LETTER: Fish & Wildlife reforms should include board makeup, process

November 14, 2025

To the Community:

I’m writing in response to VTDigger’s recent article about the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department’s proposal to charge a public access license in recognition of declining hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses. 

I would support this proposal if Fish & Wildlife were also willing to reexamine and reform the outdated and unrepresentative Fish & Wildlife Board. Senate bill S.258, that was introduced in 2024, would have modernized the board’s composition and decision-making — a critical step toward fairness and accountability. The bill passed a veto-proof majority, but the House did not pick it up.

There is no reason the Fish & Wildlife Board should continue operating like a private game club where a small minority controls the process. Many Vermonters, myself included, used to attend Board meetings and offer public comment, but stopped participating after realizing that those in charge had little interest in listening to non-consumptive voices. Some of the Board members referred to us as “bunny huggers” and “antis,” in what appeared to be an attempt to further marginalize us.

If the department truly wants to update its model in recognition of the fact that fewer people are hunting, fishing, and trapping, then it must make a good-faith effort to work collaboratively with non-consumptive Vermonters. By all means, charge us a reasonable fee — but give us a seat at the table where decisions are made. Only then can we work together on the future of conservation in Vermont.

Transformation isn’t just about collecting new fees from the public; it’s about showing Vermonters that their values matter. The department must address the widespread lack of trust in its leadership and demonstrate that it represents all who care about Vermont’s wildlife and natural lands.


Sincerely,

Sophie Bowater

Middlesex

Sophie Bowater is with the Vermont Coyote Coexistence Coalition.

Previous
Previous

Call for submissions: Giving Thanks 2025

Next
Next

Woods & Senning: ‘Our people are deeply skeptical’ of school redistricting plans