Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Alright.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We are welcoming Colonel Steadman back and having some discussion about H seven twenty three, some things that members wanted to discuss with the colonel. Representative Tagliavia?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Yes. Outside of committee, we talked about the distance between posters. You made a suggestion and Hannah had made a suggestion about some of the reasonableness wording, and those both made sense. If you can explain those to the committee, because I think once we get those resolved, we will make huge headway toward getting this over the finish line.

[Colonel Justin Steadman (Director, Warden Service)]: Yes, sir. For the record, Justin Steadman, Director of the Warden Service, and my apologies for not being there in person. Just didn't get there in time. Thank you for the opportunity to appear this way. I will absolutely answer your question, representative. I just for context, I wanna give the rest of the committee members a little bit of the background that I had given you. So my my family has a a 14 acre field that we get hay for our horses from. And in November, December, I don't remember exactly when it was, some gentleman was tooling around the hay field doing donuts to impress the young lady he was with. And my mother-in-law called all upset about things, and at any rate, the law enforcement caught up with the individual. He went by three or four signs posted, no hunting, fishing, trapping, or trespassing. He was not hunting. He was just out tooling around. The and what I told my my mother-in-law, which is what ended up happening, is that because of the reasonable I should back up, or I should not say that. Because of the wording of the trespass law, the practice for law enforcement in order for those cases to be prosecuted is to give someone a notice against trespass, an actual written notice against trespass. And then if they come back, they're charged. That is generally how criminal trespass is handled because I didn't see it, the signs, is a plausible defense that the courts and the states the courts have accepted, and states' attorneys are reluctant to take those cases just based on signage. And that's what happened in this particular instance. What I said to representative Tagliavia is if he'd been in possession of a firearm because the posted property law in title 10 doesn't require you to be in the act of hunting or trapping, it just requires you to be in possession of a fire or traps. He could have been charged because the strict requirements of the posting law have consistently been upheld by the court. I didn't see the signs. It's not a viable defense. So and the other thing that says, you know, and I don't mean this flippantly. Personally, I don't care what this committee does. We will do the best we can in terms of enforcing the law, but I had heard discussions about trying to avoid the one sign that's not dated, and I understand that, but all of the signs dated is what allows us to prosecute these cases and avoid the I didn't see it or the other sort of things that get people out of criminal trespass. And so I recognize the desire to try and make things easier for landowners, and a couple of the thoughts that I had or suggestions that I had is increase the distance if you want from 400 to say 500 feet, increasing the distance. Typically people put more signs up than is necessary, and so if you increase the distance and a landowner puts up two or three signs in a 500 foot span, if one of those falls down or something happens to it, distance is still covered, so it would, in theory, create less maintenance of signage. The other thing, if the committee wanted to, go to some sort of two year dating if you want. Although I I personally, from an enforcement perspective, am concerned that that may create prop trouble. I don't know that to be sure. But again, the strict requirements are what the courts have looked to to say, yes, this is good. It doesn't matter if you didn't see it. This is all met. This is good to go. The other piece is change. So the language that has caused so much of a stir is the language that says it must be dated each year, and there's no other information there. I would suggest something to the effect of dated on or before July 1. Then you're talking about in the summer when there's not snow and not all the other issues that folks have talked about as being a possible consideration. Those are two of the thoughts that I have, and again, I recognize the committee wanting to make it easier for landowners, but if you put in language around reasonableness or nothing, I can't remember the exact language, but it will give the opportunity for the courts or the defense to use an I didn't know, I didn't see it, I didn't, and the courts are typically fairly deferential to those arguments or understanding of those arguments, and so what I was saying to representative Tagliavia is that I am concerned that this committee's good intentions of making things easier on landowners will actually inadvertently make it harder in the sense that we won't be able to prosecute people as effectively as we can now if the requirements are met, and I do recognize that the requirements are a high bar, and so perhaps a couple of those suggestions that I made would make it an easier bar, but that requirement is what allows us to enforce it. That's sort of it in a nutshell. Hopefully that made sense.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Thanks for joining us and for that. I I actually think I need a clarification of what you said because your your anecdote

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: well, anyway, you said dated will allow enforcement of criminal trespass, but a criminal trespass sign doesn't need to be dated. Can you help me understand your statement of that?

[Colonel Justin Steadman (Director, Warden Service)]: You're I I might have misspoke. So what I was saying is criminal you're right. Criminal trespass does not require dating. There is no requirements to maintain signage or anything else. It's just the the language, I believe, is signage that a reasonable person something to that effect. Yeah. And that language is broad enough that the courts don't accept just signage. That's why that's why law enforcement now now issues a no a actual notice against trespass to someone who is trespassing on a place with signs to say you can't come back here. Then if they do come back while the trespass the written trespasses in effect, they can be charged. The dating on the signs that we are talking about related to title 10, that dating requirement is one of the things that basically shows that the landowner is taking active preventative or or or, proactive measures to say people are not welcome here. And so that that effort is what allows for us to prosecute it even when someone says, well, I didn't know or I didn't see. Though I've I am not aware of any cases where those have been successful defenses to someone who is poaching a private preserve, which is the violation of being up posted legally posted property with a firearm or traps. Did did I answer your question, ma'am?

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Representative Satcowitz? This is very interesting. It seems like we're talking about some ideas that we haven't heard before. I just wanna and I think you've been pretty clear, but I just wanna make sure that I say what I think I hear you saying and tell me if I got it right. So I think what I'm hearing is that right now, as you just said, someone crosses into posted land that meets our requirements, I didn't know is not an excuse. That gives the courts, it gives law enforcement a very clear tool to use to say, well, you've crossed that boundary, now you're in trouble, basically. And so you're saying that if instead we have we also include a reasonableness standard as in the current draft, that that by itself makes what's required more vague. And that would then cause the courts to say, well, wait a second, now we're not so sure what the standard is. And so we can't automatically hold someone to account if they cross the line knowing so or not.

[Colonel Justin Steadman (Director, Warden Service)]: Yes. That's based on my personal experience just this past fall and my professional experience in my years of doing this job. Yes.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Okay.

[Colonel Justin Steadman (Director, Warden Service)]: Obviously, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a judge. You they they may say something different, but that's the that is the experience that I have had. Yes.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: And so that was your experience, but based on your experience, your your your conclusion would be that it would have that effect with the caveat that you just gave that maybe that wouldn't really be the case, but that's what you would strongly suspect to be the case.

[Colonel Justin Steadman (Director, Warden Service)]: Yes, exactly right.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So were you going to say something?

[Colonel Justin Steadman (Director, Warden Service)]: I was just going to say, said exact I said everything that you said, and I said a slightly different way and maybe more more succinctly, though, is that the the current high requirements of this law are what allow it to be enforced. First offense, no wiggle room.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And so my follow-up is you mentioned about the dating in particular. We've also discussed in committee and it's in the current draft to remove the dating completely. If the dates weren't on there, we would still have and we didn't and for instance, if we did not have the reasonableness standard in the bill, we would have very clear guidelines in terms of what's required to post your land for it to be enclosed. Would your opinion be that the dating would change that somehow? Do you know what I'm getting at? I'm wondering and I'm sorry if I'm being redundant to to you all. I'm still trying to think through all this stuff. But I'm I'm just wanna make sure that that because it does seem like the dating is a real burden for folks. And so if we could and it does also seem like Vermont is an outlier in terms of having dates on signs compared to other states. And so, in my mind, it seems like it could be clear to the courts exactly what the posting requirements are in that case, too. It just would be that the requirements don't include dates.

[Colonel Justin Steadman (Director, Warden Service)]: So you may be right. I don't know that you're not correct in that assessment. I would say is that the requirement to date signs ensures that a landowner or their agent look. I don't personally post my land, but I help my neighbor post theirs because they're older and they want it posted. So it doesn't have to be the landowner. It can be an agent, which can be any a neighbor or anybody with the landowner's permission. But it ensures that the landowner or their agent is physically walking the property boundary or the part of the property that's posted because they don't have to post the whole thing. They just have to post the area they want and close. It ensures that the landlord or the agent is walking the boundary of the posted signs and that all of the signs are there. That is what I'm talking about when I say the higher bar allows for enforcement on first offense, no sort of you get one freebie. So, again, obviously, not a lawyer. I'm not a judge. The courts may be willing to accept the law without the dating. I don't know. We've not ever had it with that, but I do personally feel that that requirement ensures that the property was properly posted in accordance with the law and the landowner can testify to that, and the warden can testify to that to say these signs were all dated on on, you know, whatever, July, you know, June 28, or whenever. They were dated as a court in accordance with law, whatever the verbiage they would need to use. And that indicates to the court and to the prosecutor and to everybody else that that property had been walked, that the signs were there, that everything was good to go. So I'm not sure if I hopefully answered your question, but that that would be my opinion.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, no, that's helpful. Thank you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Austin.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah, I really am opposed to the dating. This is for me, know, in terms of property owners, like, you know, hunters have a constitutional right to hunt. This isn't putting any constrictions on that right. This is landowners that are having a really hard time posting and dealing with rogue hunters. And I'm just wondering if if you have a sign up that says no trespassing, no hunting, no fishing, no trapping, it's not dated. Want a reasonable person approaching that sign figure out that probably they shouldn't be on that land?

[Colonel Justin Steadman (Director, Warden Service)]: I wouldn't argue with you at all. I would I would argue that the individual that drove by five of them would also have known that. But, again, in my experience, the reasonableness standard is, and obviously I have a slightly jaded view as I work in law enforcement, but the reasonableness standard often seems to work in the favor of people who violate the law, in my personal opinion, because it is a I won't say an exception, but it's an area of gray that allows for wiggle room. And so I'm not disagreeing with you that there is potential burden for landowners in dating their signs. And again, if this committee decides not to do that, that's fine. I legitimately will do the best we can. My concern is that by trying again, I said it already. My concern is that by trying to make it easier for landowners, it will actually inadvertently allow the bad actors that you referenced, which there aren't a lot of, but there are certainly some bad actors, it will allow them to get a freebie,

[Unidentified representative (referred to as “Representative Weber”)]: for lack of a better one. Representative

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Pritchard.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah, so the majority of the folks that have reached out to me, a lot of them, it's an age, it's a mobility issue. I would like to see the dating on the sides. But I would like to see this thing move to two years for folks. I think that eases it up and makes it easier for them. There's no reason that they, I mean, I don't see any reason that they can't post it and date it for the two year period. So it doesn't make it any more difficult with the date, because it's not like they have to go back out and date it. They still have to maintain the signs. So I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on, because right now it's not in the bill. I think the thing that I personally wanna address is making it easier for folks still complying with the law and protecting them from these little technicalities that don't allow you

[Unidentified representative (referred to as “Representative Weber”)]: to prosecute folks.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: So

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: I'm just trying to think how that accomplishes it. That was my concern with the reasonableness part of this. So I'm just curious as what your thoughts are on the two year, the dating good for the two year, really the only thing that the folks would have to do is to go to, just reregistered at the town clerk every year.

[Colonel Justin Steadman (Director, Warden Service)]: I think, yes, sir, think that that is certainly, and I mentioned that to representative Tagliavia in the cafeteria as another option. I will say that anything that changes the current standard obviously could then create problems because we don't, I only know the current standard, I don't want to give an impression that I know for certain two years would not be an issue, I don't, but I think it is reasonable to move to two years. It still requires checking the property boundary. It still requires, know, dating the signs and all of that, and a two year timeframe is good. The one thing I would say to the committee, so on the point of dating signs, whether you decide to do it or not do it, it would be very helpful to have clarification around when, because the issue arose here is that the language just says dated each year, it doesn't say when, and so if people we use the calendar year because we didn't really there isn't any other explanation or any other information provided in that section of law. So that's why I meant when I was mentioning it. If you if you include. You know, dated if you want dating in it, if you include dated each year or every other year on or before, you know, July 1 or some some point in time other than January and February when folks are talking about the snow and that sort of issue of getting around in the woods just for consideration for the committee to to sort of alleviate that, because if you just say dated every two years, it's still the same issue of being in January, unless somebody comes up with it, because there's no information there. So dated each year, we didn't know how else to interpret.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Norris.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Thank you, madam chair.

[Rob North (Member)]: Colonel Steadman, would it would it be possible and and likely upheld in court if we explicitly put the expiration date on the sign? When you date the sign, you don't just date it today's date when you buy the sign, you date it with the expiration date, and it clearly says on the sign, expires colon, and then you fill in the date when it expires. That seems to be the, to me, clear, everybody's accustomed to expiration dates, your credit cards, your driver's license, everything has an expiration. They don't have a start date, then you have to kind of figure out when it goes bad

[Unidentified representative (referred to as “Representative Weber”)]: for that expiration date.

[Colonel Justin Steadman (Director, Warden Service)]: Sure, I don't see why that would be an issue. That certainly I had not thought of that. So, yeah, I think you're right. Everything has an expiration. We all have expiration dates. So, yeah, I'd say that's probably

[Rob North (Member)]: an interesting actually know. I

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I think the board knows that. But,

[Colonel Justin Steadman (Director, Warden Service)]: yeah, I I don't see I don't see why that that would certainly provide clarity around the as opposed to saying one year, two years, or however, whatever you want us. So yeah, that should certainly be a viable option.

[Rob North (Member)]: Thank you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Satcowitz.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I'm so glad you're here because I did have another question, is still pertinent, but not about the dating or such. And that's one of the problems that we're trying to solve here is the problems of those very small numbers of bad actors who intentionally tear down signs. And I know they're a small group, but they're causing another small group, some very real anguish. And in fact, we heard from some more of those folks just overnight who are really begging us to do something to help alleviate their situation. And what we've discussed in committee is painting trees because it's much harder obviously to remove paint than to remove a sign. And you certainly would be hard to do without some premeditation. And so we've also heard a fair amount of pushback on that idea that that seems to be one of the provisions of the draft that is encountering the most resistance. So the question in my mind is then, if we were to not do painting, what kind of relief can we offer? What kind of help can we give to these folks who have this very real problem in terms of people who don't think twice about walking through the woods with, you know, taking down people's signs and knowing that it's possible that, you know, we can increase penalties or such for doing so, but realistically knowing that we're we're not gonna catch the the vast majority of people who would engage in that kind of behavior. Do you have suggestions for another path? I wanna help these folks.

[Colonel Justin Steadman (Director, Warden Service)]: Right. No, and I understand. And I don't I think At the end of the day, no law is going to stop certain bad actors from doing what they're going to do, right? Obviously, people break all the laws all the time, certain people. And so there is only so much that we can accomplish through the written word, and then obviously enforcement is another tricky component to that. There is, as you know, I presume you know, there is a penalty, dollars 300 and something for damaging or defacing signs, but you're right. They have to be caught, and that is a challenge. I think I don't have a good answer for you, representative. I guess the there is yeah. I don't have a good answer for you. I I the the only thing that I'm thinking is that someone who is willing to rip down signs or something of that nature, what's to say they wouldn't just cut down trees, which is even more damage. So I'm not sure that that's taking one thing and making it any better than another. I do know in certain areas where I have worked with landlords, they have put the signs up higher by use of a step ladder or something, which obviously takes more time and takes more effort, but it's above the reach of people to be able to tear them down. The current Title X posting law does not have a requirement or height or anything else in terms of where the signs, in terms of off the ground or what have you. So that's one option, but I recognize that that creates physical or requires some physical effort that I know there's been some discussion around trying to mitigate that. So I don't have a good answer for you, sir.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Austin.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I have two questions. One is, would it be possible to create a penalty, a fish and wildlife penalty for tearing down a sign. That's one. And the other question is when you get a report that someone is trespassing or tearing down signs, when when a warden gets that in their jurisdiction, do they go immediately to the place where it's being reported? I mean, how long does it take them to get there?

[Colonel Justin Steadman (Director, Warden Service)]: So two things. One, the the the law already exists for damaging signs. It's a $360 fine and a year loss of hunting, fishing, and trapping license because all of our stuff is connected to our licenses, not any other license. So that already exists. And then so if they're able to, yes, but obviously, typically wardens cover eight to 10 pounds, and, you know, they're not working twenty four hours a day. So, you know, I I don't wanna say they'd be there immediately. If they can be, they certainly would be because that is a violation of the law, and and the wardens will enforce it if if they can, but, obviously, there's so many things that go into play there that I don't wanna give you I can't give you a time frame for when they would respond, but if they are able to, they would. I I think to representative, Sackowitz's point, though, a lot of this it's hard because it's it's hard to know that that's happening at the time, so that's part of the challenge of it. But yes, if they got the call, they would certainly respond as soon as they could because it's legitimate violation that we would enforce. I guess that's how would say them.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Great. Thank you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right. Any other questions? Not seeing any. Thanks for joining us.

[Colonel Justin Steadman (Director, Warden Service)]: Thank you, Matt. You for letting me appear on the computer.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Members, we actually have an update to the agenda at 11:00. Michael O'Grady will be joining us on h one fifty two. But with that, since we're maybe thinking about posting right now, do members have comments or things they wanna bring up about page seven twenty three? Representative Austin?

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I like the idea of an end date, like, five years out or something. You know, so it ends five years out. They don't, you know, I think they have to register with the town clerk every year, you know, and pay pay some, you know, whatever it is. So in the town clerk's office, someone can call and say, whatever, have they done that in this five year period? And they can be assured that they have followed through and paid reregistered or whatever they needed to do. But I think the signs could be just the end date.

[Rob North (Member)]: I support that same idea. I don't know if I feel five years, but certainly an end date of multiple years, don't know. Two, three, five.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: With an annual registration or With

[Rob North (Member)]: an annual five year reporting, with a fifteen day grace period or something for the small town's offices not only being open.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Actually, if it's if it's extended, that becomes even less of an issue because, you know, it might happen very beginning, but never after. But we can avoid

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Thank you. Yeah. On the dating, you know, I personally two to three years instead of five, but I can get behind the idea that we extend it from one year. I think it would be helpful to have it basically run two years, three years, however long from the date that registration's made with the clerk. If an annual registration is a good idea, just so that and you can put the date. In that case, I mean, it's kinda up. I think I won't do it. But, you know, if it's 07/01/2026, you know, oh, that lasts till 07/01/2029, or you could just put the end date. I mean, I think there's some flexibility there. I don't really have a strong feeling either way, but I think it would be helpful to make it run from the date it's registered so that people don't have to go out January 1 in the snow and try to put it up. And then three years, you know, is a pretty good amount of time to have it up and posted. And still probably every year or two, I have to go out and look and make sure the signs are still up. So, you know, that is a fact of it. But, you know, for the most part, it gives people, I think, a little more peace of mind knowing that they don't have to do it every year. So that's sort of where I'm coming down on.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Representative Tagliavia? I like the idea of the expiration. I wouldn't extend it five only because I figured three years is probably the max before you got to worry about those posters. Even if they're really put up there well, you still have to worry about somebody pulling one down, a tree falling, or tree next to the tree with your post and taking it down. With a yearly registration with the town clerk, Take out the worry for that reasonableness to give the wardens the the teeth they need in court.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm struggling with following that logic because we put the reasonableness in because they were struggling to they they were the specificity was causing them to not enforce. And now we're hearing that the reasonableness will cause confusion. That's confusing me.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Yeah. And obviously, no pain. Not for me, no pain. I agree

[Rob North (Member)]: with no pain, but on that, would be interesting to hear from not the work, but the court. That would be really interesting to hear because that's who he's talking about interpreting the law and interpreting the wishy washyness to mean can't enforce on for instance.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Somebody who's got to make the judgment, what do they want to hear? From the landowner and warden who's trying to make the landowner feel like they've got their their day in court,

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: and it was worth it.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. Because we can write whatever we want with the we intend to think, but if the the judge is gonna interpret it however he wants to interpret it, or she Yeah. They wanna interpret it.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Representative Austin.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah, I do, I'm wondering how many people ever are brought to court. I mean, someone's covering eight pounds, they're never going to catch that person. So kind of weighing out whether they catch that person or it's one or two people a year, I just feel like it's not like they I'm just trying to I'm really thinking about the landowner and how we can just ease their burden a bit. I'm not hearing just from old and disabled people, I'm hearing from young and young landowners as well.

[Rob North (Member)]: I'll ask you a clarification on that too. So, are you saying you don't really care if it's enforceable on the first time, because they're never going to catch them anyhow? Just want to

[Unidentified representative (referred to as “Representative Weber”)]: make sure

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I think it's enforceable, but they have to catch them.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, they need to be charged. And what we heard was if there's anything wrong with your posting, they don't charge you. So you'd be actually, we'd have to ask the court, have you ever had one of these cases, or how many do you have a year? They may not see them enough to have a record on it because that, you know, that's the testimony we heard from the commissioner and the clerk.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: To representative Austin's point, I asked Gordon just yesterday or the day before. They pretty much know who the bad actors are, and they they have ways of catching them in the act. It's not easy. That's the problem. It's not easy. They do have a lot of area to cover, But they pretty much know who the better actors are. It's it's it's not if, but when.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: And I'm not I just wanna clarify. I'm not saying they're not doing their jobs. No. It's just the capacity and the reality.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Morris.

[Unidentified representative (referred to as “Representative Weber”)]: Thank

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: you, Madam Chair. Again, I'm kind of encouraged by the discussion. I could support the expiration date on a sign. I support going out three years. All of that seems good, and it would ease the burden on the homeowner. However, none of that would exclude the homeowner from having to encompass their property annually, and I wouldn't recommend or would be suggested before deer season or hunting season, so that they're sure that their signs are valid. I think they're still going to have to do that. Somebody's going have to have some responsibility to make sure it remains visible and posted. But I could support an expiration date of a three year time period registered annually.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yes. Thanks. Just one more thing I didn't mention when I was talking earlier is I do think a reasonable standard would be helpful. I mean, problem is, you know, technical violations, making land, you know, not enclosed. I think that's an issue. So, you know, to the extent, get something in there about that and support.

[Rob North (Member)]: On that, I wonder if not in the actual legislative language, but in, like, an intent at the top, we could we could identify what our intent is, and maybe that would help the judge interpret what we're saying with a little more leniency. I don't know. Just I wanted to if the Orleans could give us a way

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: I can accomplish that. I agree with you. I agree with you.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Representative Zachlund. It's a great conversation. I one of my thoughts is if it's a if we were to go to a three year signed dating, I would think that it would make sense to also have three years for the for registration with the town clerk, and we just line them up. If the expectation is that you're gonna commit to posting your land for three years after your signs say, then why do you have to come back to the town clerk every year to do that? So I think having those two have the same interval, whatever we decide, makes makes sense. I still I still I struggle a little bit with with the dating just in general because that seems to be a lot of the crux of the problem that people sometimes don't get the dates right. And then that's the out. Seems like we if there is any sort of uncertainty as to the impact of a reasonableness standard, I am a little hesitant to get rid of for reasons that the chair just right here, then that's the place where we see the the most the most difficult thing. Seems like that was the the spot that was the place where people were able to say, oh, no. Your signs aren't dated right, so it's it's not it's not. That's my my my upon the discussion so far.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Weber.

[Unidentified representative (referred to as “Representative Weber”)]: Thank you, Chittenden. Those term reasonableness put a burden on the order. For instance, we know there was, according to a commissioner, and Carlson, 8,600 calls, only 50 were for violating a posted sign of one nature or another. So I guess my question, if it's that few, most likely there's some repeaters that much. Why not have a graduated occurrence? For instance, first time, a warning. Same person, same land, maybe not even the same moved on to another acreage, but the same violation, then that becomes a pattern for what that person is responsible for. No longer should be a warning. Go up the street. Third time, snap a license. Just a pinch.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Pritchard.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah. The the three year registration of the town clerk, yeah, I I think it should be yearly. I mean, these folks have some responsibility. I don't think that's making things too onerous. A lot of stuff can happen in three years. The lane owner can pass away, they can sell a whole van. And there's a lot of things that can happen with that that time. It's not a, you know, going to the town clerk to register, this isn't like, I'll just get an Act two fifty permit. I mean, it's, you you go in, you do it, it's done. I think that should stay in place. I think that you're I don't think it's too much to ask to have that done yearly and updated. The expiration date, I guess I'm okay with. It does make sense. And it's it can be and it's done once within that time frame. So it's not like they're being made to go out. The whole thing for me, a lot of it is just trying to make this easier for the largest concern that we had, and still uphold both people's rights.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Perhaps any second, please? Yeah. Was thinking more about the dating and the possible expiration date. Right now, when people go to get their signs, they're typically buying commercial signs that are premade, and I'm not aware of what it looks like in terms of dating. Do people just add the date to premade signs and there's no, like, field on the sign already for a date?

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah. Voice mail, name and address, and then just the date. So it's

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: just a place. Like, there's just space, but there's nothing that is there something that says date printed on the sign? Yeah. Apprints. And so so we would if we were to have an expiration date, would we be then requiring landowners to know now from now on that they would have to put in, like, from this date to this date rather than the current practice, which is just the date that they put up the sign. I'm just I'm a little worried that that that will be hard. That'll be a hard message to get out to all the landowners in the state. And then that would give us it would give people who want to go on posted land another reason why they could say, well, you didn't put an expiration date. So now on any of your on any of your sides, and so your land's not posted.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Well, that can be sent out to the town clerks, and you made it real easy for folks because when they go to register the land, you know,

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: where where where they go to do that. I think that think sounds fraught to me.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Hoyt?

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: I think, you know, I mean, people are used to putting the date on there already. You know, instead of having to put an end date, you could just say it runs three years from the date you put down when it's registered. You know? I mean, that's sort of the same idea. It's kinda the way around. But I look at '1 and I see '26, I know it goes to '29.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Just a thought. That would be in keeping with our current practice. Yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Lucas?

[Kate Logan (Member)]: I'd be fine with that. I would not be fine with having switched to an expiration date on the signed.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: In assigning one in in that whatever period to decide, beginning date and an end date, I I think it's simple.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great members. Oh, go ahead.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. Guess I'll just make a further comment. I think hunters will get used to the but being aware that the it like, that period is three years. It begins on the date on the sign. Right now, it's a year. It'll change three years. I'd say there's some incumbency upon a hunter to know the law, and I don't think that one's a real difficult one to grapple with that, like, the three years from the date on the sign rather than making sure that, like, we chain we'd have to change the sign. I feel like you'd have to change the wording on the sign in order to make it clear that it's a like, there's a beginning and an end date or something like that instead of just, like, writing the date that you posted. It just seems like the easiest if we're not going to adopt as people have been requesting the ability to just paint, on your trees, then making it as easy a switch as possible to a new policy seems best for everyone.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: 100% of us. Yeah. I'm envisioning that it's something like your either inspection or registration, every year you put a little sticker on your license. Because I don't want people to have to replace signs every year. I want some place on the date where they can put, like,

[Kate Logan (Member)]: a sticker or People don't use stickers. That's interesting.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Probably because the signs fall down and get destroyed. I mean

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: But what couldn't you do a metal sign? Like, thinking I just slab.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: There are a lot

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: more to But, I mean, then you really don't have to keep replacing them or do anything. You can just put a little sticker on on the bricks, you know, for the date.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Would have to buy a lot,

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: representative time. I when I was plowing, I would drive past the Sugar Woods. It had no trespassing signs on it, and they had bright stickers on They would go, and somebody was walking up to each one of them, putting a new sticker.

[Unidentified representative (referred to as “Representative Weber”)]: Don't have any

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: problem with No.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I I don't have any problem with that every three years. I think that's really simple.

[Unidentified representative (referred to as “Representative Weber”)]: Alright,

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: members. Let's take a break till the top of the hour.