Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Good afternoon, and welcome to the House Environment Committee. We are picking up h seven twenty three and accolades posting of land. Our legislative council, welcome back, Bradley.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Bradley Shoman with the office of legislative council, and I'll be taking you through the latest draft of, House Bill seven twenty three, the latest amendment. This draft number 2.1 dated 03/10/2026. Okay. So this draft takes out the purple paint. That's the biggest change from the last draft, and we'll also see that it adjusts adjusts the de minimis image, image as well. So we're on page one. Page one, line 12. So these changes are conforming changes. You'll see we changed his or her to the owner's land. We made hunting, trapping, taking a game, or wild animals consistent throughout the statute. You'll notice the existing language sometimes use shooting, sometimes use hunting. So we just chose hunting, trapping, or taking a game or wild animals to be conclusive and encompassing of what we're talking about and consistent throughout. Changing to page two. This is just more language just to conform for readability. A notice sign shall be erected upon or near the boundaries of the lands to be effective with notices at or each corner and not over 400 feet apart along the boundaries thereof. So conforms to the the law as it is. This is a change. Notice sign shall be maintained at all times. So we're taking out the date requirement. And then, again, just conform change for clarity, but notice sign shall be of standard sign and size and design as the commissioner shall specify. The next subsection c is the posting requirement. We are clarifying that the posting shall be valid and enforceable for three hundred sixty five days after the date the posting is recorded. Subsection D clarifies that it is required for land to be posted and recorded in accordance with the section to be enclosed for purposes herein. And then this is a change just to clarify the de minimis language to specify the ways in which a property owner could be in or make a mistake in posting. Technical defect to the placement, spacing, color, wording, or dimensions of the notice sign shall not invalidate notice under this section. If the notice signs clearly communicate to a reasonable person that entry for hunting, fishing, trapping, or taking of game or wild animals is prohibited or allowed only by permission. And then this following line has been in previous drafts, but it's also changed with the current statute. Property owners with actual notice that their notice signs deviate from the requirements of the section shall take reasonable steps to ensure their notice signs comply with the section. The effective date was changed from 07/01/2026 to on passage. And that's the bill.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Why is it actual notice, not just notice? Actual notice.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Actual notice means that, the property owner actually knows that that the the signs are the signs are defective in some way. Leaving the word actual out of the statute, I'm having I can't think of a situation where functionally that would be different.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I just noticed it popped out. Need to ask that question before I can't remember.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: No, no. But I can't think of an example on top of my head where that would be functionally different. Just the word actual means that the property owner has to actually know Okay. As opposed to constructively know or should have known. They have to actually know. So maybe perhaps a situation where there's an incredible tornado comes through and knocks down a bunch of trees on a property owner's property. And they could think that one might constructively know that notice signs might have been damaged, but they don't actually know that because they can't get to the it's the sign. So they might not have actual notice. They might have constructive notice.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Representative Tagliavia?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Would actual notice be either verbal notice or written notice?

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. This language doesn't specify verbal or written. It's just actually no.

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

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Just to clarify, the posting shall be valid and enforceable for three hundred sixty five days. So does a person, a landowner come in every year and register, but not have to put the dates on the okay. So that every year that that suffices for them is just going to the town clerk, paying a fee, and reregister.

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

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Rutland Pritchard.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Page two, line three. Legible. What what was what was the reference to that?

[Rep. Rob North]: Why was it removed?

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: I would think the signs have to be legible.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So legible was the I the notion is that legible is incorporated into maintained. So in order to be legible, has to be maintained. Change that language to just make sure that we're looking at that the rest of the sentence modifies the actual notice sign, not just the legibility of the sign. So we're looking at the sign as a whole, not just necessarily the legibility of the

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: sign. Okay. And why did we change must to shall?

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: That is conforming with just statutory how we use the words Okay. In statutory language. So that's not a meaningful difference. That's just how we use language in in statutes now.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Members have further questions for Bradley? Representative North.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Thank you, madam chair.

[Rep. Rob North]: Bradley, the last sentence that we're really not the last sentence is subsection b, top of page two, that we're really not changing other than the the terms. There'll be a standard size and design as the commissioner shall does that mean you can't, like, kinda create your own sign? I mean

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Then other sides have to be of the standard size and design that the commissioner shall specify. So the could potentially create your own sign, but it just has to be at the standard sign that the commissioner specifies. So the commissioner has some specifications about how big it needs to be. It's bigger than eight and half by 12, but how big it needs to be. They have some examples on their website that you can use, but you could design your own sign if it met those specifications.

[Rep. Rob North]: K.

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

[Rep. Rob North]: very much.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Chapin and then Pritchard.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I'm just The technical deficit language is a list in placement, spacing, color, wording or dimensions. It's not including those things. It's only those things. Page two, line. Nineteen twenty, technical deficit language. I'm just curious about, and I missed a couple of days, so tell me if you guys already discussed this, but I'm concerned that that might be too narrow of a list. I presume it reflects what's in the earlier subsection. So particularly, we heard a lot testimony about ripped signs, shredded signs. I'm wondering if you feel like this includes ripped when signs are ripped or damaged.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: If the rip or damage means that a sign is defective in those ways, then yes. If a rip or damage means that the sign is defective in some other way, then no. So you are correct that this does narrow the exceptions. If the committee wanted to broaden the exceptions, it would we put a word like a technical defect including in placement and signs and so forth.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: So I think what you're saying is definitely this is a discrete list, we could add the word including and that would really change and give more leeway if there was something that didn't quite even disagreement about what these words exactly mean. But you're saying that if the RIP or disintegration or chewed upness of a sign affects the placement, spacing, color, wording, or dimensions, which is the fact that the sign, then it would be included in the deficit. But if it's just disintegrated to not be there, I guess I didn't really fully understand your answer to my question.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. If the defect is that the sign doesn't exist, then that might not be a type of a defect. That might be the sign does not exist. And and, know, it'd be up to the enforcing officer if they would determine that the property is enclosed. Based on a strict reading of the statute, if the sign doesn't exist so if you have no sign, you go you have signs every 400 feet, but the one of those signs at the 400 foot goes away, is completely gone, then perhaps the land is not enclosed because you're not hosting every 400 feet. That's not necessarily a technical defect. That's a the whole sign is gone.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: And so I thought we were trying to capture that in this technical deficit because I got something like two fifty emails about this bill with examples of things that had happened on people's property. By far the most common was that either they have a couple of signs that are ripped either maybe by a human or by an animal, or are now on the ground shredded up by an animal or human. And I'd say at least half of the emails I got referenced that particular issue. So if we're saying that a sign that's been ripped up and left on the ground does not is not included in here, then I'm concerned. I'd like that to be when one sign is missing or shredded and not in its correct placement. I'd like to I personally would really like to include that scenario very clearly in here one way or another.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: And and that's language that you could could potentially consider in that regard is, you know, an unintentionally missing or damaged sign or having a listing including, but not limited to, these things that might that might capture that. I think the the previous language was much broader and spoke to I I believe the language was unintentional deviations from the requirements of the statute shall not be grounds for and so forth.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So what happened to that one?

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: I I think the the committee the thrust of the committee seemed like they're more comfortable with the specifications. And so I changed that based on instructions from the committee, but I can change it back to be broader as well.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Yeah. It's a question. So in the list of the various technical defects, placement, spacing, color, wording, or dimensions and maybe it's a question for the warden, but it seemed to be like those were some of the things that tended to invalidate a posting. So those were sort of the things we're looking at. So you could keep that, you know, a test you could see something like a defect, you know, including in placement, spacing, color, wording, dimensions, or a missing or damaged sign. Right? Shall not invalidate notice. So you could have the list of those things as well and then add That's like, a missing or damaged sign, like, it's ripped or missing one falls off or gets ripped off. Right?

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. No. No. That yeah. I think I think that's that's perfectly valid. And it's also possible to go back to the the former language, which was unintentional or accidental deviations from the posting requirements in the subsection shall not invalidate the sign for purposes of enclosure or whatever the language was specifically.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. That wasn't my intention.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I'm I think I misread I misread the intention of the committee then when when I proceed instruction, so my my apologies.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. So what do I other thought other thoughts on this topic before we change it back? Representative Pritchard and then Austin.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Oh, a couple of things I just wanna make sure. So the the warden will be the the decider of the technical defect. Yes. Okay. And it looks like if I'm I'm looking at this right, it sounds like there is no time where you have to revisit the signs. You don't have to visit the signs on a yearly basis forever other than to maintain them. Is that? Yeah. That's correct.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: That's correct. So you have to make sure that the line the the signs are in conformity with the statute. You get some wiggle room, to put it lightly, from here, but you do have the obligation to

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: make sure that signs are maintained and legible. And legible?

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Are maintained and legible. Okay. Maintain means legible. Yes. Yes.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Well, does it really? Does it specifically mean that? And and the reason I ask is because I can tell you on the yellow Tyvek signs, if you were to go four years with the weather, those signs would be illegible. And if you have your whole property posted with all those signs that haven't been visited in four years, they will be all illegible. So what does that mean? Does that I'm worried about laxness and compliance, is what I'm worried about. Obviously, you know, I think it's important that we extend this, but I don't want this to be so broad that any reason is a valid reason for, well, having the land the the property enclosed. I mean, is is is that a reasonable concern? I I think it kinda is.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: I think legible means maintained means legible. But if a a reasonable person might disagree with that, potentially. But I think maintained means legible.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Over to Boston. Yes. I know there's a penalty, a criminal penalty for carrying or ripping up a sign. But is there a way, I mean, is just my thought, we can add fish and wildlife points to that as well as a penalty? You could.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Kind of doing two things here at once. We can have discussion and ask committee about those things. I actually was trying to ask committee about the change that representative Chapin before we moved on to other things that brought up. So I guess I'm looking for input. I would I would support going back to language that was, a little more inclusive or broad under the defect, the the what we've been calling the de minimis. Your tree happened to fall down in the middle of the three hundred and sixty five days. You you know? Really? So I don't know. I think your land was posted. And we've also had conversations in this committee that someone who really wants to be clear is gonna put their signs less than 400 feet apart. So presumably, they'd still have a sign that was within 200 or 300 feet. But I guess I'm looking for thoughts on that one one piece. We gotta move this on and make some decisions and wrap this conversation up.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Representative Hoyt. I would support going back to the father language. I mean, think I think that was you know, I was I never really had an issue with that in the first place. So, you know, I think it I think it would probably I I it'd be something I would support.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You just need to I think you I asked to take the purple paint out, and that was included purple paint language. So, obviously, we leave the paint out of that. Representative Tagliavia?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: With respect to this wording, I'm in favor of wording that will give the warden the discretion they obviously have the training and the ability to do to allow the landowners, like Representative Chapin said, the peace of mind to know that when a warden gets called out, that there's gonna be some sort of enforcement action based on reasonableness. We're talking about people who are supposed to be handling themselves in an ethical manner. We can't legislate ethics, but I'm afraid if we put too many words in, if it's not listed, then the warden is not going to be able to enforce the posting, and I think that's the main thrust of why we keep coming back to this.

[Rep. Rob North]: Representative North? I was a proponent of the previous wording at this time.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. We'll go back to the previous wording. And then in order of appearance, thoughts on legible and maintained and what representative Pritchard has brought up. Representative Chapin?

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I guess I would say I don't dispute that maybe maintain includes legibility, but sometimes we build suspenders and belts or whatever phrases into our legislating. And I think that this is a word I would hate to take out a word that people are used to having in the statute and then cause confusion by that. I would prefer to just leave the We might wanna rearrange that sentence as Legg Council is explaining because actually the sentence's purpose is about maintenance. So I think we should add another sentence about legibility.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: If I may. Could it say no to shun shall be legible maintain legible and maintained at all times a year? Maintained and legible at all times a year?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's about that.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Like I guess that doesn't work as well. No? Okay. We can we can

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I wonder if there's a different place for legible to go to maintain? We all expect them to be legible.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative North, thank you.

[Rep. Rob North]: Thank you, madam chair. I I would suggest that the next sentence defines what the criteria are. Those signs shall be of standard size and design as the commissioner shall specify. What their design specifies the word that it has to be out. Was about to use the word legible. Was trying to stop myself

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: from Standard size and design would be legible.

[Rep. Rob North]: Yeah. It hits criteria. It implies, I would say, implies legibility, because it's got a standard design with wording on it.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Could we just add legible and of a standard size and design that the commissioner shall specify?

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: If we feel the need for having the

[Rep. Rob North]: word legible in there. I'm not opposed to it. I just don't think it's necessary, but not opposed to both of them.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: If I may, could we also say maybe in the previous sentence, notice signs shall be legible and shall be maintained at all times? Does that work?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, I guess I'm curious what that does to our section d. It's the flexibility or the the de minimis. Like, what if they're not Perfect. Perfect.

[Rep. Rob North]: I

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: think that was we were trying to be clear that over the course of a year, a sign could something happened to it. Representative Austin? Yeah. I'm good with maintaining.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Thank you. You've got your help.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I'm comfortable taking it out. I was just trying to find a place to keep it in in a different way.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I agree that sentence does not I don't think legible I don't think legible any longer works in that sentence or the minutes language.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. I'm hearing that folks don't necessarily think we need to make a change to that sentence. Is that reflective of the majority here?

[Rep. Rob North]: K. With the wording.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: As long as that's part of the criteria, which what I'm understanding is you're saying maintain take takes care of that. I'm fine with it.

[Rep. Rob North]: So maybe within the condition or specifications, they shouldn't have the word logical.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Yeah. The other thing I I don't think it addresses and I just wanna make sure because it was a concern of some seeing some people, a couple of constituents of mine, is that there's specific wording when we had talked about this to not allow hunting, trapping, and fishing. And I I and and one of my constituents posted all her land only to find out that she didn't have the proper wording. So so I I wanna make make sure that that folks are aware of that so they don't spend money on signs that are irrelevant. And I think it has to be specific, does it

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: not?

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Think that commissioner has specified that in rule and those rules can be found in, with the secretary of but also on the commissioner's website where it shows signs

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: then will will be the ones that the the particular verbiage will comply with the statute.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. The website the website shows yeah. And and yes. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: One thing I noticed on the website, though, is it it says the hunting, fishing, trapping, but it doesn't say it says also no trespassing, which is not it's often not both for people. So they need to have a sample of both. Well, we're getting really close to perfection in TAL. Other questions about this discussion? Representative Austin? I think want to get back to your views. Oh, yes, thank you.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I feel like it sounds like we're talking to the board and very few times people caught because it takes so long for a job, not because they're not doing their job, but just in terms of the area they need to cover to get there. And some report someone that's post resident. Enforcement is a concern of mine as well. And I'm hoping that we can also attach, and I don't know what the points would be, but some fish and wildlife points for tearing down the sign.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Minus the violation for tearing down the sign now. It's pretty minimal.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: 25 to $100. Yeah.

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

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Is the you may know. I don't know. This, the technical fishing well, the technical corrections bill we're gonna look

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: at have panel does it address penalties at all in that bill? Yeah. It does for for hunting and not for this specific Yeah. Issue. But But

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: there is a section which addresses that in another bill.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: But destroying a sign?

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: No. No. Not not destroying a sign. There are the technical correction bill has points for hunting it.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: But there there's a species with this.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Is correct. Okay. Could add there something about violating this statute is a 10, 20, or 30, or whatever it is violation.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Thanks.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That would assume they have a more efficient license, which may be a fair assumption. I'm just

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: reading that well. Yeah. Representative Austin.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, Chittenden.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I'm supportive of that. I think that there's I continue to wanna give wardens tools and some discretion so that they can address some of these problematic situations that we have, hopefully only in a couple of locations with a couple of people, but we clearly have some issues that we're not able to address. And so if points below for situations where someone has a hunting license is a useful tool, I would support adding that in this bill.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I support adding it in the other bill, we're adding points where we're talking about points. So that's a miscellaneous bill,

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: feels like more of a policy issue. That's just my thinking on it.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Do do bills where you suffer some sort of penalty, like points and lessons, do they need to get looked at by judiciary? I mean, not maybe not maybe not committed to the committee, but do

[Rep. Rob North]: they usually take a look

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: It's a penalty if it's a sort of a civil

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They get involved when it becomes a criminal offense usually. So I think we like, when we made those changes with civil and criminal, like, last year, two years ago, we were working with them. I don't don't know if they're gonna wanna look at the other. I do wonder about we need additional testimony if we add this now, and that maybe it's something we we let the Senate think about.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: It's up for the next question.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. So we do have a vote scheduled on this tomorrow morning. Representative Satcowitz will be our reporter, so he's gonna be joining us via via Zoom. And, Radley. Do you think you have clarity on the the next direction, and when would you be able to have the

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And I I should be able to get back to you tonight or today. Okay. Great.

[Rep. Rob North]: Thanks. Could you just resummarize what the changes are that we're talking

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: about to what we're looking at? I think we're just gonna be going back to the language of version one one around d at the bottom of page two where it's Ela has it right in front of her or maybe Bradley does. Did go ahead, Bradley.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Accidental or unintentional deviations from the requirements of subdivisions a and b of this section shall still be deter deemed effective to prohibit or permit by permission only hunting, fishing, trapping, or taking of game if the no signs or paint markings would lead a reasonable person to believe that hunting, fishing, trapping, or taking of game is prohibited on the line. Yeah. Get rid of the paint Yeah. I just literally read from the the bill here. But, yes, get rid of the paint marines.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Great. I think that's all.

[Bradley Shoman (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Thank you very much.

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

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We have Michael O'Grady is up next. Technically scheduled for 02:30. He may be able to join us sooner depending on when he gets finished on his prior commitment. So we will recess until we can find our legislative council or until 02:30.