The groups allege that new rules, which were approved in December, do not go far enough to protect people and pets from risks associated with two activities: trapping and hunting coyotes with dogs.
By Emma CottonJanuary 17, 2024, 5:46 pm
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
Animal welfare groups have followed through on their promise to sue the state after the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Board moved forward with new hunting and trapping rules that, the groups allege, don’t align with the laws that spurred them.
Protect Our Wildlife Vermont, Animal Wellness Action, Center for a Humane Economy and the Vermont Wildlife Coalition filed the lawsuit Tuesday in the civil division of Washington County Superior Court.
It takes aim at the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Board — which approves hunting, fishing and trapping rules — along with the state Fish & Wildlife Department and Chris Herrick, the department’s commissioner. All three entities are named as defendants.
The groups allege that new rules, which the Fish & Wildlife Board approved in December, do not go far enough to protect people and pets from risks associated with two activities: trapping and hunting coyotes with dogs.
In 2022, state lawmakers passed two laws that required the state to update its rules governing both activities.
Lawmakers sought to make trapping more humane by passing Act 159, which requires the department to change the types of traps allowed and the locations where they can be used.
They approved Act 165 to establish the state’s first regulations on hunting coyotes with dogs, and, in particular, require hunters to have more control over their hounds. The goal was to reduce conflicts with property owners, recreators and domestic animals, and the law placed a moratorium on the activity until the new rules were in place.
Last month, the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules objected to four pieces of the board’s new regulations, arguing that they did not go far enough in ensuring that the rules would keep animals and the public safe, as the laws had intended.
The lawmakers filed a formal objection, making the Fish & Wildlife Department more vulnerable to lawsuits. In the case of a lawsuit, without the full approval from the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules, the burden of proof shifts to the state body — in this case, the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department — which must then defend itself and prove that it acted within its legal authority when it approved the rule. If it is not successful, a court could reverse the regulation.
While the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules argued that its objection should prevent the department from lifting the moratorium on hunting coyotes with dogs, the department recently opened permit applications for the activity. The animal welfare groups have asked the court to immediately reinstate the moratorium while the lawsuit is pending.
The lawsuit requests that the court declare both sets of regulations “contrary to the intent of the Legislature” and to nullify the rules.
For example, in the case of coyote hunting, the lawsuit points to GPS collars, which the new rules require. The practice of equipping dogs with such collars “has long been the usual practice and was widely employed by most coyote dog handlers” before the rules were passed, according to the suit, which argues that it does not solve the problem of keeping control over the dogs because handlers can still be miles away.
The suit contains a number of statements from people who have had negative encounters with dogs hunting coyotes — most of which involve the dogs coming onto land that is posted against hunting to attack a coyote or to harass domestic animals on the property.
In the case of the trapping rules, the groups argue the rules do not include adequate setbacks. For example, while the rules require that trappers don’t set traps near “public trails,” the definition of public trails did not include trails on private land used by the public, according to the lawsuit.
“Public hiking trails in Vermont often traverse private land, including many of the nearly 100 (Green Mountain Club) access trails, trailheads for the Long Trail, Appalachian Trail, and Kingdom Heritage trail, as well as many other publicly used trails on private lands in the state,” the lawsuit states.
Brenna Galdenzi, president of Protect Our Wildlife Vermont, told VTDigger that the Fish & Wildlife Board had not cooperated with animal welfare groups.
“This was their opportunity. Like, let’s clean up some of the really serious concerns we have with trapping and coyote hounding,” she said. “They did not meet the bare minimum, and they fought us every step of the way on it. It causes us to kind of reassess our path forward with these activities.”
In response to a request for comment, Herrick, the Fish & Wildlife commissioner, referred VTDigger to the Vermont Attorney General’s Office, which defends lawsuits against the state. Lauren Jandl, chief of staff for Attorney General Charity Clark, said the office had not yet been served the lawsuit and therefore was unable to comment.
Exposing the Big Game 