Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: And welcome to the House of Fireworks Committee. This morning, we are gonna be taking testimony on h seven forty three, an act relating to posting of land, and we're gonna hear first from Rick Covey with the Vermont Traditions Coalition. Welcome, Mike.

[Tim Meehan (Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: Thank

[Mike Covey (Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: you. As the chair said Mike Covey Vermont Traditions Coalition. I'm here today largely in opposition to the concept of using purple paint to mark trees for posting as a mechanism of posting. There are several reasons for this one. May have seen the email last night from my friend, Laughlin, who works with the trail organization in the southern part of the state. He's he indicated that they have trails marked with various colors of paint. They have a significant land holding and wouldn't want hunters deterred because trail happened to be marked with purple paint. And this may be the case elsewhere in the state as well. There's not really a reasonable way to drill down on that. I've also spoken with foresters and foresters can use whatever color of paint they want to designate a logging operation. So that's a potential issue. Another issue with it is that one in twelve men are color blind, functionally color blind. So that's going to cause confusion and depending on what that how that color blindness manifests, some people might be entirely oblivious to the purple paint. Whereas the signs that we use now are striking, they're obvious, they stand out to virtually any. I think that the appropriate way to approach this, this conversation started around a memorandum from the colonel of the board and force. I think it's very appropriate to shift to an understanding that posting is from date to date. So if you date on January 1, then your posting is good until December 31. If you date on June 1, then your posting is good till June 1 of the following year. So I think that that's reasonable, makes sense and I would support that. I also think that if we want to push the dating and registration out to a two year timeframe, I don't find that to be unreasonable either. I think going beyond that, it becomes problematic because there will inevitably, no matter what mechanism we are using, be some our weather is just hard on parts, right? So whether it's posters or paint or whatever, there will be some level of potential loss. And I think that it needs to be maintained at all times. But that if you want to do the dating and registration every two years, that's fine. The purple paint is being pushed by certain entities and we know and they know, it's been studied, that access is a primary barrier to people continuing to hunt or to people getting into hunting. The largest demographic of which is incidentally folks who haven't hunted. I mean, traditionally, my demographic has been hunters, but there are all sorts of people getting engaged with it in every community, which is good for all of us. There's a measure of equity in having access to land, and that's the reason we have a constitutional right to hunt and fish. You know, folks who wrote that constitution came from a space where they didn't want to see us reverting to only the wealthy being able to access that wildlife resource. So while the land is a finite resource that can be owned, the wildlife is a renewable resource that we all collectively have access to. And I don't think that any rights that are enshrined in the constitution, which hunting is in article 67, are subordinate to one or the other. And I think that our current mechanism right now has a duty of maintenance that is reasonable and that creates balance between those two rights. We shouldn't be seeking permanence in any restriction of access to haunting because it is a right equal with all the other rights. So the posters you know, I've heard people make the unsightliness of purple paint. The posters are unsightly. I miss the dynamic that existed when I was younger where if you showed up on your neighbor's property and you came out of the woods, they just wanted to know if you saw anything and if you needed a ride home. And I wish we could get back to that because I think it would be healing for our society as a whole. I think the the virulence around hunting is exactly the opposite of that. And so I would like to see. I think it's fine to create a reasonable expectation and to modify the expectation we have. But I think that what it should be kept at is going from date to date. And and I've heard three hundred and sixty five days thrown out, but I would caution to use the language of date to date so that doesn't get confusing on a leap year. Date to date posting in two years, and I think that's a very reasonable adjustment and compromise that we can get behind, but we are absolutely siloed against the idea of purple paint.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Great. Thanks for your testimony. A couple of questions. Just so the hunters I know, regardless of posting status of land, always ask permission to hunt. And they typically are granted that. So I guess I feel like I guess I'm curious about your thoughts on that.

[Mike Covey (Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: I think most people do. But culturally, it has not been the norm up until the last probably decade. Culturally, we have a shared land ethic in Vermont that I think is valuable and creates and builds community and stewardship rather than detracting from it. And whether folks like it or not, that right to roam exists. That right to hunt on private property without permission exists. And the remedy for that, if people don't want folks on their land, is to post it.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Others have questions? Representative Satcowitz.

[Representative Larry Satcowitz]: Thanks for your testimony and for being here this morning. You've talked about the I don't think you said this exactly, but I think you're you're you're strongly implying, tell me if I'm wrong, that if we were to use the purple paint that we would be in a de facto way causing a a limit to access that hunters would have to private land to hide. Is is that characterization accurate? I I would go so far as

[Mike Covey (Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: to say it would be an unconstitutional limitation. I think that the posting signs we use could likely be argued as unconstitutional because the language in the constitutional framework is that you have the right to hunt fish and fowl on all lands on enclosed and seasonable times. So enclosed is legally defined as fenced in to keeping animals in or out. But we do have a past and long history of accepting this as a means of enclosure. And I think that there's I think it would be unreasonable to to say that, you know, we want to have a big constitutional fight over posters. We've accepted it. It's the norm. Everybody's been okay with it. But I don't think that we should be seeking to create permanence in prohibition of access to land. And I think that's what the purple paint concept does. The argument can be made either way that it's permanent or that it's impermanent because trees fall over and eventually it weathers or whatever. But the fact of the matter is it's certainly more permanent than the posters. And there needs to be if you're going to take somebody's constitutional right, which that is whether however people feel about it, it is. So if you're going to do that, there should be some duty of action to doing that.

[Representative Larry Satcowitz]: Point taken. So let me rephrase my question because I think I did a very good job of saying it the first time, which was that I'm thinking more about what we have status quo, which is the signs, versus adding in a purple paint option. What we've heard, and what I think I'm hearing from you, but I know we've heard from others is that there's an assumption or an expectation that adding in the option for purple paint will further restrict access to private land for hunters. What I want to know is I understand where that fear comes from and I understand how purple paint or some sort of paint posting actually causes significantly more land to be posted than what other ones do?

[Mike Covey (Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: I don't know that it causes more land to be posted because I've asked this question and it's going to seem a bit snarky, but I'm not sure what is more difficult about carrying a roll of posters around your property than carrying around a can of paint that's approximately the same size and weight as a roll of posters. The permanence is de facto the goal here. Right? And so what happens if there's a change of land ownership? What happens if someone passes away? You know, property that I've hunted for twenty years, the owner passed away this year. So it automatically shifts. And what if the new owners are fine with opening their land, but they're not gonna run around it and repaint their trees? Right? The posters will eventually fall down. And to chair Sheldon's point, most of the people I know, I don't know anybody who will go on land even if the posters are pretty tattered without asking permission if they exist. I have heard the concern about posters being pulled down, which brings me to another point that I think is important to make. I think there's space in this bill to create a fish and wildlife violation around that. So if you make a point of tearing down posters to that are legally legally established, if you go around and tear those down, I don't think it's unreasonable for that to be a violation of some sort. And I think that gets at a more of a honest problem than the idea of purple paint. I know you've heard a lot from folks who, while we have too much land to post it, it's too difficult. Large landowners that want to post their land can likely afford to have somebody posted for them. It's difficult to own a large amount of land in Vermont without some degree of wealth. So that's always an option. But I do think that if there is malicious removal of posters, I think there's a space there to have a conversation around a penalty that actually engages the hunting license. Of course, we could use property law. Right? But that doesn't impact somebody's hunting license. The other thing that I think if we're gonna have a holistic conversation about posting, we should be talking about, and this is another problem with purple paint. I've seen public properties that people, local residents have posted trying to keep people off. I've seen this in in three spaces upon that was bordered by state forest where one of the residents thought it was their pond. So posted the roadside against Huntington. It's not, and they had no authority to do that. And I think that should be a should carry a penalty as well. The other one was a state forest proper, and the third one was I was at a town select board meeting in little further south of here, and a resident was bragging to one of his friends on the side that he'd been putting up posters on the road to the WMA, and it had kept Hunter traffic out. So I think that's something, you know, if we're going to look at posting, let's look at it holistically and let's address all of the problems. I think those are two real problems. I don't think I don't think a duty to maintain is problematic. I think it's reasonable in light of the constitutional effect that barring people from your land has. And that's not to say that a landowner doesn't have that authority. They certainly do. I just I believe that it needs to have some sort of a duty attached and shouldn't have permanence.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: I wanna be aware of the time, but I I have one more question for you, which is two thoughts on the right now, separate from what we do with the purple paint issue, but right now it's required that signs be at least 400 feet. Then we're thinking of 100 feet if we add purple paint. Do have thoughts on that spacing? Like 400 feet, been standard for a long time, but also feels like a lot of space for walking through

[Mike Covey (Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: the There's no prohibition against putting them closer. That's my answer to that. So I this property that that have hunted for twenty years, the landowners asked me to post. This was a property that had had a problem and it prohibited hunting for a long time, gave me the opportunity to hunt one specific pretty much tree. And over time we developed an incredible relationship. And so what they wanted to keep their property posted. So I did that work for them as they got older and less mobile. And as I was doing that, you know, I would just take a an honest look at where I was. And if the space required more posters, then I would do that. And, like, along the roadside, 400 feet is perfectly fine. So I think, you know, there's no I don't see the 400 feet as problematic. I mean, could reduce it more than that. Again, I wouldn't I wouldn't say purple paint is the answer. I'm really adamant on that. But I think that people largely have the capacity to acknowledge when they can see a long ways and when they can't, especially on their own land.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thanks for your testimony. Thank you. Next, have Tim Meehan joining us.

[Tim Meehan (Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: Morning all. I'm gonna give my quick position to me and with the Vermont enforcement. We really didn't have a big problem with the bill till Just got a copy of the new bill. So let me begin by saying, we I came to all the meetings. I really feel that you work very, very hard to try to get something together. And just like the sportsman, you are having the same problem we have. What is the right path, and who are we gonna step on if we don't do it right? So my original testimony was we're happy to have the dates set so that when a person actually filed, it it proceeded for one year. I think that was Yeah. Well done. Then I was simply gonna say that we have no position. Now I called my president and said I just saw that the blue paint was the purple paint was the issue. And I really am flying out of the cool pier a little bit. So I'm gonna use myself an example. I own about a 100 acres in Roxboro about ten years ago. I did it for a shooting operation with my son and I, and it didn't work out. So the 100 acres I sold, and when we had that 100 acres, we didn't post it. Because Roxbury is such a small community, I knew everybody in the community and simply there were one or two people I didn't want there, and I went to the house and told them I didn't want them there. Other than that, I didn't have a problem. Sold the land if I had purple paint on it. I don't know if it were the problem or not. My personal position is we're in Vermont, not in Arizona, Texas, Colorado, huge, huge, long, large parts of land. I, personally, would not defame the trees by putting purple paint, green paint, orange paint, anything. I also chose not to post with signs because of the same reason. The land is the land, I liked it, I liked it the way it was. That's a tough one. That's a tough one. But overall, overall, I have to say this. The reason we took the position of simply saying, okay, we come in, we'll testify, we'll do what we need to do. But this whole thing goes right back to the person who owns 10 acres, a 100 acres, a thousand acres, or whatever care of them all. And it really is their decision as to what whether they wanna post, don't wanna post, or whether they wanna have purple paint or green paint or whatever. So I really do think it comes down to a real personal decision, the landowner, as to how they wanna allow access to to the land. I I at this point, I would have to say that I think that the the federation would oppose painting on the trees. I'm a little off center because I I really didn't have an opportunity to think about that when I came in here. So I hope my personal I understand it as a personal opinion, and I guess happy to answer any questions you might have.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: So much for your testimony. Do members have questions? Representative Logan.

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

[Representative Kate Logan]: The primary reason we're considering something like purple paint or one of the primary reasons we're considering something like Purple Paint is to assist owners who, you know, might not be as physically able to post, annually as they once were and still wanna be able to post their property, but are looking for, you know, an easier way to do it. Are you I I don't know if you can speak for your organization right now on this or not, but are you opposed to offering options

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: to

[Representative Kate Logan]: property owners?

[Tim Meehan (Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: No, I'm not. Okay. No, I'm not. I guess the point I'm trying to make first off, I think the discussion that this committee has had on the elderly and the handicapped to own large portions of land was well done. I think that the your question is fair. My my personal opinion is that painting is not the way to do it. There are other options. And again, it's more personal at this point, so I want to make that clear. The organization may come back and say, here are the five reasons we don't. But I think your original question is absolutely on target. Yes. Elderly, handicapped. I thought the discussion was wonderful, and I think that there has to be some way of helping them to to post their land if they wanna do it.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: What would those other options be? Is there something we're missing?

[Tim Meehan (Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: I mean, the the okay. I'll go back with all my personal comments here. Sure. I was not aware. I mean, I think that's probably the closest question you could ask in terms of how does somebody that is handicapped or elderly post their land. But I I thought the process was working pretty well. Some people post. Some people post and say no trespassing. Some people post and say permission only. And I wasn't aware that there was any real big problem. But sitting here and listening to the committee, I think that you did have a very well thought out airing of the subject. And so I think that personally, I never would have painted the trees. But coming back to you and saying, I think there are other ways to do that that can accomplish the same purpose, whether we have to put volunteers or something. But this the communities around Vermont Vermont's unique. I mean, that's why I came here. And a unique meaning that communities generally support their people. If there's an elderly couple or there's an elderly farmer that wants to help post their land, I I don't believe that they wouldn't be able to find somebody to help them post their land. I think the timing of how how long is it good for, one year, two year, five years, I think that's another excellent consideration to be thought about. I think also the section where you talk about one small comment being out of place a on a posting that the there's no enforcement doesn't take place. I think that's something that you that I think you hear very well and that I personally would support, and I think the overall sportsman I know will do the same thing. It's a little tough, but I I don't mind saying I actually enjoyed the the conversation. I actually learned things from the conversation. But come back to me personally, and I think my organization will probably oppose painting of the trees.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Sack. Thank

[Representative Larry Satcowitz]: you so much for being here. You have a question about one of the problems that we're trying to solve, which was the the physical difficulty of, you know, walking the perimeter of your property and and actually and actually posting it. And and if we had purple paint that would potentially make it easier for people because they wouldn't have to do it as often. They would still have to do it, but not every year. But the other problem that we're trying to solve here, I believe, is the problem of a very small group, admittedly, of bad actors who will tear down signs, and they can do so very opportunistically. They don't have to do it in a premeditated way. They could just be, Oh, I'm in the woods and I see a sign, I don't like it, I'm going to take it down. And that's a lot harder to do with with purple paint. You'd have to walk you'd have to be in the woods with a a different can of paint to to paint over it in order to undo that. It would be a much more premeditated sort of an act. I think that's the other problem that we're trying to solve here, is those bad actors. We did hear from Mr. Covey that potentially some increased penalties would help there. And maybe that's true, but I think that catching someone tearing down signs in the middle of the woods is going to be difficult. I would wonder about enforcement. I was just just wondering if what if you have any reflection on on that. And I know you'd answer your questions specifically to to think about to respond to these questions, but I just wonder if you had any thoughts. K.

[Tim Meehan (Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: Let me start off with number one. I'm 82 years old. I came here in 1979. I bought a piece of property in 1980. I bought a deer camp, and I have hunted everywhere. I have hunted my age has has limited my reach, but I'm a guide to read a compass. I can go almost anywhere in the woods I wanna go. I can probably survive. So that's who I am. Can't do what I used to do, but I covered a lot of ground, a lot of ground in Vermont. And I've seen everything from signs that that have fallen into ill repair. And when a sign said posted, I would not go on the land. And most of the people I know matter of fact, I don't know anybody that was gonna tear down signs or whatever. They would go to the property, find out who owned it, and ask for permission. I first again, I I gave you my personal prejudice just against painting trees for whatever reason. I don't it just doesn't seem like a Vermont thing to me. But I also think there are other ways to do it. I do agree that you have to have options. But somebody's gotta paint the trees. Somebody's gotta put up the signs. Somebody's gotta take the signs down. Somebody's gonna maintain the signs. I I thought things were going pretty well. But listen to the committee testimony from individual representatives, and I say it's it's not an easy fix. My fix is I think painting's the wrong way to go, but that's my fix. I think there are other options, but there may be people who are gonna disagree with me, and I respect that.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: So much for your testimony. Thank you. Now joining us by Zoom, we have Michael. I'm not gonna I'll let you introduce yourself. Thank you.

[Michael Hoyt (Pittsfield landowner)]: Yeah, sure. My name is Michael Hoyt. I'm a resident of Pittsfield, Vermont. I'm going to read a prepared statement, and feel free to ask me any questions afterwards. But in response to the last two speakers, I just find it hard to understand why Vermont is so adamant about, you know, not allowing purple paint when other state many other states with much greater hunting pressure do it. Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. And, as far as I can tell, it's been very successful in each of those states. So anyway, good morning and thanks for allowing me to speak today. As I said, I'm a Vermont landowner. Before moving here, I hunted for most of my life in New York State's Adirondacks. I understand the hunting tradition. I respect it. I lived it firsthand. I'm not opposed to hunting in any way at all. In fact, many hunters I know here in Vermont also support reforms like those in h seven 02/03. They hunt on their own land or land owned by their family and friends. They too do not want strangers wandering their property without permission. And I think Mike Covey kinda confirmed that when he said he was hunt hunting a piece of private property that an older couple owned, and he he had a tree stand. And that he gladly posted that land for them because that kept other hunters out. That was the sole reason why. So he could have sole access to that property. Anyway, I want to be clear. It's not about hunters versus anti hunters. It's about balance. Balance between sportsmen and landowners. Draft 1.1 introduces a purple paint option and a reasonable person standard. That is progress, but the larger framework remains. Private property of Vermont is open by default unless the owner paints, signs, dates, spaces, markings properly, records annually with the town clerk, and pays a fee to enforce what they already own. The burden still falls on the landowner. Commissioner has said the current system reflects a constitutional balance between hunting access and property rights. I respect that perspective. However, balance must protect both sides equally. Vermont constitution protects the right to hunt on unenclosed land. It does not require unnecessary administrative hurdles for landowners to enclose their land. Annual filings of fees are policy choices, not constitutional mandates. We also do not have to speculate about whether reform works. As I said, Maine has successfully implemented propane posting. New Hampshire does not require annual dating of signs. Vermont is an outlier. Maine is a much larger state with greater hunting pressure. It has a modernized system. It has modernized the system without dismantling hunting traditions, and I think many other states have done the same. If Maine can do it, Vermont can do it. There is no compelling reason why Vermont cannot modernize its posting laws while respecting both hunters and landowners, And this issue is not theoretical for me. For the past two Septembers, hound hunters have arrived on my road at approximately 6AM on Sunday mornings without warning, waking myself and the neighbors. They release packs of hounds that run across our private property, including mine without permission. I own over 50 acres. My neighbors own a lot of land. We all have dogs that roam freely on our property. None of us should have to worry about a pack of hounds injuring our dogs on our own land. This that is not balanced. This is an imbalance. Vermont has a substantial has substantial state and federal federal land available for hunting. Public lands exist for public hunting. Private land should require private consent or at least purple markings. Private property is not a suggestion in my mind. It is not conditional. It is not secondary to recreation. It's a foundational right. I urge you to stand for clarity, consent, and common sense. Protect hunting on public land. Protect private land through private permission. And make it unmistakably clear that in Vermont, property truly means private. Thank you for your time and service.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you for your testimony. Do members have questions? Not seeing any. Thanks again for your testimony.

[Michael Hoyt (Pittsfield landowner)]: Okay, thank you. Thanks everyone.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Jeff Ladd.

[Jeffrey Ladd (Chester landowner)]: Morning everybody. I'm gonna read from a statement. It's usually hard for me to go just off the off the book. Hello. My name is Jeffrey Ladd. I'm retired and I live on 160 acres in Chester, Vermont. I'm a hunter and have lived full time in Vermont since 2008. I grew up in New England and my family has owned the Chester House since 1964. Parts of my family have been in Vermont since as early as 1798. I have a dual focus bachelor of science degree in forestry and wildlife biology and a master's in business administration. Let me begin by saying thank you for allowing me to speak with you on this on the proposed h seven two three and how it would help me and I think many Vermont hunters and landowners alike. Also, please forgive me if what I say has been said before. I've not had time to review all the meetings up to now. To begin, I believe h seven two three would help make my life and many others' lives a lot simpler. It makes the task of posting much easier and secure for everybody, including elders and the infirm. It provides clear messages to hunters through simple yes or no purple paint stripes, and it maintains boundaries with firmer rules and less loopholes, and that in turn, I believe, makes landowner hunter relationships much better, and that lets hunters get on with the joy of hunting. Currently, at our home, we give permission to hunt on our land to those of our choosing, and we post our land because we've had run ins with bad apple hunters. People who have put up tree stands without notice or permission, people who without permission have stripped some of our very old white pines of their lower limbs to put up tree stands, and the trees died five years later from bugs and fungal infection. People have come up to ask to hunt, which I'm so glad they do, But sometimes they confront the lone woman in the house angrily when they are told the land is not available. It's not fun to face armed angry people you don't know when they think they know better. So we post to control who comes on the land to hunt. Why would passage of h seven two three make my life simpler? H seven two three rules mean I can just paint my boundaries, and the message is clear and unequivocal without loopholes. And I only need to do it every three to five years based on paint paint lasting. Or I can put up signage postings. I can put signage postings up that still enclose the boundary of the property even when accidental or unintentional deviations occur from posting requirements. It means when several posted signs, excuse me, it means when I see several posted signs as a hunter, the message again is clear. There is no hunting here. To me, making the message clear is common sense and

[Tim Meehan (Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: for

[Jeffrey Ladd (Chester landowner)]: the good of everybody. It balances without conflict the hunting rights in this state and the property rights in the state. It is it is a choice that is for good. It is a choice that is for the good of the common. Our property is mostly steep hillside with a 22 acre plateau of meadows and a house lot built in the late seventeen hundreds. Walking the boundary requires a good hike and considered planning for me to avoid steepest areas. It takes me a minimum of two, five hour days to walk the boundaries and check and repair postings. I check my boundary signs every year for dates and contact information and to make sure signs have not faded or been torn off by weather, wildlife, or upset people. It is a lot of work, unnecessary work to dot the Is and cross the Ts on every sign when the overall message is clear. And I am sure for a number of elderly or unfirm, it is a wearing and difficult it is wearing and difficult, and alternatively, an expensive job to pay for somebody else to do it. The result of that work is a semi enclosed system because it very rarely legally encloses the property six months after the work is done without endless upkeep. It's it's not unreasonable to ask to simplify the system because we, as landowners, have the right to enclose the property as specified in the constitution, both from the hunter's rights and from the right to protect private property. Why would one want let the enclosure method remain unclear, prohibitively difficult, or expensive? I believe to have clear messages really helps the landowner and hunter relationship and the experience of hunting. For those who want to hunt on a piece of land, a simple yes or no message is so healthy, both from a legal standpoint and an improving situation dynamics. As it is now, as it is now, some hunters who may see a clear set of postings might choose to look for loopholes, and from that moment, antagonism with the landowner would begin, and hostilities and hunting under a cloud might ensue. The fishing game image suffers. Property owners suffer, and those hunters who might get a deer on this land live under a cloud and suffer. Where is the pride in that for the hunter and the sense of achievement? So in closing, why cause worry? Why unduly try elders and the infirm? Why not simplify? I believe that age seven two three, the purple paint law, the one you've worked so worked hard to build, is a great solution for both hunters, landowners, and their relationships with the fishing game departments and their relation It's a great solution for both hunters, landowners, and their relationships, and the fishing game department's ongoing image of working with everybody. H seven two three is especially helpful to the elderly and infirm, and I ask what other solution is there for these groups? Lastly, I've heard from other hunters that a purple paint law may lead to less land available for hunter axe access, maybe 2% or less, maybe 0%, certainly not 10%. If that was true, I believe the 20 or 22 states that currently have purple paint laws would be putting that information forward to inform other states to avoid to avoid these laws. Thank you so much for hearing me today and hopefully considering what I've said in your deliberations and conclusions. It was a pleasure to meet you all.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. For coming in today. Do members have questions? Virginia, it's Austin.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: My understanding is, again, I think the majority of hunters are awe abiding.

[Jeffrey Ladd (Chester landowner)]: I agree. Yeah.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: And it's just and it's like society. It's a small group, you know, that kind of thumbs their nose, to obeying the law or following regulations.

[Jeffrey Ladd (Chester landowner)]: So

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: part of it for me is the enforcement part as well. It's a piece of it. It's not But I'm just wondering, what I'm hearing is that when a landowner finds a hunter on their land and it's posted, by the time the warden gets there, they're gone. I mean, they don't so it's very hard to, you know, prosecute people who are breaking, these rules. And I'm wondering if you've had that experience. Or

[Jeffrey Ladd (Chester landowner)]: I haven't had the experience of meeting a person, who wasn't meant to be there when it was posted. I've seen people's tracks have gone in, and, but even then, I'm not sure they're hunters, but I think they were. But it's it's true. I I mean, in considering earlier, early testimony, it's it's very difficult even if you put things in place. You know, if you say somebody's gonna be prosecuted if they tear a sign off or something, You're never there to catch somebody in the woods if they're tearing off a sign. It's and it's and it's so much easier to put paint up and paint it over or scrape it off with a drill and a sanding disc. It'll be easy to take off the paint, especially a little one by eight inch slice of paint. So I just think from my point of view, it's it's not realistic to put those it may put the fear of god in some people, but in terms of really stopping the errant or the bad apple.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: Mhmm.

[Jeffrey Ladd (Chester landowner)]: I don't yeah. It'd be pretty it'd take a lot of time and energy as well. Yeah.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thanks so much for your testimony.

[Jeffrey Ladd (Chester landowner)]: Okay. Thank you so much.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Now we have Rose Gail joining via Zoom. Oh, can we unmute her? Oh, you are muted. You need to unmute.

[Rose Gail (Salisbury resident)]: How's that? Better?

[Tim Meehan (Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: That's right.

[Rose Gail (Salisbury resident)]: Yes. Okay. Alright. This is my first time doing this. So, give me a patience. Right? But, anyway, good morning, and thank you for having me. I've had a couple ideas as listening to people here too, but, I do have a prepared speech because I ramble. So I I'm trying to stop that from happening. Anyway, my name is Rose Gail. I live in Salisbury, Vermont. I'm here kind of as just a citizen. I just wanted to take a couple minutes to offer my thoughts on this property posting issue. I do think putting the responsibility of posting onto the landlord landowner, excuse me, is completely backwards. My husband and I come from several generations of Vermont families who have lived here all of our lives. We've fished, hunted, and we've walked this beautiful state. I have certainly seen big changes in my seventy five years between the population growing and the homeownership and the attitudes. The biggest change that I have seen is lack of respect. Our family, including our son and his three adult children, have all enjoyed hunting in this state. I also hunt. I love to hunt. We've noticed as the years have gone by the amount of poster signs as a clear indication to me of changing times. In the fifties and sixties, I started hunting kinda in my when I was in the early sixties or excuse me, when it was like nineteen sixty. You would stop to have coffee with a neighbor and after deer hunting was inevitably brought up, permission would probably be given as just a nice gesture. The neighbor would wanna know who was on his property, and he could always rest assure knowing that it was us, knowing that nothing bad or no damage would come or be following. Usually at the end, he would also end up with a couple stakes, and he knew it. That word again was respect. It seems to have been deleted from our language. I do believe it started from certain hunters who totally lack respect for other lifestyles, livestock, and property, and use our constitution as their given right to trespass with guns and dogs in all hours of the day and night. Asking the landlord owner to upgrade his property to meet the hunter's unwillingness to do his part is totally backward to me. With the hunter approaching the landowner in advance, there should be far less hunterlandowner conflicts, I would think. The last few years I have asked bear hunters to get off our property, we have had to fix fences that were cut by coyote hunters, we have had, I have personally been publicly humiliated by convicted felons after asking them to leave my property. Total lack of respect for me and anybody else who doesn't think that coyotes and other creatures such as raccoons, etcetera, are strictly there for the hunter spork to kill. Other Vermonters should not have to bear the oh, excuse me. Older Vermonters should not bear the financial burden or the burden of having to walk their property lines to post their property every year that they bought and paid taxes on. It may be in the constitution to hunt, but it also comes with a responsibility and the respect for people, land, and wildlife. Vermont has changed a lot in the last few years, and I think we should as well. And to kind of backtrack on different things I've heard, I was thinking about when we do post our properties, may we have to go take our posters, and then we have to go to the town clerk and tell them what land we've posted. Well, maybe we could make that for a certain amount of years. Maybe rather than have to keep putting posters up, maybe we could say to the town clerk, I want that posted for five years. And then in five years, go back and do it again. If we have the time and the willpower, maybe we can go and check our posters during that time. But I also think that this pay issue sounds like a pretty good idea. And one of the gentlemen who just spoke said, and it wears off in a couple three years. Yeah. It does. So if we decide that we still want it posted, we can do it and go back and, repaint it at that time or just let it go. So anyway, that's my spiel. Thank you for hearing me out. I do hope that you think long and hard about, maybe because I'm older, but things have caught up with me now and it's harder to do things. But do believe or do start thinking about the older people that are trying to keep their properties up, but they don't want certain things or certain people on that property because they are bad actors. So, anyway, thank you.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you for your testimony. Thank

[Rose Gail (Salisbury resident)]: you.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Do members have questions for Rose, Gail? Okay, I'm not seeing any. Thanks again for joining us.

[Rose Gail (Salisbury resident)]: Thank you.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Members, let's take