Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Alright, welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We're going to continue the topic of H723 with our legislative council. And I'm feeling like it would benefit us to make sure we have the details of the latest draft top of mind. So, a walkthrough at the section by section level with questions along the way would be helpful, I think, for us at this point. Thanks.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel, and I'm sharing my screen with the amendment to House Bill seven twenty three.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I heard it's

[Speaker 0]: not working. That's having that.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Tell us what draft you're looking at.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm looking at track 1.1 of the amendments.

[Speaker 0]: That'd be great. Thank you. Why is this not working?

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Is anyone else's Internet not working? I'm gonna press one.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Some reason, we can't get to committees and

[Kate Logan (Member)]: I got it. I just But I had to keep going back.

[Speaker 0]: Yep. Gone, like, five times. Thanks.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Sorry for your tits.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: There we go. Refreshing.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Ten one point one. Right? Yep. Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Anyway, let's get started.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So this is an amendment to house bill seven twenty three, and I'll do a abbreviated walk through of the bill. We we have, reviewed this amendment before, just to catch the committee up. So we are amending statutes 10 VSA fifty two zero one, Posting land against hunting, fishing, trapping, or taking a game or wild animals. The statute currently permits posting against these activities by maintaining notice signs. And this amendment would allow Hunter or excuse me, allow property owners to post against these activities with purple paint markings as well. So we amend the statute here to say that you could either post by maintaining signs or you maintain paint markings on trees, posts, or other objects provided that the marking shall consist of one painted line of purple paint that is a minimum of eight inches in length and one inch wide and be painted at be between three and five feet above ground level.

[Speaker 0]: Where do we get the one inch by eight inches?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think the instruction that I received was to, start with the bill that was proposed in New Hampshire, and those were the, those were the dimensions that they used. It is common to have one inch or two inches, on the paint markings with other statutes that define the width of the paint marking by statute. And so that is a different choice that different legislatures have made.

[Speaker 0]: Is it vertical?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Vertical, yes.

[Speaker 0]: I'm talking about the

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: How many of the states that have purple any paint have also a constitutional right written to?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And me

[Speaker 0]: That was in your test Bradley's testimony the other day. He did a summary of that

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: for us.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It was, and I have that up, and it is gone now. Let me pull it up really quick because I have the actual numbers, because there are Summary for house environments. And I don't know why I hit close on this. Probably because it's a Word document. 24 states have the constitutional right to hunt. Of those, 16 permit hosting against hunting usually using paint markings. Of the states that permit hosting with paint markings, two of them require notice signs in addition to the paint markets.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Logan.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: How do the states without posting regulations manage a property owner's right to refuse somebody trespassing on their property.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I haven't come across a state that does not have the private right to post against trespass or hunting, fishing, or taking a game. You.

[Speaker 0]: Bennington.

[Rob North (Member)]: First of all, to answer your question, chair, it doesn't specifically say vertical. It just says one painted line minimum of eight inches in length and one inch wide. It's a vertical or vertical diagonal that's, say Oh, yeah. No, it does it with

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: a different sign. And

[Rob North (Member)]: second of all, bothers me most about paint. If it doesn't specify the specific color of purple. I know that sounds stupid, but there are such a wide variety of colors of purple. And it doesn't say how thick it has to be, how visible it has to be. And tree bark varies immensely. There's just so many different ways that this could be not very visible, And and the refresh period, there's there's there's it's so there's so little definition here. So my question after saying all that is is the expectation that that the commissioner or somebody would would specify all of that very clear? Or is it just gonna depend on us and the legislation finding all that?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, committee could take either of those tactics. So, if there are issues that are two in the minutia for legislation, The committee could ask the commissioner to make rules to effectuate the statute and answer those questions. The committee could also choose to define the rules in statute and specify as I've testified before, there is an OSHA purple that OSHA uses to for identification purposes. And and the the committee could specify the exact with more specificity of what the paint marking actually looks like. Some states have provided more guidance. Some states have provided less guidance in terms of what the paint markings look like, and that is a policy choice.

[Rob North (Member)]: And then also, what do the paint markings actually mean? That seems to vary from state to state. Sometimes it meant no trespassing. Sometimes it meant no hunting. Sometimes it meant both. In our particular state, how is somebody walking through the woods? I mean, if you're a hunter, you're supposed to be well trained and full up on all the understandings of all the details marking the post gift and whatnot, so I would expect the hunters to know what it means. But just somebody wandering through the woods, does that mean I can or can't go to that property? I've not been brained at all this. I'm just walking around the woods.

[Speaker 0]: We're going have too many discussions.

[Rob North (Member)]: I know, but I'm on page two, line one and two.

[Speaker 0]: Sure. And I think those are good questions. That's why I want to do this clarifying conversation.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: Okay. You're hold all comments

[Kate Logan (Member)]: and No.

[Speaker 0]: Not at that. Sorry. But I think later on I had the same question. So what I wanna do right here is clarify what's in this draft

[Rob North (Member)]: Okay. Sorry.

[Speaker 0]: And make sure that we understand what's in this draft, and then we're going to more discussion. Just kind of where we are now and then hold like I'm thinking one inch, should it be two? Then how much detail do we need? Is this enough detail for doing what we need to do? But first, let's get to what's in the bill.

[Rob North (Member)]: And what does it mean?

[Speaker 0]: And what does it mean so right now, let's do what's in the bill and what does it mean?

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah. Under

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: statute, hunters, excuse me, property owners may post permission only signs. This is currently in the statute. And permission only signs have some additional requirements for the content that including the owner's name and a method by which to contact the property owner or person authorized to provide permission. Notice notice signs erected under this statute shall be erected upon or near the boundaries of the land at and at each corner and not over 400 feet apart. And the paint markings under the statute shall be upon or near the boundaries of lands to be effective as paint markings at each corner and not over a 100 feet apart. So it is different lengths for the two methods. And notice signs of paper marking shall be maintained at all times, removing the date requirement that the signs must be dated, which is in current law.

[Speaker 0]: I think that's an important one. This draft calls for you need to register annually at your town clerk, but there's no more dating of signs.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's correct. The sign itself does not need to be dated.

[Speaker 0]: And to, I think, representatives one of his rep representative North's concerns, this purple paint and this whole posting section is specific to the right to hunt and fish.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is correct.

[Speaker 0]: Not hike or otherwise trespass.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is correct. That is correct. Then the notice sign shall be of a standard size or design as commissioner self shall specify. So, this does call for the commissioner to set standards and rules for the notice signs itself. The owner posting lands with notice signs or paint marking shall record the posting annually in the town's clerk office. Posting shall be valid and enforceable for one year after the date the posting is recorded. I made a change to this based on feedback from the committee. The original version of this bill said three sixty five days after the date. The committee asked why not just one year. And so I made that change. I I have discussed this, and three hundred sixty five days after the date kinda fits the day as a day rules for statutes and provides a higher level of certainty than just one year after the date of the posting. Recommendation from the Office of the Legislative Council would be to change that piece back just to be consistent. That said, that that is that is a choice of the committee. I know three hundred sixty five days is less artful than one year, but it it provides a higher level of clarity about how a day is calculated in in statute.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Logan.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. It seems to me like that would make things a little bit more confusing for folks since we have leap years, and so that means every four years, the day you have to post is a a day earlier than the previous four years.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I and I think that that was the the the concern from the committee. And and one other potential solution might be to, you know, require that the clerk in the receipt that they give you or something that sort of require that the clerk say what day the notice expires and to tell someone, whether it's posted one year after the date, whether it's posted three hundred sixty five days, that when a person records, they have affirmation from the town clerk saying you have to your real recording expire expires by the end of the day on this day. And and just to give someone that clarity by statute because the a lot of the impetus for this was confusion about when the notice actually expires or when the recording actually expires and when the posting actually expires. And so it is it is our recommendation to to provide to to instruct the clerks to perhaps give a date when the notice expires when they do the recording. It's a question for the committee to perhaps discuss when we get through the rest of the bill.

[Speaker 0]: Just pretty I mean, I

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: don't know. I just got

[Speaker 0]: a rabies vaccination. Dog. So it's very clear when it expires. That seems pretty standard. Representative Austin.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Just to clarify, so the landowner won't have to go change the date on all their signs. They would just have to go to the town clerk?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is correct. And so and to to clarify here, we or this bill deletes that shall be dated each year. And and and I think that that is a lot of the the confusion is that the signs themselves had to be dated. In addition to the signs itself as being having having to be dated, an individual had to record their posting annually. And so this statute removes that requirement to physically date the sign.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. And since we're in this section online, the the part about notice shall be of standard size and design as the commissioner shall specify. So by rule, is there any public input, or that's just been done, commissioner specifies?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is done through rulemaking. It is through rulemaking. The public has input through the notice and comment process and review.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Hoyt?

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: So

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: the signs aren't gonna be dated anymore. Just register with the clerk. If I see a posted sign, what do I have to call the clerk to see if it's valid within a year? I mean, if it's not dated, how can I tell?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So an individual, has two options when they see a posted sign. One is to come to the conclusion that the the land is posted against hunting. However, if they want to verify whether the land is posted in accordance with the law, they could call contact the the town clerk and verify that. They could also contact the property owner. Nothing prevents them from contacting property owner and and asking.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yeah. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: And if that's

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. This makes me think a

[Rob North (Member)]: little bit more

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: about the recording with town clerks and and what we're achieving there. So when the when you record with the town clerk, the town clerk keeps a copy. A copy goes to Fish and Wildlife, and a copy then is also retained by the property owner. Is that

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is correct. And I I can, and that is by statute. So the recording form shall be furnished by the commissioner and shall be filled out in triplicate, one copy to be retained by the clerk, one copy to the commissioner, and one copy to be retained by the person having the right to post the lance.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: And then the copy that goes to the commissioner, do we know what they

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: do with it?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I do not.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I'm wondering if this section of statute is a holdover from another time, and I'm wondering what it's accomplishing given the amount of work that has to happen at the clerk's office and and for and for landowners if this is like, how many people are actually going to their town clerk to find out if particular land is is posted or not? I'm just wondering what the what the usefulness is of of this of this action.

[Speaker 0]: Think the commissioner will be with us this afternoon. We can ask what they do with it then.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: And It can allows them to know Yeah. Those folks land is posted. It needs a helpful tool.

[Rob North (Member)]: You know, they can relay that right to the warden.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And Yep. And there's a $5 fee for recording meant to offset the the cost that the clerk incurs by taking these actions. The land posted and recorded as provided in the section shall be enclosed for purchase here in. So this subsection makes it clear that recording is a requirement to enclose the land. That is also a policy choice. Accidents and this this language is meant to give game wardens the clarity that accidental or unintentional deviations from the requirements in the section do not necessarily mean that the land is not posted against hunting, etcetera. And so accents or unintentional deviations from the requirements of subdivisions a and b of this section shall still be deemed effective to prohibit or permit by permission only hunting, fishing, or trapping, or taking of game if the notice signs or paint markings would lead a reasonable person to believe hunting, fishing, or trapping, or taking up game is prohibited on you know, I think the last time that we discussed this language oh, and one last piece. Property owners with actual notice that their notice signs or paint markings deviate from the requirements of the section shall take reasonable steps to ensure their notice signs or paint markings comply with this section. And so this creates a, some space for homeowner excuse me, property owners to have accidental or unintentional mistakes in their signage or posting. And this statute could be red could be redrafted to specify the types of deviations, a technical defect in the placement, spacing, color, wording, or dimensions, shall not invalidate the notice under this section so long as a reasonable person would conclude that that the land is posted against hunting, something of that sort. So this language can change, but right now, it just permits landowners for having accidental or unintentional deviations from the posting requirements does not mean that their land is is no longer enclosed. But this is certainly could could change to to specify. And currently, the bill takes effect on 07/01/2026, and that can also change. I think that that is just the default. It could change to on passage. It can change to some other date. That is also up for the committee's discussion.

[Speaker 0]: Did you find any examples where it clarified that purple paint needed to be on the outside of a property boundary?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. No. I I did not see that purple paint needed to be outside of the property boundary. Usually, the statues would say along the boundary, sometimes specifying at the corners of the boundaries and things of that sort. But I have not come across one that says outside of the boundary.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative Boston. But it'd be possible to make it so that endowners would have to register every three years, five years, and pay, like, $15 for a three year extension or $25 for a five year extension?

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: That is possible.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Committee, final questions for Bradley or just open for discussion. Representative North.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you, Sarah. If I could just summarize what the current draft says for us all. It's just my understanding. Just wanna make sure I got it. So constitutional right to hunt requires protecting a property from hunting to be enclosed, to enclose that eye. So what we are defining enclosing as posting, which the ands record. You have to post the land long about the and record it, it's enclosed. Hosting, we're saying, can be either with signs that don't have to have dates on them, but the signs have to have some kind of a description. There are several different descriptions that are provided there in the statute, But no date required on the sign and no name required on the sign, except in one particular case where you're offering permission. Or you can post your lands with purple paint. There's no date, no name, no description, no classification of visibility, degradation, refresh requirement, etcetera. Posting is required to be maintained by the landlord. We don't really say what that means, but it just says maintained by the landowner. And recording, you have to record with the town clerk every year currently. And that's $5 annual fee. It's good for one year. And lastly, that there is we had offered this reasonableness definition for posting. Could be some unintentional mistakes. Does that pretty well summarize kind of where we're at in terms of what

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. The only piece that I want to clarify is that you are correct that the statute does not specify when someone has to go out and actually refresh the paint markings, refresh the signs. And you are also correct that the statute does not specifically say what maintaining the sign means. So currently, an individual would have to maintain their signs and a standard that a person might use is, you know, whether a reasonable person believes that that sign does what it's supposed to do. Right? So if it's if you can read it and determine that it is meant to exclude hunting and it's still legible, that might that would likely pass for a maintain sign similar with paint markings.

[Rob North (Member)]: So having that reasonableness definition is kind of important.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, yes. To specify that that is the standard to determine. Suffice to say that it is a property owner's obligation to make sure that their land is hosted and that it is well maintained even without specifying. I'm struggling with what I'm trying to say other than if the statute specified you have to do your paint every three to five years. And at year two, for whatever reason, the paint's washed off. You know, it doesn't do that. But, you know, technically, you're in compliance with the statute, but you might not be able to see the paint marking. And so there are pros and cons to offering a higher level of specificity in the statute. And and so that that is more or less what I'm trying to say is that you're correct that the statute does not specify when and how individual maintains a sign. On the flip side, if it did, I would encourage the committee to make sure that the language that they use doesn't have an unintentional unintentional consequence of permitting an unmaintained sign in in some way. Right.

[Rob North (Member)]: So so we're still falling on the side, I think. Just thinking back to some of testimony we've heard this morning. We're still falling on the on the on the drawing the line that says it's the property owner's responsibility to enclose the property, and we're saying that because of the constitutional right to heart Part 67. Right?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yes. Because you could if you could envision a law that does not require a property owner to post, you can envision a law that just says you can't hunt on private property, and we don't have that law in the state because of constitutional right to hunt.

[Rob North (Member)]: So we have that constitutional right to hunt. So question for you then is, what does the Vermont constitution say about the right to prevent people from trespassing or hunting on their private property?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So they have to with respect to hunting, they have to enclose their land. And and so constitution.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: They have

[Rob North (Member)]: to enclose to put their

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The actual language of the statute is or excuse me, the constitutional provision is I have it in my notes. And unfortunately, I do Individuals have liberty and seasonal time to hunt and fall on the lands they hold and on other lands not enclosed is the actual language of the of the constitutional provision. So it doesn't necessarily be so direct, but it gives individuals the right to hunt on their own land and lands not enclosed.

[Rob North (Member)]: Is is there a competing constitutional requirement, a constitutional provision that provides sovereignty over private land? Is there a competing constitutional requirement?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not familiar with the specific language, if there would be any other relevant specific language to this particular issue in the constitution. The the competition here is between the right to hunt and on lands not enclosed. Enclosed. And so the on lands not enclosed is the constitutional right for individuals to enclose their land against hunting, fishing, and trapping so long as they if if they would like to do that.

[Rob North (Member)]: There is no as far as you know, I'm not aware of one, but as far as you know there is no constitutional provision to give sovereignty over private land to the private people.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would have to look into that.

[Rob North (Member)]: That would be very interesting to find out. Because what I really want to get at is I think I got the quote correctly from a previous person testifying today that Vermont

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: provides

[Rob North (Member)]: that private property truly means private was the term that was used. Private property truly means private for for the constitution of Vermont. I wanna make sure that that is that really true?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can look into that.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yeah, I think we need to understand that.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you, Chair.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: When we look at the date of effectiveness and the reason I bring this up is because several of my smaller towns do not have five day a week town clerks. I have two towns that have town clerk offices two hours on a Tuesday afternoon. That same town clerk reports to unified towns in Gore's and works there for two hours. So when you're when you're looking at availability of hosting, the time of physical placement of the paint or the sign could be considerably different than the recording in the town clerk's office. None of those towns are electronic. So the Onyx software would be totally useless if it hasn't been entered into the town paying for a report. So how do we adjust that? Can we give them a month delay? Physical placement to record.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The committee could do that because to enclose the land, the land would need to be posted and recorded under this bill, and the committee could say record it within thirty days of posting.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: I can see the conflict, especially in the fall over when you open up small game season.

[Speaker 0]: I guess I think not sure I understand because the we're we're building with it. If we pass something to the effect of what we're considering, kind of building in that flexibility with this process by saying, you know, you just have to register annual. I'm not I'm not

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: following your offset. What I'm saying is if we go about two years, three years, and we've signed $10, $15 fee, And I'm infirm. I can't walk my land, so I hire a forester to go out there, throw the purple paint off the tree.

[Rob North (Member)]: If he does it fast on the seat,

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: plot small, bleed it a day or two. If it's not recorded for two weeks, it's the land legally posted.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thing to point out is that this statute does not give kind of leeway on the posting date, and and it could. So the accidental or unintentional deviations from the requirements of the posting requirements a and b. The committee could add in the recording requirement to give some kind of wiggle room, so to speak, to actually recording that if you'd like.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Since

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: since under the current version of the building, removing dating from signs and would also have no dates associated with purple paint, then once you physically posted your land and if there was some time that that elapsed from the moment that you went to the town clerk and recorded it, there'd be there'd be no way for you to to to show that you posted your land at any particular time. So I'm I'm not sure how it really how it really helps. I think we just people would just need to post their land and maintain their posting. And the timing of that wouldn't matter, except that it would have to happen at some time before you actually go to the town clerk. Because, I mean, you wouldn't have to. I I suppose you could just go to the town clerk and say, My land is posted, but you don't actually show that physically, but you'd be inviting conflict with hunters that way. It would just make sense to physically post it and then go to your town clerk and say, it's posted, and now it's hate for legally for a year. And it's that seems to be very simple.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: I think it's very difficult for a warden to enforce. It's judge and jury.

[Speaker 0]: Representative

[Kate Logan (Member)]: asked. Sounds like we set forth there's, like, 22 states that now use purple paint. Is there any word or any kind of data on unintended or intended consequences that we could possibly learn from?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not specific reported data that I've come across, and I have looked. Okay. And I'm not saying that that data does not exist. I have done a fair amount of research and had not come across specific reporting on that specific issue.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: That would kind of align

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: with Right. Right. In terms of data, some people might say something in, like, a news article or or, you know, something of that sort, but not actual data, a lot of anecdotes.

[Rob North (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Pritchard and then North.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: And we're in the discussion period. I'm just

[Speaker 0]: Oh, yes. So,

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: you know, originally, seven twenty three came out, I was okay with this bill. I I think it it it really didn't address the main concern that we all got. And, you know, I've probably received a 125 emails, you know, regarding this subject. And overwhelmingly, on those emails, the concern that was most put forth was the elderly, people that had problems with mobility, and and how difficult it was for them to do this. 1.1 came back, and it got it went way off the rails as far as I'm concerned. I mean, what I feel that we should be addressing, if there's a way to do that, is those folks concerned. And and and how how's the best way to do that? We already have a system in place that we've had since I was a kid, so at least fifteen years ago. And and it's worked fine. And in the air and and it's already existing. I mean, folks already have this in place. So the purple paint thing to me, you know, again, it was a it was a a short form bill. There was no specifics. There was a lot of concerns that I shared. And going forth, all it does now is it's gonna cause confusion. What, you know, what I I'd like this committee to focus on is is is the concerns that were sent out to us of of of addressing the mobility of these folks. You know? I would what I would like to see is I would like to see consideration for these folks to extend this two years. And we can have a discussion about further. But but there's

[Speaker 0]: Richard, I don't wanna put Legis Council in an awkward spot. Maybe it feels like address all of us,

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: then we can help him. Okay. He just want

[Rob North (Member)]: me to Yeah.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Package it.

[Rob North (Member)]: A little bit. I just feel like yeah. Thank you. So,

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: you know, and I think in order to do that, you know, I have a problem with signs not being dated. I think this all comes together with part of extending this for folks. If we go two years out, then we date the signs, you know, from from whenever for the three you know, June 1 to May 31. Would be 06/01/2025 to 05/31/2027. You know, the fact remains, know, the signs still have to be maintained. They still have to be maintained. I mean, that's the responsibility of the landowner. You know, the section on page three from line eight on, know, that added section, I'm not okay with that. I mean, I think we can simplify this and meet it. You know, some of the concerns that were addressed by folks with entry, know, purple paint's not gonna address that. It's still gonna occur. There's there's bad actors. You know, one of the things that I have I've taught hunter safety for thirty five years, and one of the things that I have highly encouraged, and it's been a conversation in my classes, as we have had discussion about bad actors, and and and the damage that they do to landowner relations. We've had discussions and and strong encouragement for our students when they leave to go to a land and to seek permission and to ask for written permission. And because that's I think that's that's the right thing to do. It develops relationships with landowners and hunters. And I think that that's important. It's important for the landowners. It's important for the sport that I hold dear. This state has changed. I wish it was back to a time when I was a kid, when there were no posters. There were no posters. Land was shared, Landowners shared their land. It was open to the folks. And there was an unspoken respect between the folks that used it and the landowner. And that appreciation was returned by the landowner or by the person that had the use of that land. When the landowner fell on hard times, they were there to help them. We've lost that in the state. And, you know, we can keep this simple and address the concern that was brought to us. That was the concern. When I went to my town clerks, and I went back in January, because when the commissioner made this decision, some people were concerned with it for legitimate reasons. Some of these elderly folks had no way to trudge through the snow on January 1. The commissioner recognized that mistake. He recognized that mistake, and and he's and he's trying to correct it. And and and this thing has that really was never an issue until this happened. The the five town clerks that I went through to, one of the town clerks had an issue. There was about 20 folks in the town that were concerned with the change that the commissioner made. The other four towns had absolutely nobody complaining about this. Out of all the emails that I have received for the five towns I represented, I've gotten three. Two towns, I have gotten no response from. So, you know, I think this is trying to be made up a much bigger deal, and we're getting sideways on this. Let's address what we've all heard from these emails. Let's make this more convenient for folks. Let's and we can accomplish it, I think, simply, the way I've just explained. And that's what I'd like to see this committee go do. I'd like to see us work on the original draft and make this whole other thing go away. I just think it's it's creating way too many issues that don't, you know, don't need to be created to address this for everybody.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Tagliavia.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: I agree with representative Pritchard. I'm going to offer some corrections. Strike the paint, shorten the distance from 400 feet to 300 feet, although I still think it's too far. I have posters along with roadsides on my land. I stand at one poster. I look to my left and my right. If I cannot see it, I shorten the distance. Nobody then has an excuse. We're talking about trying to legislate common sense. Never going to happen. The other thing, we talk about the ability to get out into the woods. We're talking about hunting, fishing and hiking. That means getting out into the woods. We live in a state where everything is outdoors. We're celebrating that 20% of the Olympic medals are won by Vermonters. They're not sitting in a desk. They're outside doing all kinds of dangerous stuff. People getting their teeth knocked out. And we're worried about purple paint on trees.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: It's a bad idea. It's

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: a bad idea. We live in a state where people get stuff done. Purple paint isn't gonna stop things from getting done. It's not gonna definitely stop a poacher. Poacher will go out at night, go out any time of the day. You could post trees every 20 feet. You're still not gonna stop a bad actor. We're trying to legislate against actors who just don't pay attention to these laws. We're talking about being reasonable here. The other thing is electronics. We keep talking about electronics. I find it hard to believe that people won't get out and go see their town clerk to find out. It's for no other reason. At least you'll have a conversation with somebody you may not see very often. So I agree with Chris. We're really, really overthinking this.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Austin, Papp.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I agree with, I believe it's, well, I believe that fish and wildlife, it should be a fish and wildlife violation if you are on private land or something that it's posted. So I think right now it's not Fish and Wildlife. Again, I think the boat should register every year. I'm really in favor of not having to date the signs. And I'm just wondering in terms of the purple paint, again, I'd be curious to see what other states are experiencing, but I wonder if we could do a trial of just making it easier for landowners to close, not having to do it every year three or five years, you know, and not date and go to the town clerk and pay $25 and have it go for five years and see if that helps at all with the concerns that they have. And then maybe come back to this, sunset it in three years or something, and come back to that and this in here, because if it's not addressing the home, the landowners concerns, I mean, then we can look at frontal pain. I mean, you know, but I will kind of, I kind of, I feel like contractors have the constitutional right behind which they do, and I feel like we've heard, I've heard from a lot of landowners, not necessarily you know, that want the curb to paint law in order to to enforce, you know, that people can't come on their land, it's very clear. Representative Hoyt.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Thank you. Yeah. It seemed like initially what sort of caused the the need for a bill like this was this new interpretation of January 1. You have to the the post didn't act up, which doesn't make a lot of sense. The company used to deal with the liquor licenses expiring the same day. So, I mean, I think I think one year from, you know, at least one year from the from the date registered makes a lot of sense, and then you

[Rob North (Member)]: just have to do that.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: I mean, two years, I could probably support two years. You know? That would make it a little easier for people having to get out there. I think more than two years, you start flipping incentives a little bit where, like but if if I didn't post my land, I thought it was a pain in the ass. You know? You get up two or three, I'm like, okay. That kinda changes that a little bit. So I think I think two, having it go for a year is something I think makes a lot of sense. I don't really like the purple paint. Like, I did a Google image search of it. I don't think it looks very good, and think it causes some difficulties. Like, we heard some testimony. If I posted my land and I decide I don't really wanna post it anymore, I can basically unpost it, some of, like, just by taking the the signs down pretty easy with the paint. I don't quite know how I I go about doing that as much. I do I disagree with representative Pritchard a little. I do think some sort of reasonableness test. I mean, if people are really getting dinged because of little technical correction technical violations on the posting, then I think, you know, yeah, maybe we should have some sort of test where it's like, it's just you know, did the landowner do enough? You know? Is it registered? You know? Does it evince an intent to post the land? I think probably on the side that it is properly posted. So those are my thoughts thoughts on it.

[Speaker 0]: And then Morris, I'm Pritchard.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: Did you say more?

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: I do. My hearing is a couple of us.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: Just, Bradley, I'm looking for a little explanation in my mind, and I appreciate being here to roll this out. But purple paint a form, or would be a form, of banning hunting, fishing, or trapping. Correct. Then the bill goes on to describe permission only signs. So, the purple paint would ban hunting, fishing, trapping. Permission signs would have the person's name on there and a number so that they could be contacted. And then we have the no trespass signs. So, I'm wondering what the general population, landowners specifically property owners, interpretation of the purple paint would be. I think there might be some confusion there. That's not an answer I'm expecting you to give me. I'm thinking the purple paint, landowners would think that it would also mean trespassing or up to hiking hunting by permission only. I'm sensing that the addition of the purple paint is gonna compound the confusion. I agree with a lot of what's been said from various members. I like the idea of reducing the distance. A football field is 300 feet. Imagine being on a football field and to extend that to 400, it could be out of sight pretty easy. So is that interpretation correct that the purple pane is only hunting, fishing, trapping, they still have to have permission only? I think property owners are gonna be maybe not wanting put permission signs up, maybe they would, and they've gotta be 400 feet apart. Perfect. And then there's no trespass sign.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the under this bill, the purple paint would prohibit hunting, fishing, trapping, and if and they would not be effective to permit it by permission only, you would need signs to That's do right. That's right. The no trespassing signs is is controversial. Whether that's Right. Different statute. That's exactly right. And so that is not necessarily an issue our courts have addressed head on. They have danced around it a couple of times. And so that is an open legal question. I will remind the committee, at some point I mentioned that the Department of Fish and Wildlife does have some guidance on there saying, if you see no terrestrial pest sign, don't hunt. It's just guidance, and they're free to change their opinions, but that is the current state of the law.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: My final comment, Madam Chair, I'm gonna take that one, is the final paragraph where it talks about a little

[Rob North (Member)]: bit of

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: leniency for if a sign gets knocked down, taken down, whatever, or is four zero one feet on the current bill, that the courts recognize that as not complying with the law. I think there needs to be some reasonableness to protect property owners that their land is indeed ocean.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Thank you. Representative Pritchard? So I'll I'll address two things. One for representative Hoyt. The law already provides that protection, I think, through and it's it's the distance of the signs. It has to be a contiguous, this unbroken of 100 feet. Again, the law doesn't limit you to doing those every 100 feet. So as long as that category of 400 feet isn't broken, they're you're you're, you know, you're protected there. You know? And and and to to representative Austin Austin's question, for anybody, not just hunters, but anybody walking in the woods, what is easier to tell you that you you shouldn't be on that land? A sign that actually spells it out for you with a person's name and a date that you're not to be there, or find a purple paint on the tree. How do people, does that Are we gonna have to come up with some kind of training study program and spend who knows how many $100,000 on that to educate people exactly what purple paint means? We're just getting sideways on this thing. Let's address the concern that takes care of the people. And if there needs to be clarification, as far as the somebody taking down a sign or something, let's clarify And if you want, you know, if you wanna if this committee wants to consider penalties for for, for doing wrongly, I'm all for it. Let's bring it on. If these people are doing this stuff, they should be held accountable. If they're ripping signs down or whatever, they should be held accountable for it. Likewise, and you go down a whole another thing with this purple paint, if people are painting places they shouldn't, they should be held accountable for. Why even bring that into this thing? We don't need it. We have a system in place. Let's let's make the system work for the landowner and still still protect the constitutional rights. It it's not, shouldn't be that hard for us to figure that out. It's not rocket science. It's succumbents.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I would agree. It's not rocket science. And I think that purple paint is a really simple solution to address the problems that we've heard really clearly from certain landowners in testimony and also by email that those are very real problems. There are a minority of landowners for sure, but these are folks who are suffering some very real harms. And I think we have an opportunity to address some of their concerns in a meaningful way, in a way which would be really very straightforward and simple. I heard someone say that we're overthinking this, but I think if we're overthinking anything, we're overthinking the implementation of Purple Paint. It's been done all over the country as we've heard over and over again. It seems like it's controversial in other places. It has been effective and it it just seems like it would be an easy solution to to get at some of the problems with extremely limited impacts on on the hunter community. The vast majority of which would find that their lives are completely unchanged by by this law. We've heard over and over again that, you know, hunters who are trying to do the right thing almost always get permission anyway. They know what they're doing. So they wouldn't be affected by this. They wouldn't have that problem. But I'd also like to make a couple of suggestions from things we've heard today. I'm wondering whether it might make sense for the purple paint to actually mean by permission instead of prohibited. It would, in a lot of cases, actually end up meaning the same thing because you could say hunting is prohibited, but if someone comes and asks permission, they have permission, right? They could still do it. But it would send sort of a message that we want people to engage with their neighbors. We want hunters to think that, oh, I just it's not just I can't do this, it's that somebody would like me to come in and check with them. And they might very well say no, but at least we were to be encouraging that dialogue. We would be encouraging, you know, folks, landowners and hunters to to to keep land open for hunting that way. I would say that when when we for the markings of purple paint, we didn't specify, like, the direction. I think saying that it's a vertical line would take out some of that ambiguity and but also keep it very simple. And and I think it would make sense to just have the the law going into effect passage unless we hear otherwise. I'm not sure what the point would be for setting it at a particular day, but that's that's a minor culpable.

[Speaker 0]: Representative North.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. I guess I'm gonna suggest that purple paint is is a red hair, which means it's irrelevant. It's it's unnecessary to solve the problem. It doesn't it doesn't solve the problem that we are being addressed with any better than posting with a sign that's either dated multiple years out or as in the bill doesn't even require a date. Whether you have to go around and post signs or go around and paint, you still have to go around. So it's a red arrow. It doesn't add any benefit. There's no benefit to the purple paint. It's just another way, and therefore I fully agree with Representative Morris' idea that it just adds a bunch of confusion. It's really completely unnecessary and it just adds a bunch of confusion. So I think we ought to eliminate the pain idea. There's way too many complications with it, lack of definition, etcetera. So I do like the idea of, at a minimum, extending the date on the signs. I would even be okay with the current no date on the signs and just require annual recording with the with the town clerk. I do I am sense I am sensitive to Larry representative Labor's point that the that the the date ought to be one year plus until the next time the town clerk's office is open, something like that. Give a little flexibility, because like you said, they're not always open. If it if it happens to expire on a date when the town clerk's office is not open, that's that's a public technicality. And I also agree that we ought to be a little clearer with consequences for violating postings and also false posting. But that's probably taken care of in a separate bill, let's not mud in the waters here with the ramifications of laws. So I guess to summarize, eliminate the pain, extends the date out to at least two years, maybe three. And I would even be fine with no dates on the signs. But if we do no dates on the signs, you've to do manual posting with the clerk.

[Speaker 0]: Thanks. Do you happen to know barely

[Rob North (Member)]: I'm sorry, one last thing. I am okay with the debreasonableness test. Know I was kind of asked about originally. Know Mr. Pritchard disagrees with me on that. I wouldn't interested in understanding why they think that's not a good idea to have a reasonable thing at least, because we did hear from people who, one little correction, one little issue on one little sign, and the whole thing was not posted. And I don't know

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: why that would feel very good.

[Rob North (Member)]: Is it okay for me to ask a question?

[Speaker 0]: For It is. I'm gonna but he's got his hand up, so I'm just gonna ask those since I wanna remember. Is it currently not a violation to take someone's posted sign down? Surprised at that. It is. It's a violation now. And do you know what the penalty is?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's between 25 and $100. It's it's small.

[Speaker 0]: Very hard to catch them all.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Okay. Well, I think it's not so much, chair, as catching them. I think what what the the the concern for landowners is, and it's a valid concern, what it does is it it doesn't make they they don't now they don't meet the requirements. They don't meet the requirements because one signed, so they weren't legally posted. So that is a concern. But I think you clarify that. And and when you start using terms as reasonable, well, what's reasonable to you? What's reasonable to you? What's, you know, what's just clarify it and make it make it clear.

[Speaker 0]: Do you have a suggestion for clarification then? Because reasonable is used in statute a lot.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Well, again, I think going back to what the present distance is, I mean, you were to have, leave the distance the way it is, define that it's contiguous, unbroken, whatever, and there's two signs within that area, and one of them's ripped off, you've still met it. The wardens, they can tell if a sign was ripped off, or if the porcupine got under it and chewed it, or the squirrels chewed it. I mean, it's obvious, you can tell the difference. And that part of it comes in to the responsibility that a land owner has to They have the right to enclose their land. They also have the responsibility to maintain that enclosure. We get back to the fences. I guess if somebody enclosed their land to keep the cows in, if the fence gets damaged, they're not gonna ignore it, they're obviously gonna fix it. The application's the same to me. Just on one question I want to ask representative Sackowitz, when you when you said some of the concerns that we heard, I'm assuming about the hound vote, is that what you were talking to? You know, some of the people that testified mentioned about hounders or something like that. Was that what you were referring to? Yeah, that's part of it.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I think we heard two general sets of concerns. One was the difficulty that people have in physically posting their land annually. And the other concern was of some bad actors who will go around ripping down signs so that the land's no longer considered posted. So we can address that that problem, certainly. And and and for those other bad actors, purple paint is

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: not gonna fix that problem. It's just not gonna fix it. It's not gonna make a difference at all. So, you know, the other thing I would like to see is, and I don't know if this is possible, can all this be addressed in Si? You know? I have one of the folks that reached out to me wants to be able to allow hikers and and cross country skiers and and and and foragers and stuff. Can you can you accomplish that, all of that, on one sign? Can you

[Speaker 0]: meet the requirements? To that. Because someone absolutely my neighbor does that. Really clear signs. I might even have a picture on my phone because I was so impressed by the the sign. It's very clear.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: What they But meets the law?

[Speaker 0]: I believe it would meet the law.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So

[Speaker 0]: You could do that. It's easy. They do a lot of effort to maintain their signage. It's a lot of effort. It's an impressive amount of effort because the property changed hands and their their desirable uses changed, and they they welcome certain types of uses, and then it also says hunting by permission. That's a pretty awesome sign, actually. It addresses a lot of the concerns we've talked about. Maybe that could

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: be made an acceptable template.

[Speaker 0]: I guess I would say that, you know, I keep coming back to the paint, being it's harder to remove, and it is more clear. And if there are bad actors in your neighborhood, it's a communication, as one of our witnesses said today, clear communication to all hunters to contact that landowner. And, I I hear I hear some of the concerns about the aesthetics of it, but we have pain all over the woods. Foresters paint trees every day. And it's not great, but it's part of being in the woods is and it is accepting that the signs can be unappealing as unappealing, I think, as purple paint. So I think the aesthetics of it are they're real, and some folks are we took testimony from. You know, he preferred not to post for aesthetic reasons and work with his neighbors one by one. So it's still not required of people. This is a great debate. Thank you all. I wanna take a quick break and and shift gears, but we may, you know, we may need to do some straw pulling on those sections because we have some very strong feelings about the bill. So with that, let's take a five minute break.