Join Orion in fighting legislation that privatizes Vermont wildlife

Orion - The Hunters' Institute urges others to join them in fighting legislation that privatizes Vermont wildlife

Press Release For Immediate Release Aug. 2, 2010

JOHNSON, Vt. - Orion The Hunters' Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to upholding hunting by providing intellectual leadership on hunting-related issues, urges concerned citizens, conservationists and organizations to join their efforts to defend the public's right to collective ownership of wildlife, which is jeopardized by recent legislation passed in Vermont. In the final days of Vermont's 2010 legislative session, language known as the Nelson amendment was inserted in the appropriations bill (H.789 Sec E.702.1), which changed the status of native deer and moose enclosed on a captive shooting facility from the public domain to private ownership. "The Nelson amendment violates 2,000 years of evolving law, which holds that live wild animals are not owned by individuals. Instead they are held collectively by all," said Eric Nuse, executive director of Orion - The Hunters' Institute. "In North America, federal, state and provincial governments are responsible for managing wildlife and their habitat on public lands. This public trust gives all citizens the opportunity to enjoy these natural resources, which includes fishing, viewing and hunting." The principle of wildlife belonging to everyone is vastly different from the centuries-old European model where only nobility and the very wealthy were allowed to hunt. However, when Vermont's Green Mountain boys helped defeat the English during the revolutionary war, wildlife was transferred from the King to the new state and federal governments and thus to the people. Since then, a series of Supreme Court rulings have firmly established the public trust as it relates to wildlife. The public trust doctrine of wildlife is a bedrock concept of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and is why this country enjoys the greatest diversity, quality, and quantity of game animals and other wildlife in the world.   This legislation was reportedly passed to save a celebrity game preserve moose known as Pete from being culled. Rules governing captive-hunting facilities were adopted by the Vermont's Fish and Wildlife Board, and stipulated game preserves could not have any moose or whitetail deer in their enclosures as way to protect wild herds from chronic wasting disease, tuberculosis and other diseases carried by captive animals. "As trustee, the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department's duty is to look out for the best interests of the state's wildlife on behalf of its citizens," said Nuse. "Fulfilling that mandate is exactly what the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board attempted to do in its 2009 rule on the operation of captive shooting facilities; and it is exactly what the legislature violated with the passage of the Nelson Amendment." The Nelson Amendment of H.789 contains language that transfers regulatory authority of illegally taken native deer and moose from the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department to the Vermont Department of Agriculture and permits an individual citizen to own and profit from those wild animals that rightfully belong to all Vermont citizens. "This giveaway of public wildlife resources to a single individual for personal gain threatens wildlife management in Vermont and beyond," Nuse said. "To change this management system, just to solve a short-term problem without any debate or input from the public and the professionals at the Fish and Wildlife Department, is reckless governance and an abdication of the responsibility and duty of a trustee. We must now clearly tell our government that we fully expect it to live up to its fiduciary duty as trustee and return the management of all our native animals to the Fish and Wildlife Department." Orion - The Hunters' Institute's board is especially concerned the process of transferring ownership of wildlife to an individual was not transparent. Transparency is one of the principles that must apply to alienating public trust, as outlined in attorney James H. Goetz's memorandum on the public trust doctrine, which was prepared in 2004 for Orion - The Hunters' Institute. "Clearly the principle stating the process must be transparent was not met by the legislature in this case. No public hearings were held, the Fish and Wildlife Department and the Agency of Natural Resources officials were kept in the dark," Nuse said. "The Fish and Wildlife Board's process was open and transparent. Using a long series of public hearings and scientific testimony, they rejected the solution included in the Nelson amendment. They said it was not consistent with the public trust and found that the impairment to the beneficiary was substantial." For more information visit the Orion blog at Fair Chase Hunting Blogspot and search for Public Trust Doctrine. Or email Eric Nuse at ericnuse@huntright.org or call 802-730-8111.

Sportsmen for full Land and Water Conservation Funding

Orion is a supporter of this initiative. It was originally included in the big climate change bill, survived to the bill dealing with the BP disaster, but ultimately taken out of that bill. Big money and big oil still seem to rule. But they only get the same number of votes that we do - and there are a lot more of us, but we need to stand up for conservation and the future!  Eric

Roosevelt Challenges Boone and Crockett Record Holders

From the Outdoor Wire, note the text highlighted by me...

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Roosevelt Challenges Boone and Crockett Record Holders

MISSOULA, Mont.-The Boone and Crockett Club is now receiving four times more trophy entries than 30 years ago, and Theodore Roosevelt's great, great grandson says hunters who reach this apex are notable beneficiaries of historic conservation successes.

Further, the TR descendant says trophy record holders are perfectly positioned to help keep hunters at the forefront of America's resurging conservation movement.

Simon Roosevelt, whose great, great grandfather was the 26th President of the United States, legendary sportsman, consummate conservationist and founder of the Boone and Crockett Club, delivered the remarks as part of his keynote address at the Club's recent 27th Big Game Awards in Reno, Nev.

Roosevelt said all hunters share a legacy with early Club members who developed the hunter-funded, science-based system that helped to recover that era's devastated wildlife and habitat. That system remains the lifeblood of conservation still today. But those who achieve special status within the hunting community have a chance to join TR and his contemporaries in accomplishing "something even more important-more crucial for the long-term success of conservation-that is, fundamentally changing the way Americans think," he said.

Although 80 percent of U.S. citizens now live in cities, they understand the importance of natural resources and sustainable use, says Roosevelt, but, "What they don't understand is how we as hunters fit, or maybe better said, that we fit, and why we're important. If we fail to get this message across, we will continue to lose hunters and hunting access, and 'hunting' may well come to mean nothing more than high-fence farms and park culling."

Boone and Crockett record holders openly communicating who they are, what they do and their love of doing it-even when they don't take an animal-will lead to greater public support of hunting, says Roosevelt. And that, in turn, will spur more resources for today's conservation challenges: climate change, habitat loss and fragmentation, and diseases.

Roosevelt's speech was a highlight of the triennial Boone and Crockett Club event held June 24-26 at Reno's Grand Sierra Resort.


"Almost 125 years after TR organized Boone and Crockett Club, and more than 100 years after we launched a records program to capture details on species once considered bound for extinction, our triennial awards event remains relevant to the future of conservation," said Tony Schoonen, chief of staff for the Club. "This is our way of doing exactly what Simon Roosevelt urged all of us to do-share with the public our love of hunting and connections to conservation."

Feds Finally Release Funds for Open Fields Hunting Access Program

Note from Eric - I have hunted walk in areas that this legislation will help expand and enhance. Kansas has led the way, but there is great public access to quality habitat in MT, CO and South Dakota that I have hunted. States in the east should look into working with private landowners to open up more land to hunting.

From the New West Travel and Outdoors

Feds Finally Release Funds for Open Fields Hunting Access Program

Key hunting access program now has only two years to prove itself.

By Bill Schneider, 7-06-10

	The new Open Fields Program funds public access to private lands. Photos by Dusan Smetana.

Updated July 7, 1 am: Baucus Continues to Support Open Fields.
Nobody ever accused the federal government of moving rapidly, even with congressionally mandated programs. And the long-ago approved new hunting access program called Open Fields is excellent testimony to that axiom.
After an extensive lobbying campaign by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited and many other conservation groups, Congress included $50 million in the 2008 Farm Bill for Open Fields, a new, innovative program to help fund dwindling public access to private lands, perhaps the greatest threat to the sport of hunting in this country.
That happened way back in December 2008, 31 months ago. Now, finally, the Department of the Interior has finished writing regulations needed to administer Open Fields and will start releasing the funds to qualified state-based access programs, such as Montana’s Block Management program.
Today, NewWest.Net learned that on July 8, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will hold a teleconference to announce the release of the funding.
This long delay has concerned conservationists because they want Open Fields to have an admirable track record of success before the 2012 Farm Bill rolls around. And not a lot of time to spare, it seems, as Congress is already holding hearings on the 2012 bill. With so little time to prove the value of the program, conservationists will clearly be challenged to convince Congress to renew or increase funding for Open Fields in the 2012 Farm Bill.
UPDATE: Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) contacted NewWest.Net shortly after this article was posted. “The open fields program will be great for our state,” Baucus said. “In Montana we hunt and we fish--it’s in our blood. I worked hard to ensure this provision was included in the Farm Bill but we need to get the money on the ground. I will keep pushing the USDA to get this done. This is about ensuring our outdoor heritage is protected, so we can continue passing our traditions on to our children and grandchildren.”
Baucus is chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee and a senior member on the Senate Agriculture Committee, so he was in a position to make sure the Open Fields Program--and the $50 million--made it into the 2008 Farm Bill. Since the passage of the Farm Bill, Baucus has been pushing the Interior Department to move as fast as possible to make the funds available to voluntary state hunting access programs.
Related NewWest.Net articles: Open Fields Hunting Access Program Needs Push and Baucus Comes Through for Hunters on Open Fields.

From the TRCP web site:
Open Fields is a competitive grants program available to state and tribal governments. Funding applications may be made through the federal government's grants portal. Read frequently asked questions about Open Fields. 

Two out of Three Candidates didn't vote to support the Public Trust but say they will if Governor???

From The Chronicle online

Buzz up! On Craftsbury Common -- Three Democrats square off in governor's race  Share Published on June 23, 2010 Democratic gubernatorial candidates applaud the organizers of the debate held at Sterling College on June 18. From left to right, the candidates were state senators Susan Bartlett, Douglas Racine and Peter Shumlin. At the far left end of the table is Jon Margolis, who served as moderator. Photo by Joseph Gresser CRAFTSBURY COMMON — The debate held at Sterling College lacked two-fifths of its advertised content.  Only three of the five Democratic candidates for Governor appeared for their scheduled meeting here on Thursday evening, June 17. The three who did show up for questioning by veteran newspaperman Jon Margolis and an audience of about 120 people espoused similar positions on many issues, but gave clues as how their styles of governance might differ. State Senators Susan Bartlett of Lamoille County, Douglas Racine of Chittenden County, and Peter Shumlin of Windham County made it to the debate, but former Senator Matt Dunne was home with a newborn child and Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz had a conflicting event on her schedule. ... Mr. Margolis’ second question also had special resonance for a local audience.  A bill to save the life of Pete the Moose effectively transferred ownership of as many as two hundred white-tailed deer to a private landowner.  How, Mr. Margolis asked, could candidates reconcile that decision with the public trust doctrine which holds that wild animal belong to all citizens of the state? Ms. Bartlett, who was one of the sponsors of the bill in question, said the decision to save Pete involved a conflict among wildlife biologists in and out of the state about the threat of chronic wasting disease.   “If you get a hold of a group of scientists who agree on something, it will be a miracle,” Ms. Bartlett said about the hearings held on the subject. She said the situation regarding Pete the Moose was one in which “pure policy in theory runs into the real world and how to resolve it.”  State fish and wildlife officials wanted to slaughter Pete the Moose and all the deer who share his fenced-in area to avoid a threat that had not been shown to exist, Ms. Bartlett said. One solution considered to resolve the issue was to declare Pete to be a dog or a cow or a horse, she joked.  But in the end, transferring ownership of the herd was “our very pragmatic solution to a difficult situation.”  Ms. Bartlett told the audience that if she is elected governor they can expect her “to go with pragmatism most of the time.” Mr. Racine agreed with Ms. Bartlett that the decision to save Pete at the cost of transferring ownership of wild animals to a private citizen was a tough one.  He said it was a time “where the emotional response sort of trumped the more scientific based response.” “The best part of what we do is find those sorts of balances,” Mr. Racine said.  He added that the bill had passed in the last minutes of the legislative session and that it was hard for lawmakers to gauge the full range of implications in their vote to save Pete. Mr. Shumlin said his position as President Pro Tem of the Senate made him the least popular person in the State House.  That made his decision on the bill easy, he said, because “I’ll always vote against anything that would slaughter Pete on the Senate floor.” Under Mr. Margolis’ prodding all three candidates said they would respect the public trust doctrine in future decisions.

VT Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs opposes the Nelson amendment and calls for it's repeal

This just in from the Federation via email:

The Federation opposition on H.789 Section 702.1 "Transfer of Regulatory Oversight and Special Requirements for Facility and Herd Management" is attached. 

Thanks,

Mary

Acting Secretary 

 

Clint Gray

Sportsmen and Sportswomen

Be advised that on the last day of the Legislative session H.789, the FY2011 Budget Bill was passed out of this year’s legislature and sent forward to the Governor for signature.

The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Club, Inc. held their monthly meeting on June 13, 2010, and discussed H.789 and unanimously opposed the legislation as passed.

Section E 702.1 “Transfer of Regulatory Oversight and Special Requirements For Facility and Herd Management.”

The language is very problematic in many areas.

The above section (E 702.1 of H.789) gives a private entity:

·    Private use of wild animals including whitetail deer and moose to do as they wish and to profit from.

·    It allows that culling of the deer or moose to avoid over population, but does not set seasons to run with the State seasons.

·    It allows that deer and moose to be subject to a paid hunt, as a method of culling.

At least one animal was illegally taken alive from the wild, transported illegally to the enclosure and raised without securing a permit or permission of the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife, as required by statute.  There are statutes that dictate the rehabilitation of wild animals if one as been found to be injured.

This section E 702.1 ignores the illegal acts by one or more persons, rewards the owner of the enclosed area by expanding the ownership of the wild animals that are located within the enclosed area.  Then any future wild animals born within the enclosed area and the wild animals presently located outside and enters into the enclosed area now becomes the property of the owner.  These wild animals are no longer the property of all the people. (You and I)

When the first settlers arrived to this new land and settled here, they wanted all animals to belong to the people.  They had come from countries where the animals were the property of the King or Royal family.  In order to take or harvest an animal, permission had to be granted by the King and the Royal family.

From this Common Law and then the Case Law, the Public Trust Doctrine was created “The Wild Animals belong to the people as a whole and are held in trust by the State”.

·      Wildlife is held in trust for all Americans. 

·      Any legislation that threatens this long held tradition must be opposed. 

·      The wildlife belongs to the people, not one individual. 

·      This has been the rule for the past 180 years or so, case law supports that the animals are held in trust by the State. 

·      Additionally this is has been supported for over 400 years of Common Law.

This legislation (Section E 702.1) that passed has a possible serious consequences for future legislation due to the fact that precedent has been set:

·      All owners of enclosures here in the State may ask to have the wild animals that are in or may get into their enclosure to be transferred to their ownership.  The owner may want to be treated equally.

·      Owners of hunting preserves here in the State, that have been in business for may years, and have paid hunts could not, up until now, have hunts involving wild animals that are in the enclosed areas. 

·      The owners of hunting preserves may now request that these wild animals in the enclosed areas or the wild animals that get into their hunting preserve and come under their private ownership. These animals will then be able to be culled any time of the year to prevent over population. 

·      These wild animals will no longer belong to the people, but belong to a few private owners.

CONTACT YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND ADVISE THEM TO ENACT LEGISLATION TO RETURN THE WILDLIFE BACK TO ALL THE PEOPLE AND UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE VERMONT FISH & WILDLIFE!

WE NEED TO CORRECT THIS MISJUSTICE!

Free Press Editorial: Secrecy fatal flaw in Pete the Moose bill

June 24, 2010 
Editorial: Secrecy fatal flaw in Pete the Moose bill

The saga of the amendment passed to save Pete the Moose from slaughter reflects a deeply troubling disregard for the open government and the idea that our elected representatives always must keep the broad public interest foremost in mind.
The legislation granted Big Rack Ridge in Irasburg exemptions from state hunting preserve regulations that banned the enclosure of wild game and the mingling of wild and captive animals.
The intent was to allow the preserve to keep Pete the Moose, an orphaned moose raised in captivity, but the law also allows Big Rack Ridge to claim ownership of wild white-tailed deer and wild moose within its fenced lands.
The result was a transfer of what has always been a public good to a private individual who may use it for personal gain -- in this case, as fodder on a hunting preserve. Right or wrong, the best intentions can be obscured behind a veil of secrecy. That the law, as the Free Press reported, was "written behind closed doors, kept secret from the Fish and Wildlife Department and introduced on the session's final day" is its fatal flaw.
No one familiar with how government works in this state should be surprised at the dark route this amendment traveled to passage. Secrecy is often the way business gets down from town offices to the Statehouse.
Many can claim credit for keeping the moose bill from anybody who might have a stake in this issue other than the owners of Big Rack Ridge: Sen. Robert Starr, D-Essex-Orleans, for writing an amendment to benefit Doug Nelson in secret; Sen. Susan Bartlett, D-Lamoille, candidate for governor, for adding the Starr amendment to the must-pass state budget on the final day of the session when there was no time for a proper debate; and Gov. Jim Douglas for his administration's participation in the cover-up.
Brian Ames, chairman of the state Fish and Wildlife Board, describes the whole situation as "depressing, discouraging." He raises the critical point that no one can treat wildlife like a personal pet "except if you are well-enough connected, apparently you can."
That's the point.

The measure loses credibility because it was drawn up and passed without public knowledge or debate, kept secret from even the regulators and experts within state government, and benefits a man who an aide to the governor who helped keep the bill a secret says "has been flouting the law for years."

What Racine, Bartlett and Shumlin say about the Public Trust

The following is from the Gubernatorial debate held at Sterling College and comes from the VtDigger website.


Margolis: Another question that has some peculiar importance to the Northeast Kingdom. This question will first go to Susan Bartlett who sponsored a bill to save a famous moose, whose nickname I will not reveal. I don’t want to get into the details of the situation but one aspect of the legislation that was passed and I believe everyone here voted for it, has created a concern for wildlife officials and not just in Vermont. The law didn’t just save this moose. It transferred the ownership of the moose and 200 white-tailed deer living inside the impoundment up here in Irasburg, transferred to title of those animals to the owner of the land and that’s a violation of the public trust doctrine, which goes back to about the Magna Carta, which holds that all animals belong to all the citizens of the state. Again, without rehashing the particulars of this case, would each of you as governor uphold the public trust doctrine in the future and will you support officials who are trying to enforce the laws regarding wild animals?

From the Burlingrton Free Press - Front page:

CANDACE PAGE, Free Press

Potent alliance gives Vermont hunting reserve exemption from game rules

By Candace Page, Free Press Staff Writer

Vermont lawmakers gave special status at the 11th hour to an Irasburg elk park where hunters pay up to $7,000 to shoot penned animals.

Transcript: May 26, 2010 Vermont Fish & Wildlife Board Meeting

Photos: Big Rack Ridge elk hunting park in Irasburg

- 6:51 am (55)

Read more: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/#ixzz0rPIcJ148

Trojan Moose???

From Seven Days, Fair Game:
Shay tells me there is more to come...

Why "Pete the Moose" Could Still Be Caught in the Crosshairs

Local Matters

By Shay Totten [06.16.10]

TAGS: animals, local issues, local matters

Courtesy of Savepetethemoose.org

Eleventh-hour language slipped quietly into the state budget bill is being hailed as saving the life of “Pete the Moose” — a celebrity cervid whose active group of 5000-plus Facebook “friends” overwhelmed state officials with emails, phone calls and letters urging them to spare his life.
In reality, the legislation may do little to save him from a hunter’s bullet, or to save about a dozen other moose and roughly 200 whitetail deer that belong to Doug Nelson, who runs a 700-acre game farm in Irasburg. There Nelson raises elk, but over the years deer and moose have found their way past his farm’s fences in search of food and love.
The legislation grants ownership of these native animals to Nelson and puts his operation under the sole authority of the Agency of Agriculture, rather than the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The DFW had planned to cull the trespassers to ensure that a “mad cow”-like disease called chronic wasting disease would not spread between nonnative and native herds. A CWD outbreak in 2005 at a similar game farm in New York motivated Vermont officials to put in place stronger rules aimed at preventing such an incident here.
Pete was one of the animals marked for probable death. The moose was allegedly injured as a calf, found and rehabilitated by a long-bearded, hermit-like mountain man named David Lawrence. Lawrence, a former big-game hunter who claims to be redeeming himself by nurturing injured wildlife, plopped Pete inside Nelson’s game farm late last year. At that time, state fish and game laws would have prohibited Nelson from profiting off native species found on his land.
Now, because of the legislation that “saved” Pete, Nelson will be able to keep the animals and potentially charge hunters to kill them. Agency of Agriculture officials say they are not yet sure if Nelson will be able to charge for the hunts of native moose and whitetail deer on his property. He currently charges about $4000 to “hunt” elk.
National and in-state hunting groups, along with state wildlife officials, are urging lawmakers to overturn the measure. Some opponents say they may challenge the law in court.
The law may be ripe for a challenge, notes Pamela Vesilind, a Vermont Law School professor who specializes in animal law and has closely followed Pete’s saga.
“The Vermont constitution, Supreme Court and laws all support the 'public trust doctrine,' the idea that state citizens 'own' wild animals and the legislature can only limit that for the common good of the citizens. That’s not what’s happening here,” wrote Vesilind in an email. “I understand the legislators’ good intentions, but they’ve turned wildlife law on its head.”
The legislation was a shock to Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Wayne LaRoche and the state Fish and Wildlife Board. They say neither the legislature nor other members of the Douglas administration sought their input as the law was drafted.
“We were all taken aback,” says Brian Ames, chairman of the state Fish and Wildlife Board, which writes state fish and game laws. “This is completely new territory, and nowhere else have we ever allowed a herd of wild animals to exist basically for personal profit.”
The legislation gives Nelson until August 1 to submit a strategy to thin the native herds, and until October 1 to install new fences. Culling is still required to halt the possible spread of CWD.
“Ironically, although Mr. Nelson didn’t have a legal right to shoot Pete or any other moose on the property, the new law gives him that right. In theory, he could also sell moose-hunting access to anyone who visits his facility,” notes Vesilind. “The elk, moose, and deer on this property aren’t afraid of humans anymore. You may as well shoot a goat at a kid’s petting zoo.”
Most folks concur that it would be a public relations disaster to kill Pete the Moose, or his progeny: As the session wound down, it was revealed that Pete’s “girlfriend” is pregnant. What’s next — “Save Pete Jr.”? Sen. Susan Bartlett, chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, defended the deal, which was crafted by attorneys at the Agency of Agriculture and shepherded through the legislature by Sen. Robert Starr (D-Essex/Orleans) and Rep. Duncan Kilmartin (R-Newport).
“We were compelled to make a decision because of the way that Fish and Wildlife was acting,” says Bartlett. “This herd has been a captive herd for nine to 10 years, and Fish and Wildlife’s solution was to go up and shoot all the moose and deer. As you can imagine, that didn’t sit too well with a number of folks.”
LaRoche disagrees. He was not interested in eliminating all the native animals in one swift kill, he says, but rather over a period of years. Nelson, however, would never agree to terms, because the farmer didn’t believe the state had the authority to govern the hunts on his property, says LaRoche. Instead of having to abide by fish and wildlife laws, which have real teeth, Nelson now only needs to run his plans by the Agency of Agriculture.
“I think the legislature was blinded by the ‘Pete the Moose’ story,” says Ames, “when it wasn’t really about Pete the Moose.”
As for Nelson, he’s saying very little these days now that the attention on Pete has subsided. Multiple messages left with farmhands and assistants were not returned. They said Nelson was busy, feeding his elk.

Violation of public trust article

This from the Rutland Herald:

Wildlife transfer under fire

Toolbox

Print

Email link

Submit a letter

 ShareThis

 

By Dennis Jensen Staff Writer - Published: June 13, 2010

The last-minute decision by the Legislature to transfer oversight of wild deer and moose at a fenced elk reserve in Irasburg from wildlife officials to the state Agency of Agriculture has come under fire because it took wild animals out of the public domain and into the hands of a private businessman.

That is the view expressed by some members of the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Board, The Wildlife Society and Orion The Hunter's Institute.

But state Sen. Susan Bartlett, D-Lamoille, who is widely identified as having been instrumental in fashioning the legislation, says it was simply about sparing a celebrity moose the bullet. She said concerns that animal disease could be spread from the facility, which prompted a notification that the whitetail deer and moose there would have to be destroyed, are unfounded.

One of those moose, nicknamed Pete, became a cause celebre, with a website and a Facebook page and supporters who rallied at Vermont's Statehouse. The animal, a 700-pound bull, had been adopted as a calf by a local man and taken to the fenced 700-acre game reserve.

"When Fish & Wildlife decided that Pete needed to be shot … there was the fear that wardens were going to show up with papers and go in and shoot Pete," Bartlett said. "That just made the Northeast Kingdom and the Pete the Moose fan club not only angry, they were scared."

Bartlett, who is running for the Democratic nomination for governor, said she understands the Department of Fish & Wildlife's concerns that the imported elk at the site could spread chronic wasting disease, a fatal brain ailment, to the native deer and moose herd.

However, slaughtered animals have been routinely tested at the reserve and not a single case of chronic wasting disease has been found, she said.

"If any of us thought there was danger of chronic wasting disease for the Vermont deer herd, we would say 'shoot them,'" Bartlett said.

For more than six years, the wildlife department and the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Board had tried to work out an agreement with Doug Nelson, the owner of the Irasburg reserve, which charges hunters to target the elk within its fences.

Bartlett is chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the issue of herd management at the elk reserve was added to an appropriations bill on the last day of the Legislature's session in May. Under the provision, the animals can stay, but Nelson will have to do more to ensure they haven't become sick and don't come in contact with animals outside the fence.



"Special favors'

Fish & Wildlife Commissioner Wayne Laroche and his team of biologists say they believe the moose and deer held on Nelson's land could contract any number of diseases, including chronic wasting disease, and ultimately should be destroyed. Any animals, wild or tame, escaping from there could pass the devastating disease to animals in the wild, they have argued.

In August, the department notified Nelson that the wild moose and deer on his property were being held there illegally and would have to be destroyed.

Nelson has opposed the move from the start and has reportedly told board members that the deer and moose on his land belong to him.

Attempts to reach Nelson for this story were unsuccessful.

Members of the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Board, including its chairman, Brian Ames, were livid about the fact that, after many years of study and discussion, the Nelson game preserve matter was suddenly — and without their knowledge — turned over to the Agency of Agriculture.

But no one interviewed was more forceful in his condemnation of what happened on that last day of the Statehouse session than Bob Shannon, the Lamoille County representative on the board.

Nelson was given "special favors" by the Legislature, said Shannon, who runs a fly fishing shop in Stowe.

"We were completely in the dark," he said. "Quite frankly, for the Legislature to take the authority from the Fish & Wildlife Board and the department without asking anyone from the board or the Fish & Wildlife Department to testify is a concern to me because they allowed Mr. Nelson to provide a one-sided story to the Legislature and basically in a closed-door session."

The Legislature's decision to transfer oversight is a "major turning point for the state," Shannon said. "Every sportsman in the state should be outraged over what the Vermont Legislature did."

"This has destroyed the Vermont hunting and fishing heritage," he said, because it allows a private citizen to gain ownership of wildlife, something that has never occurred in Vermont.

That concern was shared by Eric Nuse, the executive director of Orion, a nonprofit based in Johnson that describes itself as dedicated to the preservation of hunting as an important part of the North American conservation heritage.

The decision by the Legislature will have far-reaching effects, Shannon said.

"Now, anybody else that has deep enough pockets and special favors can go into the state of Vermont, put up a fence and start selling hunts, just like Mr. Nelson is going to do," he said.



Sparing Pete

But Bartlett said all parties were invited to make their cases before a joint hearing of the Senate Appropriations and Agriculture committees in February.

Bartlett said the Legislature took on the matter because the Fish & Wildlife Department and Nelson — after many years — could not reach a solution for the captive herd issue.

"House members and Senate folks worked with the (Douglas) administration and came up with the solution," she said.

Fish & Wildlife Department officials and Fish & Wildlife Board members say they now believe that the Legislature's decision gives Nelson the green light to offer paid hunts for the moose and deer in his enclosure, as he does for the elk.

The Wildlife Society, which describes itself as an international nonprofit association dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship, has written letters to state legislators calling for a repeal of the law and "restoration of Vermont's wildlife to its rightful owners, the public."

The language of the provision "amounts to little more than a license for Mr. Nelson to profit from Vermont's publicly owned wildlife," the society said in a news release. "… the language was quietly added without the benefit of a public hearing, opportunity for expert testimony or engagement of the Fish & Wildlife Department or any conservation or sportsmen groups."



'Political deal'

Meanwhile, Elizabeth "Wibs" McLain, a special assistant to Gov. James Douglas, appeared at the May 26 meeting of the Fish & Wildlife Board to answer members' questions about what she termed the "special provision that was made to the farm in Irasburg."

Several board members, including Shannon, Ames and Jeremy Baker, said they were stunned by some of the frank comments that McLain made about how that decision was reached.

McLain's comments are documented in the minutes of the May 26 meeting.

In response to a question by Laroche, McLain said that when the two Senate committees held the joint hearing, "it was very clear to me … that they were going to do something. … The whole thing was a set-up; the testimony was a set-up …"

McLain told the board that she was well aware of how long and hard the Fish & Wildlife Board had worked to resolve the issue with Nelson.

"The traditional approaches for resolving this issue have not been effective for a variety of reasons and, so while we can look at it as a reward for illegal behavior, I think you can also look it as a way to kind of stop the bleeding on this one issue."

Board member Wayne Barrows told McLain that he was concerned that the Legislature's decision could open doors for similar animal facilities in Vermont.

McLain told Barrows not to worry, for the wording in the legislation makes it clear it applies only to Nelson's facility.

"Somebody could step forward and make his or her own argument that they want another special deal like this special deal, but they can't come in under his special deal," she said.

"I wouldn't say it was a backdoor political deal," she told the board, "but it was certainly a political deal and it was certainly the result of a special interest who had the ear of the Legislature."

Nelson, McLain said, "has been flaunting, if I can say that, the law for years."

McLain argued that Nelson doesn't get off lightly under the arrangement. He has agreed to put up a second fence around the facility.

Also, "Mr. Nelson will have to capture, mark and test all cervids and not just the elk, but the deer and the moose that are inside that enclosure. … He will have a lot of things to do in order to address the issue of disease escaping his facility into the wild," she said.

Nelson maintains that there are about a dozen moose and 120 whitetail deer on his spread, while Fish & Wildlife says the figures for both species are double that.

Baker, the Rutland County representative on the Fish & Wildlife Board, said the Legislature's decision put politics before the health of the deer herd in Vermont.

"A very small group of legislators in the Northeast Kingdom, which Doug Nelson has strong ties to, want his continued support so they fixed this rule to benefit Doug Nelson," Baker said. "I don't think they understand the potential damage that could take place if those animals escape that enclosure."



dennis.jensen@rutlandherald.com