Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Go live. Good afternoon, welcome to the House Environment Committee. We are taking up a committee bill, miscellaneous fish and wildlife statutes with our legislative council.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon. Bradley Sherman, office of legislative council. And we are on draft 2.1 of the technical corrections committee bill dated 03/10/2026. There are two changes to the bill since the last time I brought this into the committee. I walk through those. The first change is on page four, lines eight and nine. Last time when we were in committee discussing this bill, we explained that there is a conflict in versions between the Department of Fish and Wildlife's version of title 10 appendix a and our version of title 10 appendix a. To avoid confusion for the public, what we recommended was to take out the pinned citations, so the citations to d, e, and f, and just explain what the explain what the penalty is. So bag violating bag limits for Caribou, Ela, and Moose. Page six at the very bottom, lines nineteen and twenty, and then on to page seven. So it's an additional request from the Department of Fish and Wildlife to remove a small section of session law from 1999. This piece of session law was part of a general fund appropriation back then stating that the department has to involve Vermont citizens and municipalities in developing and updating every ten years a long term comprehensive plan for management of portions of land which are transferred to it. I just read from page seven lines 11 to 14. The department has indicated a testimony that they prepare long range management plans for all state managed wild lands on a twenty year schedule, and this requirement from 1999 is unnecessary and forces reprioritization of state resources away from more urgent processes. And so that's just a little blurb that I got from Hannah by email. If you have questions about that piece, Hannah is here, and I'm sure she would be willing to answer questions about that. But this portion strikes that provision from that session ball.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Members have questions. Representative Pritchard.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah. So and was the the fee thing was struck? No. Or is that still there?

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is still there. So

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So right above the blue, 14.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. That is the fee provision is page six, line 14 through 18. K.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Okay. And can I offer some alternative language to that maybe just for the committee to consider?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: To the fee language? Yes. What do you So

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: if the board determines that it's necessary to issue or require additional big game tags or permits that are not otherwise identified in this section, in order to maintain the best health population and utilization levels of a regulated big game species, the department may issue such tags and permits, and may assess a fee for such tags and permits of no more than the prevailing rate for big game tag. I think that that was a

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, I guess I'm curious where you got where's the language come from?

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: I came actually, Mike, and he discussed it with think he discussed it. You had conversation with the commissioner. Yeah. And I think it you know, I think probably at one point, representative cycle, it's had an external talk. That's what crisis said. Better. There used to be nine, I don't know, it's probably eight or nine years ago. There actually used to be a $2 limit in Vermont. So there was an additional tag that has been since gone away because there's a $1 limit. So, I mean, this this is specific to the specific to tags as far as fee goes. I talked to Bill Canfield yesterday about this after you had mentioned the poison beans. And I wanted to see representative Kornheiser this morning just to talk to her, but I didn't get she was busy, so I didn't get a chance. But, you know, I I I had a I had a discussion with Bill and told him it was, you know, essentially, you know, to deal with the with the tags.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: President Chittenden, do you have a Yeah.

[Unidentified member (addressed as "Chittenden")]: I just wanted to be clear that this is coming in response partly to representative Sakowitz's concerns about this paragraph that were expressed earlier on in the process. So people have been thinking about it offline and then narrows it to big clarifies and narrows it to big game tags. Instead of setting a fee here, aligning the max fee with other similar tags. I would just support that change language. It seems useful.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But what would be the other similar? Because your basic hunting license includes your deer tag. So is that Well, see, that's

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: what that was the change. See, the the deer rules changed this year. So now

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I understand that part. But this thing is your language that I don't have in front of me is proposing tying it to existing bees. And when you look at the list above, it doesn't actually does it call out deer anywhere? Or Big game.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: So that would be deer that would be deer, moose, turkey.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Big game is listed in there

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: there, but I don't see deer. Specifically, game tags.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I don't see deer on there is my point. Well Archery license is the closest muzzleloader, I guess. 23.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Oh, in the bill itself, you mean?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, additional deer archery tag. It's already on there. Yeah. It's already on there anyway. Additional deer archery tag.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: That's a This is not an archery tag. This is not an archery tag. So they changed they changed the laws this year.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just do that, though.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: It it well, it's in the rule. Yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Excuse me. What is it? You mean the additional tag that you can't charge for right

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: now? Right.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This language is linking it to the existing tag. I'm just curious, what is the cost for would this be if they added a deer tag? What would it be? How much would it cost?

[Pam Smith (Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife)]: For directly, this is Pam Smith with the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The original language that the Department proposed was a tag or permit of not more than $40 This new language would give the Department slightly more flexibility, but so I assume that off the cuff it would not be more than $23 right now since that's the rate for an additional archery deer tag.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm just saying it doesn't say in that list. It's

[Pam Smith (Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife)]: Right. So we don't have there's no fee right now associated with that second buck tag since it just went into effect at the beginning of this year. And I think that the idea, the department's idea was always that any new tag, the fee for any new tag would be consistent with a similar tag that's already established here. So I guess that, yeah, $23 is probably sort of the best guess. Can you read

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: the last sentence of the proposed language again?

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: The prevailing rate for a big game tag. The department may issue tags and permits and may assess a fee for such tags and permits of no more than the prevailing rate for a big game tag.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And what's the prevailing rate? When I look at the list, it ranges from 5 to a $100.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Not sure. The game tag? No. I think it's It's

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: right here. Moose is a 100. Bear is 5. Yeah. Like, it's big game licenses all required on it. Like, just looking at the list.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Moose is through the permitting system. So it wouldn't be that that's not a tag. This is not a that's not a tag you can normally buy, purchase on your license.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This is Looking at the fees for licenses right here in statute in this bill.

[Representative Wilson (first name not provided)]: Is there another big game?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This is that. I'm not just clarifying anything else.

[Representative Wilson (first name not provided)]: That's it. Here's the 100 to Here's

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: the 100.

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: Right

[Representative Wilson (first name not provided)]: there. Oh, I see. Gotcha. Thank you.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: That's not attached to the license, though. That's that's I don't think that's an endorsement on the license. Right, Anna? The moose? No. No. That's a separate. It's it's because, yeah, through the law.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. I'm just saying the range on this list doesn't help me understand how much the tag would be in the range that you're proposing. So it gets I'm missing anything?

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Happy to clarify that.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Mike Covey.

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: Mike Covey, executive director of the Orange Revisions Coalition. The turkey tags, extra deer tags, loads of loader tags, those are what I was

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: thinking of. They all are

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: at the $60 to $43 and I thought that this would alleviate perhaps some of Representative Sackwood's concerns that it was too broad, and that having that language open ended would allow the cost to grow even if it at some point exceeds $40 rather than requiring revisiting it. If twenty years down the road those tags are $50 it would allow that cost to grow.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Wilson? Yes. Sorry if we can

[Representative Wilson (first name not provided)]: can we get a copy of this language?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That would be a good place to start. Yeah. That would be great.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Mean,

[Representative Wilson (first name not provided)]: we

[Unidentified member (addressed as "Chittenden")]: can also just ask our legislative council how best to address that if we're trying to not be so specific in this paragraph about that max amount. Is there a way you see to tie it to that?

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: That's more of it. Yeah. I

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I I think that this the proposed language gives the department more discretion in setting the the dollar. And it it and the limit the limiting language there is the prevailing rate. And so if the rates for other big game tags increase, then the authority to set the views under this statute would also increase. It lacks specificity in lieu of flexibility.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Hoyt. Can you so

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: you just mentioned, Mike, some of the things that wanted to be in line with. Can you just say they can assess a fee for such tags and permits, and it will be the same fee as the additional tier one or the tag? Yeah. So it's 23, and then it can grow in the future if that ever changes. I mean, it seems less wide open. It just links it directly to that one. So I get the concern.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, you see it for

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: the big game permits or big game licenses. It lists a bunch of different ones varying from $5 to 100. It looks like a lot of them are 23. But if you specifically linked it to additional deer, right now it'd be 23. And then if that went up in the future, it would follow suit. I just don't know if that's a way to make it more clear of what it actually is. That's it.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We I guess we can try that on in in the next draft. What representative Hoyt just suggested.

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: Sorry. I have

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: one other question here.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thought you

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: mentioned on page four, eight, and nine,

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: the appendix language is striking the specific sites to the subsections. Yes. Did you mention that the language after it is new? No. It's not. But that's the existing language. That is existing language. He's in the bag when it's for caribou elfin moose. Yes. Okay. So you're just striking that. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Further questions or comments on the proposed changed language?

[Representative Wilson (first name not provided)]: So we're going to

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: get another draft with Yes. The proposed are. Okay. That would be great. Okay. That might do it. Okay. Great. We will take a break. We'll recess at 02:00.