Public Meetings for Discussion of Big Game Plans

WATERBURY, VT – Vermont’s big game management plans for deer, bear, moose and turkey are being updated, and the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department is asking for your help. 

Fish & Wildlife personnel are holding “open house” public meetings to share information and get your input on wildlife management goals and issues for these four big game wildlife species.  The information you provide will help Fish & Wildlife develop a 10-year plan that includes the biological needs of the species and the interests of the public. 

The plan will serve as a “road map” for wildlife managers and the public to follow over the next 10 years to bring about desired outcomes such as population goals, habitat conservation and nuisance animal policies that are biologically and socially acceptable. 

All of the remaining public meetings listed below will run from

7:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Wednesday, May 14 – Riverside Middle School Cafeteria, 13 Fairground Rd. , Springfield , VT

Thursday, May 15 – Rutland Intermediate School Cafeteria, 65-67 Library Ave , Rutland , VT

Wednesday, May 21 – Lyndon Institute Town House, College Rd , Lyndon Ctr , VT

VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release:  April 28, 2008

Media Contacts:  John Buck, 802-476-0196, John Austin, 802-241-3400

Public Meetings Set for Discussion of Big Game Plans

WATERBURY, VT – Vermont’s big game management plans for deer, bear, moose and turkey are being updated, and the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department is asking for your help.  Fish & Wildlife staff are holding five “open house” public meetings starting May 7^th to share information and get your input. 

Fish & Wildlife is holding five public meetings to discuss issues and gather comments on wildlife management goals for Vermont ’s four big game wildlife species.  The information you provide will help Fish & Wildlife develop a 10-year plan for black bear, white-tailed deer, wild turkeys, and moose that incorporates the biological needs of the species and the interests of public. 

The management plan will serve as a “road map” for wildlife managers and the public to follow over the next 10 years to bring about desired outcomes such as population goals, habitat conservation, and nuisance animal policies that are biologically and socially acceptable.  A draft plan is being developed to describe the management history behind each of the four species and the species-specific issues facing them over the next ten years.

All of the public meetings below will run from 7:00 – 9:00 p.m.:

May 7 – South Burlington Middle School Cafeteria

May 8 – Berlin Elementary School Library

May 14 – Riverside Middle School Cafeteria in Springfield

May 15 – Rutland Intermediate School

May 21 – Lyndon Institute Town House 

Why Vermont sportsmen don’t want sales tax revenue.

On March 27th, the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee held a hearing at the Statehouse, to listen to public comments on H.543, a bill that would redirect 1/8th of 1% of the Vt. Sales Tax to the Fish & Wildlife Department.
On first blush, this appears to be a great idea, as the F&W Dept has been suffering financial woes for several years. However, when you evaluate the process through, you quickly realize that a potential of $6 million dollars may, but is not likely to solve the burdening budget problem! How can that be, you say? And what is wrong that makes you believe they don’t need the influx of money?
In order to understand how the F&W Dept reached the point of being insolvent, we need to back up and look at the operational history of the Department.
In the late 1800’s when hunters and fishermen joined together, they did so for the purpose of “self-regulation” by adhering to a set of rules relative to limits on wild game harvested. As well, they advocated and developed a conservation approach to ensure that there would always be an abundant supply of healthy fish and game for harvest, for them and future generations.
In order to ensure that their goals were successful, they imposed upon themselves an annual fee in the form of a license to hunt and fish, the monies to be used to fund their conservation efforts.
Vermont sportsmen, like those in other states, were the nations first group of conservationists and environmentally conscious individuals. They continue to be the same leaders in conservation today, putting their dollars and their support into more programs than any other organization in the nation!
Yet, at the March 27th hearing, I heard one member of an environmental organization declare: “This isn’t about hunting and fishing, it is about conservation”. It is unfortunate that narrowly focused environmentalists do not understand what we sportsmen already know; when you are involved in conservation, you are also improving the environment. The attempt by that individual to create a separation between conservation and hunting and fishing is about equal to separating flour from bread!
Someone name me one “environmental organization or group” in Vermont that has come even close to investing as much money back into the land, into resources, equipment, manpower, animal species and their habitat and our fisheries as sportsmen and women have!
The fact is; none have! They claim to be conservationists, but the only thing they conserve is their money, and they use that to fight us in court, instead of joining us in the fields, woods and streams!
The practice of charging license fees to sportsmen and women has continued to present time and was a successful method of funding F&W , with some past years having a surplus of funds until about 1983, when the Fish & Game Department was folded into the Agency of Natural Resources.

It’s name was changed to the Fish & Wildlife Department, shortly after that merger, and the department was given “marching orders” by the Administration” to take responsibility for not only fish and game species, but ALL of the plant fish, bird and animal species we have in Vermont. Unfortunately, with that newly demanded responsibility, there was no funding provided for the additional staffing. It was inevitable that there would be budget woes.
New office equipment, new vehicles, new payroll, additional support staff, and additional responsibilities created those budget woes.
Thus began the increase in license fees, to help close the financial shortfalls.
At the same time, normal staffing needed to maintain the historical and successful programs, began to be understaffed. Much needed staff positions at our hatcheries went unfilled. Hatchery maintenance needs were not met and equipment failed and was not repaired. Even the newly constructed Ed Weed Fish Hatchery, our mainstay for raising fish, was allowed to deteriorate to the point where only one of the three main water pumping systems for raising fish was useable! Our other fish hatcheries saw little, if any, upgrading and maintenance was delayed. The funds needed to maintain those positions and equipment was re-directed to fund “other technicians” that were never funded.
Our Game Warden staff was restricted to “no overtime” and as many as ten positions have remained unfilled for close to twenty years. They were forced to drive vehicles that were barely road worthy.
The funds needed to support the F&W Enforcement Division‘s needs, have been redirected to fund “other needed positions”, and those new staff positions are driving new vehicles and working all the hours they want to.
Fishing access areas began to fall apart across the state, due to a lack of funds and boaters on Lake Champlain started going to New York to launch their boats, rather than tear up the hulls when launching in Vermont, in order to fish in Vermont. That practice continues even today.
Stocking of lakes and streams declined, under the guise of creating a “natural fishery”. Fish hatcheries were operating as low as 50% capacity.
Deer yard surveys were curtailed and there began to be strong doubt about how many deer were actually in Vermont. During some years, more deer tags were offered, and many suspect it was strictly a need for the money as opposed to a needed management tool.
Moose hunting permits that originally was set at 35 increased to over 1200 permits and the fee increased from $10 per successful applicant to $100, over a 14 year period.
When the first moose season hearings were held, I remember Commissioner Regan informing the public that the “moose permit “ costs would only be sufficient to cover the cost of managing the program. We all know that the program has expanded from generating a couple thousand dollars that first season, to now generating a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Where does the money go now? We all know where; to fund those “other unfunded positions”.
Indeed, hunting and fishing license fees have declined over the past decade. In part, this is due to a reduction in interest in the sport, but there is also very clear evidence that because of the deterioration of the main infrastructure of Vermont’s fish & wildlife programs, resident sportsmen chose to hunt and fish elsewhere, and non-resident sportsmen grew wise of the decline in proper management of our fish and game species, and they too, went elsewhere.
This decline continued until recent years, until a change in leadership took place. Our hatcheries began to see much needed repairs, our lakes and streams are beginning to see fish in them again, because of increased stocking levels. Corrective measures have been implemented at the urging of the today’s sportsmen, to carry out scientifically proven habitat management processes for deer, and other game species. The return to improving and supporting proper habitat for game species has also improved habitat for our non-game species, as well. All of that, I might add, at a cost applied only to fishing, hunting and trapping license holders, but beneficial to all the residents and non-residents of our state.
Sportsmen and women are proud of their contribution to the program and are proud of the fact that hunting and fishing opportunities continue, as they have for years, to be the number one generator of sales tax revenue for the entire state. Sales of license fees, along with equipment and support services including and hotel, motel and restaurant visitations out perform all other forms of visitations and related activities in our state.
Therefore, when sporting organizations do not believe in handing F&W a open-ended checkbook, such as that which would be created by the 1/8th of 1 % re-direction of the sales tax, they have a good reason for doing so. They know that the fiscal problem at F&W is not as much a “decline in license sales “ problem as it is, a result of having a “unfunded” staffing problem.
Now sportsmen want solid assurances, even guarantees, that the infrastructure that made F&W a success, be repaired, upgraded to support the demand, and maintained. Immediately, before any additional staff are hired, with any new money.
We want our fishing access areas fixed and our fish hatcheries brought up to modern standards before any more programs are started with the influx of new money.
We want our Warden Staff, full funded and all positions filled and maintained before any more “technicians to study a non-game species“ , for example, are hired.
We want our land under F&W Dept responsibility,” to be managed consistent with “proactive” practices that will enhance and improve species habitat. No more operating as we were for close to 20 years, without having any proactive land management plans in process. Present staff need to make this happen.
For the life of me, I can not figure out why any agency or department would deliberately neglect the infrastructure that made it so successful, and instead, fund staff and programs that generate little, if any, funds to support that program! That is the current situation in F&W, right now and it has been this way for years since it changed it direction. A change, by the way, that sportsmen and women were never given a chance to approve or disapprove of.
Additionally, sportsmen want the Department to carry out a full assessment of how many hours the present staff work on “programs that are NOT “directly important” to maintaining and supporting our fisheries, our bear, deer and moose herd and our small game species. Support for those species are first and foremost to our license holders, and their license dollars should support those programs first. License holders are entitled to know how much money is being diverted from license fees to support these “other positions”. We completely understand the importance and value of all the other programs, but you can not make progress in any operation, with “the cart before the horse”.
In order to address the costs associated with the “other positions” that are really “environmental positions” the Department should seek a re-imbursement for the time our Commissioner and his staff spend on the “environmental issues” that are important, but only indirectly important to maintaining fish and game species. If another division, department or agency seeks information generated by F&W staff, there should a value attached to providing that information. If other divisions or groups do not want to pay for those services, F&W should transfer the applicable staff position that provides that service to the department that needs the information provided, and uses it the most.
Generally speaking, those agencies, divisions and departments are already funded from the General Fund, so they currently are serving all residents of Vermont. A small increase in their budget IS justified, because they serve the entire population, and are funded by the entire population.
Since about 1983, non- sporting interests, have not paid for the services that sportsmen have provided.
Essentially, they have come to our tables, sat and ate our catch of fish, savored the flavor of our deer meat and gobbled up our small game stews. Once they have been well fed, they get up and leave without any offers to help pay for the meal they just enjoyed. They have done this repeatedly for years and sportsmen and women are wise to them and understand their hidden objectives. They want sportsmen to pay the way and have less say in how their money is spent!
It is time to put a stop to this thievery by these so called “conservationists” who use everyone’s money but their own.
This is not an issue of sportsmen not respecting the goals of these environmentalists. Rather it is the environmentalists that do not respect the sporting community, except for the money they lay on the table each year.
Sportsmen and women may never get the F&W Department operating again, as it did 25 years ago. But by slightly re-directing the mission of the department to providing services to the license holders who bear the financial load, first, and foremost, it will make the department more fiscally responsible. We need to downsize the workload demand and return to doing what F&W has always been very effective at doing. F&W is now charged with doing so many things that they can not manage to effectively do the things they used to do well. With a little reorganization by realignment of priorities and staff transfers, the operation of Fish & Wildlife can again become solvent. It will require possible 5 more years of $2 million a year from the General Fund to get the Department back on its feet, then it will be able to support itself again, from then on.
Sportsmen and women will support every effort made and even probably accept any costs to do so, providing they see positive results. We do not need a permanent influx of money from the sales tax to make it work, either.
However, if the F&W Department does not guarantee that, first and foremost, the basic infrastructures will be repaired and maintained, there will continue to be budget woes, even with General Fund sales tax monies.
Sportsmen will go where the chances of having success is more opportune, even if it costs them more. The result of that will create the need of even more and more sales tax revenues to fund F&W.
Can Vermont afford to lose the support of sportsmen and the revenue it brings to the state? The answer is simple. No it can not!
Sherb Lang
"Footnote: The Vermont Wildlife Partnership website - page 10, show's that HAT's position statement on needed F&W funding is almost exactly the same analysis as the Kunin Administration made in 1990. At that time, the study commission did not mention a need for 'sales tax' funding"
 

We are the Sportsman and Woman’s
Professional Voice in Vermont.

What We Will Do: