| Hunters Anglers Trappers Association of Vermont |
                 |
Ed Gallo, Vice
President of Hunters Anglers & Trappers of Vermont
This is a very important position as the 14 member F&W
Board works in conjunction with the Fish & Wildlife Department to represent
the voice of Vermont sportsmen and women, during proposed regulation changes
and other issues.
Ed's involvement with HAT will be beneficial in assuring
that HAT members are represented on issues and concerns brought before the
Fish & Wildlife Board.
Congratulations Ed.
Sherb Lang
President HAT
Gun club members anxious about future JUNE 23,2004 RUTLAND —The New Hampshire affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation announced at the Green Mt. National Forest public hearing here last night that they have endorsed the recent Resolution passed by the Vermont House of Representatives opposing further wilderness designations in Vermont’s 400,000 acre federal forest.“Most Twin Staters think of ‘wilderness’ as large forested areas, something we all support,” said New Hampshire federation Executive Director Keri Messina. “However, federal designations of wilderness attack public access for hunting, fishing and other pursuits and cause significant wildlife population reductions because of prohibitions on habitat and timber management. We are concerned that more wilderness could be proposed in New Hampshire’s federal forests, and we feel statewide sporting organizations need to stand together on this issue.” The New Hampshire federation took the action at the request of the Hunter, Angler, Trapper Assn. of Vermont (HAT). The non-profit New Hampshire group represents 58 sporting clubs and 7,000 members, many of whom hunt and fish in both Vermont and New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Wildlife Federation is New Hampshire’s oldest sporting organization. The mission of the group is protection of New Hampshire’s hunting, fishing and trapping heritage and conservation of fish and wildlife habitat. The New Hampshire Wildlife Federation’s action counters the proposal for over 100 square miles of additional wilderness designations by the Vermont Wilderness Association which includes numerous environmental and hiking groups including the National Wildlife Federation and its Vermont affiliate, the Vermont Natural Resources Council. Vermont Hunter, Angler, Trapper Assn. President Sam Lang welcomed New Hampshire’s support. “HAT, the Vermont Traditions Coalition and a broad spectrum of sporting, snowmobile, outdoor guide, farm, and forest product groups have joined the House of Representatives in defending sound forest management and public access to public land,” said Lang. “The New Hampshire federation’s action demonstrates the importance of this issue.” For the past two years, officials with the U. S. Forest Service have been formulating the periodic Forest Plan Revision for federal management of the Green Mt. National Forest. The 400,000 acre forest stretches along the spine of the Green Mountains from Vermont’s southern border to northwest Vermont. The Rutland meeting was the final public hearing on the 5 preliminary Draft Alternatives that the Forest Service has unveiled for public comment. The Service is also conducting fact gathering forest assessments and will release revised alternatives in October for public comment. The State of Vermont has appropriated $100,000 to conduct independent state reviews of the federal fact gathering process. The final Forest Plan will be released in June of 2005. Contacts: Keri Messina of the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation at 603-2245953 or Steve McLeod, HAT Government Affairs Director, 802-434-3346 or cell phone 324-0016.
Creating New Wilderness: What's the Rush? (This is the second in a series of articles about wilderness proposals for the Green Mountain National Forest.) By M. D. Drysdale Is more wilderness needed now in the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF)? Or does the issue deserve more study? Gov. Jim Douglas this month joined local communities, and recreation and forestry organizations in calling for a slow-down on the creation of thousands of acres of new wilderness zones in the GMNF. They have asked that Vermont's delegation in Congress wait at least until the National Forest Service's painstaking—but slow—process be completed before filing a new wilderness law in Congress. Forest Supervisor Paul Brewster has also urged delay, in consideration of the public input and analysis that are part of the forest planning process. However, spokesmen for the offices of Sens. Patrick Leahy and Jim Jeffords confirmed last week that their tentative plan is to introduce wilderness legislation next spring, a year or two before the Forest Service planning is complete. Wilderness creation is the responsibility of Congress, according to Bob Paquin and Tom Berry, aides to Sens. Leahy and Jeffords, respectively. Interviewed jointly by The Herald, they said it would be "not acceptable" to leave control of the wilderness process in the hands of the Forest Service, rather than the Congressional delegation. In nearly identical letters to both Gov. Douglas and Supervisor Brewster, the three-man Congressional delegation praised the Forest Service planning process but would not pledge to wait for it to be completed. "While we cannot precisely predict the timing of legislative action at this time, we can assure you that we intend to reconcile our effort as much as possible with the plan revision process," the delegation wrote to both Douglas and Brewster. In addition, the aides noted that hearings sponsored by the Congressional delegation would provide "ample opportunity for interested Vermonters to testify, as was done in 1984." Gov's Response Told that the delegation expects to introduce legislation next spring, Douglas responded, "I'm not sure I understand why." He added: "We have so many opportunities in Vermont for disagreement and polarization, I think it's important to work together. We've got to hear from the communities. "I would think we would have learned from the Champion Lands and others that it's important not to rush decisions of this magnitude," Douglas added. Delay in introducing a wilderness bill is also strongly favored by officials of the White River Valley towns most affected: Hancock and Granville. Those officials have expressed alarm that thousands of acres of new wilderness will be created in their towns, severely limiting use of the forest. (See The Herald, Oct. 25.) Delay was also requested in a petition signed by more than 3000 Vermonters in February, 2002, shortly after new wilderness was proposed. The proposals came from the Wilderness Association, a consortium of 16 organizations, some of them national and some Vermont-based. The petition was started by the Tri-Town Snow Travelers, a snowmobile club in the Rochester-Hancock-Granville area. Distributed by other snowmobile clubs and posted in stores, it gathered the 3000 signatures from 215 Vermont towns. It was signed by some 193 Rochester residents as well as 94 in Hancock and 73 in Granville—representing almost a quarter of all residents in those two towns. That petition stated that the signers were "adamantly opposed to any new wilderness designations in the GMNF" but also said they were prepared to "work with" the Forest Service through its planning process. The Wilderness Association, however, prefers a quick introduction of a wilderness bill; in fact it asked for a bill in 1992, citing the fact that no new wilderness areas have been created in 20 years. ""Road-building, logging, microwave towers, and motorized recreation threaten the last best wild places in Vermont," the Association stated in its proposal. Increase Likely The Forest Service planning process is considered certain to recommend new wilderness areas in Vermont, where nearly 100,000 acres have been added to the National Forest since the last wilderness areas were created. However, the plan is expected to present a range of alternatives on wilderness, and to analyze the "trade-offs" between wilderness and other uses. "I've got a lot of confidence in the Forest Service to do this job right, given a lot of public input" said Norman Arsenault, the chair of the Granville Selectboard and a former Forest Service supervisor. Filing a wilderness bill in Congress next year would "preëmpt all of that public process," he said. "It does not explore trade-offs. That's not the way they do it when it's legislated," added Arsenault, who worked six years as an aide to U. S. Sen. Larry Craig. In his own letter to the Congressional delegation, Forest Supervisor Brewster noted that the Forest Service process could be lengthy. "However," he wrote in September, "I do not believe that it is in the long-term public interest to preëmpt the revision process by introducing legislation prematurely." Senators' Position Aides for Leahy and Jeffords disagreed. They have been participating in the Forest Service process, they said, including attending the wilderness hearing six weeks ago in Hancock. All the public input from the Forest Service will be available to their offices, they said. Additionally, the Congressional offices have heard from "thousands of emails, letters, phone calls and petitions" said Paquin and Berry. Further input has come from the Blueberry Hill Group, an informal and low-profile gathering of a dozen or so representatives on all sides of the issue. The Group has been meeting once a month for a year to discuss wilderness. Reports are that the conversations have been civil, but few positions have been changed on either side. Further, once legislation is introduced, there would be hearings, probably both in Washington and Vermont. Many giving testimony represented various organizations, but voices from the general public were also heard, they said. The Senators' aides noted that "one school of thought" holds that the Forest Service planning would be better off without having to deal with the controversial wilderness issue. The argument would be to "get the 900-pound gorilla out of the room and off of the table," they said. However, Brewster's letter makes clear that the Forest Service itself would like to sit down at the table with the gorilla. (Next week: Under Gov. Douglas and Forest & Parks commissioner Jonathan Wood, the state is taking renewed interest in the role of the Green Mountain National Forest.)
|
 |
F&W Legislative Committee Members |