Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. We're reconvening our morning meeting and shifting gears a little bit to fish and wildlife issues that have been brought to us by the commissioner. Welcome.

[Commissioner Jason Batchelder (Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Thank you. Now for the record, I'm Jason Batchelver and Fish and Wildlife Commissioner. I'm joined here today by general counsel Anna Smith, chief operations officer, Andrea Short sleeve, and colonel Justin Steadman. We may or may not get to to all of them depending on how much into the weeds you'd like to get on this. But, essentially, we're we're asking of the committee a a technical corrections bill, which we channeled through representative Pritchard. We have four asks in this technical corrections bill, and I won't I won't do much except wave top them for you, and I'll turn it over to Hannah. But we have an amendment on points and penalties, which is reactive to last year's effort that you all helped us with. We haven't asked for a three hundred and sixty five day license option, which would, essentially now we're a calendar license. So we're January 1 to December 31. We'd like to have a option to go three hundred and sixty five days for various reasons. We'd like an allowance to be able to react to the Fish and Wildlife Board's, regulations when they create, a new law that we don't have an ability to charge a fee for. Like we've experienced recently with the second buck tag, we don't have a ability to charge for that tag yet. And then and then finally and and most recently, there's an addition, to to sunset a provision that requires us to create a long range management plan every so many years, and we don't feel it's necessary any longer. With that, I'd like to turn it over to Hannah and and have her go through, the language and then have your questions. And I'm I'm happy to come back if you have anything for me. Thank you so much.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Morning. For the record, my name is Hannah Smith. I'm general counsel for the Department of Fish and Wildlife. And I believe that the committee has a draft, an official draft that attorney showman put together, and I will use that to walk through. The first section deals with amendments to 10 BSA 4502, which are points assigned to fish and wildlife violations. And as the commissioner referenced, this is a technical correction. Often, as our rules are updated, the citations that are included in the statute no longer correctly refer to the violation to which they originally referred. So some of this is just rightsizing the citations to the rules. Some of it is some modification to the points assessed for various violations.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Excuse me, rightsizing the statute to the rule?

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: So that the statute refers to the correct sections of the rule.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, so just linking them correctly. Yeah. Mhmm. Not changing their scope or scale. Yeah. Representative.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: I'm sorry. I just don't know what to be looking at right now.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's a little funny. It's We didn't get it from the department here, or Bradley's put it in our language, which will be helpful, and so Hannah's looking, I guess, walking us through. Although what we really need from you all is the details of what you're asking and why.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: And

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: so it's Bradley's testing.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Is draft 10.1. The first revision is page two, line 13. There's a strike through of the language referring to gun suppressors, because gun suppressors are no longer banned. In line 15, the amendment to H excludes these are violations for which 10 points are assessed. It would exclude shooting from a vehicle. This is being moved to a 20 violation simply because of the safety risks associated with shooting from a vehicle. In the amendment on page two, line 19, the underlined and struck through statutory regulatory references are correcting the section references.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Susan, if Chapin has a question.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Sorry. I guess I'm just gonna need you to explain more about what you just said under GNH. Just I'm not following you. Sure. Like, you you said they were gun suppressors are no longer banned?

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: That's correct. And I can

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: if I could a lot more information on that understand the situation. Like, they used to be banned when, and what was the action that means that they're not banned now.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We actually did that. That

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: was our last year.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Still, I think it's valid if you could just Even bring it a little bit

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: if it was last year, I forget. But we did some sweet detail. Sure. And I

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: would also ask if Colonel Sedgman could add any additional language, since this is largely These are all law enforcement related amendments that we're proposing. So my understanding is Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Just can you talk about the points that you're going from to or taking away? Because that is I don't know if

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: you have that information. It's not absolutely necessary, but it just would provide a bit of context for me. Sure. Thank you. The amendments that I am reading through right now are all 10 violations.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So I would just say we don't need you to walk us through language that our alleged counsel has drafted. What we need you to walk us through is what you're trying to do in English and why, and then we can do the law stuff with our counsel. So whoever among you is prepared to do that would be the most helpful. That would help us understand your ideas.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Okay. So the why we're striking through gun suppressors language.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sure. And what the ramifications are for points?

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: They are so the use of gun suppressors is no longer banned, and I will turn to colonel Stedman for elaboration on why that was in here and why it's no longer necessary for it to be in here.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Good morning. For the record, justice Stedman, colonel of Orange Service. So there was a law that was put into place that had temporarily allowed suppressors because they had previously been disallowed with the sunset. This this committee had allowed that to then be permission for them to become permanent. So there's no reason to have it still listed as something that is prohibited because they're now permanently legal unless any law is enacted. So that's why we're striking it to the BBB. Okay. Thanks.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: He

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: on line 15, violations of 4,705 were all previously 10 points. We're now excluding 4,705 A and making that a 20 violation because of the safety risk associated with shooting from a vehicle.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Ahead. Sorry, you are already doing that or you're asking? You're asking us to move this from a 10 violation to a 20 violation. Correct. Just the entire thing, shooting from motor vehicles or aircraft. You'd like to move from 10 points to 20.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Just 45 it's forty seven zero five a.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: But I'm not seeing yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What is forty seven zero five a?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: If I if I may not forty seven zero five covers shooting from any motorized conveyance and it covers a variety of things. It also includes shooting from within a certain distance of roads of various classes. So, it covers a whole lot of things. We're simply trying to break out the specific act of shooting from within or upon a motorized conveyance. Because in theory, if you pull up in your vehicle, stick a gun out the window and shoot something, you have in no way even attempted to decide if that's safe, look at the surrounding or any sort of other thing. So it seems to be more egregious in our opinion than someone who at least gets out of the vehicle and maybe doesn't get the proper distance off the roadway before they shoot. They're at least more aware of their strategy. Think of all the blind spots in a vehicle. The whole lot of places you can't see are sitting in your vehicle when you you shoot at something. So that's the idea of making that is asking you all to make that a more punitive action than just someone who maybe doesn't get the right distance off the road.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative Logan. Just to be clear, it's forty seven zero five a that you're asking to be made a point a 20 violation?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Yes, ma'am. And that'll be later in this because that is the specifics. 4,705 itself covered. It's ABCD. I think it goes through F, but A is the specific act of shooting from within or upon a motorized conveyance.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: See, oh yeah, it's a couple pages down. Thanks.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: It would also include someone shooting from a motorboat or something of that nature, like airplanes, snowmobiles, ATVs. It includes all

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: of it would include all of those.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Literally spelled it spelled out all of those things. So at some point, maybe shooting from an airplane was an issue. I've never experienced it, but it lists all of those things.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Have you met motorboats?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Oh, yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative To be clear, colonel,

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: it doesn't say that motor an automobile needs to

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: be stationary or could be moving. It does not specify. It compounds. Yes. Yeah. It does not. It's it's shooting from it's I believe it's from within upon from within or upon a motorized conveyance, it lists out all the motorized conveyances. Somebody right down the road.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: The next amendment, beginning on line 18, is just a correction to the citations in appendix 44, which is the forbearer rule. And we can find that that specific language. It does this doesn't change the assessment of points. It's just correcting to citations.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: And I don't wanna insult anybody's intelligence. But when the board makes changes, oftentimes, the numbering changes, and that's what happens. And this is just trying to correct the fact that the numbering changed in the rule. And this this prior to this committee entertaining forty five zero two last year, this forty five zero two hadn't been looked at in seven or eight or even more years. So things just got really out of whack.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Interesting that we have statutory references to sections of a rule that change I guess I'm gonna put that in Bradley's bucket to help us understand how common that is and okay. Yeah.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: On page three, beginning line two, there is a proposed amendment to II, which refers to violations of the deer management rule that have 10 assessed that are assigned 10 points. So these are specifically we're calling out those violations of the deer rule that should be assigned 10 points. So this would be possession of archery equipment during muzzleloader season, the novice season violations of novice season rules, and then antlerless violations. So taking an antlerless deer outside of the WMU for where your tag is assigned.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: And if I'm just adding borrowing from attorney, Smith's language earlier, we're just trying to right size the in our estimation, the penalty for the offense. And previously, the way forty five zero two was structured, the only real tool we had to address someone who violate many of the deer rules was a sledgehammer, and we're trying to just not bring a sledgehammer to a situation that doesn't require it, and that's simply what we're trying to accomplish here. So we've broken out appendix 37 more into more pieces in order to try and right right size that to the particular offenses that are taking place.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Representative Satcowitz. Yeah. Could you just give us a little more detail as to like the kinds of things that are changing and the kinds of things that are staying the same?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Sure, so for example, taking deer at night or with the use of lights or salt or other other methods that have traditionally been viewed as particularly egregious, those are remaining 20 points. However, we issue we issue permits for antlerless deer and they're done by WMUs. And those units are oftentimes divided by roads or other natural boundaries and in the past if you were on the wrong side of the road it was a three year loss of license and you know at points, which is a three year loss of license up to a $2,000 the whole nine yards for being on the wrong side of the road. Now, there are certainly some instances if you are, you know, miles and miles and towns and towns away where it's clear that you intended to violate, but there are many people who just who just got on the wrong side of the literally got on the wrong side of the road. And so this is trying to rightsize some of that because there are still other mechanisms by which we can bring a sledgehammer if we need to. This is trying to address the folks that maybe just didn't pay enough attention for lack of better word, and it is incumbent upon them to know. But there are folks that this is a fairly frequent violation that we encounter in the fall. It's just people being in the wrong area, and many times there is not clear indication that they intended that. That makes sense. Not sure if I so that's one of the examples of this. I can go through all of these if you want, but that's basically what all of these get to are various parts of the deer rule that we're trying to say there is a clear ability to unintentionally violate this rule, and we're trying to right size that penalty so that people aren't losing their license for three years and the whole nine yards. I'm not sure if that was

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: a great way to start. So

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: that's this specific one. Some of them, Attorney Smith said, are more technical, but a lot of that is what this is. A lot of that is the language that used to exist without burning it said all violations of Appendix 37 were a 20 violation, and it broke out like three exceptions, and so appendix 37 is 16 secondtions long. So you're basically we were applying a sledgehammer to a whole lot of it minus three secondtions. And so we're trying to we're trying to pull those sections out that don't need that and give a give words an opportunity to not not just hammer on people necessarily when it's not necessary. And and so that's throughout this. The the bear stuff that attorneys will talk about, the turkey stuff that attorneys will talk about. It's all the same thing, and this is all just a result of years of not coming back to this statute and a number of items changing in time frame from when this was last addressed.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How often do the boundaries of WMUs change?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Very rarely that I'm aware of. I'm not sure that they have, and certainly in my tenure. Maybe I shouldn't say that. So I know K went from K1 and K2 to just K, but that would be changing in favor of people. But the actual main units, I

[Commissioner Jason Batchelder (Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: don't believe have changed at all.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: I think the board has the ability to reevaluate them every ten years. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Now often do the regulations within those change? That's that's kind of an annual reevaluation.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Well, so

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: the big game rules are updated on sort of a semi formal cycle. Because when we're making changes to regulations, we want enough time to actually collect data to support any proposed changes. So I think the DEAR rules have been every five years. It's similar for the other big game rules. So those regulations are changing on a semi regular basis.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative Chapin. And then rules are changing in these appendices. So this this whole section is saying there's 10 points assessed for basically not following rules that might get changed with some regularity. And so it sounds like there might be a need for us to more regular either change the way this is structured or more regularly update the statutes to reflect Well shifts and rules.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: So I think obviously, I only have the last two to speak about, but this committee has been very gracious in in in letting us do this. So I think that certainly works if in the sense that we can adjust these as they change and bring them to you through this committee. As attorney Smith said, they don't five years you know, they're not all changing all the time. And some of the changes don't necessitate and us coming back here, it's just a matter of when the statutory language gets so far out of whack that we have trouble entering into the court system because it just doesn't it it no longer works in the sense that we can't reference parts that are covered in this. If that I'm

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: not sure I did a very

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: good job of explaining that.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Thank you. I'm I'm good in it.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Yeah. To the colonel's point, we've gotten behind in updating this. And so a lot of these are sort of historical corrections that we're trying to make after we've had a chance to evaluate what an appropriate penalty would be for a particular violation. So, yes, in the revisions to II, there were, as the colonel mentioned, the majority of violations under section 37, which is the deer management rule, were 20 points. We are pulling out some that should only be 10 points. And on line eight

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry. But it's in there. H h, taking a black bear doing damage is 10.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: 10. Yep.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You can it's a you're are you allowed to take a black bear doing damage?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Yes, ma'am. This would be for someone who did it incorrectly.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So It's a funny way of wording it then. If you're allowed to take a black bear that's doing damage, why would it be in the penalty section?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: The

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: penalty is what's assigned to any violation of section forty eight twenty seven, which lays out the criteria for when you can take a black bear doing damage.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: And I believe that's the language of forty eight twenty seven, so forty five zero two just copies that language.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Yeah. It's just the type taking Blackbird doing damage is the title of 48. So it doesn't go into detail around what that explicit violation is that would be for the warrant to assess in issuing that ticket, whether you you'd violated that section of law.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Representative Pritchard? It's my understanding. I guess maybe I guess I might be incorrect. I thought there was only one exception for allowing bears to be taken, damaging those standing corn with farms.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Oh, it would be I'm sorry. No, sir. Bees I know are. Bees? I know a problem. Well, you can take bears doing damaging bees and breaking into buildings and things of that nature. As with standing corn, you do not have to take preventative measures to try and prevent them from damaging your corn before you're allowed to take them. With other issues like chickens and bees and things of that nature, you have to have at least taken some preventative measures before you're allowed to shoot the bear or to take the bear. Also, exigent circumstance. I mean, bear trying to break into your house, you don't have to do anything other than just take care of it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Doesn't matter how it's posted.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: With Touche. Permission. For painter or something. Sign says bears welcome, then I don't know. We'll have to talk about it. Alright. Route 3, try.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: On line eight, there is a strike through of the existing language which refers to feeding deer, which has long established that feeding deer is a 10 violation, that's only struck through because it is now included in II above. So feeding deer remains a 10 violation, but it's covered in those 10 violations associated with the deal above. And the new language of SS is the Appendix seven, Section 5.3, which is the

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Annual limit.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Taking bear over the annual limit.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: And for anybody who's astute, if I may just potentially point this out, section nine is is actually changing in the new which is why you don't actually see section nine in II. Believe it's 8.5 in the new rule, which gets to the point about how things get out of whack. So that's we're we're pre what was that? Pregaming for the changes that are coming. So we won't have to come back after those changes are made.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And a second. Let's I'm I'm still I'm

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: a little unclear on line eight eight nine what the actual change is in terms of, like, the penalty. If there is

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: There is no change to points assessed for feeding deer. That's just being moved up.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Management will

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: So taking bear over the limit, was that that was 20 points?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: So the There was that was a 20 violation. So there's with a lot of the fish and well, with most laws, there there's multiple ways to address address a problem. And so the season allows you to take one bear. So if you take a bear above that, you are hunting outside of the season because you're no longer licensed to do that. That's a 20 violation. But taking bear off the limit was also a 20 violation. We have had instances where people, believe it or not, have shot two bears, and they were confused by the early and the late season and not realizing that it was still a one bear limit. And some of them were new to hunting. And so, again, this is trying to provide an opportunity to not have to bring a sledgehammer every time a warden is like, they clearly didn't mean to do this. They just they didn't read properly or whatever whatever the issue is. So this is attempting to give us a slightly less punitive measure to address a problem that is addressed in multiple ways. And I'm not hopefully, I explained that right. I don't know or explained that clearly, but it's simply trying again, back to my earlier statement, is trying to give the wardens an opportunity to not have to bring a sledgehammer to every situation is the best way I can explain that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can you just remind the committee about the point system and the relative because you're you keep calling 20 points

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Yes, ma'am. Sorry.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sledgehammer. I have a little I apologize. Context.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: So a a 20 violation carries a three year loss of license, a requirement to take hunter ethics course, and typically 20 violations bring substantial penalties in terms of fine. They're usually 2,000 or more $2,000 or more fines in addition to restitution. So you you could be upwards of 5 or $6,000 pretty easily. The remedial ethics course cost a $100, and that has to be taken statutorily before you can get your license back. And you also cannot hunt for unfish or trap for three years because Vermont suspends all three considers those all one thing. 10 points is a one year loss of license. It does not require, someone to take the hunter ethics course before they they get their license back. It's basically the first suspension that we have. The point system is set up such that any points you get so so we do have five point violations, which are which are not they are listed in here, but they're not broken out. It's just that anything not in here is a five point violation. Five points, 10 points, 20 points, doesn't matter. They'll stay on your record for five years. So if you have a 10 violation and or if you have a violation, the words like they clearly didn't read whatever the issue is. Here's your 10 points. You take a year off. If you then go out and do something stupid, for lack of a better word, in the next five years, you're going to be at a minimum under revocation for two more years because 15 points I apologize. 15 points is a two year suspension. At 15 points, you're also required to take the Robita Hunter ethics course. So any points over 10, basically, 15 or 20, because we don't really have our points are either five, ten, or 20. We don't have any ones or twos. Within five years of a violation, you're basically guaranteed to have to take remedial ethics and do the whole nine yards. That's sort of the breakdown. 10 points is a one year suspension, 15 points is a two year suspension with remedial ethics. Three years is a Sorry, 20 points is a three years also with remedial ethics, and that's within a five year period.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And five points is just five points.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Five points is just five points, yeah. So that's typically your license violations, things that are very just, you know, forgot to violate. So whatever. Very, very minimal violations that are, I would say, sort of run of the mill violations, if I can I don't know if that's the right word, but just very typical things that we run into that are viewed as less egregious, well, by this body at one time?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So it's been a while since I bought a hunting license, but you used to just get one bear tag with every license you bought. I have a hard time understanding how someone could get confused that they could take two bear. It's just two tags.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: You get two tags now. There's an early season and a late season.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And you get two tags. Well, you have to buy them.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Well, yes and no. So I don't wanna confuse this too much, but, yes, you can buy them, but also lifetime licenses that were issued prior to the change get to. It's very confusing. So it is possible to get two licenses without actually buying them or intending to buy them. I'm sorry. I'm gonna confuse you. My oldest son's lifetime license was purchased before the change. So when he prints his license, he has an early season and a late season. My younger son was after the change, so he only has a late season because he would have to buy the early season. So there are people on the landscape of Vermont with licenses that have early and late season that did not purchase them specifically for that purpose. And, again, for people who intentionally or who who are clearly trying to skirt the law, we have the ability to charge them more egregiously. This is simply an attempt to have a lesser lesser go at some of the folks that seem to maybe not just be up to speed as much as they should be.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Satcowitz.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Just so I'm really clear, it sounds like within a five year period, these points violations are are cumulative.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Yes,

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: sir. So whenever you get to a 15 or a 20 level, no matter how you got there, there are certain

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Yes, sir.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Lengths of time of revocation of license and and fines. Yes. Absolutely.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What's the universe of of tickets you you all issue in a year?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: In terms of numbers? Yeah. So I don't know. I can tell you it was approximately 9,000 tickets, citations and warnings last year, but I don't know the individual breakout of what typically, about two thirds of that is warnings, so I'm not really good at math, but that's about 3,000 give or take tickets and citations. And that's really please give me a fair amount of grace in that because that's pulling off of my head from something I did a while ago.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sort of 9,000 encounters or, well, tickets and warnings.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Yes, ma'am.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And then but actual tickets would be something more like three.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Somewhere around 3,000. Yeah. As a general statement, wardens are are I like to say we're pretty decent folks, and we try not to not to hammer up people. As a general statement, I mean, there's a lot of there's but but, yeah, it's typically it's about two thirds of the paperwork is warning versus tickets and citations. Alright.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Are we moving on?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Sure.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: The next change is page three, line 11. These are revisions to the Turkey management rule. And again, these were previously 20 points. We are making these specific violations 10 points. The violations refer to the correct shot size being used. What else was this? Oh, was.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Sorry.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. I see. Novice.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: We got

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: novice season violations and taking Turkey over the limit. Again, over the bag limit for the year.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can you remind us the bag limit for turkeys?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: It varies. So in the springtime, it's two, and in the fall, it's one. In the fall, it's either sex, and in the spring, it is bearded. I shouldn't say either sex. It's just bearded versus not bearded because, obviously, female turkeys can grow beard. So it's just bearded versus not bearded.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: And there I do have one correction to what I said. The novice season and the over the limit were 20 and we're moving them to 10. The shot size violation was five and we are moving it to 10. This is really an effort to prevent hunters from if you're not using the correct shot size, there's an increased risk of the animal becoming wounded but not dying. And we're trying to avoid that. We're making that a more egregious violation to use the incorrect shot size.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Percent of sacraments.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: If you're if you're over the bag limit, does it matter how far over the bag limit you are? So that it can seem like if you were way over the background, that might be a more egregious violation than. And you

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: absolutely are sorry. And and again, there are ways to address that within the the construct of what we have, where we this this does not limit awards ability to take someone who is egregiously violating and treat them more harshly or more firm more partially is the right word, but treat to to address that adequately with a 20 violation. Because at the end of the day, 47, 47 or five, I apologize, basically says you have to be licensed for the season you're hunting in, and if and you can only do what is prescribed by the season. And so if someone were to shoot three turkeys, which can happen by accident or shoot more turkeys to your point, if we found someone who shot four or five turkeys in an outing who clearly intended to violate, we can bring a 20 citation up against them. We can charge them restitution for every bird. In that case, you're looking at that start moving in on 7 or $8,000 potentially. So, but at the same time, it is very possible to accidentally shoot two turkeys with one shot because of how they how they move on the landscape. It happens every year or someone thinks they shot a bearded turkey and they didn't. And there's all those sort of things that, again, our options were limited, and it's either nothing or you get a citation. So this is, again, just trying to to bring that middle ground into play for wardens on the ground to to have an option.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: The on line 13, the amendment to section 33, which is the moose management rule. This section 12 refers to legal methods for taking MOOSE, the implement that you're allowed. And it was previously five. We are moving all of the big game legal methods into 10 violations. The the next one

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So taking a moose illegally is a 10?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: So this would be so moose have a distant try that in English. Different distance requirement from from a road. So for everything else, it's 25 feet, but for a moose, it's a 100. So we're just we're that that had been a five point violation, and it seemed not reasonable to say that if you shot a deer within 25 feet of the road as the law requires, you get a certain violate a certain point penalty 10 points. But if you do it for a moose, you only get five. So we're trying to bring moose to the same playing field as deer, bear, and turkey.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So it's only to the distance from the road.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Well, there there are specific you'd have to use a certain size rifle, a bow with a certain draw, which are all the method stuff that that attorney Smith is talking about, like shot size for turkeys and all that. That that puts all the big game methods on the same 10 playing field. Then if you shoot moose over limit or you shoot moose over salt or at night, those are all 20 pointers and remain the sort of more serious violations. But these are these are they're method issues where you're just not either not using the right caliber gun, not using the right draw strength bow. You're not allowed to use radios. So if you if someone's using radios like that sort of stuff, that that brings all that to the same sort of not each animal has the same standard or same sort of requirements, but it makes all of the requirements for all of the big game consistent, which had not existed previously. Some were 20, some were 10, some were five, and we're trying to make all of the methods 10. So that's what that's worth.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: So to that point, the revisions on line 14 are to make violations of the bow and arrow standards a 10 violation. This requires a minimum arrowhead or broad size, again, to prevent wounded animals from being on the landscape. So as the colonel mentioned, we're sort of lumping these into legal methods. So violations of Section five are now 10 points. The revision on line 15, violations of 4,701. Again, the legal methods, use of gun, bow and arrow, crossbow, legal days, use of dogs. Again, previously five points for consistency with these legal methods of take. We're moving this to the 10 section.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Austin. Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I'm just gonna say that the most I hear from my constituents about hunting is hunting with coyotes and dogs going on private property. And I'm just wondering when you say dogs, what does I mean, the No. So this Are people holding people accountable

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Yes, ma'am.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Doing that?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: I I thought this correctly. So this statute just says where where it is allowed or basically, unless otherwise prohibited, you can use dogs. That's all this says. So it's not specifically speaking to coyotes or but but you cannot hunt deer with dogs, so that one is disallowed. But you can hunt bear with dogs based on the rules that are it and it doesn't say you can hunt anything with a dog. It just says if it's if it's permissible to hunt with a dog or if it if it's not otherwise said, it's permissible to hunt with a dog, and that's that's all that this is a very it's like a broad sort of thing. The brown methods is not specific to coyotes or to bear or to any or birds or anything else,

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: right?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: But the dogs aren't permitted to go on private profits.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Question of the not this had nothing to do with this, but to your question, the dogs are not. Yes, sorry, I just wanted to break that out. No, no, no. So the way the regulation has been changed is that dogs are not permitted to go on posted property. Coyote hound hunters are not permitted to release their dogs on posted property. I guess I said that right.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Right. But if a dog is chasing a coyote Mhmm. That they're not releasing their dogs. They might have released it on public property or whatever, and it runs along to private property. They can't they have to call the dogs back or something. Right?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: I I have to read the regulation. I apologize. I was not prepared for that question. But I I believe you're correct, but I I need to reread it, and I wasn't I wasn't ready for that one, ma'am. Thanks.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: No. Legislation. Sorry. Thank you. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It does actually, though, since we digressed a little, I would say I have a question about we've gotten questions about how to state hounds and their who what is what are what what data are you collecting about those hounds when you're registering them to hunt in Vermont?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Turn that over to you, sir. I I think Hannah's best.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Ma'am? In

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: terms of the so we have the application for hounding with for coyotes. And I would have to look back at the rule for the specific I mean, there's yeah, I have to look back at the rule and get back to you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, and not just for coyotes, just out of state hound requirements for registering your dogs, and maybe in state too, but, like, the question comes up that we have an obligation to register a dog, show that it has a rabies vaccination, for example, if it's a pet versus a I don't even know why they're distinguished. It's a frustration for me, but that somehow we've let that go on. I would like to know I'd like assurances that out of state dogs are meeting the same standards we're expected of in state dogs, and if there's a difference between registered hounds and other dogs people keep at their homes. I'll say it that way.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: I'm not aware that there's a difference. I know that the statute this is, a statute that's implemented by, it's a public safety statute that requires all domestic dogs to be registered in the town where they're kept, and that registration requires proof of vaccination. So any dog that is being used to hunt with should be meeting that is required to meet that standard.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So someone's checking the out of state dogs?

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: That, I don't know in terms of the state where state of

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: I'd have read the title 13 statute or title

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: 23.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: 23. Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Sorry to digress. No. I'm sorry. Okay.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Think you were now moving to 20 points because we just went through 15, so now you're on the line.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Oh, line 19. Again, this is another methods of take violations.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Got

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: it. Yes. We are now talking about 20 violations. Line 19 is violations of 4,702, which is the use of a light. And previously, involved 20 points were assessed if you had a firearm on you while you were using a light. This is adding language to refer to muzzleloaders, air bows, rifles or crossbows to be clear that if you also have those implements while you're using a light, that is a 20 violation.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: And that's just consistent with the language that y'all put into forty seven zero five last year to address that. So we're just trying to bring that up to speed.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Page four, is an amendment to Section seven is the bare management rule. And the strike through is a technical correction. These section numbers are redundant because they're captured in the bear management, the 10 bear management rules, except for section 5.3,

[Commissioner Jason Batchelder (Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: which

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: is now that's taking bear over the limit, which was moved to be a 10 violation. That's all that's here.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: It just goes back to what I was saying where it said all violations of the bear regulation. In in this point, it used to just say well, you can see what it used to say. And so hunting without a license, the legislature had determined was a five point violation, but rule in it had that you had to have a license to hunt bear. So it in in a in a way tried to make it a 20 violation on something the legislature already said was a five point. So again, we're just trying to right size the language in forty five zero two to match the rule and to match what had been intended. So

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: The reference to section 8.2, which is new here, is the requirement that you return to the kill site if a warden asks you. And we are making all of those return to kill site violations 20 violations. That'll be reflected in it's in you below and q below as well for moose and deer.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Meaning that if you refuse to re take the warden to the site?

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: It'll be a 20 violation. The basis for that being that there is clearly something going on, and we would like to be able to penalize that appropriately if there's a refusal to return to the site. And

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: where this comes into play oftentimes is where we're having the discussion about boundaries. So someone will say, well, I shot it in just because I happen to know the area. I shot it in Pollet, and that's part of k. And you're like, alright. Where? And they name some place. It's like, why don't we go there? And then you go there, and there's no indication that anything happened there. Like, where'd you really do this? Well, I shot it over in Mount Holly or whatever. And that's usually how the story goes when folks that are being egregious. And it the reason that folks will the folks will do that is they will in certain WMUs, you can shoot certain types of deer that are illegal as opposed to other ones where they're not. It's trying to manage the deer effectively. And so they will have shot the wrong thing for the zone they're in, but they know it's good in another zone. And that's where the 20 ticket becomes. We we want to be able to address those folks.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Satcowitz? A moment ago,

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: you said that, I think tell me if I'm wrong, that that hunting bear out of season is a five point. I No. Hunting bear without a license is five point.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Hunting anything without a license. Hunting hunting anything. Yes. Yep.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: What what does that actually like, what does that really mean? Does that mean actually taking an animal or?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: No, so if if you're out in the woods, so I'll tell you very specifics. There was specific to me. I was I was the Burlington Ordin at the time and it was the fall and I'm driving. I was driving along a back like, back road to cut through woods. It wasn't really road, but, you know, like a farm track type thing, and I see a guy in camouflage with a rifle. I'm like, hey. What are you doing? He's like, walking. Like, where's your license? I'm not hunting. Me. You're in camouflage carrying a rifle. I'm gonna write you a ticket for hunting without a license. Had he shot an animal, then it would have been a much more egregious violation. But I just happened to cross him, and he didn't have a license. So that's what that refers to is is literally, you know, fishing without a license is the one that is encountered frequently throughout the summer. Just someone decides they're gonna go drown a worm for a little while. The warden happens by. Do you have a license? I'm not fishing. You actually are, and here's your ticket. So that's that it's not if they were actually in possession of fish, then it becomes a more of more significant issue. If they actually take an animal, it becomes a more significant issue. But this is just the person that the warden happens across who is doesn't just doesn't have a license at the time. No other sort of nothing else involved there. They're engaged in the quote unquote activity by either being in camouflage with a gun in the woods in the fall or by, you know, with a bobber and a worm or a lure or whatever. But they may not have actually take they would they would not have actually taken anything or certainly not known to the warden that

[Commissioner Jason Batchelder (Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: they took anything at that point. Is that

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: That's great. Thank you.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Ironically, the judge didn't buy his story either, in case you want to.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: On page four, line four, these are

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Blessing. Blessing.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Amendments to the the Turkey management rule. So as mentioned before, previously, this was written in a an inclusive way. So all Turkey violations were 20 points except for the ones that are called out, which you see are now struck through. We've shifted it so that the majority of these violations are in the 10 section except for these sections we called out here as 20 violations. And these include the requirements for the turkey seasons. There are unique shooting hours associated with the spring season that you're required to comply with. Only shooting bearded turkeys in the spring, that requirement is going to remain 20 points. No use of rifles. What's six point fours?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: I think that is right.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Seven method methods of take.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Yeah. It's it's a rifle.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Yeah. Illegal methods of take are 20 points. So

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Also with Turkey, obviously, a shotgun has an effective range of maybe 80 yards. I mean, a rifle has an effective range of 300 yards. So you're that's a know, you folks doing hunting turkey with rifle are clearly trying to take advantage of the situation. So that's a that would be a far more egregious than oops. I just accidentally didn't use the right whatever. So oops.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Line seven is and, again, pulling out the specific moose violations that are now 20 points. It this is the moose return to kill site. And the amendments on line 12, similar to Moose in Turkey above, we've shifted the majority of these violations of the deer management rules to 10 points except for the ones that are called out here. So these refer to methods of take, can't carry a rifle during muzzleloader season, legal methods during archery season, possession of a handgun but cannot use it, the return to the kill site for deer, and use and baiting. These are all 20 violations. Then Where we started. Sorry, yes. In this last, that last amendment, line 17, this is where we've moved forty seven zero five a from a 10 to a 20 violation shooting from a motorized vehicle.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: You may. Can you shoot from a drone?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: No. You can't use drones.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Is that under here? Is that a cylinder?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: It would be a motorized conveyance.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: It would. Yeah.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: There's also a specific sect appendix that prohibits use of drones, and I cannot pull it up out of my

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: brain for you. No. Okay. No. Sure.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Yep. They're not permissible for a so the the definition of hunting is very broad, and so they're not permissible even in recovery at this point just because of the way the language is used and because of I mean, the technology is advancing so fast. It's insane, and the capabilities that they have are crazy.

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

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: but so, no. That was a long answer. Sorry.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What about other types of remote hunting from a game camera?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: So there are set guns and things of that nature specifically called out, but game cameras are not so set gun is literally something set that is triggered remotely. As far

[Commissioner Jason Batchelder (Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Is that legal?

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: No. No. But game cameras are not specifically called out. If there was a method of cake associated with the camera, then that would be an issue, but just the cameras itself themselves are not called out anywhere. I hope I answered that correctly. Yes. I mean, answered it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So Is there a method of take associated with cameras? Because I had heard there was starting to be.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: I thought of take associated with camera. I think the the only thing I can think of is so a cell camera that sends notifications when something has been in front of it, but it doesn't I mean, in theory, you still have to get to wherever it is. We have not specifically addressed those in statute anywhere that I'm aware of or rule anywhere that I'm aware of.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: That's the extent of changes to 4,502. The other changes are a little bit more straightforward. Section two of the bill proposes a change to section 10 BSA forty two sixty three, which deals with issuance of licenses. The proposed change, this is on page five, line five. Currently, all annual licenses expire on December 31 of the year for which they were issued. Our proposed language would be to allow the department the option of issuing a license for three sixty five days from the date on which it's issued. I think the objective here is primarily related to phishing licenses. Folks tend we we have a lot of folks who are sort of hesitant to buy a license if it's later in the year, knowing that it'll expire in a couple months. And so they might buy the one day or whatever the like, less they might not buy a license. But if we can issue a license for three hundred and sixty five days, there's just more consistent purchase of licenses.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You don't know that because we haven't done it.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: We haven't done it here, but that's been the case in other states where they've allowed for the three hundred and sixty five day rather than the calendar year license issuance.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And and that's not gonna create another layer of chaos for enforcement?

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Well, this gives the way that this is worded, it gives the commissioner the option because we do recognize that there may be enforcement issues that we would need to look at internally, and I think we'd only really look at this for phishing licenses because, yes, it would require that we more clearly identify on the license that you get. If it's a combo license, it would have to identify that the hunting license expired, for example, at the end of the calendar year, the fishing license expired on another date. So logistically, yes, we would have to deal with those issues. So we're not mandating that any particular licenses be issued for three sixty five days. We're just the proposed language would give the department the option if we determine that that would be both appropriate and we would be able to administer it. Section three of the bill is a revision to section 10 BSA 4,255 referring to license fees. This section establishes the fees for the licenses and tags that the department currently administers. The proposed language, which begins on line 14 of page six, would allow, if the board determines it's necessary to issue additional tags that are not otherwise identified, it would allow the department to assess a fee of up to $40 for those tags or permits. And this came up again, as the commissioner mentioned, when the board amended the rules last year to allow for a second buck tag. There's nothing there's no fee in here for a second buck tag. This language would allow us to charge a fee when we issue that tag.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Satcowitz?

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I know this isn't a change, but can you someone tell us a bit about these license fees and when they were last updated?

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: I couldn't tell you off the top of my head when they were last updated. I know it's been quite some time. I can be more specific. I can get back to you.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Good. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Present in advance. Yep.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Is there any age for children that where they're afraid I have, like, a seven year old and four year old grandchildren, and I'm really trying to teach them to fish.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: There are mentored fishing days when you can fish with a mentor, but

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: They don't need to work until 15.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Oh, okay. For fishing. Right. Yeah. Because it's said for

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: a person 17 years and under. So I just

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: That's for hunting. Right. Fishing licenses are free up until fifteen. Then it's a reduced cost, fifteen to seventeen. It says fish.

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Right? So

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: it's a

[Colonel Justin Stedman (Warden Service, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: combination. Okay.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: And it's just confusing to me. Okay. Yeah. Thank

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: you. And then the department has some additional language that was not in here when we shared this. And I sent it over yesterday, and you probably didn't have a chance to see it. But I have hard copies, But if folks want them. This is an additional proposed revision. This is session law from 1999 when the state acquired the West Mountain Wildlife Management Area. And there were a number of restrictions associated with that acquisition related to the preservation of the camp leases that existed on the parcel. And the language that's in here required essentially the overhaul of a management plan every ten years for this WMA. We're proposing to strike this requirement. The state has a long range management process that we undergo that evaluates management of all of our wildlife management areas. And this ten year requirement essentially was requiring diversion of resources towards this particular WMA when it wasn't necessary and when we needed to prioritize other areas that required management. And the long range management planning process is pretty involved. We currently have a long range management plan for the West Mountain WMA, but it's requesting the repeal of this particular requirement.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Have the landowners involved in that area been engaged in the planning processes and remained active in this kind of dialogue that happens because of the planning process?

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: My understanding from talking to the public and private land management staff up there is that when the WMA was initially acquired by the department, there was actually a committee that involved the community members and that it just sort of organically dissolved. It no longer meets. So, there was initially community engagement in the planning and interest has waned. And I think that they've been my understanding is that the current long range management plan, which does go through a public review process, has been satisfactory and there been more pointed engagement from the community members here in recent years.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How often do you redo your long range management plans?

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: Typically on a twenty year basis, but there is some revision right now within the agency. There's a long range management planning rule that's in development that would be actually it's being spearheaded by the Department of Forest Parks and Recreation, but it would apply to long range management planning for all state owned lands.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: So

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, Vermont Dept. of Fish & Wildlife)]: whatever that rule requires, it would be how we would implement planning at this WMA as well.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Members have further questions? Thank you. We are gonna take a five minute break, then we are shifting