Voices

Fish & Wildlife Board's seats remain unfilled

Vermonters want a Fish and Wildlife Board that’s more reflective of the people of the state and not just privileged special interests

Lisa Jablow is a longtime animal advocate and a board member of Protect Our Wildlife and the Windham Disaster Animal Response Team.


BRATTLEBORO-An open letter to Gov. Phil Scott:

To quote Yogi Berra, "It's like déjà vu all over again."

Once again, there are members of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board whose terms have expired, this time as of last February, yet they are still active members.

According to state law, "A member serving a full six-year term shall not be eligible for reappointment."

One of these board members caused quite a stir a few months ago after engaging in name-calling, derisively referring to wildlife advocates as "bunny huggers." Despite the fact that Vermonters want a board that's more reflective of the people of Vermont and not just privileged special interests, the political agenda persists in maintaining the status quo, which is both undemocratic and unjust.

The Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department and Governor's Office should be publicly promoting open board positions in an effort to attract diverse applicants, but the reality is that the entire process of selecting and appointing board members is ridiculously opaque.

That is because the primary unwritten criterion for board membership is that each member must be actively engaged in the activities (hunting, trapping, fishing) that the board is supposed to regulate.

Conflict-of-interest concerns raised by groups like Protect Our Wildlife have been ignored by the governor's office and the department, where board members have voted on matters that may financially impact them.

On any other board, those members would recuse themselves, but we know that this board operates with impunity.

* * *

Upon reviewing emails I obtained from a public records request to the Fish and Wildlife Department, I learned of a board applicant in April who had non-game interests, with a particular interest in birding, who came highly recommended.

On the surface, it would seem that she would have been an excellent candidate who could have offered some balance to the board. But it is no surprise to those of us who have observed the process for years that her application, like those of many similar applicants before her, simply vaporized into the ether.

I emailed the commissioner about this, and his July 15 response said, "There have been no decisions [...] a reminder these appointments are made by the Governor."

The commissioner punts the issue to the governor, but we know the governor relies heavily on recommendations from the commissioner. And so the powers that be have maintained radio silence, and the seats remain unfilled as of Sept. 1.

* * *

All of this begs the question of why this board even exists.

Why does the department, after collecting public comment from all Vermonters through public hearings, grant the final say on regulations to the board, composed entirely of hunters and trappers who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?

Why is the process such that a select group of Vermonters (i.e., trappers, anglers, and hunters) has power over everyone else?

Wildlife is considered a public trust resource, and Fish and Wildlife is mandated to protect and conserve wildlife for all, which means considering all voices.

The current paradigm is in direct conflict with this statutory requirement. Official statements from the governor's office and the department are full of inclusive media bytes about preserving the health of Vermont's wild places and creatures for all to enjoy, whatever their priorities.

But wildlife advocates know for whom they are really working.

And it isn't us.

This Voices Open Letter was submitted to The Commons.

This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at [email protected].

Subscribe to the newsletter for weekly updates