Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome to the House Environment Committee. We are continuing our our afternoon meeting with a further committee discussion, possibly MH seven twenty three, an act relating to posting of land, this time with our legislative council. Welcome back.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Riley Sheldon, also legislative council. And I am here to discuss at 07:23. I'd to start today's discussion by answering a question from last time, see if I may. Please.

[Riley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm gonna share my screen. So last time, we had a question on the all private property rights are are included in the Vermont constitution. So it's article one. And all persons are born equally free and independent and have certain natural inherent and unalienable rights amongst which are the enjoying and defending of life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Therefore, slavery and indentured servitude in any form are prohibited. So it's a pretty strong language protecting individuals' rights, including the rights to protect their property. We have some other articles that also touch on private property rights. So the private property ought to be subservient to public uses when necessity provides it. Nevertheless, when any person's property is taken for the use of the public, the owner ought to receive an equivalent in money. So kind of a type of takings clause typical in many states' constitutions. But if the state has to take private property for some reason, they have to compensate an individual. And you see that coming up on things, not necessarily in Vermont, but, for example, out west when they're trying to build high speed rail in California, things will come up like eminent domain takings and things of that sort, building pipes across people's properties and things like that. Something might come up with relation to that. Our search and seizure stat, article, the people have the right to hold themselves, their houses, papers, and possessions free from search and seizure, and therefore warrants without oath or affirmation first made according affording sufficient foundation for them and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search the suspected places or to seize any person or persons, his or her property not particularly described are contrary to that light and ought not be granted. This is related to the search and seizure of property by police. Sometimes it does come into consideration when we're talking about game wardens and game wardens entering property for for search purposes and problems that might result from there. And then we scroll all the I'm actually just do a control f here just to and then the other place in the statute where private property is mentioned is section six seven, which is a topic of conversation for us today. The inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty and seasonal times to hunt and follow on the lands they hold and on other lands not enclosed and in like manner to fish on all boatable and other waters, not on not private property under proper regulations to be made and provided by the general assembly.

[Rob North (Member)]: It's

[Riley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: interesting here. We've been talking a lot about the first part of this constitutional provision, the right to hunt on lands not enclosed in defining that. But the the provision does go on to put in an awkwardly placed parenthesis, not private property. Does that modify only other waters? Does that modify this whole section? I think that's an open question for the Supreme Court. That said, I think the job or not the job, but the task with this bill is to balance private property rights, which are very well protected in in Vermont's constitution, with other rights that sometimes conflict, and the right to enter a person's property to hunt and fall, in seasonable times. And I will also point out that this provision under proper regulations to be made and provided by the general assembly specifically says to the legislature, this is something you folks, to say you folks, this is something the legislature has to deal with, unfortunately, or fortunately, to grapple with these sticky issues. So I I I just wanted to go over and give that that context. I know we did we did have that question earlier and just kinda provide that constitutional framework because that is the law, the way up here law. It doesn't give us a lot of instruction. And so when we're kind of in the nitty gritty of providing instruction to property owners, to hunters, to game wardens in drafting these statutes, well, keeping those that kind of framework in mind is is helpful framing. And and it was a good it was a good question to kinda bring us back to that point. I'm happy to answer any other questions the committee might have at this point, discuss particulars of the bill.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do folks have questions on this? I guess I'm kinda curious about the subsections versus the articles at the beginning. You know about how those relate? I mean, were they all original?

[Riley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: I know that this one was in, yeah, 1777. Yes. It was. So I don't know if all of these are original. And and I'm not familiar with the extent the constitution has been amended over the years. I can look into that, but it's regardless, once the constitution amended, whether it's an amendment or an original provision, it has equal force in terms of guiding those principles. So it's just like the Bill of Rights in the constitution. The Bill of Rights has equal force. The first 10 amendments has equal force as the rest of amendments has equal force to the text of the constitution. It's all part of that same framework with the same legal authority. Same as the subsections.

[Ela Chapin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Exactly. Okay. Exactly.

[Riley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Members have questions on this?

[Kate Logan (Member)]: I'm not understanding the conflict. I mean, I feel like hunters have a constitutional right to and people have a constitutional right to enclose their land. Mhmm. And I don't I mean, unless hunters feel like that's unfair or something, there's a conflict, but I don't think I don't see that there's a legal conflict because it's pretty clear. And I think what we're talking about is people who are not following the law. And just trying to figure out in terms of the laws, you know, what laws do we need to create for the Department of Fish and Wildlife to maybe enforce in terms of enforcement of the law. Does that make sense?

[Riley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, a person could think about the rights as butting up against each other, as in conflict. And you might be thinking of the rights as a more I don't want say yin and yang, because I'm not familiar with that that religion. But, you know, it's that kind of they're in opposition, but they work together. Right? And so instead of opposing each other and fighting, it's opposition, but it's working together to create a framework where we all live together in that environment. That framing could be different. You're exactly right.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Further questions? Yes. No? Okay. Did you send Bradley some questions? Do you want to talk about those?

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Oh, yeah. We had gotten some I had gotten at least some email from residents of the state bringing up two two in response to a couple of things we've done in community, which I thought were worth following up with with Bradley. And so I I asked him two sets of questions. One was about the language that we use for this for the reasonableness standard. And because we had gotten some language that was proposing a different way to word that, I think it amounted to largely the same thing. But it was definitely shorter, so perhaps clear or perhaps not. But that was that was the one piece, and that might be something that we can look at together. Would you be be prepared to do that, Bradley?

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yes. Just one moment. I'm just pulling up an email.

[Rob North (Member)]: Okay.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: So the language that you had sent me to to consider was a technical defect in placement, spacing, color, wording, or dimension shall not invalidate the notice. A notice under the section of the notice clearly communicates, to a reasonable person the entry for hunting, fishing, trapping, or taking of game as prohibited or allowed by permission only. And I I think that that's that's fine language. It it accomplishes a similar goal. I would amend this to if if the committee keeps paint markings in the bill, I would I would amend this to specify that specify notice signs and or paint markings. I can't remember the I guess I have it before me, but the language, I think I referred to the subsections. Yeah. I I referred to the subdivisions in the statute in the language that I drafted. But if you want more plain language, I mean, you could say no designs or paint markings made pursuant to this section, you could say. So a little bit of wordsmithing, but I think the the thrust is there.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Either approach is really doing the same thing in your opinion? It They feel different when you're reading them, but and so that's what I was struggling with, that's why I asked for your input, was that I They felt different reading them, but my not so legal mind was really unsure if they were actually accomplishing anything in a small way.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry. Yeah, I think the biggest difference and I I struggle with how to to put this, but there isn't as much of a limiting factor on the proposed language here. And so the limiting factor and I struggled with this myself, but the limiting factor would be accidental or unintentional deviations, from the requirements of the subdivision, which is the language that I proposed, based on feedback from the committee. And, and so that requires some thoughtfulness on or that that requires some understanding what the property owner is is doing or what the property owner is thinking. This doesn't necessarily do that. Right? You know, so if a property owner potentially knows that a sign is defective, there isn't an obligation to fix it. And so there could be a technical defect, but they mind that there's a technical defect and leave it there. And that could be fine for the committee. If the committee is because that that is a policy choice. You know, if if a property owner knows that the limit is 400 feet and it's 401 feet because the next nearest tree was 401 feet and they know it's more than that and they post it anyway, that would potentially be allowed under the statute even if the property owner knows that. And so I I would say that is the difference. The knowledge, what we're talking about is the knowledge of the property owner about the defect and whether it's okay for the committee to it might have that kind of scenario is okay for the committee.

[Rob North (Member)]: Right. Right. Right.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: If they if they're out of OSHA purple and they just use regular purple, and they know that they've used the regular purple when the statute calls for OSHA purple, is that okay for the committee? And so that would be the choice.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. That's very helpful. I like having that distinguishing between trying to figure out what the landowner knows at the time of posting or doesn't know. That seems important because that also seems like it would be actually really hard for a warden to know what that actually is.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's right. And I think that that's I don't this isn't a criminal law statute. This isn't criminal law things. If you post your land incorrectly, you're not going to jail. This is not criminal law. That said, by analogy, these are the things that criminal law kinda deal with is, like, your mental state and what you were thinking at the time. So were you not thinking at all? Were you just being negligent? Did you know or and things like that. Right? And so but you're right. So introducing that level of scrutiny that the game boarder would have to do to a property owner's mental state mental state is the wrong word. Their thinking at the time would be hard. Not impossible, but hard.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: And the other piece that I asked for feedback on was we heard heard this morning from the colonel about about basically agents and being allowed to post property for you, and I heard from the same resident that that it's not clear in the law whether agents are actually permissible, that it's not in the statute that you can hire someone to maintain a land for you. But I'm going to characterize Bradley's response as basically saying, it's okay that it's not specifically referenced, that ordinarily, we allow people to do things for us. And unless statute tells us otherwise, that's the presumption. That that did I characterize that correctly?

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: I I think that's right. I think that's right. And I I can I can provide some more context, but, you know, basically, there's a a common law legal doctrine called agency where you're a principal, right, and you have the authority to do something, and you can delegate that authority to someone else? And so often, we have an we have we might have a legal duty to maintain our homes, and so you can delegate the authority to do the physical work in home to make it safe. But under the law, sometimes that delegation needs to be in writing, and sometimes there are some things that can't be delegated. And and, usually, it's the law statute that that says that. And so if you're going to sell real property, you need a written document called a power of attorney to sell someone else's real property if you're an agent. That's a good that's a classic example. And then some other author some some things can't be delegated, like the duty to the duty to maintain your home. So you can delegate the physical work, but you can't delegate the legal responsibility you have to your guests if your guest is harmed that you didn't repair the floor. Right? And so you can see how that might get a little tricky. So for this statute, you I think that that's exactly right. I don't see any requirement that the delegation needs to be in writing. I don't see a prohibition on the delegation. That said, people could make the argument. And if if, like, like, this community member did make, and if that is a concern, you know, the the committee could consider, changing the statutes to an owner, an owner's designee, or or a person having exclusive right and so forth. We will point out that there is another provision in the statute that contemplates it's not the owner. There's subsection c says a person or the owner or person posting the lands, and so a different subsection of the same statute already contemplates that it might not actually be the owner posting the land. And so, you know, I that that is a policy choice.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative North.

[Rob North (Member)]: Thanks, Bradley, especially for clarifying the constitutional. Know you're not a judge, but we heard this morning from that ordinance need a very clear and high bar for charging somebody with violently closing sounds, that the enclosure must be essentially perfect if someone dated exactly correct, technically correct all the way And that's troubled some of us in that case, the reasonableness clause. So his assertion was that the reasonableness clause softens the posting requirement so much so that a judge might feel that just like in trespassing signs, it's not chargeable on the first effects, and you just have to give them a ring warning because it's not as it's not a high bar as it was. It's a little softer, and so they might not have known, they might not have seen the sign, whereas a really high bar for the enclosing, you can charge them on the first offense.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: What's your feeling on that? Legal perspective. So that's a good question, because it touches on law enforcement's I don't wanna say inherent discretion, but there's something fundamental to the job where you're making judgment calls when you're

[Rob North (Member)]: on the scene. Right? And

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: and how law enforcement exercises that judgment might vary from officer to officer. So I am not familiar with a judge who would say that just because you did something once, like you get a freebie, essentially. I'm not familiar with a judge who would say, if you did something bad once, we're letting you go for the sole reason you did it once. There might be some other reasons, like I didn't know, I didn't see the sign, you can't prove that I saw the sign. Well, if I don't, remind me to talk about you can't prove that I saw the sign because that's important. And, or you could say I made a good faith mistake because I don't know how to read or something like that, you know? And so there might be more to it when a judge is making a decision than just, it was your first offense, so I'm letting you go. That said, it's not unheard of that a judge might do something like that. And and regardless of what kind of statute you might have, that might be the case. And so these are judgment calls that law enforcement have to make. The reasonableness standard, and so if you go into court and you say, I didn't see this sign. A reasonableness standard is an objective standard. So doesn't necessarily mean under the law, reasonable this does not mean that you have to prove that I, the person who has trespassed, actually saw the sign. A reasonable to standard means that you have to prove that a reasonable pope person would have seen the sign. So, and you could think about it differently, right? And so if it was, if the statute says in order to charge someone, actually have to have seen the sign. Actually seeing the sign is what we call a subjective standard. And so if the statute said, I have to actually see the sign in order to be prohibited, I could just potentially put my blinders on and not see the sign, get into the property, and go about my business. I didn't see the sign. I didn't actually see the sign. Now, you know, if I'm intentionally doing this, right, but, you know, you can imagine a scenario where maybe the sun's in my eyes, I didn't see anything, and now the sun's not in my eyes, and lo and behold, I have crossed the threshold and didn't see the sign. That I didn't actually see the sign, so can I be charged under the statute? Perhaps not. But when we have a reasonableness standard, a reasonably prudent person, that puts the onus on the the legal analysis becomes what would a reasonable person see. So if you have posting signs in a co in accordance with the law, the law would say that as long as your land is posted in accordance to the law, a reasonable person would know to look for it. And especially if you have signs posted more often, as we've discussed several times at the committee, if you have signs posted more often, a reasonable person would see those signs, would know to look for those signs because we know that we're when we go out on other people's property, we think it's fair to say that most people know that some people don't want you on their property, you'll post a sign saying, I don't want you here one way or another. And I think most people know to actually keep an eye out for those things. So that's the difference. Right? And so reasonable to standard is actually an objective standard about what a reasonable person would do and less about what actually the mind state of someone who actually trespassed. That said, criminal law is tricky. And I I think the game warden is correct at proving these things is very hard and and time consuming for law enforcement. And and the other question would be, are these enforcement priorities when when resources are so limited?

[Rob North (Member)]: So what type of reasonable disc how do you invoke that reasonable distin? What kind of language would be necessary to invoke that properly so that it's an objective? Yeah.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: Would just have language kind of like we are the language that was proposed by email earlier or the language that that is proposed here. Language, it's in there now.

[Rob North (Member)]: Probably. Yes.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, a reasonable person to believe yeah. And so what we have here would be the reasonable person to believe that hunting, fishing, trapping, take up game is prohibited on the line. It's tricky, though. I I, you know, I I agree with the game warden that it is not it it is difficult to charge. It is difficult to prosecute. There are limited resources to do these things. And I think that's true in the law more broadly.

[Rob North (Member)]: That does sound a little different logical analysis than what we heard this morning.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah. I I think the the legal standards are they're they're tricky. They're tricky to kinda get around. And, yeah, I don't I don't have any more to add. Thank you so much for your help.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That was very helpful, though. And and what court would hear a charge of trespass in this hunting case? There

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: was a statute that was passed that made jurisdiction for these crimes, most fishermen crimes, the civil court, unless it's a repeated violation, I would need to pull up the actual statute, and the number is escaping my mind.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: It's the judicial bureau?

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: It would be the civil superior court. And see if I can pull it up. But I I might need to get back to you on that piece.

[Rob North (Member)]: Representative North? I'd love to follow on with that question. And specific to to the wards within department's model, do they have unique authority over what we might consider the authority of a police officer to be the judge as well? Or are they just like a police officer who filed a charge and then it needs to go

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: get hurt in court? Yeah. The game warden would not be the judge in The court is not. In this instance.

[Rob North (Member)]: And so he just had patience essentially. That somebody, even in the case of awarding points for breaking out.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: His highest level of legal authority, I mean, is enforcement in the state. His powers are above us.

[Rob North (Member)]: It's still not a judge. Citation would still get heard by a judge, even for assigning points.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Even for assigning points? Yes.

[Rob North (Member)]: K. I just didn't know about that.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I thought they were the equivalent of state police.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: They they they are they are above state. They have powers above state troopers. They're the highest enforced law enforcement authority in the state.

[Rob North (Member)]: Are

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you looking for something? Are you

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: I I I mean, I I I I'm I'm multitasking what I shouldn't be doing. So I I'm I was looking for the statute that you asked me for earlier, but, but we we can get to yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Further questions for for Bradley? Yeah, so

[Rob North (Member)]: with the judicial bureau, they get all the motor vehicle, alcohol, tobacco, fish hunting, and trapping stuff. And so, do you know, it's it's kinda like you get a citation. Right? And people are more likely just to pay a fine and actually go contest court for the most part. And it depends ultimately on what the penalty is. And what's the penalty again for, like, taking down a posted sign? Like, you gotta $28.60?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Not much.

[Rob North (Member)]: It's not much. Right? Yeah.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: It's 25 to a $100.

[Rob North (Member)]: K. So someone guess

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: said something different. Yeah. It's very hard to get Yeah.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: It's So I get answers on fish

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: and wildlife things. That's what we're learning.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: That is

[Rob North (Member)]: So I get excited for that. I just can go pay it. Right? Or just send my money in. Yep. I don't have to go.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: It has come up right before, that is 10 VSA $52.00 4. A person without written consent of the owner or person having exclusive right to take animals or carries or possesses a firearm or bow to trap on a private preserve posted under this title or mutilates or defaces the notice called for in section fifty two zero one b of this title shall be fined not less than $25 nor more than $100. Nope. So fifty two zero four.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative Austin. So can we make that a violation under Fish and Wildlife and assign points to it? Or that the fish and wildlife can do that?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I don't see I don't

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: see a reason why it couldn't be a points violation. And I did find the statute that I was thinking about earlier, and it does not answer the question of whether this fine would be adjudicated in criminal court or civil court, so I will get back to the committee on that.

[Rob North (Member)]: The notes, let's get back to the computer.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: So

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I just looked up title 10, section forty one ninety eight, and they have the same law enforcement as state police, sheriffs, constables, and police. Same law. Is there further questions for Bradley on where we are now? Representative Tagliavia.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: I thought after all the discussions maybe I'm looking at the wrong version. 1.1. Are we still on 1.1? Is there another refresh button? I didn't get it.

[Rob North (Member)]: So

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: we are on h seven twenty three, bill as introduced. Nope. Actually, that's that's incorrect. 1.1 for the amendments. I'm sorry. So there is an amendment draft one for. 01:08PM? Yes. At 01:08PM, 02:10.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: But when we were talking about this yesterday, the paint was getting pulled out.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Hadn't fully come talked about it. And I have to say, like, I'm feeling we keep talking circles around this topic, and it feels like a lot of the things we're trying to solve would still be solved in a much more straightforward way with paint. So I am not personally ready to change that. I feel like we've gotten into a topic that we're hearing a lot of feedback, and a lot of folks are very interested in the topic. And I think leaving it as is and having time for folks to weigh in is maybe an important piece place for where we are right now. I feel like we've been talking about easing the burden of posting. I keep coming back to, like, how are we actually doing that with all of the things we're talking about? And it's a clear and a high bar of posting. And I'm thinking, wow, you know, paint makes a clear and a high bar. And we're hearing from landowners who are really seeking relief and the reminder of your analogy, I think, of the tension between the the rights that we are charged with in statute under the right to hunt fish. We are charged with seeking that balance.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: I'm having a hard time with where we are, where we've been talking about. Could we still have it so that we had an ending date on the post, they wouldn't have to post every year, update it every year? That they wouldn't have to date the posting every year, that we could do a three year?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We could. Yes.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Then have an ending date. Because that seemed to be a real hardship, that we could just do that every year to put To make to make signs easier. Yes. What about the parents and having them?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Or the Of processing. Moving someone's sign.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. We're moving someone's sign or getting on on some property where there are signs all around.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So did we determine that that's not a point violation?

[Kate Logan (Member)]: It's just

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

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: I I don't think so. I I I can double check, but I I don't think it's a points violation.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Because then the Fish and Wildlife could just give that. Right? They wouldn't have to go to court or anything. Right? Or would they they'd still have to go to court?

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, a a person probably could could appeal to a court if they wanted to.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: But the game warden could just say Yeah. Is correct. It's okay.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: Making my note here. Thank you.

[Rob North (Member)]: So I have to beg to differ with you, Chair, on the pain. I don't see that it's any different or better than anything. It's significantly worse than a sign.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Worse in what way?

[Rob North (Member)]: Worse in that it doesn't carry the information that a sign carries. There's lots of different versions of signs you can put up. It can prohibit hunting, it can prohibit fishing, it can prohibit trapping, it can prohibit trespassing. It can prohibit all of that, some of it. So knowledge of what a paint swap means is ambiguous. It doesn't carry a date. It doesn't carry contact information. All of this is color on a tree. There's lots of colors on lots of trees, roots all over the place, hiking trails. It it didn't it it It's not permanent, so it doesn't solve the permanence problem. It does fade over time, degrade over time. You'd have to go back and refresh it. It resolve any of the accessibility, even the way it's currently where you've got to paint every 100 feet rather than every 400 feet. So you've to do more four times as much. To me, does the opposite of what we're trying to help people do. I much prefer what Sarita has proposed, and others have proposed, which is extending it to maybe five, think three is what most people are saying. Three years, data on the signs, very clear, each sign, whether you want permission or not, whether you want hunting or fishing or trapping or not, or trespassing or not, very clear on the sign what you're allowing, what you're not allowing, and clearly dated. So it has an expiration, clearly dated, you know you've been there within the last three years to make sure it's correct. That just seems like the right level of responsibility to apply rather than throwing up a piece of paint and then

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: you got to get

[Rob North (Member)]: all technical and tell the type of paint and how wide it is. What if it's too wide? Is it wide enough? It's not wide enough. It's the wrong direction. Don't know. It's just too many unconstrained variables with the paint and too much ambiguity for it to actually work. I know other states do it, but several other states do it and it seems to hold water there. But they don't have the 1777 constitutional

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: article that we do. They do. We have rightly focused on the states that have purple paint and a constitutional right.

[Rob North (Member)]: But even their constitutional rights are different, though.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And I guess yeah. I we can we can direct the clarity Yes. Statute. Right.

[Rob North (Member)]: Right. I agree with that. So it's it's incumbent on us We to

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: are heading into town meeting week. We are hearing from a lot of property owners who support this idea of hate. I think it behooves us to listen to them. There were

[Rob North (Member)]: a whole pile of people in here who came physically to the State House a day or two ago, and don't approve of it. Sorry. This is Amy.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Alright. With that, we were also gonna talk about the miscellaneous bill from

[Rob North (Member)]: Okay.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: So where I left off yesterday was page four. We are on draft request 26Dash0783 draft 1.1. I left off on page four, section two. And so this section changes when license licenses expire. Currently, all annual licenses shall expire on December 31 of the year for which they were issued. This bill would change that to be or three hundred sixty five three hundred sixty five days after the date on which they are issued as determined by the commission.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That feels confusing to me. So November rifle season, your license could expire because you bought it in the November.

[Rob North (Member)]: Or Potentially?

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That is a potential issue.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I don't know why.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. This strikes me as strange too. I mean, I can see one or the other. Right? It goes three hundred sixty five days or it just it go it expires on a certain date. So another thing is I don't know I don't know if you have any input on why they're asking for this, but, like, what's the idea of giving the commission of the authority to sort this determine which one it is? Do do you know if that's I mean, that's something they'll have to explain, I suppose.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: I I think that's exactly right. I I did not have input on this. I I put it into our format. And Yep.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They they did present it, and they I think they found they were hoping that more people would be open to buying a license if they waited later in a year. Okay. You know, a couple weeks left in the whatever season and then

[Rob North (Member)]: And the commissioner could say, okay. Yeah. That's good.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They might be more inclined to buy a license that year. But what line are we on? What page is the line?

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: We are on now page five, lines five and six. Thank you. Page We're gone. So the next section is a controversial one, and section three is licenses. So I listed this piece out I listed this piece out just to show the kinds of things that there are licenses for on page five. We're moving over to page six. Some more kinds of things that there are licenses for and then the change. If the board determines that it is necessary to issue or require additional tax or permits that are not up otherwise identified in section in order to maintain the best health population and utilization levels of regulated species. The department may issue such tags and permits and may assess a fee for such tags and permits of no more than $40. So this would give this would broaden the the department's authority to issue licenses to cover things that they haven't contemplated that are not contemplated in statute. So it might be, like, a second turkey, I think, or or something of the sort that they've determined that that is not contemplated in statutes. And that does represent a change from from but it represents a change from current law. Current law, if they wanted to add or change those fees or, excuse me, if they wanted to add an additional fee. So this does not give them the authority to change a fee, but if they wanted to add a fee for something that's not contemplated in the statute, then they would have to go to the the legislature to do that.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Present seconds.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Sorry. I'm a little confused. I'm I'm reading this, and I'm thinking it's saying that the Fish and Wildlife Board determines whether an additional tag or permit is needed and that they can do so, and that if they do, that the department can issue such tags and assess a fee of no more than $40 and Is that the plain reading? I mean

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: That is correct. That is correct. And so oh, go ahead.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: No. And then my question then was also, it says the department, would that mean that if it's commissioner of Fish and Wildlife that would then be the person who sets that fee? Yes.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Send the bill to Ways and Means, and they will take deference with that.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: It seems to make sense to me, in terms of that they have some flexibility about the health population and utilization levels of regular I mean, they must change. They can't stay the same every year. There's an abundance of turkey. It probably seems like they could issue a two turkey whenever. I mean, don't know what the downside is, is letting them adjust things according to wildlife or, you know, the numbers, it says every year, but they must be different. If there's more deer, you that there should be more you know, people should be allowed to take more deer. Is that am I reading now?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I don't think you're reading wrong. I think that so I'm curious why this is necessary. Like, isn't the department like, it says a hunting license is $28, and that usually just that comes with tags that are related to what that take for that year is.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: It's changed, though. The reason that that they've asked for this is that the tier rules have changed for next year, set last year. So now there is this there there is the possibility of being able to purchase a second buck tag if you meet the criteria to do that. And there was no there's no set price on it. So this year, everybody that qualifies for that second duck tag will get

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: it for

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: free. Commissioner wanted the ability.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: It's pretty

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: simple to me. Pretty simple. We're we're we're conflate these things.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: It's it's it is no. It is simple, but I'm wondering if if this language is actually makes it more complicated than it than it needs to be. Because if the department is coming to us with this language because of the specific problem that you just talked about, they're actually asking for not that, but something which could include that, but could include all sorts of other things as well. Then being given the ability to accept the number as per their discretion, which would be really different than we just saw this whole list, right, which is all in statute, and this would be really different. This would be a fee that would be set by the commissioner. Right? And so it would be a very it would it would like, you couldn't if you went and searched our statute for fees and saw this list, you'd see all these. But then if you wanted to know what this second tier tag cost, you you wouldn't be able to find

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: it in the same way.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: I I I

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: think it would be I'm sorry. I think it would be because it that might change seasonal depending on the population.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: It's specific to tags. It's specific. It says the department may issue such tags and permits and may assess a fee for such tags and permits of no more than 40. Has nothing to do with setting license costs of trapping or hunting or any of that.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: It's it's specific. The language is right there. It's clear. The above language, it says bear tag, additional deer archery tag, and they have prices associated with those or wouldn't this be the same kind of thing as those?

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: With the existing tags, but they're not changing prices fees. Says tags, such tags and permits. It's all he's asking.

[Rob North (Member)]: But you're pointing out, Larry, is that on page six, line two and three, there are things called tags, bear tag Yes. Exactly. And deer archery tag. And I'm I'm yeah. I'm not a hunter, so I don't Well,

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: it would include those tags. So, yeah, they could change. If you wanted to say the bear tag was $10 and you want to change it up to 40, you could do that. That's all it's saying. It's not talking about changing the actual cost of hunting license. It's a

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: good question for Bradley, actually. If if if under this under this new language, would the commissioner be able to alter the what's said in statute above for bear tags or additional deer archery tags? No. Because that's the statute.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: And That's correct.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: He doesn't he doesn't have that authority. That's correct.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: And so this statute would delegate the authority to to to do things that are not contemplated by the statute. It does not delegate the authority to rewrite the statute.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Do we know if there's other instances where commissioner has the authority to set the prices of or fees of permits or tags currently, or if there are other tags or permit fees that are applicable for various kinds of hunting but are not in statute?

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: That is a good question. And because I I'm not familiar with a scenario quite like this where you know, part of it's most of it is contemplated by statute, but then that authority is is delegated for things that the statute doesn't contemplate. I I can't come up with an example. You know, I think the delegating the fee authority is, you know, a certainly a sensitive political issue with reasons on both sides, for sure. And we see that authority with the Department of Fish and Wildlife with setting some kind some certain fees, especially with relation to their camps and things of the sort. We see that authority with parks and recreation, setting park fee, entrance fees, and things of that sort where it's delegated. But I can't recall a scenario in either of those situations where authority is both say that these are some of the fees and you get to delegate the rest. I I can't think of anything.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: seems it would be simpler if we're trying to solve this particular problem of this additional deer tag in the department of to have come in and said, you know, additional deer tags, you know, as necessary depending upon perhaps, you know, what's going on with the season or this amount of money, and it could be consistent with the other parts of of statute.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. I I think I missed the question.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I guess it's not really a question. I think I'm just pointing out that if they had done it that way, they had brought something like language to us like that, that that would have been consistent with the other parts of statute I

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: think that's one way to think about it. You know? And and I think the thrust of this language and I I don't wanna put words in their mouth. Right? But I I think the thrust of this is to offer some flexibility for situations that are not anticipated. But, you know, I I think the impetus for these is is more testimony from them. But but you're you're absolutely right that there there would be different there could be different ways to go about achieving a goal, the the the understand The goal as we understand it here.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I don't

[Kate Logan (Member)]: understand it has a big I I think we're talking about a population that probably changes every season. And if initial wants to maintain the best health population and utilization levels of a regulated species, I feel like she needs some, or she needs some helpability to be able to do that. You know, they can't go over $40 and it's not like they're gonna make a killing on this, and I just think that makes sense to

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. It's just it it's in in the context of what representative has been just asking questions about, which is that fees are sent in statute, and haven't had a fee bill in ten years. And so the department's seeking some flexibility in that in that light and say, hey. And our Ways and Means Committee will have opinions about this. Then they may ask our opinion. And so we are trying to understand it so that we can make a recommendation to them if we send it on to them.

[Rob North (Member)]: Department already has flexibility regarding moves. We had 180 apartments last year. This year, they're going to be down to 80. The That's the flexibility they need to manage that moves. I just extend it across one more speech.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: So it was such a success in your daily that they were doing, Being able to be flexible under $40?

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: I think the flexibility here would be for tags that are not contemplated. So with the moose, for example, if they have a 180 moose licenses and now they have 70 or or what I'm I'm sorry if I misrepresented the numbers. But that that doesn't affect the cost of the license. Right? It just affects the number of the licenses. This this statute would, as proposed this bill proposes to give them the authority for a license that has not been contemplated by statute.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: so a a new scenario. So instead of just one moose, it's two moose, an additional moose tag. Actually, I don't know if there's since it's moose license. But the the idea would be to if there is something that comes up, to be able to charge for something that they that is not anticipated in statute?

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: It it's to address additional tags and the lottery system. That's what it's to address. Additional tags and the lottery system. Years back, we we there was one bear tag. When you bought your license, you got a bear tag. It was good for the whole season. The department changed that. They had early bear season tag, a late bait, season tag. So if they didn't have the ability to do this, they couldn't assess a feed to the tag immediately. That's all they're asking to do. Just don't understand why it's just

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You do you think it's okay for us to to understand the language that we're being asked to. We're just having a discussion. I don't I mean, I don't I think that's what our job is here. Well, it is, but

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: it's it's pretty clear, Gerald Sheldon. It's pretty clear to me. And not the the sharpest tool of bags.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: But you're a hunter, and you know the situation.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: Has nothing to do with hunting. It's just the language is clear. I mean, that's all they're asking to do.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I'd say the language is really clear. I what I'm wondering about is whether it's whether it's whether, given our history of how we assess fees and statute, whether it's appropriate to delegate that authority to the commissioner. Representative

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Tagliavia. Thank you. I see your point. I think because of when we're in session versus when the decisions are made about the number of tags to issue after you bought your license, then we would not be in session to be able to say, Yes, you can assess the speed. Giving them the latitude to do that, whether it be bear tags or additional deer tags, giving the department the latitude to do that would alleviate the question of whether we're in session to help the department actually assess the dollar amount, whether it be called a tag or a license. Maybe after we've beaten this to death, maybe the department should come in and help us.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think I think we understand the question now then. So thank you.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: And if I may, I I do want to just remind the committee that there was a fourth item that was passed at the eleventh hour to be put into this bill, but I never received its instruction from the committee to put it in.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What is that?

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: It was and now I'm not recalling it, but there was some session law that they were looking to repeal from a long time ago that Add it up, and now it's not still. My apologies.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Maybe we can look at it the next time we hear from you on this.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yes. And they are appealing and I can send it to I can send it to the committee because it sounds like the committee might not have it. I believe Hannah might have gone over it in her testimony when she was here, or attorney Smith might have gone over it in her testimony when she was here several weeks ago, but I will send it to the committee so you can take a look at that.

[Rob North (Member)]: That'd be great. Thanks.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Alright. Thank you so much.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: Thanks so much.

[Ela Chapin (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: And, Mike, just very briefly before you go, Bradley. Yes. On page four on on line 12, we talked about these sections, which we talked about what they were, but these were the ones that were staying and all the other ones were being moved in terms of their points. But we didn't actually talk about the ones that are gonna be fewer points.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: We mentioned those earlier. I can go over them again.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: We don't have to do it now. I just I thought we I thought we did not go through the list in appendix 37, that particular list.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: We went through appendix 37 twice, but I can go over it again the next time.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: That wasn't my recollection.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: No, no, and it's fine because appendix 37 has the novice season, and I did my spiel on what novice season was.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Maybe I should just look at that again.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Ask Fish and Wildlife for a English language or summary of this so that it would be easier to you don't have to keep going back and forth.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yes. And I think that that's I

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: agreed they would do that. Yeah.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: And I think that that's key to kind of keeping these straight because it it is confusing how it's laid

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: out statute. So thank

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you. Thank you.

[Rob North (Member)]: I

[Ela Chapin (Legislative Counsel)]: did post the event then. So I should love.

[Rob North (Member)]: Oh, is that the section four from? Okay. Thank you. Okay.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: There we are. Welcome, Ellen. Last topic of the day will be also tomorrow's topic, which is age 70. I thought it would be very helpful to get another orientation this bill before we take testimony on. Ellen?

[Ela Chapin (Legislative Counsel)]: Ela Chapin, thank you. Office of Legislative Council. So I'm here on age 70. This is a very short bill. This bill would amend to the definition section in 10 VSA 2,801. And so, just want to take a step back and remind you what that is. So, this is the, what has been referred to as Act 59, the chapter in Title 10 that establishes the 30 by thirty and fifty by 50 conservation goals. So, you heard earlier this session from VHCb about the inventory they've been doing, but this chapter established state wide conservation vision and goals. These goals are based on a United Nations conference on biodiversity from, I believe it was 2022, 190 countries agreed to this framework about conserving approximately 30% of land and water by 2030 and fifty percent by 2050. Since then, there was an executive order in The United States to do this as well. Again, it was a goal. It wasn't binding. And then further, at least 10 states have now also adopted these goals, including Vermont. A number of states have done it via executive order, but this committee worked on doing it in statute. I started reviewing them. The texts of them are not all the same necessarily, but they all include the goal of conserving approximately 30% of the land and or water. There's some variation by 2,030. And most, if not all, of those states have included that it be permanent conservation because that is at the international level what was discussed. And so this is about permanent conservation for the Earth that has then been adopted at lower and lower levels of government in order to implement this vision that came about as part of one of the United Nation processes. And so this is a statute that establishes these goals. In the Vermont version with this statute, it directs that the conservation goals follow the framework of Vermont conservation design and the approximate categories that have been the approximate percentages should should follow Vermont conservation designs and the categories they used there. And there are three definitions for the types of conserved lands that would fall into this conservation goal program, each having a different level of management. And so ranging from ecological reserve areas, are similar, but not necessarily the same as wild lands, have the lowest amount of human intervention as part of the conservation. So little to no human management. Then there is a biodiversity protection category and then the natural resource management category, which are areas that are subject to long term sustainable land management. And so all of those categories added together, VHCb has worked with the agency of natural resources to gather data on what land in Vermont has already been conserved, of that land, which of the three categories they fall into, and how close Vermont is to the 30 by 30 goal. And then what are the plans and strategies for how the rest of the 30 by 30 goal could be met? And so that, I think, then brings us to this bill, which makes two changes to that underlying statute. The first is on page two, and it's amending the definition of the natural resource management category to add that So these are areas that have permanent protection from conversion for the majority of the area, but that is subject to long term sustainable land management or agricultural land or forest land that is enrolled in the current use value appraisal program pursuant to 32 VSA Chapter 124, also called current use. The other change right below it goes with it, which is that under the definition of conserved, it's striking that it means permanently protected. And that is at least in part because land under current use is not considered permanently protected because while it is protected while in the current use program, that land could be taken out of current use and then no longer subject to being conserved. I will just want to add a quick caveat that I am not the attorney who handles current use. I know that you work with the other attorneys on that, and so I can't actually answer too many questions about current use. But if you have questions about this bill and the 30 by 30, otherwise, I can assist with that. But if you have current use questions, you can get Bradley or Mike in here.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Are they sharing that now?

[Ela Chapin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yeah. And and Kirby and also works on it because of the tax implications. So, yes, I think it is a shared area among a few of the attorneys. Yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Hoyt.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Thanks. So the idea, basically, is that the current use land accounts for our goals Yes. As long as the land's income is? Yes. And then the definite and then we changed the definition. I think conserve means, like, protecting, isn't it? It seems a little strange that it's still the definition. It's conserved. Maybe it should be something else. But that's just a just a thought.

[Ela Chapin (Legislative Counsel)]: And, yeah, there may be a need to refine that if you're gonna work on this. But when the committee worked on this, I think there were a lot of discussions about what conserved meant for purposes of this goal.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: And so, ultimately, it would allow perhaps those goals to be met, but with no guarantee that a 100% of the land conserved is permanently protected. Correct. Thank you. Yes.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And I guess it's probably worth reading the rest of that definition because it's permanently conserved for 30%. Then in the planning process, which is underway right now, which we heard about from BHCb mid planning process, they are looking into what would the role of current use fee in meeting the goals? What, Is there a way of making it more permanent? Is there some nuance in there that could be addressed? Those conversations are going on right now.

[Ela Chapin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, sorry. So the definition of conserved for purposes of this chapter is quite a bit longer than that. So conserved for purposes of this chapter means currently it means permanently protected and meeting the definitions of ecological reserve area, biodiversity conservation area, or resource management area as defined in this section for purpose of meeting the 30% goal. For purpose of meeting the 50% goal, conserved primarily means permanently protected and meeting those definitions, ecological reserve area, biodiversity conservation area, natural resource management area, although other long term land management protection mechanisms and measures that achieve the goals of Vermont conservation design that are enforceable and accountable and that support an ecologically functional and connected landscape may be considered.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Questions for Ellen on this?

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Wondering why the permanently protected was struck from the first part of the definition, not the second part of what do we think to be consistent, it would be struck from both? Is it because the last sentence, the last phrase in that secondary definition for 50% allows this expandable expansion to the definition, other long term land protection mechanisms.

[Ela Chapin (Legislative Counsel)]: I think so.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Definitely, it's not obstructed. So it wasn't unintentionally obstructed, was purposely left in the sentence, as far as you know.

[Ela Chapin (Legislative Counsel)]: I wrote this more than a year ago. I'm trying to remember, and I think so, but if you're going to work on this, we can dig in if that's the intent. I I honestly don't have a great memory.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: It does seem like once you get into the past 2030 and you're working toward 50% golden, the second definition kind of supersedes the first anyhow. Yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: No, because first 30% would still be permanent. I mean supersedes it's not like you would undo the conservation of the 30% goal. But I know what you mean. I mean,

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: it would be right. There'd be more representative

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Hoyt and then labor.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yeah. I might have sort of I might have answered my question. So based on the current statute, 30% goal, like, all all that has to be Correct? Protected a 100%.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: But when you get to the 50, there can be some that is not if there's, like, a, you know, a long term sort of mechanism to to protect it even if it's not permanent.

[Ela Chapin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And there's supposed to be some proposals, I think, from PCB on how that would be accomplished.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yeah. Thanks. That's helpful.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: If there are other tools, don't Yeah. Meet the same goals. Representative labor. Thank you, Chittenden.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: What I'm not seeing in this bill is the penalty for withdrawing. Say you got a 50 acre parcel, you wanna give a tenant to a family member. Is a penalty for withdrawing that tenant because that's substantial. It's based on current values, market value.

[Ela Chapin (Legislative Counsel)]: So this bill does nothing to impact the current use program or any of its structures. So you're right, because we're not changing anything related to current use. Simply considering whether or not current use should be explicitly considered as part of the 30 by thirty, fifty by 50 program.