation, keeping track of the the letter of the law. That that would be my thought. They say take it to court, and they're gonna do findings, and they're this hunter that's in violation, hires an attorney, and the attorneys read the law, it says, well, you know, they're all supposed to be dated, and this one's not. So therefore, it's in violation of the statute. I suspect that might be more to the point of why that would be an issue. And the same thing would happen with purple paint. And I'm looking at the bill from last session, eight inches, two inches wide. If it's an inch and a half, it's not compliant. So I think we have to lean towards if the intent of the landowner is to have his property enclosed and he's done the effort to put the signs up, that if something less than 100% gets the judicial interpretation or the enforcement interpretation tossed out, I think that's where we should we would have our biggest bang for the buck to to understand that the landowner's property is posted. As to the the the hounds, what we heard from Jeff Mack. You have hunters. You have hounders that are gonna do exactly what they want no matter what the sign, and there is no law. There is short of setting up electric fence, there's no law that's gonna stop those people. And unless it it it would have to be better enforcement. They'd have to be caught at the time. I I don't know how we would do that other than more more wardens and more law enforcement perhaps. But, yeah, we're we're we're looking at a bill that's trying to address a small portion of the hunting population.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Just one more question. Legally, can we could could we I mean, we're talking about between Purple Paint and now posting. I mean, the is it wide open what we could put up to signal the land was enclosed?

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That a question for me?

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yes. Okay.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Is. The legislature could design any, you know, any kind of signage or some kind of, you know, whatever it is that you wanted on the posting to enclose the land, and the legislature could design that and have that be enforceable.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Thank you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: President Essex.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I was really intrigued by the conversation around some ways to make it so that you don't have to have strict compliance with the law in order to perceive the intent. You suggested a de minimis sort of exception, which sounds good. But I was also wondering if it might make sense to include some sort of reasonableness standard where, you know, a reasonable person upon, you know, coming to the property line would assume

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: that

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: the property is posted. Include language like that so that if you're posted properly along one side of your property but you have an outdated sign a half a mile away, would obviously you know, you get the point.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, yes. And either way would be, you know, a good solution. I think we would definitely be workshopping language. So language I used is just pulled from my brain in that moment. But we would work out the language a little bit more to make sure that, yeah, I think a reasonable person would see 10 signs and one sign being damaged doesn't necessarily open up the whole property. We would have to kind of take a look into that, but it is certainly possible.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham resident)]: Thank

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you. Are there any other questions of our presenter? Seeing none, thank you very much. Appreciate your attendance and wisdom.

[Rob North (Member)]: Thank

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: you. And patience.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. All have good day.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham resident)]: Fire break?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Fire break. Chair. Chair. Yes.

[Rob North (Member)]: Would you be willing to pull item H eight zero five off the wall and allow me to present that, introduce that to the to the committee?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's 805.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham resident)]: Well, the resources of the state. I would very much like a bioproof.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: You might have time to say.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How long is John at? He's on recovery and resilience. Did he did you ask him for half hour, fifteen minutes, or did he want a whole hour?

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: He's in for half an hour.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Do you have the floor? Do

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: we know how to do it? The only person who knows the floor is Jill. Sent you agenda for the floor, how long it is.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: I think it's estimated at forty five minutes.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do to add you to the floor? Sure.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Do you think we should take a vote on that, or can you just make that decision? I've never had this happen. Up in the chair. No. But

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: if we can just freshen up the chance.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's not if we'll always come in that late. It's fine. I'll say. We can get a quorum. We can do it. Can we do it now? You have ten minutes.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: Can we take a break, and you guys can discuss this during the break? Sure. Yeah. I'd just like to go then. Right.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Take a break.

[Representative Chittenden (first name unknown)]: After I feel free. Good afternoon, Carrie. Just an intro.