LETTER: Vermonters want better wildlife protections
May 28, 2025
To the Community:
It’s clear that Vermonters want stronger protections for wildlife, so why do privileged special interest groups seem to have the governor’s ear?
According to the study, America’s Wildlife Values, Vermont State Report, the largest group of Vermonters – 34% – identify as “mutualists.” This means they believe wildlife is part of our social network, and we should live in harmony with it. The second-largest group, at 29%, are “pluralists,” whose values vary depending on the specific context. In third place, at 25%, are “traditionalists,” who hold a high domination orientation and believe wildlife should be used and managed for human benefit.
Certain recreational activities, like hunting bears, coyotes, and other animals with hounds – known as hounding – are unpopular with many Vermonters, including hunters. Opposition to hounding ranges from concerns about landowner rights, particularly when hounds trespass onto private property, to what is undeniably animal cruelty – for both the hounds, who are often injured, and the wild animals.
According to warden records, conflicts between hounders and the public occur every year, with some resulting in injuries to people and pets. You might be surprised to learn that, between the hound “training” season and the hunting season, some animals are terrorized by hounds for six months or longer. To me, that’s simply immoral.
Another recreational activity that many Vermonters find objectionable is trapping. A 2019 survey conducted by the University of Vermont’s Center for Rural Studies found that 75% of Vermonters who responded to the survey want to ban the use of leghold, drowning, and body-crushing kill traps. We commend the compassionate and courageous legislators who have introduced bills to ban or restrict trapping and hounding, but unfortunately, these bills rarely get very far due to the looming threat of a governor’s veto.
In this year’s legislative session, the bill H.132 sought to prohibit hunters from using bait piles to hunt bobcats, coyotes, and other animals. This practice is already banned for other species. Vermont witnesses who supported this bill included a woman whose dog was killed by a coyote hunter who mistook the dog for a coyote feeding off a bait pile. Another witness was a local deer hunter who argued that bait piles violate fair chase ethics. Additional testimony highlighted the risk of disease transmission.
The main opposition came from paid lobbyists working for trappers and hounders. Their argument was that their perceived rights were being infringed upon and that banning bait piles was a “slippery slope.” They presented no sound arguments or science-based reasoning to support their position. Their knee-jerk reaction is to oppose anything that seeks to afford wildlife even the most basic protections. Opposition also came from Vermont Fish & Wildlife, where the commissioner showed little compassion for the woman whose dog was shot and killed. One Fish & Wildlife staff member who testified against the bill hunts coyotes. Fish & Wildlife continues to operate as a lobbying arm for their license-paying “customers,” despite the fact that they're statutorily required to work for all Vermonters.
Bill H.132 is still active, and I urge everyone to work hard this summer and fall to educate your legislators about its importance. Remind legislators that they must extend their compassion to their most vulnerable “constituents” who cannot send emails or lobby at the Statehouse – the animals.
Jennifer Lovett
Starksboro