SEN. READY: I was hoping that today we would identify what kind of language we wanted and be on the way to getting it, drafted either ourselves or getting Al or somebody to do it so we could have something clean to look at in the morning. So, what I’m hoping to do is get as much testimony as we can, as quickly as possible, and then to the committee to begin. I’ve had a chance to talk with quite a few senators. We’ve talked some in our caucus. I’ve also had dinner with Rob and Jim last night and with Vince – Vince has got an amendment on his own, but he would come in if we wanted him to. Let’s start hearing from some of these that are here, and then we’ll get Vince in and see what he – I guess what we had of his yesterday was an earlier draft. So, okay, you want to go Bryant?

Bryant Watson
VAST

Good morning. For the record, I am Bryant Watson, the executive director of the Vermont Association of Snow Travelers. We, of course, support this issue, and we support the basic language that the House passed. We aren’t tied to that particular language. There are similar versions that we could (inaudible) as long as the protections are kept intact that the House worked very hard to come to consensus on, issues of access and of water quality and things of that nature.
So, I would just hand out a copy of the letter that we gave to the House that expressed our support for their bill. And, basically, we will remain in support of it as long as the basics are held in line. I think the heart of our agreement will be with the actual easements that are written on the letter. And, we have placed our confidence in the governor and the Vermont Land Trust in the fact that those easements will be beneficial to us. And, we will be working with them to that end. I know there are conversations that are going around about particular groups coming together and maybe purchase the areas that the US Fish and Wildlife Service are contemplating purchasing now. I expect it might be possible, but it would probably take a long time to be able to do anything like that without support from the State of Vermont to be able to do that. Therefore, we as an association have an agreement with the US Fish and Wildlife Service that will allow us to enter into a long-term memorandum of understanding for the operation of snowmobiles within that area, and also to create a yearly management contract with them to say who is responsible for what.
So, I feel relatively comfortable at this point with regards to our situation with them. I know others have concerns with them, especially the sportsmen with regards to the trapping issue and the other access issues, and some of the other things that come along with federal ownership. We were in the initial process for the environmental impact study for the Silvio Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge and had (inaudible) language implemented in that EIS Study. So, based upon that and our dealings with them over the past three to four years, we feel relatively comfortable working with them.
SEN. READY: In our caucus Dick Sears mentioned that they had taken – that there was some federal ownership of some land in his district and the people got to keep the camps for life-long lease, Nancy? Yes. So, I mean it’s not like there isn’t opportunity to work with them, I guess.
MR. WATSON: That’s with the National Forest Service down there? Yeah, Green Mountain National Forest. They have had, and we’ve been working with them to be able to get those individuals better access to their camps (inaudible).
SEN. READY: Now do they have hunting and fishing and tracking down there, do you know?
UNKNOWN: They have plenty of fishing (inaudible).
SEN. READY: Okay, questions of Bryant?
SEN. CHARD: (Inaudible) tree huggers and grass huggers (interrupted)
SEN. CANNS: Right, you’ve mentioned the tree huggers. You mentioned the possibility of what’s going around here talking about trying to float a bond and other groups to buy a portion of the federal government’s land (inaudible) while (inaudible) exactly what it is to sell it, prevent the government from taking over with the fear that they will put further restrictions on it than the state would. And, the snowmobilers are probably are pretty neutral on this, because (inaudible) get involved (inaudible). But I feel, of course, if such an issue arose with bonded money, I just want to know if there would be any interest on the part of the snowmobilers, because this is now somewhat part of the gentry. Snowmobilers used to be just hunters get out on it. But now we’ve got people with (inaudible) machines. They are not exactly paupers. So, what I’m thinking, would they be interested in preservation of their rights in any way at all in such a bond issue?
MR. WATSON: I am sure that over a period of time there would be interested by some individuals. We had a group that expressed interest when this whole process began to develop, and we were kind of just sitting back at that point trying to see exactly what was going to happen and we couldn’t become a party to the actual bidding because there was no way we could even contemplate purchasing 132,000 acres of land. So, we were actually looking to see what was going to happen, and as the thing evolved, especially the Conservation Fund being the successful bidder on the property and based upon conversations we had with them, we became comfortable with them becoming the owners and with the disposition of the land as they had put a package together to do so. And, yes, there was interest by certain groups with VAST. There are certain members within VAST that would be able to institute a fund raising drive to raise the money for that effort. I know they had conversations with Commissioner Motyka as that point. We then put that group in touch with them because we were having the initial discussions as to what was going to happen with the Champion Land. I don’t know to what extent those conversations – I had the names of the individuals who were interested in raising funds, and I am sure there could be some money raised. But to be able to raise the amount of money that the US Fish and Wildlife Service are anticipated to pay for that land, then probably not to that extent.
SEN. CANNS: Okay, thank you very much.
SEN. READY: Okay, other comments or questions? So, basically, you like either language. What you want to see is agreement and the goals that you have got agreement with the parties and with the governor to go for it. That’s basically it.
MR. WATSON: Yes.
SEN. READY: Thank you very much. Steve.
Steve Holmes
VNRC

Morning. Steve Holmes, Vermont Natural Resources Council. As I testified, I think it was a week ago, or maybe a little bit more, we continue to support the Champion Land deal. We also support the draft that this committee has been working on over the last few days, dealing with easements and other provisions. I think, as Jim Shallow pointed out yesterday, there are a couple of ways that this draft could be improved, and one, he offered language that would bring back some balance within the preamble section to the easement section between conservation and usage. One unfortunate thing I think the House language does is it doesn’t address the natural resources. It does a very good job of protecting the traditional uses, which we also endorse, and I testified to last week, hunting, fishing, trapping, snowmobiling and logging practices in conformance with accepted management practices. But, it is very scant on conservation. I think the language that Jim offered to you is something we also support.
SEN. READY: Did you like the language that Gus offered?
MR. HOLMES: I actually didn’t – wait a minute, I did see Gus’s language.
SEN. RIEHLE: Did we get a copy of that?
SEN. READY: No, but he just gave it to me. It’s just one sentence. I was thinking of getting some of the stuff typed up.
MR. HOLMES: I haven’t reviewed Gus’s.
SEN. READY: I can read it to you. I just says “additional purposes of the appropriation including the maintenance of wildlife habitat and the conservation of identified natural heritage sites.”
MR. HOLMES: Yeah. I think I like the way the Audubon put it a little bit better.
SEN. RIEHLE: Well, it’s on an equal basis as opposed to an add-on.
UNKNOWN: That’s correct. I think the governor has been quite clear that public access and traditional uses is what got him to the point of supporting an appropriation of this size. But I think when you look at the structure of public acquisition, that’s where the balance really comes in. You are going to have 48,000 acres in public ownership to be managed for wildlife as opposed to being managed to produce timber.
SEN. CHARD: Yeah, I like this language better, too.
MR. HOLMES: Well, this is supposed to be a conservation easement. So, this puts conservation in. It puts traditional uses and it puts sustainable production of wood products. I think that’s the balance that we’ve all – I think we’ve all be trying to achieve in this land deal. Putting conservation in, I think, fills out the three legs of this stool, if you will.
SEN. RIEHLE: Can I ask you in terms of the discussion and the negotiations, I guess, in the House, around this language, was that issue raised and rejected or was it just forgotten?
MR. HOLMES: My recollection was that it was just forgotten.
SEN. RIEHLE: It was just forgotten.
MR. HOLMES: Yeah.
SEN. RIEHLE: So, there wasn’t an amendment on the floor to put in some additional language around wildlife habitat, natural heritage sites and that was rejected, it just was sort of lost in the shuffle.
MR. HOLMES: Other folks in the room were there the day of the debate. I was in Boston that day. Other members of my staff were there.
SEN. RIEHLE: Okay.
MR. HOLMES: The other area impacts on the water classification. I think that the way that the draft you’ve been working on handles it is done in a much more fair and equitable way. What we would be saying here is that under the very last section, “protect traditional uses, participate in judicial and regulatory proceedings to assure that logging and recreational uses are continued.” We would support that language and that basically directs the Agency of Natural Resources to show up at any hearings on reclassification to insure that those uses are continued. We fully expect, in our petitions before the Water Resources Board, which are on hold until April, that those uses will continue along with all the other uses that are mentioned in this bill and basically Class A is getting geared towards direct and indirect discharges of waste, solid waste facilities. Those are fairly intensive land uses that put excessive volumes of polluting waste into the waters. I think those are the kind of things that Class A designation are designed to protect against. I think that you have a procedure. You have existing law with respect to reclassification that has already been set up. Class A goes back to 1942, if you go back to the whole A,B,C,D system. It was modified in 1986 and there’s a process for dealing with clean water that, as you know, is managed by the Water Resources Board. That’s the forum to deal with these issues. We think that the language that you would propose here remedies what I think is a little bit misguided in the House ultimate version.
SEN. READY: Okay, questions for Steve Holmes.
SEN. CANNS: Steve, you’ve been involved in this for many, many days, and you’ve seen a lot of things happen. I would ask you, would there be any objection on your part should something be entered in here that – something like as follows. I just wrote it down. Should conservation uses and traditional uses be in conflict, which can happen, the state shall construe traditional uses as a priority and as most favorable. Would you object to that?
MR. HOLMES: What was the comparison between conservation (interrupted)
SEN. CANNS: Conflict of uses.
SEN. READY: On what?
SEN. CANNS: Traditional uses and conservation uses.
SEN. READY: I don’t think they are two different things, myself.
SEN. CANNS: They are, very definitely.
SEN. READY: That’s one person’s opinion.
SEN. CANNS: Well, you run bear dogs and rabbit dogs and you run grouse dogs and there are some people who don’t like that. They say they are tearing up the place and they are chasing the deer. There are all sorts of conflicts that come up.
MR. HOLMES: I wouldn’t disagree that those uses are all conservation uses. All the ones that have been discussed so far when you are talking about hunting, fishing, trapping, snowmobiling, hiking, all those things are traditional uses that are, in my mind, in our mind, conservation uses as well. So, I guess I don’t disagree with that.
SEN. CANNS: Well, what is happening, will happen and has happened, I don’t know will happen, is that traditionally they are allowed to hunt – have dogs in order to chase bear. You can train the dogs, and there are some places where there is very great objections to that. And, there are other activities that take place, such as bringing bird dogs in to chase birds and grouse and also rabbits. There is a (inaudible) sport all of these things. This is traditional uses. Now, we heard from the federal government that some of these may be curtailed. They may be curtailing this. Particularly in (inaudible) about dogs. So, I’m just wondering, here, shouldn’t we say something to preserve traditional uses here as opposed to other activities.
MR. HOLMES: I wouldn’t have any problem with that.
SEN. CANNS: No, somebody made (inaudible) and (interrupted)
MR. HOLMES: We don’t have any problems with those uses that you just mentioned.
SEN. CANNS: Okay, thank you.
SEN. RIEHLE: It sounds like the conflict is with the federal government, not conservation uses as Vermont imagines them or defines them. Correct? It’s only the federal government that’s said we may curtail this. There hasn’t been any Vermont organizations, other than maybe people who don’t like trapping or something, or hunting, are saying that we shouldn’t do either. Is that correct?
SEN. CANNS: The correct portion is that I’m not sure I can separate the two, because Vermont wants to parallel what the federal government does, they claim. They both want to parallel each other, but the federal government is liable to come out with more stringent uses, and they will prevail over Vermont. We can’t control it if the federal government says you are going to do this because we’re doing this. That’s what I’m fearing.
SEN. RIEHLE: On the Vermont land.
SEN. CANNS: On both, the Nulhegan and the rest of it, the (inaudible). I just want to put a little thing there that says – tell us what we’ll do, how we would address those issues. Steve was saying he had no problem with it. I don’t see where it’s a big issue, but it will be (inaudible), that’s all.
MR. HOLMES: That’s basically all I have to say.
SEN. READY: Okay, thanks for your work on this. I wonder AIV is, anybody seen them?
UNKNOWN: What we to go take a look?
SEN. READY: Gus, do you feel like joining us for a minute? Is that all right?
MR. SEELIG: I don’t have anything new to add.
SEN. READY: No, I just had some questions for you. If we inserted that language of yours (interrupted)
SEN. CHARD: Oh whose?
SEN. READY: Gus’s, just the additional purposes, I guess the question I have, if we worked off this shorter version, which is a condensed form of the House with some changes, would it be – an issue that came up yesterday – would it be smarter to move or to add under the Agency of Natural Resources, if they are the one – are they the ones that are going to negotiate with the US Fish and Wildlife? That seems to be where a lot of the issues are.
Gus Seelig
VT Housing and Conservation Board

There is actually an MOU that Mr. Rocchio can get you that’s already been signed between the two agencies that it may go to, and I know Ron Regan is in the building. I think he’s up in House Fish and Wildlife. You may want to hear from him about how they are going to look forward on a variety of issues with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. But, yes, the Agency of Natural Resources will be taking the lead on that.
SEN. READY: Because, see we’ve got all this stuff about camps and recreation and land management we’re hoping that some of that would apply to the federal lands. Would it be better to have that under the section about the agency than your section?
MR. SEELIG: I guess I need to be looking at it. One idea I know they are still talking about in the House committee is just some sort of resolution from the legislature directed to the US Fish and Wildlife Service so that you folks would be on record with them as they begin their public input process that address a number of these issues, and that may be the way you want to go.
SEN. READY: Well, that may be the way – we can do a process in here. I don’t know how much the resolution (interrupted)
SEN. CHARD: Doesn’t carry a lot of weight.
SEN. READY: To be honest with you, in our caucus, the notion that we had to do everything exactly the way a House committee had done did not take strong root.
MR. SEELIG: I understand that.
SEN. READY: So, I appreciate knowing what’s going on, but I’m just saying, and it’s not a rejection of them, it’s just a separate body.
MR. SEELIG: That’s fine.
SEN. RIEHLE: Well, I think the law directs you to include those in the negotiations are stronger than a resolution suggesting we would like you to think about this but (interrupted)
SEN. CHARD: It’s in a law.
SEN. READY: So, if we wanted to put, we could leave the part about the camp leases, the recreation and the land management in your part, and we could also put it in the other part, right?
MR. SEELIG: Yeah, I mean you have a section on collaborating with federal agencies, and I think the language is broad to ensure the management plans for all state and federal (inaudible) portions of the land are coordinated. And you could be more specific beyond that broad sentence. I mean I would say management plans to encompass all the issues that the committee has been concerned about. But you can certainly choose to be more specific in that section, and that would get at your concerns.
SEN. READY: Okay. That’s probably a good idea. Now is that land going to have logging on it, do you know?
MR. SEELIG: My understanding is that the land and (inaudible) may want to jump in, the land in federal ownership is going to be managed for the wildlife resources, wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing are promoted activities as part of the Conte Refuge. I think my understanding of the discussions between the two agencies is that the land will not be managed for logging purposes but, for instance, there may be some timber harvest because that’s one of the ways you keep the deer herd healthy. So, it’s not going to be the primary purpose of the federal ownership is that best way to say. But it may be a management activity.
SEN. READY: Is it your understanding that hunting, fishing, maybe not trapping?
MR. SEELIG: What the feds have said about trapping is that it is not among the six activities that are promoted in their statute. It is allowed as a management activity. In other words, hunting, fishing and (interrupted)
SEN. RIEHLE: Which is a little different than recreational.
MR. SEELIG: Right. I should also say that under the way things are currently, trapping is by permit there. I think 15 persons the Champion has issued trapping permits to. I guess the way I thought about this and talked about it in the other body is 107,000 acres are going to be open for trapping without any question. On the 26,000 acres that the feds are going to have, they are going to go through a public process and using trapping as a management tool to deal with over populations. That’s what they have agreed to do. That’s as far as they are willing to go. The one thing that I think indicated their flexibility when we met with them is they said, since it’s going to take us awhile to develop our management plan, why don’t you folks (inaudible) yourselves in there, retain trapping rights for one year so that at least in the interim trapping can go along while we’re doing our management plan.
SEN. READY: Okay. How would you feel if we included in that collaboration with federal agencies if we included that they will work with the US Fish and Wildlife Department to ensure that management plans for all state and federally owned portions of the land are coordinated. And then put in something that they would be encouraged to negotiate for those uses. Would that be something that (interrupted)
UNKNOWN: The six priority uses are hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, bicycling, bird watching, hiking. There is no mention of trapping in the act. They are not allowed to trap except under a fur bearer management plan. They have no plan that they’ve agreed to keep the land open for trapping as it is now for one year. They have also promised in Newport the other night to give priority to that trapping management plan. They promised the trappers in attendance that they would do that first. It might take a year, it might take two years, but they will have a plan soon. That plan is going to be specifically according to their studies of the fur bearers on that property.
SEN. READY: Okay. I’m just trying to think about – we could ask our agency to encourage that, not to make it a deal breaker but to encourage that.
UNKNOWN: I think that’s been brought up. The Fish and Wildlife Department Commissioner was in attendance the other night, and he and the federal Conte people are working together and they basically are going to coordinate their management plan. Now, the federal people are going to control trapping much more strictly than the state people who encourage it. But, you know, the federal people are not going to do the trapping piece according to state regulations. They are going to have their own set of regulations and it’s going to be strictly for management purposes.
SEN. READY: Okay.
SEN. RIEHLE: And it’s only fur bearing, so if you – I guess that’s why you’re trapping them. I was thinking of the dog hunting problems, but that’s because they allow that, right? That’s hunting?
UNKNOWN: No. They are specifically excluding and they feel that there is a lot of public objection to that and they listen to that very carefully. They’ve also promised to study that.
SEN. RIEHLE: And the public objection it is sort of a national consensus, correct?
UNKNOWN: That’s right. The point that the sportsmen bring up is that we’ve been rabbit hunting with dogs and they are hunting with dogs for generations on that property and are supply of bear, for example, than other dog hunted species are at their all time high.
SEN. READY: Okay, great, but maybe if we put a sentence in urging our agencies to do everything they can on it that might, like Helen was saying, be better than a resolution. I mean not to make it (inaudible)
UNKNOWN: You won’t get any objection from us, certainly (interrupted)
SEN. READY: Yeah, well, I’m trying to hear from everybody and see – I really do think there’s something for everybody in this deal and it’s a matter of articulating – well, it’s one of those rare things.
UNKNOWN: One of the things that we worry about as far as language is concerned is that wherever hunting and fishing are mentioned in the version that I’ve seen, it’s open to trapping. We would like to see that word hunting, fishing, trapping, etc.
SEN. READY: Well, I’ve got it hear. They thing about them dogs, now. I have to tell you, in Lincoln we have quite a significant bear population, and it is controversial amongst the hunters.
SEN. RIEHLE: The dogs?
SEN. READY: Oh, yeah.
SEN. RIEHLE: Amongst the hunters or just the public.
SEN. CHARD: General public?
SEN. READY: No, amongst everybody. I mean it’s very controversial. Because you know what, they do try to – they allow them to put the radios on them and they train them for months before the season opens. So, you could have the same bears. I have one bear club that comes to Lincoln all the time. Right across the river from me and they come in and one club will come in and they will run on Wednesday and another club from some place else, New Hampshire, runs on Thursdays and it’s the same bears and they are running everyday. So, some of my local hunters are saying, how do you have healthy reproduction and healthy population. I’m just giving you a report of what I hear about. And, you’ve got to sides. You’ve got the clubs who want to come in an run and train and you’ve got the local people who are saying, gee, there’s not a single day there are dogs up there. In a place like Lincoln, you know, where it’s not that far from (interrupted)
SEN. RIEHLE: Well, you are also talking about a much smaller area to run them and track them in Lincoln.
SEN. READY: Yeah.
SEN. RIEHLE: You’ve got X number of acres where they run as opposed to 133,000.
SEN. CANNS: Could I just enlighten you are on some of the bear conditions and what the problems are?
SEN. READY: You don’t think I’m enlightened?
SEN. CANNS: I don’t think you are from the conversation you just gave.
SEN. READY: Well, I’m repeating what other people said.
SEN. CANNS: I know you know what’s happening, but I go back in history with this issue. And, when Harry Montague and I were directing (inaudible) sportsmen clubs, at a time that I wrote up some legislation and had John McClaughry present it. It stopped people from trapping bears, from baiting bears and from rotating hounds on bears, which they did. They came from all over the United States. What happened finally is they annoyed people so much, particularly in the Northeast Kingdom, and as you are mentioning even now, that what we decided would happen, and the Fish and Wildlife worked with us, that they could only come up here and train their dogs during the season that they are allowed to in their own states. That slowed down some of the process, because they came up here and they drove us crazy and were all over our lands night and days with those speakers and collars (interrupted)
SEN. READY: No, you are exactly right.
SEN. CANNS: So, what happens at this point is that we would like to find some way to preserve what they have left. We’ve restricted them that much.
SEN. READY: No, I understand, but I’m talking about private property ownership here where – there’s a Supreme Court case, as you know, that says once the dog is on the land – I go up, I let my dog lose on your land. Okay? There’s nothing against that. I standing on the road with the radio in my hand, but the dog is on your private property. Then it trees a bear. You have the right ,under the Supreme Court case, to go onto that private property and get that dog.
SEN. RIEHLE: And you can get the bear at the same time?
SEN. READY: No, not at all. So, I’m telling you the game wardens in my district are having a field day with this. It’s very difficult. Isn’t that right commissioner?
COMM. REGAN: I missed what you said. I was shaking my head at Senator Riehle.
SEN. READY: Okay. Do you want to talk to us a little bit about your negotiations?
Comm. Ron Regan
VT Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

You may have seen this already, but I’ll hand out copies of this. It’s an agreement in effect that was signed by myself, Commissioner Motyka and a representative from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. And what it is, is a statement of intent and good will to try to work collaboratively and cooperatively on some of these issues you are talking about. And, some of the issues pertain to habitat management, in particular the deer yard or the deer bearing area, to (inaudible) on both parcels. It would be in state and federal ownership, although most noticeably in federal ownership. And, it addresses things like the numbers of rare and endangered species that are up there, such as spruce grouse and gray jay and so forth. And, even though we haven’t been specific in what the management may look like, we are committed, we being the state and the federal government, to working together to articulate those principles and to come up with a management plan that is the best interest of the species that are state trust species, like deer and moose and some of the state (inaudible) species. The federal government has a big interest in some of the federal trust species, things that they are particularly asked to be the stewards of through congressional actions like the migratory birds and so one of the things, for instance, that they will take a big interest in is woodcock and they will look for opportunities to manage the land to benefit woodcock. They may look for opportunities to manage the land to benefit migratory song birds, for instance. So, those are all sorts of things from a management standpoint that we will try to work together on. And, I think we can work effectively.
On the second page it starts to get into some of the – or rather the third page, actually, some of the traditional use issues. And, once again, as you will see here, in the first sentence on page 3, all parties recognize the long history of hunting, fishing, trapping and fur bearer management and other forms of recreation. Now, from the Service’s standpoint, the reason why they are usually reluctant to append the word trapping to the hunting and fishing clause is because two years ago there was the Refuge Reform Act of 1997. When that was passed by Congress, hunting and fishing were identified as six of the big public uses that would be compatible with refuges. Trapping, for some reason was not included in that list. They still have authority to allow trapping to occur, but it needs to occur because there is a management reason. Unlike hunting, which they can allow, just for “pure recreation.” So, this means, therefore, that if they were to take possession of that land this year, I think the hunting would occur on their ownership this fall uninterrupted and just like it’s always occurred. The reason is because hunting is one of the those big six compatible uses. At some point in time, they will have to write a management plan for the 26,000 acres and it will probably be three or four years down the road. And, when they write that management plan, that will be subject to an environmental impact statement review. Now, it’s possible that there might be some changes that come out the other end as a result of that, but what I tell the sportsmen of this state is you've always been very articulate and loud advocates for the things that you like to do. It’s an open public process, and if you make sure that you are effective in getting your points across to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, you have the high probability of successfully advocating for the kinds of things that have occurred up there.
Now the hound issue, in and of itself, does receive some extra attention or scrutiny by the Service. And, on some federal refuges, I don’t know if it’s all, but certainly some, there is not much support for using hounds to hunt bears and other species. What I’m telling the Service is not be predecisional on this issue, just because they have concerns on other refuges. Vermont is different, and I’ve been telling the Service that I think we can articulate a very good rational for the continued use of hounds under some circumstances for hunting bears, even on Service lands. I think the Service is at the place where they are willing to exceed to that logic and not at this point say definitively that hounds cannot be used and that they will bring an open mind to future discussions and that’s when they will occur about whether or not that practice will continue. They are trying to be very up front and aboveboard and just say they have a history of taking a hard look at these issues. They want to make sure that the sports persons of the state know that. And from my standpoint as one of the advocates on the state side of things, I’m just trying to make sure that they don’t necessarily be predecisional and make a decision now before they’ve had a chance to hear all of our arguments in support of the use of hounds for hunting bears, and we think there’s some very – not just recreational reasons but very important ecological and population reasons why this makes sense. I can get into that if you want to.
SEN. READY: I would like to hear a little bit about that, because it is a big issue in my town.
COMM. REGAN: It is and it’s a big issue throughout the country. It’s one of the things that are under attack by the animal rights groups throughout the country because it is something that is easy to generate some emotion on, like the trapping issue. But we think, for instance, that we want to maintain not only a thriving bear population in the state of Vermont but a wild bear population in the state of Vermont. And, we do have the thriving bear population now. It has been increasing in recent years, even though we hunt them and have had relatively high harvest for several consecutive years, and we also have a wild bear population in Vermont. In some years, in other states like New York and New Hampshire or Massachusetts, have real problems with bear damage because of lack of natural foods in the woods. We do not have the same problems in Vermont. I think the reason is, number one, we have a long bear season and bears have learned behaviorally to continue to avoid humans, more often than not, and secondly, the hound issue. We have a training season in the summer and hounds are used in the fall, of course, for hunting. I think there’s some averse of conditioning that occurs through these things that continue to make bears weary and wild. I think that’s very important from the state’s perspective, because if we diminish that wildness and weariness in our bears, we will be setting ourselves up for more damage problems, more complaints in the future, and then we set ourselves up for having to go out and maybe actually kill bears with our warden force and bears, instead of becoming kind of a cherished natural resource become almost vermin, like beavers are or raccoons might be in some situations today.
SEN. SPAULDING: Swans.
COMM. REGAN: And swans.
SEN. READY: You didn’t like that?
SEN. SPAULDING: No, I just said there was an example of where it wasn’t a very popular thing for (interrupted)
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
SEN. RIEHLE: What are those horrendous (inaudible) on the lake that are wrecking the islands?
SEN. READY: Those are cormorants.
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
COMM. REGAN: So, anyway, we think there are some really profound ecological reasons for hunting bears over a long period of time and hunting them with hounds. That’s the case that we want to bring to the table with the Service. If they don’t allow that to occur, they may be setting themselves up for more problems with bears getting in their dumpsters, in the garbage of the camps with residents up there, and they may be helping to create or perpetuate a problem instead of addressing it proactively by allowing this practice to occur.
SEN. READY: Commissioner, do you get like I do, or is my town alone in this regard, complaints from other sportsmen about the amount? Maybe it’s because Lincoln isn’t that far from a populated area.
COMM. REGAN: We get, probably, somewhere between three and five complaints a year that I’m aware of.
SEN. READY: Gee, I get more than that myself.
COMM. REGAN: And, it tends to probably go on fixing some (inaudible). A few years ago the Granville area seemed to be a hotbed for some concerns. That seems to have abated. There were some concerns down in Weston in Rep. Suchmann’s district this past year.
UNKNOWN: Chester.
COMM. REGAN: Okay, the complaint came from Weston to him. But it’s not widespread and not evenly distributed through the state. We have worked quite a bit. We have what we call a bear team of biologists and wardens and we’ve worked quite a bit with the Houndsmen Association in the state, and they are very interested in trying to be proactive enforcers, if you will, of good and responsible and ethical conduct by the people who use hounds. They are very interested in doing whatever they can to identify bad actors and try to deal with them through education or whatever means.
SEN. READY: Now, did you proposed an addition to the bear tag last year?
COMM. REGAN: We did. It was part of our fee bill increase request last year and it did run into some problems on the Senate side, and it was dropped from the fee bill request. We’ve been advised now, as I understand it, different agencies are on a rotation in terms of when they get to do fee bill issues and we would probably, assuming we get the support of the administration want to revisit that issue two years from hence. But we think there is merit to having a separate bear tag because we think it would give us some better precision in management.
SEN. READY: Do you agree with that (inaudible).
UNKNOWN: 100 percent. We think we’re 30 years late in getting separate bear tags. All of your bear hunters support the separate bear tag right down to the ground. We feel it is good for the resource (inaudible) license fees (inaudible) the state.
SEN. MacDONALD: A separate bear tag would render the (inaudible). The current situation is you hunt deer, you are eligible to hunt bear with no extra charge.
UNKNOWN: Correct, and you buy your (interrupted)
SEN. MacDONALD: Last year it was proposed that deer hunters would be given the option to purchase or not purchase a bear tag in addition to the deer tag.
COMM. REGAN: That’s correct.
SEN. MacDONALD: At $10.00 a pop.
COMM. REGAN: That’s correct.
SEN. MacDONALD: And the testimony is that we want to have bears have a healthy fear of humans and to allow to keep the population under control. It strikes me that charging $10.00 extra optional for a bear tag flies in the face of that policy because it would reduce the number of bear eligible hunters who hunt. And, when we asked that this increase be stricken from the bill that was one of the concerns that came up, that there would be fewer people who would hunt bear because now they would have to cough up an extra $10.00.
COMM. REGAN: The point is well taken, and we’ve debated that internally in terms of what the impact might be and what the proper purchase point might be to necessarily drive everybody away from hunting bears, but one of the reasons why we have felt it was important to do that is that we do anticipate managing the bear population with more precision on a regional basis. And, knowing something about bear hunter effort, which we don’t know now, helps us to know that when there are ups and downs in the bear harvest from year to year, is that because there’s less pressure or is it based on some environmental variables or perhaps even a downturn in the population itself or otherwise.
SEN. MacDONALD: I realize I’m slightly off the subject here, but I want to share something the Commissioner is already familiar with, a story I have from folks who live in the town of Washington. There was an event that I heard, talking about their daughters wedding and about all the dogs that showed up at the wedding. I knew the daughter and we’re friends, and I was quite surprised because they are all quite attractive people, and when I learned more about the wedding, it turned out they were bear dogs that showed up. They went right to the wedding party at their home, and the people who followed behind with the radios, as the people where coming out of the house and out of the garage and underneath the tables where they had dove because of these barking hounds came through the party and knocked the food on the ground and sent everybody scattering, not only were they unapologetic for what had just taken place, but they (inaudible) the people from living in the area where they elected to live on their own private property and asserted their right to chase bear around with dogs wherever they pleased. It was (interrupted)
COMM. REGAN: It was highly unfortunate. The problem with hounds is of course you can’t necessarily control them. The attitude that they then – the disregard for the people is totally unacceptable.
SEN. READY: That’s why we should have bear tags.
SEN. MacDONALD: The dogs used to chase escaped prisoners, which I don’t know if bears are trying to carry on that traditional use of dogs. (Laughter)
SEN. CANNS: Dogs are not only used for bears, as we know, they are used for rabbits and there is a great deal of rabbit hunting that takes place in this state. A lot more than people here realize. We have separate clubs for that. Of course they raise beagle hounds for that purpose. The other is bird hunting. Some people are very (inaudible) using dogs for that. But not these large bear dogs. I just wanted to tell the committee the reason that I thought about this legislation, I did years ago, is because we have a young fellow shoot five bears in one day. Shot a mother and four cubs in Island Pond. That sort of turned everybody off. So, what happened was I presented legislation to the (inaudible), which they approved to stop trapping and to stop rotating dogs, which they did. One pack would get tired (interrupted)
SEN. READY: What do these dogs look like?
SEN. CANNS: They are rather large dogs and they are trained very well. They are a bear hound, they call them and there is (interrupted)
UNKNOWN: Walkers and plotts, they are big breds.
SEN. CANNS: They come out of Tennessee mostly.
SEN. RIEHLE: Walkers?
COMM. REGAN: Walkers, I believe and plotts.
SEN. MacDONALD: They are not beagles running rabbits.
COMM. REGAN: No.
SEN. READY: Are they vicious to people?
SEN. CANNS: No necessarily.
COMM. REGAN: No, they are not.
SEN. READY: In the woods they are?
COMM. REGAN: No, they are not. I’ve been out with the – we used to use hounds for research, back 20 years ago. We would tree bears and then dart them and radio collar them, that sort of thing. They are very fine animals as dogs go. They are large, of course.
SEN. CHARD: How large?
COMM. REGAN: Well, a Labrador Retriever size.
SEN. READY: But they wouldn’t hurt a person out in the woods?
COMM. REGAN: No.
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
COMM. REGAN: They are extremely expensive.
SEN. RIEHLE: Are they?
SEN. CANNS: Very expensive.
SEN. RIEHLE: Like what?
COMM. REGAN: A couple of thousand dollars per dog.
SEN. CANNS: They are very expensive and they have clubs. They have one up our way (inaudible). They sell them, the puppies are very high.
SEN. READY: This is very helpful testimony.
SEN. SPAULDING: When we’re done with this – back to the Champion deal. There is a lot of concern about this federal Fish and Wildlife Service. I’m just curious, in your experience, I don’t know who else to ask, whether – you know if you look around New England or other places that are national level, or something, where fish and wildlife – the feds are involved, how much of the fear is justified and how much is sort of, I don’t know what, like a reaction to some kind of sea(?) stories on the television where they don’t allow things to happen any more? I’m just trying to figure out – and I don’t have a good feel for that, Ron – how concerned we ought to be with the feds ownership of the land.
COMM. REGAN: That’s a good question. We work with the federal government a lot. What I tell people is, they walk our walk and talk our talk almost all of the time. They are a management agency, so they are not afraid to manipulate the landscape to improve habitat. They are not preservationist, per se, and they also understand the need to manage populations. That means killing animals in some circumstances. So, they are not averse to that. I think that probably 90 percent of the time we walk hand in hand on most major issues. I also tell people that if you look around, probably the US Fish and Wildlife Service is the best potential partner, other than ourselves, that could come to the table, because they do understand management issues. They do understand habitat and population issues. They know on the national and regional landscape what is occurring with animal rights issues and that sort of thing, and we already have effective channels of communication open.
Now, I don’t think, on the other hand, we will always agree on everything, but we wouldn’t with anybody else and even internally it’s not likely we would always agree on what we should do on anything. But I think we can work with them and I think they will be open and listen to us. We’ve signed this agreement which is a good faith documents of working cooperatively, and that’s what I expect to occur.
I did want to comment briefly on the trapping issue, just a couple of closing things. I think this is an example of them trying to go the extra mile to address state concerns. Because, I think, hunting will occur, and fishing this fall, like it always has, the trapping thing can’t occur unless they had offered, and it was their offer to work with the Conservation Fund to hold the trapping easement or rights for one year. Because, since that trapping is not one of the big six, they would have to do a management plan first before they could allow the trapping to occur. So, what they are working on with the Conservation Fund, (inaudible) hopefully the fund will hold those rights for a year, which would, in fact, allow trapping to occur this fall like it always has. In the meantime they will right a management plan which will address the 12 or 13 fur bear species that we have in the state of Vermont and make some recommendations for management for those species. They’ve already started talking to our fur bear biologist about that. I think in the future there will be trapping that occurs on most or all of the refuge. I don’t think necessarily it will be all the same species that are trapped now, but I think certainly things like the canids, the foxes, the coyotes, raccoons and beaver.
SEN. RIEHLE: What are canids?
COMM. REGAN: Well, the dog species, the foxes and the coyotes. Sorry, that they will in fact be trapped in some way. But I think trapping is occur. One of the interesting things is that even Champion regulated trapping on their land. They issued permits. There were 15 permits issued in the most recent year, and they regulated the fact that fisher could not be taken. So, it wasn’t even like the trapping community had (interrupted)
SEN. RIEHLE: When did fisher get back into being taken?
COMM. REGAN: Well, fisher have been harvested in this state for over 20 years.
SEN. READY: Oh, they have? You are not supposed to shoot them, right?
COMM. REGAN: You can’t shoot them, and it’s a highly regulated trapping season. (Inaudible) trap because they are growing timber and pulp and they wanted a natural predator on the porcupine population. So, even there, with a private owner, there was already some kind of regulatory “activity” occurring with trapping. But, the good news is they on their own, through probably some of our lobbying, are looking for tools to try to perpetuate these uses and be sensitive to some of the state concerns.
SEN. READY: Commissioner, would you have anything against if we wanted to – I don’t know if this might have been before you came, we had some discussion, Gus Seelig had mentioned that the House was thinking of a resolution, if we were in a section of our bill under collaboration to ask the ANR to negotiate but not put it in, in a way that precluded – not ANR shall, but rather that you will go in an negotiate for these (inaudible), would you have any objection?
COMM. REGAN: I don’t think so. I mean that’s basically what this document is, an expression.
SEN. READY: Okay.
SEN. RIEHLE: So, this is what you were calling the MOU? Yes, that’s kind of a quick way to call it. It’s technically not a legal MOU, but it is certainly a statement of intent.
SEN. CHARD: And you trust them?
COMM. REGAN: I do trust them, yeah, and they signed it. We were down there Friday dealing on the cormorant issue, and that has been a bit of a rocky road, but I think on Friday we got the Service – I think we’re this close now to getting from the service what we need. It’s taken some work, but again, and on Friday, they did everything they could to help us at this point, I hope. The proof will be in the putting.
SEN. RIEHLE: So, they’ve come this close to doing what?
COMM. REGAN: Well, they have to – we need a permit because they are a migratory bird protected by federal law, and they are very careful about how and when they issue those permits. We are requesting a permit for some very aggressive control on (inaudible) island of the Grand Isle. Not killing adults, per se, but egg oiling and preventing reproduction and that some of thing to minimize the (interrupted)
SEN. RIEHLE: Egg oiling?
COMM. REGAN: Um hum.
SEN. RIEHLE: So, they don’t hatch?
COMM. REGAN: That’s correct.
SEN. RIEHLE: They can’t breath and it smothers them inside?
COMM. REGAN: That’s correct, but they continue to incubate thinking the eggs are viable. So, if you were to just take the eggs, they would renest. This is kind of a – this is fooling mother nature.
SEN. SPAULDING: Slow them down a little bit anyway.
SEN. CHARD: So, they think they have (interrupted)
COMM. REGAN: They think they still have viable eggs and they will continue to set on the nest for weeks and weeks and weeks as opposed to laying more eggs and incubating the new. We’re fooling them.
SEN. SPAULDING: So, how long (inaudible).
COMM. REGAN: We would be going up there probably every 10 to 13 days oiling the eggs and (interrupted)
SEN. CHARD: Don’t they eventually get smart enough to know what you are doing?
COMM. REGAN: They don’t seem to. This is done with bird species and then (inaudible).
SEN. CHARD: Well, that’s a very useful piece of information and pleased to have this.
SEN. RIEHLE: Yeah, me too. Exactly how do you oil the eggs?
SEN. READY: I would like to get Senator Illuzzi while he is here, since he’s out of Judiciary, but we will have the commissioner back on this issue.
UNKNOWN: On cormorants?
SEN. READY: Yes.
COMM. REGAN: And the Service is prepared to come up in March and would be willing to meet with your committee (interrupted)
SEN. CHARD: Do they oil also?
COMM. REGAN: No we do it – well, there is a different federal agency that would be involved. Thank you.
SEN. READY: Okay, Vince, please join us. Welcome. Let me just tell you want we doing. We’re trying to (interrupted)
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
SEN. READY: -- we’re trying to get some language that would go into the supplemental bill to direct folks on this, and we would love to have your advice.
Senator Vincent Illuzzi
Essex/Orleans Counties

Okay, thank you. Two Sundays ago there were a number of documents that had been given to me since this deal was first announced in late December. What I did, essentially, was take those documents and try to reduce into writing in one place all of the various promises, guarantees and commitments that had been made by various parties, starting with the governor, Conservation Fund, Vermont Land Trust and the state agencies involved in negotiating the agreement, deal. I know this is a very popular proposal here at the State House, but you can imagine if someone came to your county and said, we’re going to shut down a third of your county from further development forever. You might initially think, gee, that’s great, if you are from Chittenden County or you are from Windham County where you pretty much had all the development you wanted and then some. But, it’s not that general feeling in (interrupted)
(END OF TAPE 1, SIDE 1)
SEN. READY: Where’s that? I didn’t get it.
SEN. ILLUZZI: I think he in an articulate fashion sets forth sort of the feelings. There have been other more crude remarks made about the deal, and so I think those of us from that part of the state have to be sensitive to the fact that this is not normally embraced by everyone in the Northeast Kingdom like it is for people outside the Northeast Kingdom. They see it as a burden on them as opposed to a benefit.
SEN. READY: I’m sick of hearing McClaughry. I am. He’s on the radio in the morning and he is in the paper. I mean it is just way out of control. He’s like a one-man show.
SEN. ILLUZZI: But, as you know, he represents a large group of people in that part of the state.
SEN. READY: No, I don’t know that.
SEN. ILLUZZI: Well, I have to deal with that, so does Jules. And when you are sitting in Middlebury or Burlington and you sit (interrupted)
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
SEN. ILLUZZI: -- people there don’t view this like they might in Middlebury where it’s some distant effort to preserve land. And, I think you have to keep that in mind. So, in any event, I’ve worked with Darby Bradley and David Rocchio to try to come up with some assurances, not iron-clad guarantees, but assurances that what is being promised will be carried forward after all of us are gone. And so, that’s what this document tries to do. It’s not a final draft, but it’s – in fact the last version was written by Darby or one of his people. I haven’t even had a chance to read that. He just gave it to me about 20 minutes ago.
SEN. CHARD: So, what does is to make very specific what those assurances by (inaudible), is that’s what there?
SEN. ILLUZZI: Most of these promised have been made.
SEN. CHARD: Okay, they just have been this clear.
SEN. ILLUZZI: Right. And, I’ll tell you, there is a significant difference. You know the Governor’s letter talks about trying to create a value added forest product industry in the Northeast Kingdom. And, it’s one of those promises, like the town – what’s the town south of Bennington, Pownal. Pownal was promised all kind of economic development and resources (interrupted)
SEN. CHARD: But not have a casino.
SEN. ILLUZZI: Right, and they got nothing. So, I would like to propose – I think it’s a drop in the bucket, but I propose that $500,000 be set aside to receive applications from businesses in those three counties to try to develop a (inaudible)manage forest products industry. (Inaudible) doesn’t like it.
UNKNOWN: There are a lot of reasons (inaudible).
SEN. ILLUZZI: But I think it’s very reasonable. I think it makes people put their money where their mouth is, including in writing, it’s in one of his letters.
SEN. READY: What’s in one of his letters?
SEN. ILLUZZI: (Inaudible). I mean that one of the complaints was (interrupted)
SEN. CHARD: Did he pledge to that amount of money just to stimulate the forest products industry?
SEN. ILLUZZI: Right, something along those lines. One of the paragraphs in his letters. I think it was co-signed by the Governor, Darby Bradley and someone else.
SEN. RIEHLE: Do we have a copy of that letter? Okay.
SEN. MacDONALD: Senator Illuzzi, I had – on devaluated(?) parks, I had occasion to go up over your way and go to a post meeting by people who were loggers and property rights activists. I posed two questions. One was did much of the increase in cutting of logs in the last few years has gone to exports, like a 30 percent increase exports, and I asked the assembly what the state might be able to do to increase the vaulated products and not just cut these trees down and send them out of the state. I got an answer to that question which was the same answer I got to the next question, which was I understood that the Canadians had developed saws that, in essence, cut wood with less sawdust, which means they leave more wood. They get more boards out of the logs than we do, which puts our vaulated timber cutting into logs in this state at a disadvantage and what the state might be able to do to do that. I was just about driven out of the place. My gall and audacity from these supporters of the logging industry and property rights that government would intervene into and consider toying around with the private market and all I got from them the answer that – the salvation was to go from 40 to 75 acres. I kind of left with my tail between my legs. Even though all that happened by folks from up that way, I’m sympathetic to ways to try and deal with the value added industry. I don’t know if this is the most logical way to do it, but if we try and cut down on sawdust and increase on boards and keep some of our logs at home.
SEN. ILLUZZI: There is also something in here that was not in the various promises and commitments, that’s on page 4, that was water reclassification, which I think, Darby is here (inaudible), it mirrors the language in the House. I think it’s the language that’s in the House. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. There were two petitions filed by the NRC. One to designate it as an outstanding water resource and the other one is classified, I think, Class A water. This attempts to – this inserts that same – I don’t even understand what the language means, but it’s in there for discussion purposes.
SEN. READY: But, Vince, would you think that it was odd to try to affect a pending case in front of a quasi-judicial board? Would there not be another way to handle that which may be to direct the agency – the agency is statutory party in all those – through their involvement in the case, that the state’s position is that those uses would be protected, rather than kind of de facto saying on top of a case. I mean it’s kind of like saying, any Walmart coming into the state shall be denied.
SEN. ILLUZZI: I’m not sure it says that, but I would have to think it through. I haven’t discussed this language with anybody. I just wanted to tell you it’s in there and it wasn’t (inaudible).
SEN. READY: What’s the most important thing in here to you?
SEN. ILLUZZI: Whole(?).
SEN. READY: Okay. Any other questions or comments?
SEN. SPAULDING: I think I found the sentence that the Governor wrote, so, I thought I would read it to the committee. “A fundamental long-term goal of this deal is to provide an economic engine for the value added forest products industry in the Northeast Kingdom. By creating a sustainable forest resource through work and forest easements, private enterprise is assured of the high quality timber resources (inaudible) in the region.” That’s what the Governor said. But, Vince, just as a question. I’m curious, it’s just a question, it’s not meant to be anything, on the leases, I’m looking at page 6, when I look at, like, the second and third sentences, it looks more like a narrative to me as opposed to legislative language. I was just wondering, because you’re an expert at this stuff, like the sentence where it is (inaudible) US Fish and Wildlife Services has indicated it’s intention to adopt a similar policy relating to camps on the land acquired by (inaudible).
SEN. ILLUZZI: Right.
SEN. SPAULDING: What does that mean in legislative context? I’m just curious from your vantage point. It doesn’t do anything does it?
SEN. ILLUZZI: I understand, but first of all I didn’t write this. This has been rewritten. I didn’t use that language. I think Gil Livingston at the Vermont Land Trust actually probably wrote that. I don’t remember it from my version of the amendment. So, I think the goal – this is all characterized as legislative purposes. I think we’re trying to encourage, to the extent that we can, for the feds to continue these camp leases for the 50 year term.
SEN. SPAULDING: Okay.
SEN. ILLUZZI: I don’t know what else to tell you. The four matters (interrupted)
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
SEN. READY: Okay, Julius.
SEN. CANNS: Senator, I wonder if there’s any way you can come back with something that you have reviewed and your version of what should be, because you were in conference – (inaudible) conference with this and you said it was a win/win and I wanted to see that win/win come out of that. There are other ideas that I think you were going to write this up and let us know. I hear you are saying you are not sure about this part, this part, this part. I would rather see something you are sure about, because it effects all of our constituents, both yours and mine.
SEN. READY: Let me suggest another process.
SEN. ILLUZZI: I was asked to come in. I didn’t ask the (inaudible). I didn’t volunteer to come in. I didn’t say I was ready.
SEN. CANNS: Oh, okay.
SEN. READY: Vince, you are interested in protecting certain values. You aren’t necessarily wedded to specific language. Is that true?
SEN. ILLUZZI: Well, not that specific language, but I had a version which they then subsequently modified.
SEN. READY: I know but would you be willing to work with the committee or is it just word by word?
SEN. ILLUZZI: Work with the committee, but I disagree with VNRC on this issue. I’m not going to buy into wilderness areas. I’m not going to buy into (interrupted)
SEN. READY: Have you seen what the committee has been working on?
SEN. ILLUZZI: I haven’t.
SEN. READY: Okay, then maybe would you be willing to work with the committee on it or (interrupted)
SEN. ILLUZZI: Sure, but it doesn’t mean (interrupted)
SEN. READY: I mean this committee is not the board of the VNRC, as you know. We’re hearing from everybody. My point is I think what our committee is trying to do is listen to everyone and see what we could come up with. We would rather work with people than against them.
SEN. ILLUZZI: I’m not working against anybody.
SEN. READY: I know, but this committee spent a lot of time on this, and when I ask you what would you like best to incorporate or what’s the most important thing you say all of it, I mean I don’t know if that means that if there is one word different than you are against it or that you are willing to sit down and work with people. I guess I’m asking you, what are you planning?
SEN. ILLUZZI: Well, as I said, this contains, except (inaudible), the promises and commitments made by the parties to the agreement. I think it’s fair that ten years from now when all of us are gone, that there is a new governor, that the VLT is run by a different group people, that those same promises and commitments be honored. That’s all I’m trying to do, point out where I think my differs from what those promises and commitments have been. I strongly believe that water reclassification is a major issue up there. I think we should do something for the (inaudible) forest product industry so that wood doesn’t continue to get shipped to the (inaudible) in New York or some other mill out of state.
SEN. READY: Okay, thank you.

Kerrick Johnson
Associated Industries of Vermont

Good morning. My name is Kerrick Johnson and I work for Associated Industries of Vermont. How would you like me to proceed, Madame Chair.
SEN. READY: Just whatever you want to say about – you know the topic is what language should be included in the supplemental budget.
MR. JOHNSON: I guess I’ll repeat by saying our position was in the House on this issue, I was here for most of the discussion yesterday or even obviously today, but we’re seeking to do on two tracks is to achieve the stated goal of keeping the lands productive. Now, I did hear Mr. Montague yesterday and I agree with a lot of what he said. We certainly have some issues with the federal government at three public hearings in June of 1995 saying they would only acquire 2, 615 acres and then a couple of years later saying, we’ll just acquire 26,000 acres. We’ve had a lot of experience dealing with the federal government and their track records in keeping promises is a concern, to a large degree. I thought it was quite intriguing, Mr. Montague’s idea about having the state buy instead. Of the two we would support that as opposed to the federal government.
SEN. READY: Did you see the memorandum the commissioner passed out? I’ve got an extra copy.
SEN. SPAULDING: (Inaudible) Associated Industries of Vermont (inaudible).
MR. JOHNSON: Well, there was some whisper campaign, Senator, that the only reason why we’re taking the position we were is because one of our members got out bid on the process. I don’t think our members have that kind of money, thank you, but they’ve paid into a (inaudible) surplus that the state (inaudible).
SEN. SPAULDING: That’s true. Maybe you ought to ask them how they want to spend the surplus.
SEN. RIEHLE: Yeah, would you support it instead of a tax cut? Is that how you want to use the money?
MR. JOHNSON: Of the two we support a tax cut.
SEN. READY: Is this a hostile witness or is he (interrupted)
MR. JOHNSON: No, no, that’s all right, all fair play.
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
MR. JOHNSON: I will say, just on the list of concerns, as well, is that we’ve been part, for about two years now, the state developing it’s land acquisition plan. There they quite specifically state, well, we really don’t have the money to manage what we have. In some cases we really don’t know what kind of lands we have and (inaudible) what we should be doing with those. Yet, we’ll still get 22,000 acres and we’ll manage it for a primitive experience. Now what exactly the impacts will be like are uncertain. But, there again, that’s just concern and that’s part of the deal. The main issue is what will happen on the 85,000 acres now. Here again, taking the people – the Land Trust and the Administration (inaudible) two kinds of easements that will be over these 85,000 acres. There will be an easement, that my understanding is, that will be a little bit more restrictive. It was 12 or 15,000 acres. In subsequent conversations with Darby, I believe that number had been reduced, and the remaining portion will be under the straight kind of working easement to allow (inaudible). We had advocated in the House, and I think some of the discussion you had around here, was proved, I think, to a large point that there are a lot of unanswered questions. We didn’t think it should have been part of the supplemental appropriations, frankly, and could have been handled separately. It wasn’t. So, what we’re seeking to do on the same time is to work, as we have been for the last couple of years, with the Land Trust on the easement language since that is the legal document that will dictate the activities on the property and the legislation.
This is sort of an interesting dichotomy of views here. Now we have, I think it’s great, representatives from the Sierra Club and the National Audubon saying that they have certain property rights. I love that. I mean I think that’s great. You mentioned Senator Canns being asked (inaudible) VNRC there must be some obvious reasons and I think that your stated concern yesterday, as I heard about, the seeming inconsistency of people advocating restrictions of private property rights, I think to a large extent, in my opinion, was answered by the chair stating to the effect, we were talking about investment of public money and what are we getting for public monies. But I also think you have a point there and what we are seeking to do, and the big word I’ve noticed in the chair’s language is to allow. What we’re seeking to do is to allow for timber harvesting. Frankly, in summary, we’re just going to have to trust that the people that buy it will see the wisdom of that, keep us at our word that there are wildlife benefits, (inaudible) benefits, water quality benefits to timber harvesting (inaudible) do that. I mean, you have to acknowledge it is somewhat of a slippery slope. What we’re seeking to do is to the ensure, however, both in the easements, and that hasn’t really gotten real review legislatively and to some degree has been a different (inaudible) and the statutory language that has attempted to govern what’s in the easements that has simply allowed for it to maintain to be working forest. I will say I share the concerns about the outstanding resource water petition. In particular much more than the reclassification, because of the two the outstanding resource water petition carries much more regulatory baggage. And, I’ve heard various people characterize the petition, but I’ve read it and I have a couple of pages from it, and it’s quite clearly the only thing that goes on up there, really, (inaudible) industry is the one activity that is identified in both the petitions as the problem and the need to go ahead with the petitions is timber harvesting. So, if you wonder why we have some concerns about what the effect of those things will be, it’s because they are stating in the petitions themselves those activities that need to (inaudible) are further restricted, land management activities that need to be put in place from (inaudible) logging activities to better effect protection of the resource. But, there, again, it’s problematic to – I actually, frankly, do have concerns about when you have an ongoing petition to legislatively interfer with it. So, I wouldn’t necessarily advocate, and we didn’t in the House advocate, put this language in that constricts the petition process.
SEN. READY: You know, I’ve been trying, as people testify, to jot down things – it won’t quite look like Vince’s, but I don’t see any reason not to say reclassification and preservation of traditional uses and then say the agency is directed. I do have a real problem with trying to get in and interfere in a pending case. I think you are at cross purposes with the law in a way.
MR. JOHNSON: I actually agree. And, it should be made aware and there will be opportunity before the board to bring evidence, but we are talking about over 96,000 acres under this petition.
SEN. READY: I agree with you. And the thing about it is that, Steve Holmes testified before you came in, and he said that – I mean it is a different animal once all these easements are placed on it. You know what I mean? One of the things I think – I’m not speaking for VNRC, obviously we’ve had them in and we’ve had the Water Resources Board in, one of the things is if you started up a lot of industrial development or different types of plants, then obviously that could, potentially, effect the water classification. You could have mixing zones, and, you know, applications for that. So, once the easements are put on, then you pretty much have – he testified that he would not be opposed, that they would not be opposed to a lot of things that are happening (inaudible).
MR. JOHNSON: Obviously since the outstanding resource water petition is a contested case proceedings where people will bring evidence and you have witnesses and there is cross-examination, I can’t believe the – otherwise if (inaudible) restrictions on (inaudible). But, there are issues there. So, again, the worst (inaudible) just in the last two days, I’ve had the best conversations that I’ve had in two years with representatives from the Vermont Land Trust and trying to come to an agreement on the legal restrictions contained in their model forest easement, which they are going to use that is the legal document that will dictate, again, what activities in fact will be allowed. So, I support the language that you had with, at least, regards to the timber section where it details in order to allow the timber harvesting. Very similar language, I believe it’s exactly what’s contained in the House bill. It does a little bit less, for lack of a better way to put it, supportive, perhaps. I was comparing it to the – yes, it looks sparser compared to the House, but compared to a letter that the Governor and Darby and Gus Seelig singed, is a little even sparser. We like some of the language in the Governor’s letter and the other two persons (inaudible), but is not in this language.
SEN. READY: What I tried to do is not have a lot of language reiterating other letter and other MOU’s but rather to simply direct people that we have the authority to direct to do certain things and not to kind of regurgitate all of the memos. Because to me that isn’t that helpful to have in law. Other people could disagree with that.
MR. JOHNSON: Again, I was here for the last part of Senator Illuzzi’s comments, and that’s what we’ve been seeking to do at the outset. If we’re truly trying to keep this land productive, (inaudible) attempting to do both in legislation and through our negotiations on the easement to give that the best shot to allow that to happen. I had Senator Illuzzi’s version from yesterday. I haven’t seen the version from today. I don’t know what your timeframe is for discussing this, but, again, I have to point out this is why we thought we needed – and why you had this legislation on the floor of the House, because (inaudible) thought they could use a little bit more time to address it, but that wasn’t the case.
SEN. READY: I think we’re trying to get something by the end of the week that we can give to the committee. Jeb, are you still hoping for next Tuesday?
SEN. SPAULDING: That’s definitely what we’re hoping for, yeah.
SEN. READY: Seems like we’re not plunging ahead at a feverish pitch, but (interrupted)
SEN. SPAULDING: There isn’t that much to do.
SEN. READY: There isn’t? So, what specific recommendations are you making, Kerrick?
MR. JOHNSON: Specifically with regards to your language, I don’t have any specific problems except, perhaps, moving the part – under you part two, that I have, collaborate with federal agencies, the last sentence has the easement language regarding the harvesting (inaudible). We thought that could be moved.
SEN. READY: I did move that.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay.
SEN. READY: I don’t know if it was you that mentioned it or maybe it was – I don’t know. Also put some more fish and wildlife language in there, but (inaudible). It is an attempt to be something for everybody.
MR. JOHNSON: That’s all I have.
SEN. READY: Anybody else want to talk? Tim, are representing anybody?
MR. MEEHAN: I’m actually with Eric for the Federation of Sportsmen.
SEN. SPAULDING: Could I ask just a clarifying question, because I’m not familiar with the situation. But, you mentioned that the US Fish and Wildlife saying to (inaudible) acquire more than 2,600 acres, or something like that. I hadn’t really thought of it before, but what I thought you said was that was in 1995. Right? And, when did this deal – I thought it was like 1997 when this one came up? I’m just asking, how could somebody make a commitment in 1995 that you would say they are lying or whatever – maybe you didn’t but somehow, I’m just asking when all of a sudden you’ve got this deal comes up for, what is it, 130,000 acres, you know (interrupted)
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
SEN. SPAULDING: Is it fair to say, hey you are an Indian giver because in 1995 before you knew that this was even coming up you said you were going to do something about this. Since I’m not familiar with it, I’m just trying to get a lay of the land.
MR. JOHNSON: No, it’s a fair and a good question. First I will say, at these three hearings, Colebrook, New Hampshire, Piermont, New Hampshire and St. Johnsbury, Vermont, myself and some other people asked exactly that question. We said exactly that, how do you know? How do you know what might happen with land use? How do you know how much (inaudible), because we’re going to lay out our management plan. What they said, at the time, was they always – I will say, they have always targeted the Champion Lands. But what they said their primary means(?) of conservation or ensuring protection for the resources, part of the refuge, was primarily conservation easements and collaboration with other working partners. That was their fundamental approach. They had four alternatives that they could have chosen. They chose the one based on what they heard from the public about concern about ownership – this is their document. They could have said, I’m sorry, we want to make contingency plans for exactly the kind of circumstances that you are talking about. Exactly that circumstance. What they said was, well, we know we could acquire a lot more, but we’re going to askew that kind of approach based on the concerns we heard articulated by the locals. And, say instead of doing that we’re going to do this. Also, I would say, that the management plan they are talking about is only good until 2010. Then we start the whole process over again. Now you could obviously argue the point, well, we didn’t know so much was going to come out or we (inaudible) necessarily (inaudible) this opportunity, but they’ve also had a year working on this process with other partners involved, including the state, Vermont Land Trust, Conversation and other groups. So, at least argue it, put it this way. They didn’t necessarily have to go for the whole 26,000. All we have can do is take it (inaudible) exactly those kinds of questions.
SEN. SPAULDING: That’s helpful, thank you.
SEN. MacDONALD: On the forest (inaudible), does your organization more heavily represent the people who cut down the trees and some of these logs or the folks that buy logs and make it into hockey sticks or desks?
MR. JOHNSON: The only thing – because I don’t want to miss the opportunity here, you mentioned in regards to the new equipment on the Canadian side of the boarder that perhaps some firms are taking advantage of over Vermont. One of the fundamental competitive burdens you may see, in many instances, the (inaudible) around the resources bases in Vermont is primarily electricity prices. Especially for new kinds of equipment that uses more electricity, especially in Canada because they subsidize electrical – the price of electricity and in fact electrical bills, especially for wood product manufacturers, which is why it wasn’t part of the NAFTA agreement because they (inaudible) protective of industries. So, there are a number of other competitive burdens that you have for some of the local mills in Vermont that aren’t faced by some of their Canadian competitors. The primary one, at least according to the surveys we’ve done and discussions, because we’ve had cross-border conferences and stuff, is electricity prices. The more value you are adding, typically the more electricity you need to add the value, especially with the newer machines that can do a lot more. There’s no question you can better utilize every single millimeter of bark and sawdust. It just a little more difficult (inaudible). Any way, just thought I would mention that.
SEN. READY: Okay. You guys supporting this purchase?
MR. JOHNSON: To some degree you are absolutely right. We can’t support it yet until we absolutely advocated, please vote for this, until we have further clarification of what the actual easements are and exactly what kind of language is in the bill. But, again, you are correct in that Champion had the right to choose whatever the heck they wanted to sell their land to. They made the decision. To some degree it was out of our hands, but not (inaudible) to spend $4.5 million. If they want to (inaudible) to ensure a working forest, what we’re trying to do is make that happen. As of right now, we still have, frankly, big problems with the easements and we’re trying to work those out, and that’s the biggest issue.
SEN. READY: I’m sorry, we have a little problem here. We can’t work on this computer and have it print and so every time we have to make a change – it’s like running back and forth all morning. I’m hoping to have something (inaudible).
SEN. SPAULDING: If I could make one more – about the public money being used here, the way I’m looking at it, Kerrick, and I’m afraid I can’t remember the figure, but I think the total price of this deal is something like $30, correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t know you probably remember of the top (interrupted)
UNKNOWN: $26.5
SEN. SPAULDING: $26,5. So, the state’s involvement is $4.5 and on the land we’re getting(?), we’re going to allow all this stuff. What I’m having a hard is, and I want to be clear, I’m for the easements and try and keep all this stuff, but I don’t want to box ourselves in when we’re trying to go out and deal with somebody that is going to be purchasing this, and I don’t know if it’s your clients or somebody else that might be interested about having something so air tight that people are going to be able to say, well, you know, I would really like to do this, and I meet 90 percent of what everybody seems to want but because I can’t meet the letter of this thing, you know, what you told me, in prearranged deals, I’m out. And, so we’re only putting in a small portion of the money here. That’s my point, really. If we were buying all this and all (inaudible) yeah, it’s public money, the public money is a small percentage of the overall package.
MR. JOHNSON: That’s absolutely true, but I guess I have two responses. One, it may be a small portion of it, but everything single time we’ve discussed it without any – as late as yesterday about any single portion of the money, the whole deal goes away. So, you can say it’s a very, very small portion, but every dollar is critical. Secondly, I actually agree about (inaudible) the 90 percent, but we don’t want to bond(?) it. And, I freely admit it. What we’re seeking to do is not mandating the trees be cut, frankly, but simply to make sure there is few barriers and obstacles as possible to allow trees to be cut. And, I will further say, that I would submit that the kind of changes that we’re seeking for the easement I can’t believe that a timber investor would not support.
SEN. SPAULDING: Okay, that’s fine. I mean I only comeback is that I agree with you, except that it the deal did go done, there might be no logging at all.
MR. JOHNSON: Fair enough, and my comeback to that is that I went – all I’m doing is trying to take the people at their word about what they are trying to achieve. Frankly, if it was exactly the easement with no changes, we think it would be very difficult to truly describe this as continue to be a working forest. So, what would you rather have, something that’s purported to be a working forest or a straight out and out deal, you guys lost, this is (inaudible), we’re not going to log. Fine. I would much rather it be an honest, open, no dissembling, no false advertising.
SEN. SPAULDING: Okay, so you actually just raised something that I think is important for me to know. It’s not an adversarial question, but what is it in the proposed easements that makes you think it’s leaning toward not being a working forest. Did you just say that? I don’t know what that is. I would like to know the answer to that.
MR. JOHNSON: And we discussed that. Again, I’ll (interrupted)
SEN. READY: I just want to be clear, adversarial questions are allowed.
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
MR. JOHNSON: I would say, and I would be glad to give your caucus an outline of some of our concerns, or give copies to the whole committee. Fundamentally, the whole easement, as we discussed with the Vermont Land Trust, the whole thing keys off of what the purpose of the easement is. And, we have a specific line in easement which says, you can do this, and some caveats to type of timber harvesting you can conduct. It has to be economically sustainable. Terms you can’t – we may be, in our fashion, paranoid about. I would think with some justification.
SEN. READY: What are they?
MR. JOHNSON: I’m sort leading up, economically sustainable timber harvesting, but you may conduct that activity as long as the language now reads, and again, this is in the state of flux, hopefully, you may only do that without compromising. And we have had three or four lawyers look at this, and this and it’s (inaudible) without compromising has a whole list of things. Water quality can’t really have, necessarily, a problem with because I would assume as long as you the (inaudible) you are okay. But there are list of other, much more subjective requirements that affect timber. You may not do it if it’s going to compromise scenic values, if it’s going to compromise, the catch phrase, other conversation values. For the last, at least year and a half, we’ve been saying, what do you mean by conversation values. How is this going to impact harvest. That’s one concern. Another sort of catch-all restriction on harvesting which says no activity can be conducted on the land if it’s covered under easement if any (inaudible) grantee, that’s the Land Trust or whoever they convey interest to, is or has the potential to becoming inconsistent, is or may or has(?) (inaudible) is a very (inaudible) – again, we’ve been saying if we simply want to make sure that they have the best chance to be allowed to cut trees, to harvest timber, that we think that could be based on our experience, especially if there’s – you may think it may be a small part of the overall pie, but if people feel that you can spend the public tax dollars, we have a right to say (inaudible) management. Wouldn’t be a (inaudible) what’s going on over there – that’s going to set my (inaudible). So, those are just a couple of the examples, but as I say we’re trying to work that out with the Land Trust.
SEN. RIEHLE: I’m curious if you had language.
MR. JOHNSON: It’s funny. Up until this deal, frankly, it’s been – we have these problems (inaudible) problems, we don’t really necessarily feel compelled to make changes. In a part, perhaps, I would certainly assume that some (inaudible) responsibility we should look at some language. In part I would say that the Land Trust could have said, -- I think there’s equal blame, at least, to be shared here.
SEN. RIEHLE: I don’t care about the blame. I’m simply interested in the language. Whose going to come up with it. I have a hard time translating your concerns and looking at this language and seeing where the two are apart.
MR. JOHNSON: That’s my fault for not articulating that clearly. The problem why you – and it’s absolutely understandable, is because there are two things that will govern activities. One is a legislative direction however those strings to the money can be attached and structured, and two, is exactly what the easements say, because that is the legal recordable deed. So, the language I’m talking to you about is in the legal recordable deed right now.
SEN. RIEHLE: And, that’s not done and we can’t write that.
SEN. SPAULDING: That’s a model sample.
MR. JOHNSON: And we do model (interrupted)
SEN. SPAULDING: A tenth of that asks, well we can (inaudible). I don’t know why not.
SEN. READY: We can. Darby had it yesterday and offered it to the committee, right?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, and the two concerns that I identified are that (inaudible) easement. Those are the two things that we are right now negotiating on is there different language we can come up with.
SEN. CANNS: I would like to discuss just briefly before you leave, the other big concern that you kind of glossed over was the water. Because it’s already on (inaudible) applications to upgrade that, and that would mean that – for instance, how would you put a face on this. A lot of us can’t build a bridge over a stream to go over it without tramping through a million hoops. And, they are going to be (inaudible), and all this will come into play if we don’t say something about it.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, to a large degree, anyone has a right to petition. I’ve read what the petitions have said about why this seems to need to be protected, how they think it is protected, and yet we feel like it’s aimed at harvesting, and we do. Yes, we do. But, I think that it would be a (inaudible) principle, frankly, if we said all right, put something in your legislation that stops an ongoing (inaudible) before the Water Resources Board. To some degree I would put that on the folks that are doing the petition. The Land Trust, and the other folks, have already done that, asking for (inaudible) what we think the impacts will be.
SEN. READY: Okay, I was hoping – I tried to add some other language. I’ll pass it out and then if the committee could discuss what they would like to do, you know what version you want to go with. This is something I’ve worked on, but it’s not exactly right, either.
SEN. SPAULDING: Elizabeth while we hand it out, let me talk about the timeframe we have (inaudible). That’s the timeframe that I mentioned we working from on the appropriations bill. I guess what I think – will this be – let’s just think this through. This could be a floor amendment from the Senate Natural Resources Committee to the appropriations bill or do you want to bring it into our committee and have (interrupted)
SEN. READY: I think the committee should go in and then our committee should decide. I mean hopefully we would do a good job and then our committee – I mean I think that’s the right process. Don’t you?
SEN. SPAULDING: Yeah, what I was thinking was it could buy an extra day or two if you needed the time.
SEN. READY: I think we could be ready. And, I think Senator Rivers could do the same thing with her stuff.
SEN. SPAULDING: Yeah, okay.
SEN. READY: And, Senator Illuzzi could come in (interrupted)
SEN. SPAULDING: Then we really need to know for sure final (inaudible), if not sooner.
SEN. READY: What do you want to do? Do you want to start with this? You want to start with the House (interrupted)
SEN. CHARD: We’ve all had the House.
SEN. READY: Okay. Now, I just want to say, I want to have people raise their hands for this part of the discussion so everybody is not talking at once, if we’re going to go through. Jeb.
SEN. SPAULDING: I would like to start with this too, I just feel like I should say to the committee, and have it out loud again, with assurance from the chair, that we’re not setting ourselves up for a major collision with the House and it’s work starting from fresh. I would just like to have you assure me of that.
SEN. READY: I can’t assure you of anything. I’m just trying to do the best job with this committee and then as we move through the process then we’ll begin – I think we have to get what we think first and then I think we have to look at how that – we haven’t gotten there yet. We’re not there yet.
SEN. SPAULDING: Okay.
SEN. READY: So, then when we are then we can say, do we want to revise what we’re thinking or doing or maybe the Appropriations Committee wants to do that. Let’s first of all get our ideas out and see. The problem here is, I don’t – I didn’t get (inaudible) in. So, could you just read it and we’ll write it again.
UNKNOWN: I gave you both the last copies I had. Carl says he has a copy.
SEN. RIEHLE: Can I just ask why you didn’t include biking. A couple of other (interrupted)
SEN. READY: We can.
SEN. RIEHLE: Well, I just don’t know whether we should or not.
SEN. READY: Let’s just go through it and see if we can get as many ideas on and then we’ll get a new draft and have it in the morning. Okay, Gus, it’s at the end of recreation, right?
MR. SEELIG: After the sentence that ends with the word “recreation”, “additional purposes of the appropriation include the maintenance of wildlife habitat and conservation of identified natural heritage sites.” Now what was just handed out has a change from your previous draft and I don’t know where you want to (inaudible). The previous draft, as I understood, said “the board and it’s grantees shall seek to ensure” and that language is now deleted.
SEN. READY: That wasn’t supposed to be deleted. We have a major problem in this committee that we cannot work from here. Okay, let’s just all try to work together here. I don’t have the first draft. Can you read the first draft again?
MR. SEELIG: Well, your next sentence in the first draft said, “the Housing and Conservation Board and its grantees shall seek to ensure through permanent easements and through agreements with its state and federal partners to protect the following uses.” Then you have three of them.
SEN. RIEHLE: So that should be included, correct?
SEN. READY: That should be included. That was a mistake. The Housing and Conservation Board shall seek to ensure through permanent easements and what else, Gus?
MR. SEELIG: And through agreements with its state and federal partners to protect the following uses. I (inaudible) read all that quickly, but it looks like you’ve got the same three uses. I don’t know if you tended to make changes.
SEN. RIEHLE: Okay, and I just have question on the recreation, the second use. As I understand it, the federal government has one of their, I guess, uses that they are trying to promote is biking. Am I right?
UNKNOWN: Um hum.
SEN. RIEHLE: And that’s not on this list. So, is it an omission because we don’t want biking in the property or what?
UNKNOWN: I can speak to that. I don’t think biking is a federal use and I don’t know why it’s not in this (inaudible).
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
UNKNOWN: I’m not trying to disagree with you, but my memory of the big six is that they were all wildlife related.
SEN. READY: Yeah, but we aren’t in that section.
UNKNOWN: I know, but that is the only time biking up as it did today.
UNKNOWN: As we worked through this in the other body, and actually I think it was Senator Ide meeting with the Governor mentioned horseback riding, and I think at some point the language of horseback riding, bicycling got added in as we were working on the House side. The (inaudible) general purposes in recreation denied(?) that. I don’t think people are intending to have mountain biking all the way through the property, but certainly would have it on graveled roads through the property.
SEN. CANNS: Could I just interject this, (inaudible) got confused and lost, because there are such things as motor bikes and these are the things they had big questions about, you riding your bicycle when somebody with a motor goes driving up the hill and all through the woods chasing every – a lot of destruction there. The same holds (inaudible) three wheels are not allowed (interrupted)
SEN. RIEHLE: No, I’m not trying to promote (interrupted)
SEN. CANNS: No, I’m telling you where it got lost. Nobody defined it and I think we should.
SEN. READY: Senator Riehle raised the question whether we wanted to include biking. Do you want to include biking? Don’t forget, this section has to do with where the easements go and the agreements between the Housing and Conservation Board and its grantees.
SEN. RIEHLE: Oh, okay, maybe it goes somewhere else.
SEN. READY: Well, I think it would go there, because that would be on the 80,000 acres.
SEN. RIEHLE: Well, I mean I can be convinced otherwise. I just only brought it up because I thought it was one of these big deals for the federal government.
SEN. CHARD: We don’t have a clear answer to that. Some people think it is, some people think it’s not. Let’s get an answer to that. Is it part of the big six in the feds.
UNKNOWN: I think on the land that the state is buying easements for it’s perfectly legitimate to list bicycling as one of the uses that you are trying to track(?) through the easements. You don’t need to know what the federal government is going to allow (inaudible).
SEN. RIEHLE: But, can’t we define it so it’s clear that it’s not any kind of motorized bicycling or do you have a problem with ADA?
UNKNOWN: I don’t think you do (interrupted)
SEN. RIEHLE: The American Disabilities Act.
UNKNOWN: I was thinking (interrupted)
SEN. RIEHLE: You don’t think so?
UNKNOWN: I don’t see it as a problem to add bicycles here.
SEN. READY: Let’s add it. Bear might not like it.
SEN. SPAULDING: Elizabeth just to be clear about this, to make sure, I’ll sort of state it like a very straight forward statement. Maybe it’s not that straightforward, but this language here has nothing to do with the 85,000 acres. I’ll state it that way. Then I’ll say, because – and it’s fine with me if that’s what we want to do is bring it up, but this is with its state and federal (inaudible) to ensure the following uses, which I interpret the state and federal land, not the lands going onto the easement(?). So, I just bring that up (inaudible). If I’m wrong (inaudible) and (interrupted)
SEN. READY: No, I thought it did, and I’ll tell you why, because it says the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board shall seek to ensure through permanent easements and maybe we should say – want to say – specify (inaudible)?
SEN. SPAULDING: I’m thinking if you wanted to do that, permanent easements through agreements with its state, federal and (interrupted) and (inaudible). That’s why I’m thinking. I don’t know if it nails it down too much, but (inaudible).
SEN. READY: That’s good.
SEN. RIEHLE: So, after federal put (interrupted)
SEN. SPAULDING: If you hear people like Kerrick, they are going, and all these other people, we are mainly concerned with the 85,000, although some are saying the feds too. This includes everybody, that’s all.
SEN. READY: That’s good. You want to include biking? I think it’s good.
SEN. CANNS: Can you define biking because there are people who come in and make a motor cross out of areas. You are going to have to define it. Helen’s concern about the people who use wheelchairs and whatnot have to be addressed. We have to define it if we’re going to put it in there.
SEN. READY: Carl.
UNKNOWN: The language being talked about (inaudible) since I gave up my draft, I think the language is fine because there is still – there is the ability to designate particular orders and (inaudible) handling bicycling (inaudible), where it wouldn’t necessarily disperse throughout the property but on specific corridors making use of the some of the gravel roads that are already in place.
UNKNOWN: Just a couple of extra thoughts. We might want to look at what Senator Illuzzi handed out, pages 2 and 3. Darby worked on the definition of (inaudible) recreational purposes. So, (inaudible) if you just want to have something that’s clearer on recreation, if you look at the very top of the page, access to the land shall be permanently available to the general public for all types of dispersement. That’s (inaudible) recreational uses including but not limiting it to, so then you wouldn’t have Senator Canns concern about bicycles being motorcycles.
SEN. RIEHLE: So, pedestrian related recreational purposes would be in terms of biking means a non-motorized bike?
SEN. CANNS: I think it would be fair to say that if they had a designated area for them, fine, but they should define it (inaudible).
UNKNOWN: But would this or would this not prohibit an electric chipper(?)?
SEN. CANNS: It may or may not but (inaudible) define it I say.
SEN. CHARD: (Inaudible) the substitute for pedestrian mobility.
SEN. SPAULDING: Like that we could over – (inaudible) and be above the federal ADA.
SEN. RIEHLE: I just don’t know how the ADA interacts with federal parts of the forest.
UNKNOWN: I think it’s, quite frankly, one of those issues that people are struggling (interrupted)
SEN. RIEHLE: I’m sure they are.
UNKNOWN: -- access to National Parks (interrupted)
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
SEN. READY: So, what does the committee want to do?
SEN. CHARD: I think this whole list that Vince gave us is very good.
SEN. READY: Number 4?
SEN. CHARD: Well, going back to almost, you know, number one.
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
SEN. CHARD: If you want this level of specificity, he’s done it.
SEN. SPAULDING: Yeah, one page 3, again, but not on page 2.
SEN. CHARD: Yeah, page 3, the motorized, mechanical.
SEN. SPAULDING: Right.
SEN. READY: I have a problem with the stuff on page 1. I think it diverges from – I mean I don’t have (interrupted)
SEN. CHARD: You are right. It makes things a little more complicated than they need to be.
SEN. RIEHLE: Well, somebody has and other recreational uses.
SEN. SPAULDING: Why don’t we start at two, recreation, that’s the one we’re under right now, and don’t start with the phrase, use of traditional (inaudible), just go, colon, hunting, fishing, drafting and all those things. If you want to put biking and Equestrian in there go ahead and then say, and other forms of traditional recreation. Then you’ve really left – if you’ve forgotten something, you’ve really gotten everything in there.
SEN. CHARD: That’s very good.
SEN. SPAULDING: Up above it uses other forms of recreation. I don’t really know what traditional means to be honest with you.
SEN. READY: Yeah, okay. So, you are striking use of land for traditional recreational uses, moving it(?) including, and what you are saying, hunting, fishing trapping, snowmobiling, snowshoeing, skiing, bird watching, hiking, biking, horseback riding and other what, Jeb?
SEN. SPAULDING: Other forms of traditional recreation or other traditional recreation either way.
SEN. RIEHLE: So, we want to include horseback riding in 12?
SEN. READY: Sure.
UNKNOWN: What about our hunting dogs?
SEN. READY: It says hunting.
SEN. RIEHLE: Including dogs?
SEN. SPAULDING: That an other traditional (interrupted)
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
SEN. READY: You want it to say something more than that, other than hunting? With and without?
UNKNOWN: Could say with or without dogs.
SEN. READY: That was a joke, but we could.
UNKNOWN: Liz, would the (inaudible) hunting, (inaudible) be all of (inaudible) land hunting, should be all of your (inaudible) people (inaudible) who hunt bears with dogs. I mean those are the people who are talking about, rabbit, there’s a whole hunting tradition there that you at least should know exists.
SEN. READY: Hunting including elk(?) (inaudible) hunting traditions?
UNKNOWN: I call that (inaudible) hunting (inaudible) with beagles (inaudible).
SEN. READY: How does the committee feel about it.
SEN. CHARD: Can I just take one minute and review the language on this?
SEN. READY: The Audubon is not in this section is it?
SEN. CHARD: No.
SEN. READY: Let’s finish this section before we do (interrupted)
SEN. RIEHLE: I would almost rather leave hunting more generic so it would, by definition, include everything. I mean I think once we start identifying what we mean by hunting, heaven forbid we leave something out, unless you want this definition to be six pages long.
SEN. READY: Well, what’s the wish of the committee? Mark.
SEN. MacDONALD: I tend to agree with (inaudible) and the reason I do is I don’t want us to put something in there so specific that hunting laws throughout the state should be altered that they remain the same here, because (inaudible) statute here, but they’ve been changed everywhere.
SEN. READY: Would there be anything against saying hunting, including (inaudible) hunting?
SEN. RIEHLE: But once you start saying what you are going to include, as an example, then I think – I’m not a lawyer but they all are able to interpret it, well, it’s not identified. You did say include this, which must mean you don’t include this. Even, if that’s not the intent.
SEN. CHARD: The language, and I know this pertains to a different section, but there’s a choice of word. This listing is kind of interesting, conserve (inaudible) natural resources including maintenance of wildlife habitat, natural heritage, and this is where it goes, for the perpetual public access including hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, hiking, boating and other currently allowed recreation and for the sustainable production of wood products. They don’t get as specific (interrupted)
SEN. READY: Okay, well, we could add that onto Jeb’s. We could simply say another currently allowed forms (interrupted)
SEN. RIEHLE: Recreation things.
SEN. READY: That all right with you (inaudible). L
SEN. RIEHLE: That’s allowed now.
SEN. CHARD: You don’t like it Gus?
MR. SEELIG: No, I don’t have any problems with it.
SEN. CHARD: Okay.
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
SEN. READY: Okay, let’s hang together, guys.
SEN. CHARD: Liz, Steve, if it’s all right, makes a point in terms of the difference in the language that I’m not sure that I’m actually clear about. Do you want to hear him for a second?
SEN. READY: I thought we did, but if he wants to talk again, he’s certainly welcome.
MR. HOLMES: It’s just a distinction between the language we recommended along with the Audubon and Gus’s which I think brought about the balance. Rather than an adder onto the others, it incorporated conservation and natural resources along with the other two.
SEN. READY: Okay. The issue before the committee is whether to include Gus’s language instead of a separate sentence hitched to the first sentence. Is that accurate?
SEN. RIEHLE: It can be shorter if you want something pithier, to just add conserve for the natural resources including maintenance of wildlife habitat and natural heritage sites and hunting, fishing, trapping, snowmobiling, you eliminate a whole sentence.
SEN. READY: No, I think you are back to number one, aren’t you?
SEN. RIEHLE: Yeah, that’s where he is.
SEN. READY: I was on recreation.
SEN. RIEHLE: Well, I know. We went back to one.
SEN. READY: So, Nancy is going back to one. Okay. Go ahead and read it, Helen.
SEN. RIEHLE: Well, it would say, of this appropriation (inaudible) to purchase and ensure the Champion lands in the Northeastern Vermont are conserved as a working forest for the sustainable production of wood products and for perpetual public access – I’m sorry, for sustainable production of wood products conserved for their – that isn’t right. No, you would say, land to Northeastern Vermont are conserved for their natural resources, including maintenance of wildlife habitat, natural heritage sites – we don’t have (interrupted)
SEN. READY: I don’t see that this – I think we’re really stumbling over (interrupted)
SEN. RIEHLE: Do we want to include this – well, that’s later.
UNKNOWN: Because it’s an adder.
SEN. READY: No, it’s not. It’s a second sentence, because the sentences are getting out of control.
SEN. RIEHLE: No it isn’t, because it’s the same sentence we have.
SEN. READY: (Inaudible) has a separate sentence that says additional, but equal uses, would you like? I mean (interrupted)
UNKNOWN: I don’t see why you can’t put it all in the same sentence.
SEN. RIEHLE: Yeah, the sentence that is on the National Audubon Society’s page is exactly the same, it’s just in a different order. It includes sustainable production of wood products. It just – it enumerates all the uses in one sentence as opposed to adding (interrupted)
SEN. READY: I just found Gus’s language.
SEN. RIEHLE: Additional purposes of the appropriation. You don’t need to say that twice. You already said of this appropriation. So, traditional (interrupted)
UNKNOWN: My sentence was simply after a call from Jim an attempt to meet his concerns.
SEN. READY: Who?
UNKNOWN: Jim Shallow of the Audubon. I don’t have big problems with what he did. I think we tried to address the concerns and that we feel like his does it better. It’s okay (inaudible).
SEN. SPAULDING: See, I just wonder, I hate to say it, with Jim’s, I don’t know this process that well, (inaudible) 14 years, but just the order you put them in, you know, may have a message to certain people, and that’s (interrupted)
(MANY MEMBERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME MAKING ALL COMMENTS INAUDIBLE)
UNKNOWN: (Inaudible) problem with the order. The way Gus’s was worded in the sentence, it was a like an adder on after “working forest and traditional recreation needs.”
SEN. READY: Well, additionally it’s like (interrupted)
(END OF SIDE 2, TAPE 1)
SEN. READY: If you want to take additional out, that’s fine, too. I mean – you know what I say - if I say I eat cake and then I say, I eat ice cream, it doesn’t mean the ice cream is more important than the cake. It’s just that the ice cream came second in the sentence.
SEN. RIEHLE: Well, why don’t we just put the sentence that you have first, keep it there, that the lands in Northeastern Vermont are conserved as a working forest for the sustainable production of wood products, for natural resources including maintenance of wildlife habitat, natural heritage sites and - stick that in - and for perpetual public access for hunting, fishing, trapping, snowmobiling, hiking, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then not have that purpose, so we get the forest stuff up front, production of wood products.
SEN. SPAULDING: I think that’s good.
SEN. READY: Yes, that’s very good.
SEN. RIEHLE: And if one sentence (inaudible) pretty clear.
SEN. READY: That’s it on that. Steve Holmes has been a very wonderful and powerful contributor to this committee over many years, but I don’t think this is his strongest hour. Thanks to Helen. All right. Camp leases – anybody got anything on the camp leases?
SEN. RIEHLE: Okay, let me read that again. I’ve got to get the right (interrupted)
SEN. CHARD: Up to 50 but not (inaudible).
SEN. READY: Okay, we’ve already done the recreation. Under land management – I wish Kerrick was here. Would somebody see if he’s still around? Maintain working forest lands through a working forest easement which includes privately owned and managed land for sustainable production and harvesting of timber and other forest products and perpetual public access. The easements will be designed to meet the economic objectives of timber investors and allow harvesting net growth once the forest is restocked.
SEN. MacDONALD: It was designed (inaudible) a renewable resource.
SEN. RIEHLE: Is restocking renewable?
SEN. READY: Well, that’s the proposal. I wish they were here to comment on it. Guess they don’t care that much about it.
SEN. RIEHLE: I don’t know what it means.
SEN. CANNS: Just to respond to your renewable – in those terms it renews itself if you leave it alone. These seeds lie dormant for years and then they grow trees back if you even clearcut it, so renewable in that sense means that it will renew. You don’t have to plant it. You could, but it will renew.
SEN. RIEHLE: So what do we mean by restock?
SEN. CANNS: Well, that would be fish.
-----: I don’t want to try and represent AIV’s position, but when I was taking notes in a committee that was taking testimony, I think Kerrick said that he supported (inaudible-noises in room).
SEN. READY: Does anybody have any objections to it.
-----: I know they worked in the House to get the (inaudible).
-----: Doesn’t restock for those purposes mean that harvestable timber has re-occurred?
SEN. READY: Okay, now we’re down to the Agency of Natural Resources shall – and I put this here – no, this isn’t part of it – renews state leases located on state lands, state camp leases – no, wait a minute; that’s wrong - renew camp leases, not state leases – located on state lands for the life of the leaseholders up to 50 years but not less than 20. So that’s specific that they shall do that on state lands.
SEN. RIEHLE: So we can clearly be very definitive about what we want the state (interrupted)
SEN. READY: Yes, and up above we asked (interrupted)
SEN. SPAULDING: The only thing I’d like to ask in case I haven’t heard – I don’t know, I’ve never been on the state lands up there – is it a fact that the state Agency of Natural Resources wants to renew every single lease for every single camp for a minimum of 20 years? Because that’s what this is – this is definitely (interrupted)
SEN. READY: That’s what we’re telling them to do, and that’s what the House tells them to do, too.
SEN. SPAULDING: Do they tell them to do that?
SEN. READY: Yes.
SEN. SPAULDING: Okay.
-----: I think that’s our intent, although there has been discussion that there may be some situations where it may be desirable for environmental or ecological reasons to try to move some of the camps, but I do believe it’s the state’s intent to the extent that people want to continue to have a camp lease to honor that.
SEN. READY: That would be a negotiation that would follow (inaudible) of this language.
-----: That’s correct.
SEN. READY: Yes, Julius.
SEN. CANNS: Is it the intent that no new camps will be permitted?
SEN. READY: It would renew them, Jeb, but they may move them a little bit.
SEN. CANNS: Could we suggest new leases? Maybe you don’t want a camp up there. I do. Is this going to preclude us or does it state specifically that the ones that are there are going to be the renewable ones?
SEN. READY: It’s silent on the issue.
SEN. RIEHLE: Well, what’s the state’s position? Are you going to be looking at new leases?
-----: No, we will not be looking for new leases.
SEN. CANNS: Okay.
SEN. RIEHLE: Do you think that this language that says you shall renew camp leases allows you to the ability to say we’ll renew your lease but not on that spot because of environmental impacts but will let you move your camp lease to another tract of land?
SEN. SPAULDING: I don’t know.
-----: I would say that if write it as in the House, people will move their camps only voluntarily rather than – I think you’re setting a policy in a direction that people can keep their camps where they are for the life of the leaseholder up to 50 years. That’s the policy you’re establishing, and if we decide that somebody’s camp is in the wrong spot, they’re only going to move it at their discretion.
SEN. RIEHLE: And you can’t do anything about it if it’s – I don’t know – their septic system or their porta-potty or whatever is leaking into some pristine water source for 20 years.
-----: I quite honestly don’t know enough about that.
SEN. RIEHLE: I was just asking.
-----: I think that’s a legitimate issue, but I’m just saying, the message we got in the House and the message I’ve been hearing from people is you want us to protect the leaseholders as much as possible, so I think the Agency is going to have the ability to negotiate with somebody, and maybe for some consideration they will (inaudible), but unless you want to clearly allow that – which nobody has suggested yet – I think that we will live with the leases for 50 years.
SEN. RIEHLE: Okay.
SEN. READY: How about this, committee. Would you consider adding another sentence that said the Agency shall negotiate with US Fish and Wildlife (interrupted)
SEN. RIEHLE: Where are you?
SEN. READY: I’m at the end of that camp lease business, the Agency shall negotiate with US Fish and Wildlife – excuse me, I can’t, I’m sorry, it’s old age, you know. If there’s another conversation going on, I can’t – okay. The Agency shall negotiate with US Fish and Wildlife to encourage renewal of leases on federal lands under similar terms? I guess I’m concerned about the leases like Tiny Stafford’s that are on federal lands. It doesn’t say they have to, but it says they’ll negotiate.
-----: Does your agreement, Ron, with the feds include the clear obligation to follow their lead in the camp leases?
COMM. REGAN: That document that I handed out earlier this morning on page 2 says that we will seek to apply (inaudible-papers rattling) and then it expresses a commitment to the 50-year clause and then a common expression that they can’t use for commercial purposes and then finally that there would be access provided for or allowed (interrupted)
SEN. READY: Well, let me read this and see of the committee likes it. Renew camp leases located on state lands for the life of the lease holder for up to 50 years but not less than 20 years. The Agency shall negotiate with US Fish and Wildlife to renew camp leases on federal lands under similar terms. You’re just directing them to attempt to negotiate. Do you like that? I just worry about people like Tiny who has had that land for a long time, and we’re saying please try to preserve that if you can.
SEN. SPAULDING: I think it’s a good idea myself.
SEN. RIEHLE: Yes, I have no problem with it. I’d like them to do that. If they can’t, they can’t, but I want them to try.
-----: (Inaudible) experience in New Hampshire (inaudible) the state took a position on the federal. The reason that the 50 years got established was that the federal government just followed the position of the state. They don’t want to be in a position where (inaudible-hall noise interfering).
SEN. READY: Okay, let’s see if we can get through this. We’re almost there. (Inaudible) community involve Vermont citizens and municipalities in developing and updating blah, blah, blah portions of land which are transferred to it – right? That should be it, not ct. Number 3, collaboration with federal agencies – worked with the US Fish and Wildlife department to ensure that management plans for all state and federally owned portions of the land accordingly. The Agency shall seek through this collaboration – oh, we’ve got the camps here; I’m sorry. I’ve got the camps on the mind here – to include renewal of camp leases for the life of the leaseholder for up to 50 years but not less than 20 and to assure the use of land for traditional recreational uses.
SEN. RIEHLE: If we want to use just the same language when we talk about this collaboration around the use of land for traditional recreational uses, could it be the same as the first paragraph? I thought we had put somewhere under the definition of recreation (interrupted)
SEN. READY: Yep, that sounds good.
SEN. SPAULDING: Just to make it consistent?
SEN. RIEHLE: Yes, the currently allowed recreation – does that include biking and horseback riding?
SEN. READY: Yes. That gets the (inaudible) in there, too.
SEN. RIEHLE: Yes, well, it does.
SEN. READY: All right, and then we have – down here, this is a mistake in typing – water reclassification and protection.
SEN. RIEHLE: And protection?
SEN. READY: Yes. That’s a typo. Water reclassification and protection of traditional uses. This sentence is lumpy. I wanted to add the water reclassification concept back in since it was in the House version, but what it simply says is water classification and protection of traditional uses, the Agency will participate in judicial and regulatory proceedings to assure that logging and recreational uses are continued.
SEN. SPAULDING: Sounds good to me.
SEN. RIEHLE: Yes, that’s okay with me, too.
SEN. READY: Okay, well, let’s see if we can get a clean copy and go over it in the morning.
SEN. CANNS: That would be helpful.
SEN. READY: Okay, well, maybe we can get a copy to you before that, Nancy. Anything else the committee wants to do on this?
SEN. CANNS: I just wanted to comment to Helen, don’t get into the use of septic systems there because some are just a shovel and a catalog, a Sears Roebuck catalog.
SEN. READY: Okay, before we go, let’s – so since Nancy won’t be here for the next two days, let’s try to get this language ready and see if we can vote to present it to the Appropriations Committee sometime tomorrow.
SEN. CHARD: A computer question because I know nothing. I have a small unused printer. Is there some compatability to Apple or to IBM?
SEN. READY: I have no idea.
SEN. CHARD: Is a printer a printer a printer? I have a small unused printer.
-----: We ordered a printer today.
SEN. CHARD: Oh, you’ve ordered one. I won’t worry about that.
SEN. SPAULDING: Usually you can get a printer to work with another computer. You’ve got to get the right software.
SEN. CHARD: Okay, well, she doesn’t need it anyway so that’s fine.
(More computer talk).
SEN. CANNS: I’m going to shut this off.

(END OF MEETING. Transcribed 1/3/02. Not edited.)