VTBIRD
Received From Subject
7/28/21 7:56 am Ted Levin <tedlevin1966...> [VTBIRD] July 28, 2021: Hurricane Hill, White River Junction
7/27/21 6:29 am Sue Wetmore <000006207b3956ac-dmarc-request...> [VTBIRD] Bobolinks
7/26/21 4:20 pm Mundi Smithers <amen1farm...> Re: [VTBIRD] July 26, 2021: Hurricane Hill, White River Junction
7/26/21 8:02 am Ted Levin <tedlevin1966...> [VTBIRD] July 26, 2021: Hurricane Hill, White River Junction
7/25/21 3:40 pm Eugenia Cooke <euge24241...> Re: [VTBIRD] a yard first!
7/25/21 3:13 pm Maeve Kim <maevekim7...> Re: [VTBIRD] explosion of hummer numbers
7/25/21 3:10 pm Sue Wetmore <000006207b3956ac-dmarc-request...> Re: [VTBIRD] a yard first!
7/25/21 3:02 pm Rita Pitkin <ritapitkin15...> Re: [VTBIRD] a yard first!
7/25/21 2:54 pm Maeve Kim <maevekim7...> [VTBIRD] a yard first!
7/25/21 4:19 am Maeve Kim <maevekim7...> Re: [VTBIRD] Binoculars for a young birder
7/24/21 6:14 pm Ann Curran <acurran802...> [VTBIRD] Binoculars for a young birder
7/23/21 6:45 pm Katherine Donahue <kdonahue36...> Re: [VTBIRD] July 23, 2021: Hurricane Hill, White River Junction
7/23/21 3:37 pm Maeve Kim <maevekim7...> [VTBIRD] hummer circus and downy with a sweet tooth
7/23/21 1:00 pm Ted Levin <tedlevin1966...> Re: [VTBIRD] July 23, 2021: Hurricane Hill, White River Junction
7/23/21 11:44 am Diane Brown <deejbrown...> Re: [VTBIRD] July 23, 2021: Hurricane Hill, White River Junction
7/23/21 7:09 am Ted Levin <tedlevin1966...> [VTBIRD] July 23, 2021: Hurricane Hill, White River Junction
7/23/21 5:47 am R Stewart <2cnewbirds...> Re: [VTBIRD] Hooded warbler back in Bennington
7/22/21 12:50 pm Eric Seyferth <seyfren...> [VTBIRD] Hooded warbler back in Bennington
7/19/21 9:54 am Susan Elliott <00000032e9152660-dmarc-request...> Re: [VTBIRD] Billings Marsh in W Haven
7/19/21 9:37 am R Stewart <2cnewbirds...> [VTBIRD] Billings Marsh in W Haven
7/19/21 7:37 am Chris Rimmer <crimmer...> [VTBIRD] Belated Mansfield update
7/16/21 2:19 pm Charlie Teske <cteske140...> [VTBIRD] Loon on Lake Lamoille
7/15/21 2:24 pm Diana <dlee3...> [VTBIRD] Into the Wild with Bluebirds
7/15/21 12:27 pm Bridget Butler <birddiva...> [VTBIRD] Cornell Statement On Bird Illnesses
7/15/21 7:39 am Evergreen Erb <evergreenerb...> Re: [VTBIRD] Dickcissels
7/15/21 6:46 am alison wagner <alikatofvt...> [VTBIRD] Dickcissels
7/12/21 10:46 am Kent McFarland <kmcfarland...> [VTBIRD] moths for birds
7/11/21 6:40 pm Ian Clark <lenscapon...> [VTBIRD] Another visit with the loon family
7/11/21 3:35 pm Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...> [VTBIRD] Missisquoi NWR Bird Monitoring Walk
7/9/21 2:50 pm Chris Rimmer <crimmer...> [VTBIRD] Mansfield Week 6 update
7/9/21 11:38 am Linnea Garrepy <mwtic...> Re: [VTBIRD] Song bird illness
7/9/21 8:18 am Mundi Smithers <amen1farm...> [VTBIRD] Song bird illness
7/9/21 6:30 am Susan Elliott <00000032e9152660-dmarc-request...> [VTBIRD] Rutland County Audubon West Rutland Marsh Walk - July 15
7/9/21 5:20 am Terry Marron <tgmarron...> [VTBIRD] Williston bird walk/Saturday
7/9/21 4:39 am Sue Wetmore <000006207b3956ac-dmarc-request...> [VTBIRD] Bird walk
7/6/21 2:21 pm Rich Kelley <rich...> Re: [VTBIRD] where to park for St. Mike's Natural Area
7/6/21 2:04 pm Maeve Kim <maevekim7...> [VTBIRD] where to park for St. Mike's Natural Area
7/5/21 3:30 pm John Snell <jrsnelljr...> Re: [VTBIRD] Shadbush as avian magnet
7/5/21 3:22 pm Walter Medwid <wmedwid...> [VTBIRD] Shadbush as avian magnet
7/5/21 10:26 am Sue Wetmore <000006207b3956ac-dmarc-request...> [VTBIRD] Goshen
7/5/21 10:26 am Diana <dlee3...> [VTBIRD] Into the Wild with Song Sparrows
7/4/21 7:06 pm David Guertin <dave...> Re: [VTBIRD] Waterthrush
7/4/21 6:48 pm R Stewart <2cnewbirds...> [VTBIRD] Waterthrush
7/4/21 12:14 pm Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...> Re: [VTBIRD] THREE Dickcissels on Lagoon Road
7/3/21 2:12 pm alison wagner <alikatofvt...> [VTBIRD] THREE Dickcissels on Lagoon Road
7/3/21 1:44 pm Richard Littauer <richard.littauer...> [VTBIRD] Project 251: Completed!
7/3/21 3:20 am BRUCE FLEWELLING <bflewelling3263...> [VTBIRD] Mount Horrid Falcons
7/2/21 2:50 pm Chris Rimmer <crimmer...> [VTBIRD] Mansfield Week 5 update
7/2/21 9:16 am Maeve Kim <maevekim7...> Re: [VTBIRD] More loon chick pix
7/2/21 4:45 am Roo Slagle <roospin...> Re: [VTBIRD] unfamiliar hummingbird behavior recently
7/2/21 4:39 am Ian Clark <lenscapon...> [VTBIRD] More loon chick pix
7/1/21 8:53 am John Aberth <johnaberth1...> Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
7/1/21 8:09 am Sue Wetmore <000006207b3956ac-dmarc-request...> [VTBIRD] Dickcissel
7/1/21 5:35 am Brenna <dbgaldenzi...> Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
7/1/21 2:53 am BRUCE FLEWELLING <bflewelling3263...> Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
6/30/21 10:57 pm Charlie La Rosa <charlie.larosa...> Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
6/30/21 7:56 pm R Stewart <2cnewbirds...> [VTBIRD] Fwd: eBird Report - 650 Cold Springs Road, West Haven, Vermont, US (43.653, -73.392), Jun 29, 2021
6/30/21 6:38 am Brenna <dbgaldenzi...> Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
6/30/21 5:26 am John Aberth <johnaberth1...> Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
6/30/21 5:10 am Brenna <dbgaldenzi...> Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
6/30/21 4:32 am Veer Frost <0000038039fb4cf6-dmarc-request...> Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
6/30/21 4:11 am Coleen Lawlor <lawlor.coleen...> Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
 
Back to top
Date: 7/28/21 7:56 am
From: Ted Levin <tedlevin1966...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] July 28, 2021: Hurricane Hill, White River Junction
5:34 a.m. (sunrise one minute later than yesterday). 59 degrees, wind SE 2
mph, a relocation of nighttime raindrops, leaves shaking and dripping. Sky:
southwest, away from the rivers, the half-moon, high, gleams through
Manitoba smoke. In the northeast, an ascending sun obscured by river fog.
Overhead, the underbelly of clouds rimmed in light, a silver funnel
converging where I think the sun should be. Looking north across the White
River, into a soft confusion of brume, the ridgeline behind a screen of
silk, everything else erased. Two flocks of blackbirds skim the treetops,
the density of the morning, a glimpse of autumn, flying northwest.
Horizontal branches of boxelder hung with dew, jewelry of the rain.

Flowering: mullen, stalks of small yellow flowers above rosettes of
diaper-soft leaves; black-eyed Susan; Queen Anne's lace; last of the
ox-eyed daisies.

AOR: chipping sparrow eating ragweed seeds; red fox, in no particular
hurry, trots up a neighbor's driveway (noses to the road, dogs interpret
what they missed). Deer tracks. An adventurous slug.

The world belongs to waxwings and goldfinches, nesting in the thickets. The
former eats berries, the latter seeds. A male hummingbird perched in gray
birch, gorget dull as dusk, waits for the sun. Bunting in birch eats seeds.
Yellowthroat in a lilac, familiar song, a different shrub. I knew him from
the alders of Coyote Hollow, on the threshold of a marsh; here, on
Hurricane Hill, on the verge of a dooryard, companionable as a chickadee.
Catbird kvetching. Crow hollering. A bluejay mimics a red-shouldered hawk,
a barb in the wind.

Along the edge of an ungrazed paddock, a duet in blue. Bunting and bluebird.

A promising landscape, like an auspicious first date, filled with
possibility. Untempered, untethered, fresh as first light. I saw my first
indigo bunting in an Indiana hedgerow. My first eastern bluebird behind a
Jones Beach sand dune, the bulk of Long Island hung heavily across the bay.
Mornings on Hurricane Hill, a different edition of the universal story. A
diverse and fetching cast of characters all trying to *Keep On Keepin' On* .
. . and I'm part of the ensemble.
 

Back to top
Date: 7/27/21 6:29 am
From: Sue Wetmore <000006207b3956ac-dmarc-request...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Bobolinks
Bobolinks are flying about the large farm field on Union St. in Brandon this morning .
Sue Wetmore

Sent from my iPod
 

Back to top
Date: 7/26/21 4:20 pm
From: Mundi Smithers <amen1farm...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] July 26, 2021: Hurricane Hill, White River Junction
Just delighted to know that you are back and holding up the Upper Valley. Having done one of those wrenching moves, I can appreciate your sorrow. May the forces of nature bring you healing and comfort.

Mundi
North Pownal

Sent from my iPad

The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.
Arthur C Clarke 1917 - 2008

> On Jul 26, 2021, at 11:02 AM, Ted Levin <tedlevin1966...> wrote:
>
> 5:33 a.m. (sunrise four minutes later than July 23.) 64 degrees, wind S 5
> mph. Sky: two rivers rising fog merges, erases distant outlines, blurs
> nearby contours. Above where Moose Mountain ought to be, the sun appears
> red-hot behind a diminished cloud. An ephemeral brushstroke electrifies the
> rim. Then, the sun turns yellow, turns white—turns the eastern horizon rich
> with possibility. Fog thickens like cotton. Dewy sheet webs glisten. A
> juvenile bluebird, perched on an electric line, basks in virgin sunlight.
> Morning prevails.
>
> Rain puddles dot the road, a slug tries to beat the sun to the other side.
> In a shallow wrinkle, below overarching ferns, water purls toward the
> river. Two juvenile woodpeckers, downy and sapsucker, share a gray birch.
> Probe old holes, one after the other. A diligent investigation. They look
> like toddlers. Act like toddlers, bump into each other, visibly careless,
> seemingly forgiving. Flits across the road, a hermit thrush sings in the
> hemlocks.
>
> A sapling rises skeletal out of a knot of grapevines; hosts a waxwing, and
> then in succession: three bluebirds, two chipping sparrows, catbird, and
> phoebe, rhythmic tailing pumping. One bluebird returns, bill up, head back,
> swallows a small, green grape. Each replaces the other.
>
> I hear chickadees and titmice and jays, and every afternoon a male cardinal
> flies across the yard, from maple to oak, a flash of red in an ocean of
> green; but thus far, all four avoid the feeders that hang off the deck. The
> first bird to visit my avian foodbank was an immature male ruby-throated
> hummingbird (almost immediately after the sugar water went up). Now, four
> of five belligerent hummingbirds zip around the deck, chasing each other;
> jousting, bills like lances, poking, prodding, jabbing. The first bird on
> the sunflower feeder: male goldfinch. Second: dark-eyed junco, which
> dominates the goldfinch and nests eight feet off the ground, on a board on
> the underside of the deck alongside an empty robin's nest. Third: chipping
> sparrow, the lowest social standing on the three-species totem pole. For
> the moment, the feeders are theirs.
>
> I stand on the deck, gaze down the slope of Hurricane Hill, northwest,
> through a green portal into my new neighborhood. Same world, different
> perspective. On the forest floor, sun-dappled shadows like a fawn's coat. A
> sweep of hemlock boughs. A broad-winged hawk clutched to the spire of one
> hemlock, rocks in the wind, an avatar of translocation—Vermont to Brazil,
> and back again—a biannual performance staged beneath a flotilla of clouds,
> above the scaffolding of the hemisphere. Makes a move from Thetford to
> White River seem relatively insignificant . . . but emotion runs heavier
> than feathers.
 

Back to top
Date: 7/26/21 8:02 am
From: Ted Levin <tedlevin1966...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] July 26, 2021: Hurricane Hill, White River Junction
5:33 a.m. (sunrise four minutes later than July 23.) 64 degrees, wind S 5
mph. Sky: two rivers rising fog merges, erases distant outlines, blurs
nearby contours. Above where Moose Mountain ought to be, the sun appears
red-hot behind a diminished cloud. An ephemeral brushstroke electrifies the
rim. Then, the sun turns yellow, turns white—turns the eastern horizon rich
with possibility. Fog thickens like cotton. Dewy sheet webs glisten. A
juvenile bluebird, perched on an electric line, basks in virgin sunlight.
Morning prevails.

Rain puddles dot the road, a slug tries to beat the sun to the other side.
In a shallow wrinkle, below overarching ferns, water purls toward the
river. Two juvenile woodpeckers, downy and sapsucker, share a gray birch.
Probe old holes, one after the other. A diligent investigation. They look
like toddlers. Act like toddlers, bump into each other, visibly careless,
seemingly forgiving. Flits across the road, a hermit thrush sings in the
hemlocks.

A sapling rises skeletal out of a knot of grapevines; hosts a waxwing, and
then in succession: three bluebirds, two chipping sparrows, catbird, and
phoebe, rhythmic tailing pumping. One bluebird returns, bill up, head back,
swallows a small, green grape. Each replaces the other.

I hear chickadees and titmice and jays, and every afternoon a male cardinal
flies across the yard, from maple to oak, a flash of red in an ocean of
green; but thus far, all four avoid the feeders that hang off the deck. The
first bird to visit my avian foodbank was an immature male ruby-throated
hummingbird (almost immediately after the sugar water went up). Now, four
of five belligerent hummingbirds zip around the deck, chasing each other;
jousting, bills like lances, poking, prodding, jabbing. The first bird on
the sunflower feeder: male goldfinch. Second: dark-eyed junco, which
dominates the goldfinch and nests eight feet off the ground, on a board on
the underside of the deck alongside an empty robin's nest. Third: chipping
sparrow, the lowest social standing on the three-species totem pole. For
the moment, the feeders are theirs.

I stand on the deck, gaze down the slope of Hurricane Hill, northwest,
through a green portal into my new neighborhood. Same world, different
perspective. On the forest floor, sun-dappled shadows like a fawn's coat. A
sweep of hemlock boughs. A broad-winged hawk clutched to the spire of one
hemlock, rocks in the wind, an avatar of translocation—Vermont to Brazil,
and back again—a biannual performance staged beneath a flotilla of clouds,
above the scaffolding of the hemisphere. Makes a move from Thetford to
White River seem relatively insignificant . . . but emotion runs heavier
than feathers.
 

Back to top
Date: 7/25/21 3:40 pm
From: Eugenia Cooke <euge24241...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] a yard first!
We had a house wren brood fledge a couple weeks ago, and also watched
several parental fecal sac removals in the days prior to fledgling. A first
for us, too! Since then the male has been singing constantly around the
yard but so far no indication of a new nest brood.
Eugenia
Rutland

On Sun, Jul 25, 2021, 5:54 PM Maeve Kim <maevekim7...> wrote:

> And a birding history first for me - The resident House Wrens are feeding
> their second (or maybe third) clutch, this one in a little pottery wren
> house given to me by my godfather way back in the ‘70s. (It’s adorable but
> has no removable parts, so cleaning it out in the fall is quite a task.)
> Today I saw one of the parents making many trips to feed youngsters and
> then, a few minutes ago, the adult stuck its head in the nest box and then
> wiggled all the way in, coming out in a second or two carrying a fecal sac.
> I’d never seen that before!
> The hummingbird circus now has five acrobats at a time, quite a show!
> Maeve Kim, Jericho Center
 

Back to top
Date: 7/25/21 3:13 pm
From: Maeve Kim <maevekim7...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] explosion of hummer numbers
Is this explosion of Ruby-throated Hummingbirds statewide? If so, are there any thoughts about why?
We’ve worked hard to transform our yard into a bird and pollinator haven, so I was thinking the many additional flowering plants might be the cause of our unusual bonanza. I’d love to think that people all over the state have also been remaking their yards!
Maeve Kim, Jericho Center

> On Jul 25, 2021, at 6:10 PM, Sue Wetmore <000006207b3956ac-dmarc-request...> wrote:
>
> I have never before had my feeder drained but this is happening in the past two weeks!
> Sue Wetmore
> Brandon
>
> Sent from my iPod
>
>> On Jul 25, 2021, at 6:01 PM, Rita Pitkin <ritapitkin15...> wrote:
>>
>> I have never seen so many Hummingbirds at my feeders. It seems like 2 or 3
>> pairs (can't really be sure) and now juveniles.
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 5:54 PM Maeve Kim <maevekim7...> wrote:
>>>
>>> And a birding history first for me - The resident House Wrens are feeding
>>> their second (or maybe third) clutch, this one in a little pottery wren
>>> house given to me by my godfather way back in the ‘70s. (It’s adorable but
>>> has no removable parts, so cleaning it out in the fall is quite a task.)
>>> Today I saw one of the parents making many trips to feed youngsters and
>>> then, a few minutes ago, the adult stuck its head in the nest box and then
>>> wiggled all the way in, coming out in a second or two carrying a fecal sac.
>>> I’d never seen that before!
>>> The hummingbird circus now has five acrobats at a time, quite a show!
>>> Maeve Kim, Jericho Center
 

Back to top
Date: 7/25/21 3:10 pm
From: Sue Wetmore <000006207b3956ac-dmarc-request...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] a yard first!
I have never before had my feeder drained but this is happening in the past two weeks!
Sue Wetmore
Brandon

Sent from my iPod

> On Jul 25, 2021, at 6:01 PM, Rita Pitkin <ritapitkin15...> wrote:
>
> I have never seen so many Hummingbirds at my feeders. It seems like 2 or 3
> pairs (can't really be sure) and now juveniles.
>
>> On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 5:54 PM Maeve Kim <maevekim7...> wrote:
>>
>> And a birding history first for me - The resident House Wrens are feeding
>> their second (or maybe third) clutch, this one in a little pottery wren
>> house given to me by my godfather way back in the ‘70s. (It’s adorable but
>> has no removable parts, so cleaning it out in the fall is quite a task.)
>> Today I saw one of the parents making many trips to feed youngsters and
>> then, a few minutes ago, the adult stuck its head in the nest box and then
>> wiggled all the way in, coming out in a second or two carrying a fecal sac.
>> I’d never seen that before!
>> The hummingbird circus now has five acrobats at a time, quite a show!
>> Maeve Kim, Jericho Center
 

Back to top
Date: 7/25/21 3:02 pm
From: Rita Pitkin <ritapitkin15...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] a yard first!
I have never seen so many Hummingbirds at my feeders. It seems like 2 or 3
pairs (can't really be sure) and now juveniles.

On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 5:54 PM Maeve Kim <maevekim7...> wrote:

> And a birding history first for me - The resident House Wrens are feeding
> their second (or maybe third) clutch, this one in a little pottery wren
> house given to me by my godfather way back in the ‘70s. (It’s adorable but
> has no removable parts, so cleaning it out in the fall is quite a task.)
> Today I saw one of the parents making many trips to feed youngsters and
> then, a few minutes ago, the adult stuck its head in the nest box and then
> wiggled all the way in, coming out in a second or two carrying a fecal sac.
> I’d never seen that before!
> The hummingbird circus now has five acrobats at a time, quite a show!
> Maeve Kim, Jericho Center
 

Back to top
Date: 7/25/21 2:54 pm
From: Maeve Kim <maevekim7...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] a yard first!
And a birding history first for me - The resident House Wrens are feeding their second (or maybe third) clutch, this one in a little pottery wren house given to me by my godfather way back in the ‘70s. (It’s adorable but has no removable parts, so cleaning it out in the fall is quite a task.) Today I saw one of the parents making many trips to feed youngsters and then, a few minutes ago, the adult stuck its head in the nest box and then wiggled all the way in, coming out in a second or two carrying a fecal sac. I’d never seen that before!
The hummingbird circus now has five acrobats at a time, quite a show!
Maeve Kim, Jericho Center
 

Back to top
Date: 7/25/21 4:19 am
From: Maeve Kim <maevekim7...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Binoculars for a young birder
Good timing, Ann. Redstart Birding just featured information about binoculars for kids:
https://redstartbirding.com/collections/binoculars-for-kids?mc_cid=229536851e&mc_eid=0f63a6379b <https://redstartbirding.com/collections/binoculars-for-kids?mc_cid=229536851e&mc_eid=0f63a6379b>
Maeve Kim, Jericho Center

> On Jul 24, 2021, at 9:13 PM, Ann Curran <acurran802...> <mailto:<acurran802...>> wrote:
>
> Birding friends,
>
> I have been asked to recommend binoculars that a precocious 10-year-old
> could use, as he learns about the birds around him. His family are not
> birders and would like to give him the binocs as a gift.
>
> I've never bought binocs for a youngster, so I ask you:
>
> Is there something in the $200-$400 range that would work for him now and
> for the years ahead?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts you may have,
>
> Ann Curran
 

Back to top
Date: 7/24/21 6:14 pm
From: Ann Curran <acurran802...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Binoculars for a young birder
Birding friends,

I have been asked to recommend binoculars that a precocious 10-year-old
could use, as he learns about the birds around him. His family are not
birders and would like to give him the binocs as a gift.

I've never bought binocs for a youngster, so I ask you:

Is there something in the $200-$400 range that would work for him now and
for the years ahead?

Thanks for any thoughts you may have,

Ann Curran
 

Back to top
Date: 7/23/21 6:45 pm
From: Katherine Donahue <kdonahue36...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] July 23, 2021: Hurricane Hill, White River Junction
Thank you, this is steadying news to have you reporting from Hurricane Hill.

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 4:00 PM Ted Levin <tedlevin1966...> wrote:

> Thanks, Diane.
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 2:44 PM Diane Brown <deejbrown...> wrote:
>
> > Welcome home to your new location and a return to your exquisite writing.
> > Glad to see you back.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Diane Brown
> > Middlebury
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 10:09 AM Ted Levin <tedlevin1966...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Sky: the sun rises behind Smarts Mountain, twenty-three crow-flown
> miles
> > to
> > > the northeast, rose and pink flowering across the eastern horizon;
> Mount
> > > Moosilaukee, the southern edge of the White Mountains, twenty miles
> > beyond
> > > Smarts, capped by serrated clouds, the same shade as the mountain,
> > > gray-blue as granite. 5:29 a.m. (sunrise twenty minutes later than June
> > 28,
> > > my last entry, when I teetered on the precipice of relocation). 54
> > degrees,
> > > wind E 2 mph. Momentary drizzle. I stand on the edge of Hurricane Hill,
> > > contemplating mist that peels off the White River and merges into the
> > > Connecticut, an echo of flow. Two rivers cast off moisture like snakes
> > > their skins, visibly, viably, vibrantly transforming a walk into a
> > > momentary triumph. Above the fog, across the valley, dairy cows wander
> > > green pastures. I hear the highway's murmur, the lonesome whistle of a
> > > train.
> > >
> > > Hermit thrush, shadow song, rises out of the hemlocks; reminds me of
> the
> > > pine barrens of Long Island, the slope of the Green Mountains, devotion
> > to
> > > daybreak. Red-eyed vireos, devotion to tedium. Three tolerant waxwings
> > > perch in a dead shrub, attend a tangle of grapes, some ripe, some
> green,
> > an
> > > avian vineyard on the brushy edge of a meadow. One tanager in the open,
> > > summer bright and full of song. Needs a throat lozenge. Athletic
> catbird
> > > grips a Jerusalem artichoke, one foot above the other, a sideways perch
> > > below a crown of yellow petals. Blackbird traffic, more than thirty,
> low
> > > overhead, an amalgamation of flapping sounds. I turn, expecting a car.
> > >
> > > My neighbor has two beehives, a statue of the Buddha, prayer flags, and
> > an
> > > indigo bunting that sings in the top of a pasture maple, a leafless
> limb
> > > with electric color. *Passerina cyanea,* a fitting epithet, jungle
> blue,
> > > bright like a butterfly. Although unambiguously and irreversibly
> > > gorgeous, blue feathers are a conspiracy of light. Structural color,
> not
> > > the work of pigments. Feathers scatter blue light, absorb all
> > > other wavelengths. Indigo bunting, bill up spilling paired phrases,
> loud
> > > and prominent, the chromatic imposter . . . that holds my attention.
> > >
> > > Downstream. New geography, a profound blue welcoming, a landscape to
> > > discover . . . but like an amputee, I still feel my phantom home, an
> urge
> > > to go into a room that doesn't exist, to fill a feeder that hangs
> > > elsewhere. To find the bathroom at night in the dark when the owl
> calls.
> > >
> >
>
 

Back to top
Date: 7/23/21 3:37 pm
From: Maeve Kim <maevekim7...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] hummer circus and downy with a sweet tooth
We’ve never found a hummingbird nest on the property, but this year there must have been one very close by. All day, every day, there are at least three buzzing from feeder to feeder: at least one adult male (we thought we saw two twice now, which is odd), one adult female, and at least two youngsters, one recognizable by its very mottled back. The Jewelweed is starting to flower, so there’s a lot of hummingbird activity in that patch too. And, for four days now, a Downy Woodpecker has spent many minutes several times a day clinging to the smallest nectar feeder and swigging sugar water.
Maeve Kim, Jericho Center
 

Back to top
Date: 7/23/21 1:00 pm
From: Ted Levin <tedlevin1966...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] July 23, 2021: Hurricane Hill, White River Junction
Thanks, Diane.

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 2:44 PM Diane Brown <deejbrown...> wrote:

> Welcome home to your new location and a return to your exquisite writing.
> Glad to see you back.
>
> Thank you,
> Diane Brown
> Middlebury
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 10:09 AM Ted Levin <tedlevin1966...> wrote:
>
> > Sky: the sun rises behind Smarts Mountain, twenty-three crow-flown miles
> to
> > the northeast, rose and pink flowering across the eastern horizon; Mount
> > Moosilaukee, the southern edge of the White Mountains, twenty miles
> beyond
> > Smarts, capped by serrated clouds, the same shade as the mountain,
> > gray-blue as granite. 5:29 a.m. (sunrise twenty minutes later than June
> 28,
> > my last entry, when I teetered on the precipice of relocation). 54
> degrees,
> > wind E 2 mph. Momentary drizzle. I stand on the edge of Hurricane Hill,
> > contemplating mist that peels off the White River and merges into the
> > Connecticut, an echo of flow. Two rivers cast off moisture like snakes
> > their skins, visibly, viably, vibrantly transforming a walk into a
> > momentary triumph. Above the fog, across the valley, dairy cows wander
> > green pastures. I hear the highway's murmur, the lonesome whistle of a
> > train.
> >
> > Hermit thrush, shadow song, rises out of the hemlocks; reminds me of the
> > pine barrens of Long Island, the slope of the Green Mountains, devotion
> to
> > daybreak. Red-eyed vireos, devotion to tedium. Three tolerant waxwings
> > perch in a dead shrub, attend a tangle of grapes, some ripe, some green,
> an
> > avian vineyard on the brushy edge of a meadow. One tanager in the open,
> > summer bright and full of song. Needs a throat lozenge. Athletic catbird
> > grips a Jerusalem artichoke, one foot above the other, a sideways perch
> > below a crown of yellow petals. Blackbird traffic, more than thirty, low
> > overhead, an amalgamation of flapping sounds. I turn, expecting a car.
> >
> > My neighbor has two beehives, a statue of the Buddha, prayer flags, and
> an
> > indigo bunting that sings in the top of a pasture maple, a leafless limb
> > with electric color. *Passerina cyanea,* a fitting epithet, jungle blue,
> > bright like a butterfly. Although unambiguously and irreversibly
> > gorgeous, blue feathers are a conspiracy of light. Structural color, not
> > the work of pigments. Feathers scatter blue light, absorb all
> > other wavelengths. Indigo bunting, bill up spilling paired phrases, loud
> > and prominent, the chromatic imposter . . . that holds my attention.
> >
> > Downstream. New geography, a profound blue welcoming, a landscape to
> > discover . . . but like an amputee, I still feel my phantom home, an urge
> > to go into a room that doesn't exist, to fill a feeder that hangs
> > elsewhere. To find the bathroom at night in the dark when the owl calls.
> >
>
 

Back to top
Date: 7/23/21 11:44 am
From: Diane Brown <deejbrown...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] July 23, 2021: Hurricane Hill, White River Junction
Welcome home to your new location and a return to your exquisite writing.
Glad to see you back.

Thank you,
Diane Brown
Middlebury

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 10:09 AM Ted Levin <tedlevin1966...> wrote:

> Sky: the sun rises behind Smarts Mountain, twenty-three crow-flown miles to
> the northeast, rose and pink flowering across the eastern horizon; Mount
> Moosilaukee, the southern edge of the White Mountains, twenty miles beyond
> Smarts, capped by serrated clouds, the same shade as the mountain,
> gray-blue as granite. 5:29 a.m. (sunrise twenty minutes later than June 28,
> my last entry, when I teetered on the precipice of relocation). 54 degrees,
> wind E 2 mph. Momentary drizzle. I stand on the edge of Hurricane Hill,
> contemplating mist that peels off the White River and merges into the
> Connecticut, an echo of flow. Two rivers cast off moisture like snakes
> their skins, visibly, viably, vibrantly transforming a walk into a
> momentary triumph. Above the fog, across the valley, dairy cows wander
> green pastures. I hear the highway's murmur, the lonesome whistle of a
> train.
>
> Hermit thrush, shadow song, rises out of the hemlocks; reminds me of the
> pine barrens of Long Island, the slope of the Green Mountains, devotion to
> daybreak. Red-eyed vireos, devotion to tedium. Three tolerant waxwings
> perch in a dead shrub, attend a tangle of grapes, some ripe, some green, an
> avian vineyard on the brushy edge of a meadow. One tanager in the open,
> summer bright and full of song. Needs a throat lozenge. Athletic catbird
> grips a Jerusalem artichoke, one foot above the other, a sideways perch
> below a crown of yellow petals. Blackbird traffic, more than thirty, low
> overhead, an amalgamation of flapping sounds. I turn, expecting a car.
>
> My neighbor has two beehives, a statue of the Buddha, prayer flags, and an
> indigo bunting that sings in the top of a pasture maple, a leafless limb
> with electric color. *Passerina cyanea,* a fitting epithet, jungle blue,
> bright like a butterfly. Although unambiguously and irreversibly
> gorgeous, blue feathers are a conspiracy of light. Structural color, not
> the work of pigments. Feathers scatter blue light, absorb all
> other wavelengths. Indigo bunting, bill up spilling paired phrases, loud
> and prominent, the chromatic imposter . . . that holds my attention.
>
> Downstream. New geography, a profound blue welcoming, a landscape to
> discover . . . but like an amputee, I still feel my phantom home, an urge
> to go into a room that doesn't exist, to fill a feeder that hangs
> elsewhere. To find the bathroom at night in the dark when the owl calls.
>
 

Back to top
Date: 7/23/21 7:09 am
From: Ted Levin <tedlevin1966...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] July 23, 2021: Hurricane Hill, White River Junction
Sky: the sun rises behind Smarts Mountain, twenty-three crow-flown miles to
the northeast, rose and pink flowering across the eastern horizon; Mount
Moosilaukee, the southern edge of the White Mountains, twenty miles beyond
Smarts, capped by serrated clouds, the same shade as the mountain,
gray-blue as granite. 5:29 a.m. (sunrise twenty minutes later than June 28,
my last entry, when I teetered on the precipice of relocation). 54 degrees,
wind E 2 mph. Momentary drizzle. I stand on the edge of Hurricane Hill,
contemplating mist that peels off the White River and merges into the
Connecticut, an echo of flow. Two rivers cast off moisture like snakes
their skins, visibly, viably, vibrantly transforming a walk into a
momentary triumph. Above the fog, across the valley, dairy cows wander
green pastures. I hear the highway's murmur, the lonesome whistle of a
train.

Hermit thrush, shadow song, rises out of the hemlocks; reminds me of the
pine barrens of Long Island, the slope of the Green Mountains, devotion to
daybreak. Red-eyed vireos, devotion to tedium. Three tolerant waxwings
perch in a dead shrub, attend a tangle of grapes, some ripe, some green, an
avian vineyard on the brushy edge of a meadow. One tanager in the open,
summer bright and full of song. Needs a throat lozenge. Athletic catbird
grips a Jerusalem artichoke, one foot above the other, a sideways perch
below a crown of yellow petals. Blackbird traffic, more than thirty, low
overhead, an amalgamation of flapping sounds. I turn, expecting a car.

My neighbor has two beehives, a statue of the Buddha, prayer flags, and an
indigo bunting that sings in the top of a pasture maple, a leafless limb
with electric color. *Passerina cyanea,* a fitting epithet, jungle blue,
bright like a butterfly. Although unambiguously and irreversibly
gorgeous, blue feathers are a conspiracy of light. Structural color, not
the work of pigments. Feathers scatter blue light, absorb all
other wavelengths. Indigo bunting, bill up spilling paired phrases, loud
and prominent, the chromatic imposter . . . that holds my attention.

Downstream. New geography, a profound blue welcoming, a landscape to
discover . . . but like an amputee, I still feel my phantom home, an urge
to go into a room that doesn't exist, to fill a feeder that hangs
elsewhere. To find the bathroom at night in the dark when the owl calls.
 

Back to top
Date: 7/23/21 5:47 am
From: R Stewart <2cnewbirds...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Hooded warbler back in Bennington
Exciting, Eric. Thanks for the post. Ruth Stewart

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 3:50 PM Eric Seyferth <seyfren...> wrote:

> There were hooded warblers at Whipstock Hill WMA in 2014-2016. 2 days ago
> I heard at around 8 AM a repetitively loudly singing bird elusively moving
> about heavy cover, good recording but unable to visualize. Went back
> yesterday morning and this morning with no luck. I’ll repost if he shows
> again, but this late in the year I am not optimistic about being able to
> locate him by his song again.
>
> Sent from my iPhone



--
Ruth Stewart
E. Dorset VT
 

Back to top
Date: 7/22/21 12:50 pm
From: Eric Seyferth <seyfren...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Hooded warbler back in Bennington
There were hooded warblers at Whipstock Hill WMA in 2014-2016. 2 days ago I heard at around 8 AM a repetitively loudly singing bird elusively moving about heavy cover, good recording but unable to visualize. Went back yesterday morning and this morning with no luck. I’ll repost if he shows again, but this late in the year I am not optimistic about being able to locate him by his song again.

Sent from my iPhone
 

Back to top
Date: 7/19/21 9:54 am
From: Susan Elliott <00000032e9152660-dmarc-request...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Billings Marsh in W Haven
I believe it was accessed by canoe as the observers were pulling water chestnuts along the Poultney River. It is not part of the Buckner Preserve. The closest road is Bay Road, which is sometimes gated, sometimes open, sometimes impassible, sometimes not. 
Sue Elliott
On Monday, July 19, 2021, 12:37:16 PM EDT, R Stewart <2cnewbirds...> wrote:

From where is this accessed?  Is it part of the Buckner Preserve?  Good
sighting of BCNH!

--
Ruth Stewart
E. Dorset VT

 

Back to top
Date: 7/19/21 9:37 am
From: R Stewart <2cnewbirds...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Billings Marsh in W Haven
From where is this accessed? Is it part of the Buckner Preserve? Good
sighting of BCNH!

--
Ruth Stewart
E. Dorset VT
 

Back to top
Date: 7/19/21 7:37 am
From: Chris Rimmer <crimmer...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Belated Mansfield update
Last week's Mansfield update, on the heels of visit #8 tonight:
https://vtecostudies.org/blog/a-deluge-of-juncos-and-a-surprise-boreal-visitor-on-mansfield/

Chris

________________________

Chris Rimmer
Vermont Center for Ecostudies
PO Box 420 | Norwich, Vermont 05055
802.649.1431 x202
http://vtecostudies.org/
 

Back to top
Date: 7/16/21 2:19 pm
From: Charlie Teske <cteske140...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Loon on Lake Lamoille
That was a first for me this afternoon. A lone adult.
 

Back to top
Date: 7/15/21 2:24 pm
From: Diana <dlee3...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Into the Wild with Bluebirds
Bluebirds are beautiful and associated with happiness. Here is a video telling about them.
https://youtu.be/WXwA_V_j8wg
 

Back to top
Date: 7/15/21 12:27 pm
From: Bridget Butler <birddiva...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Cornell Statement On Bird Illnesses
Greetings!

This from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology on the unexplained bird illness
reports on tje east coast.

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/statement-new-songbird-illness/

Has there been a statement from Vermont Fish & Wildlife on this topic?

Bridget
 

Back to top
Date: 7/15/21 7:39 am
From: Evergreen Erb <evergreenerb...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Dickcissels
Hi Ali and everyone,
Meredith (Isis) and I have been going to Lagoon just to watch the Dickcissels. I also have noticed, Ali, that the male in particular, often looks really disheveled. He definitely is preening a lot. I wondered about it, but didn't make the connection to mites in the nest. We saw both the male and female going down to where we think the nest site is several times yesterday.
Also, we have enjoyed watching them forage right in the newly mowed area next to the road. The male was chasing a very perky grasshopper for awhile, hopping away at it. It was so fun to watch!
I can't drive right now because of a serious shoulder injury, and Meredith took two weeks off work to help me out, and helping me out means getting out of the house some, and Lagoon is a perfect little jaunt for me. I wish I could just bop down there anytime, and I hope with all my fingers crossed, that they have a successful breeding outcome. Thanks for your reports Ali, Evergreen in Huntington



-----Original Message-----
From: Vermont Birds <VTBIRD...> On Behalf Of alison wagner
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 9:47 AM
To: <VTBIRD...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Dickcissels

Good morning, I went to Lagoon Road at 6 a.m. before work with hopes of seeing more feeding activity with the Dickcissels. Instead I found many sparrows, blackbirds, and starlings along the road edges. The town had cut back the wild parsnip between the road and fencing and there seemed to be a lot of food for foraging fledglings. It was awesome! I did not see or hear a Dickcissel until 7:05 when the male appeared on the utility line and vocalized for three minutes. He did NOT have any food in his beak. He disappeared for 2 minutes but then returned to his post. I observed him for another five minutes before I had to leave. The entire time he preened and scratched. From what I’ve read about the breeding timeline of this species, I figured out it is possible the “Chickcissels” may have been ready to fledge about now (if the copulation I observed on June 23 was the second to last or last egg to be fertilized). I had observed the male a few days back carrying food (same mouthful) from the utility line to the nesting area and then back up to the utility line, for a total of 15 minutes before he actually went to the nest (he reappeared out of the tall grasses a moment later with no food in his beak). I had thought this represented the nestlings were close to fledging. The past two days no one has mentioned seeing an adult carrying food.

I am a bit concerned that there might be an issue with mites in the nest, judging by the male’s constant preening and scratching I observed today. (I had not seen this in prior days...has anyone else seen this change?). If this is the case, then a failed nesting attempt due to a natural event like mites is somehow easier to accept than human interference. Also, I had seen an American Kestrel on the wire a few days back (and many agitated adult birds). I do hold onto a bit of hope still that the Dickcissel nestlings are still growing and I hope that anyone who goes to check on them (from the road) will document any behavior that may help determine their status.

Perhaps the chicks are in the tall grass being fed still...Does anyone have any insight on this stage of Dickcissels raising young? It would be so awesome if they succeed as the first documented Dickcissels to breed in Vermont!

Ali
Huntington
 

Back to top
Date: 7/15/21 6:46 am
From: alison wagner <alikatofvt...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Dickcissels
Good morning, I went to Lagoon Road at 6 a.m. before work with hopes of seeing more feeding activity with the Dickcissels. Instead I found many sparrows, blackbirds, and starlings along the road edges. The town had cut back the wild parsnip between the road and fencing and there seemed to be a lot of food for foraging fledglings. It was awesome! I did not see or hear a Dickcissel until 7:05 when the male appeared on the utility line and vocalized for three minutes. He did NOT have any food in his beak. He disappeared for 2 minutes but then returned to his post. I observed him for another five minutes before I had to leave. The entire time he preened and scratched. From what I’ve read about the breeding timeline of this species, I figured out it is possible the “Chickcissels” may have been ready to fledge about now (if the copulation I observed on June 23 was the second to last or last egg to be fertilized). I had observed the male a few days back carrying food (same mouthful) from the utility line to the nesting area and then back up to the utility line, for a total of 15 minutes before he actually went to the nest (he reappeared out of the tall grasses a moment later with no food in his beak). I had thought this represented the nestlings were close to fledging. The past two days no one has mentioned seeing an adult carrying food.

I am a bit concerned that there might be an issue with mites in the nest, judging by the male’s constant preening and scratching I observed today. (I had not seen this in prior days...has anyone else seen this change?). If this is the case, then a failed nesting attempt due to a natural event like mites is somehow easier to accept than human interference. Also, I had seen an American Kestrel on the wire a few days back (and many agitated adult birds). I do hold onto a bit of hope still that the Dickcissel nestlings are still growing and I hope that anyone who goes to check on them (from the road) will document any behavior that may help determine their status.

Perhaps the chicks are in the tall grass being fed still...Does anyone have any insight on this stage of Dickcissels raising young? It would be so awesome if they succeed as the first documented Dickcissels to breed in Vermont!

Ali
Huntington
 

Back to top
Date: 7/12/21 10:46 am
From: Kent McFarland <kmcfarland...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] moths for birds
This isn't birding per se, but moths are super important for many bird
species and you can snap photos of them while you bird! Join the Vermont
Moth Blitz 2021 (July 17th to 25th) even if you are not a moth watcher!
Explore Vermont's astounding moth diversity! By participating in our annual
Vermont Moth Blitz, you will help the Vermont Moth Atlas develop a better
understanding of the moths that call the Green Mountain State home. Join
our project at https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/vermont-moth-blitz-2021.
Over 2,200 moth species have been documented in Vermont with new species
being found all the time. Who knows, maybe you will find one! We encourage
everyone, from experts to amateur enthusiasts, to find, photograph, and
share their moth discoveries with the Vermont Moth Blitz during National
Moth Week (July 17th-25th). Can we beat last years' tally? Check it out at
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/vermont-moth-blitz-2020. The Vermont
Moth Atlas is a project of the Vermont Center for Ecostudies' Vermont Atlas
of Life.

Thanks,
Kent
____________________________

Kent McFarland (he/him)
Vermont Center for Ecostudies
PO Box 420 | Norwich, Vermont 05055
802.649.1431 x201
Twitter: @kpmcfarland <https://twitter.com/KPMcFarland>
 

Back to top
Date: 7/11/21 6:40 pm
From: Ian Clark <lenscapon...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Another visit with the loon family
I checked in on one of our loon families this morning. Both chicks seem to
be doing well. Pix of the loons and a couple others, at:
https://tinyurl.com/dj76jh7n






%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Ian Clark
PO Box 51
West Newbury, VT 05085
(848) 702-0774

www.IanClark.com <http://www.IanClark.com>
 

Back to top
Date: 7/11/21 3:35 pm
From: Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi NWR Bird Monitoring Walk
We are pleased to announce that we are resuming our monthly bird monitoring
walks after being suspended for over a year due to COVID. Ken Copenhaver
and Julie Filiberti will lead the walks on various refuge trails on the
third Saturday of each month. The purpose of the walks is to gather
long-term data on the presence of birds, their abundance, and changes in
populations. Observations are entered into the Vermont eBird database where
data is stored by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the National Audubon
Society. These walks are appropriate for birders of all skill levels and
provide a wonderful opportunity to learn about birds throughout the
seasons. After 135 months of walks, we have recorded 160 species of birds.

COVID Notice: We will be following Vermont state COVID-19 protocols for
outdoor activities. We ask that you stay home if you are feeling ill and to
wear a mask if you are unvaccinated and when you can't maintain a safe
social distance.

Our walk this month will be on Saturday, July 17 from 8:00 to 10:00 AM at
the Maquam/Black Creek Trail. Meet at the parking lot on Rte 78, about 2.5
miles west of Swanton village. Hope to see you there!


--Ken Copenhaver

For information on other refuge events, visit: http://friendsofmissisquoi.
org/
 

Back to top
Date: 7/9/21 2:50 pm
From: Chris Rimmer <crimmer...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Mansfield Week 6 update
VCE squeezed in its sixth weekly banding session during a lull in the wet
weather, with good numbers of breeding residents, a couple of low-elevation
surprises, several free-flying juveniles, and the first molting adults. For
details, check the VCE blog:
https://vtecostudies.org/blog/seasonal-changes-emerging-on-mt-mansfield/

Chris

________________________

Chris Rimmer
Vermont Center for Ecostudies
PO Box 420 | Norwich, Vermont 05055
802.649.1431 x202
http://vtecostudies.org/
 

Back to top
Date: 7/9/21 11:38 am
From: Linnea Garrepy <mwtic...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Song bird illness
Re: bird illness.

Thanks from Syracuse!

Lin
________________________________
From: Vermont Birds <VTBIRD...> on behalf of Mundi Smithers <amen1farm...>
Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 3:18 PM
To: <VTBIRD...> <VTBIRD...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Song bird illness

My SIL sent this to me. I would hope that Vermonters wouldn’t have feeders out at this time of year but in case you do.
>
>
> 
> Wildlife organizations, including the Denison Pequotsepos Nature Center of Mystic and the Connecticut Audubon Society, are asking bird enthusiasts to remove feeders from their yards to prevent the spread of a disease that is killing songbirds in nine Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states.
> "It's important people realize this is a serious illness and take precautions" to protect the birds, said Cassandra Meyer-Ogren, the nature center's director of marketing and communications.
> On its website, the nature center reported that the unknown illness has been responsible for numerous deaths among young blue jays, European starlings, common grackles, American robins and northern cardinals and other species that have been found with eye lesions and neurological problems.
> The magazine Science reported Tuesday that the illness was first noticed in and around the Washington, D.C., area in late May, when baby blue jays appeared "lethargic, unable to keep their balance, and blinded by crusty, oozing patches that had grown over their eyes."
> It's since spread to nine states, the closest being New Jersey, and scientists are trying to identify the cause.
> Meyer-Ogren said it is similar to conjunctivitis that has spread in the past among birds, but the treatments used in the past for that ailment have not been effective with the new disease. She said the other big difference is that the new disease is affecting different species of birds.
> While the disease has not been confirmed yet in Connecticut, the nature center said the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is asking residents to take precautions and look out for cases.
> Because whatever is killing the birds may be infectious, the center is asking people to stop feeding birds at this time. It assured bird lovers that plenty of wild food is available this time of year for birds. The center said people will be able to put their feeders back up when it is safe to do so.
> The center offered suggestions to help protect the birds in addition to removing feeders and bird baths, which is suggested so they do not congregate and transmit the disease. These include not handling dead or injured wild birds or wearing disposable gloves if necessary, keeping pets away from sick or dead birds and, if disposing of dead birds, placing them in a sealable plastic bag and discard them with household trash.
> "If everyone is diligent, hopefully we won't see it spread here. Of course, birds don't know about state lines, so time will tell," Meyer-Ogren said.
> She added the center will monitor the situation closely and inform birders about any developments.
> The Audubon Society posted on its website that it will be removing bird feeders at its centers and will be monitoring birds.
>
Mundi
North Pownal


Sent from my iPad

The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.
Arthur C Clarke 1917 - 2008
 

Back to top
Date: 7/9/21 8:18 am
From: Mundi Smithers <amen1farm...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Song bird illness
My SIL sent this to me. I would hope that Vermonters wouldn’t have feeders out at this time of year but in case you do.
>
>
> 
> Wildlife organizations, including the Denison Pequotsepos Nature Center of Mystic and the Connecticut Audubon Society, are asking bird enthusiasts to remove feeders from their yards to prevent the spread of a disease that is killing songbirds in nine Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states.
> "It's important people realize this is a serious illness and take precautions" to protect the birds, said Cassandra Meyer-Ogren, the nature center's director of marketing and communications.
> On its website, the nature center reported that the unknown illness has been responsible for numerous deaths among young blue jays, European starlings, common grackles, American robins and northern cardinals and other species that have been found with eye lesions and neurological problems.
> The magazine Science reported Tuesday that the illness was first noticed in and around the Washington, D.C., area in late May, when baby blue jays appeared "lethargic, unable to keep their balance, and blinded by crusty, oozing patches that had grown over their eyes."
> It's since spread to nine states, the closest being New Jersey, and scientists are trying to identify the cause.
> Meyer-Ogren said it is similar to conjunctivitis that has spread in the past among birds, but the treatments used in the past for that ailment have not been effective with the new disease. She said the other big difference is that the new disease is affecting different species of birds.
> While the disease has not been confirmed yet in Connecticut, the nature center said the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is asking residents to take precautions and look out for cases.
> Because whatever is killing the birds may be infectious, the center is asking people to stop feeding birds at this time. It assured bird lovers that plenty of wild food is available this time of year for birds. The center said people will be able to put their feeders back up when it is safe to do so.
> The center offered suggestions to help protect the birds in addition to removing feeders and bird baths, which is suggested so they do not congregate and transmit the disease. These include not handling dead or injured wild birds or wearing disposable gloves if necessary, keeping pets away from sick or dead birds and, if disposing of dead birds, placing them in a sealable plastic bag and discard them with household trash.
> "If everyone is diligent, hopefully we won't see it spread here. Of course, birds don't know about state lines, so time will tell," Meyer-Ogren said.
> She added the center will monitor the situation closely and inform birders about any developments.
> The Audubon Society posted on its website that it will be removing bird feeders at its centers and will be monitoring birds.
>
Mundi
North Pownal


Sent from my iPad

The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.
Arthur C Clarke 1917 - 2008
 

Back to top
Date: 7/9/21 6:30 am
From: Susan Elliott <00000032e9152660-dmarc-request...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Rutland County Audubon West Rutland Marsh Walk - July 15
Rutland County Audubon's monthly walks around West Rutland Marsh have resumed being open to the public. The next walk is Thursday, July 15, meeting at the boardwalk on Marble Street at 7 a.m. 
The walk is 3.7 miles, but there will be an option to go halfway.
http://rutlandcountyaudubon.org/
 

Back to top
Date: 7/9/21 5:20 am
From: Terry Marron <tgmarron...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Williston bird walk/Saturday
Join the Vermont Master Naturalist Williston group for a 2.4 mile bird walk on Saturday July 10th at 8 am. This is a moderate out and back walk at an easy pace while we look and listen for birds along the trail. We come to an overlook at the top of Five Tree Hill where we can stop and enjoy the view. Below is a link to All Trails which gives an description and directions to the trail head.

https://www.alltrails.com/trail/us/vermont/overlook-via-sucker-brook-hollow-trail

We will be done by 11-11:30 am depending on the groups pace. Bring binoculars, water, snacks, bug spray and good hiking boots as the trail may be a bit wet.

Contact Terry at tgmarron to register for the walk.

Terry Marron
Williston VT
HOPE 2021
 

Back to top
Date: 7/9/21 4:39 am
From: Sue Wetmore <000006207b3956ac-dmarc-request...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Bird walk
Tomorrow I will conduct a bird walk at Emerald Lake State Park in East Dorset starting at 8:30 a.m.
Sue Wetmore


Sent from my iPod
 

Back to top
Date: 7/6/21 2:21 pm
From: Rich Kelley <rich...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] where to park for St. Mike's Natural Area
Hi Maeve!

I may or may not have gone in by the jug-handle across from the main St Mike's entrance and parked along the access road in the past. For a 'legitimate' parking area, you can go in from Woodside.

The trails are on Open Street Map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/44.4924/-73.1554
St Mike's also has a static map here: https://www.smcvt.edu/academics/center-for-the-environment/living-laboratory/outdoor-classrooms/the-natural-area/

-----Original Message-----
From: Vermont Birds <VTBIRD...> On Behalf Of Maeve Kim
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 5:02 PM
To: <VTBIRD...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] where to park for St. Mike's Natural Area

The direction tab on ebird hotspots gets me heading along Route 15 near Fanny Allen and then says “drive to your destination” - with nothing more specific. I’d love it if someone would tell me where to park and where the Natural Area begins. Thanks!
Maeve Kim, Jericho Center
 

Back to top
Date: 7/6/21 2:04 pm
From: Maeve Kim <maevekim7...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] where to park for St. Mike's Natural Area
The direction tab on ebird hotspots gets me heading along Route 15 near Fanny Allen and then says “drive to your destination” - with nothing more specific. I’d love it if someone would tell me where to park and where the Natural Area begins. Thanks!
Maeve Kim, Jericho Center
 

Back to top
Date: 7/5/21 3:30 pm
From: John Snell <jrsnelljr...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Shadbush as avian magnet
So true. I have four of them in our small yard. As much as I love the berries, I usually don’t get more than a handful. These plants can grown as either a tree or a large bush, easily available at many nurseries. The other tree to consider is a Tart Cherry, not a native but WOW do the birds go crazy over them. Here in Montpelier the tree I planted 10 years ago provides me with a gallon of berries and leaves the birds about 4 or 5 times that many.


Still learning to see,

John


http://www.johnsnell.photography <http://www.eyeimagein.com/>
http://www.stilllearningtosee.com <http://www.stilllearningtosee.com/>

> On Jul 5, 2021, at 6:22 PM, Walter Medwid <wmedwid...> wrote:
>
> As the berries on the shadbush at the edge of my yard ripen, the word is
> out that there is food to be had amongst my avian neighbors. In just a
> short period of time robins, catbirds, veeries, cedar waxwings and
> kingbirds paid visits. Bluebirds and thrashers typically dine however they
> have not been seen at the shrub this year. Beyond turning the lawn into
> meadow, the planting of shadbush/serviceberry has seemingly been a step
> that wildlife seems to give a hearty stamp of approval. from the border in
> Derby
 

Back to top
Date: 7/5/21 3:22 pm
From: Walter Medwid <wmedwid...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Shadbush as avian magnet
As the berries on the shadbush at the edge of my yard ripen, the word is
out that there is food to be had amongst my avian neighbors. In just a
short period of time robins, catbirds, veeries, cedar waxwings and
kingbirds paid visits. Bluebirds and thrashers typically dine however they
have not been seen at the shrub this year. Beyond turning the lawn into
meadow, the planting of shadbush/serviceberry has seemingly been a step
that wildlife seems to give a hearty stamp of approval. from the border in
Derby
 

Back to top
Date: 7/5/21 10:26 am
From: Sue Wetmore <000006207b3956ac-dmarc-request...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Goshen
At the blueberry picking area today I found a small wet spot that had chickadees , ovenbird, brown creeper and song sparrow using it as a bathing spot. Back along the open area a mourning warbler sang while a broadwinged hawk circled.
In addition wood lilies , pyrolas are blooming, blueberries are ripe.
If that wasn’t enough the view is spectacular!
Sue Wetmore

Sent from my iPod
 

Back to top
Date: 7/5/21 10:26 am
From: Diana <dlee3...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Into the Wild with Song Sparrows
Song sparrows are interesting birds.
https://youtu.be/xuX5QdZPSpw
 

Back to top
Date: 7/4/21 7:06 pm
From: David Guertin <dave...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Waterthrush
Nice! Judging by the broad white eyebrow, I'll go with Louisiana.

Dave G.

On 7/4/21 9:47 PM, R Stewart wrote:
> In my yard this a.m.! First seen in the middle of my gravel driveway, next
> at feeder and lastly, on fence rail. It's been so wet, he must have thought
> he was in his usual habitat. Opinions please.... Northern or Louisiana ?
>
>
> 324 Morse Hill Rd E. Dorset, Bennington, Vermont, US
> Jul 4, 2021 7:00 AM - 7:45 AM
> Protocol: Stationary
> Checklist Comments: 56 deg to mid-60s. Rain showers off and on
> 24 species
>
> Mourning Dove 3
> Ruby-throated Hummingbird 1
> Turkey Vulture 1
> Red-bellied Woodpecker 2
> Downy Woodpecker 2
> Hairy Woodpecker 3 Female feeding yg at suet feeder
> Red-eyed Vireo 1
> Blue Jay 3
> Black-capped Chickadee 2
> Tufted Titmouse 1
> White-breasted Nuthatch 1
> House Wren 1
> Eastern Bluebird 2 playing defense against squirrels
> Wood Thrush 1
> American Robin 2
> House Finch 12
> Purple Finch 2
> American Goldfinch 4
> Song Sparrow 1
> Red-winged Blackbird 10
> Common Grackle 2
> Louisiana Waterthrush 1 on driveway, then on feeder than on fence
> rail. With the wet weather, did he think he was in his habitat?
> Northern Cardinal 1
> Rose-breasted Grosbeak 2
>
> View this checklist online at https://ebird.org/checklist/S91267475
>
 

Back to top
Date: 7/4/21 6:48 pm
From: R Stewart <2cnewbirds...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Waterthrush
In my yard this a.m.! First seen in the middle of my gravel driveway, next
at feeder and lastly, on fence rail. It's been so wet, he must have thought
he was in his usual habitat. Opinions please.... Northern or Louisiana ?


324 Morse Hill Rd E. Dorset, Bennington, Vermont, US
Jul 4, 2021 7:00 AM - 7:45 AM
Protocol: Stationary
Checklist Comments: 56 deg to mid-60s. Rain showers off and on
24 species

Mourning Dove 3
Ruby-throated Hummingbird 1
Turkey Vulture 1
Red-bellied Woodpecker 2
Downy Woodpecker 2
Hairy Woodpecker 3 Female feeding yg at suet feeder
Red-eyed Vireo 1
Blue Jay 3
Black-capped Chickadee 2
Tufted Titmouse 1
White-breasted Nuthatch 1
House Wren 1
Eastern Bluebird 2 playing defense against squirrels
Wood Thrush 1
American Robin 2
House Finch 12
Purple Finch 2
American Goldfinch 4
Song Sparrow 1
Red-winged Blackbird 10
Common Grackle 2
Louisiana Waterthrush 1 on driveway, then on feeder than on fence
rail. With the wet weather, did he think he was in his habitat?
Northern Cardinal 1
Rose-breasted Grosbeak 2

View this checklist online at https://ebird.org/checklist/S91267475

--
Ruth Stewart
E. Dorset VT
 

Back to top
Date: 7/4/21 12:14 pm
From: Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] THREE Dickcissels on Lagoon Road
Thank you Ali! When I visited Lagoon Rd on 6/27, while driving in the lane
I immediately found a brightly-colored male singing on the wire. After
parking my car, I then saw a duller-colored bird that I at first assumed
was the female until it started singing. So then I was confused. Was it a
singing female? Or a different male? Or maybe the lighting was just
playing tricks on me. I later saw the actual female, which was much
duller-colored than the 2nd bird. So I may have also seen both males, but
not together.

Ken Copenhaver

On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 5:12 PM alison wagner <alikatofvt...> wrote:

> Bear with me, Birders!
>
> My friend Enid Elizabeth alerted me this morning after she observed TWO
> MALE DICKCISSELS on Lagoon Road! Re-dickcisselous! So after running an
> errand I decided to return to my post again to see if I could be so
> lucky...Sure enough, two were singing in rounds. One stayed in the general
> area between utility pole 3 & 4 (from Charlotte Road, where it seems to be
> seen most often) and the other one teed up repeatedly on the chain link
> fencing that surrounds the Vt Natural gas piping near Charlotte Road. Jim &
> Teresa Phillips and I hung out to see if the female would also show up.
> Sure enough, after about an hour she appeared on the line near the third
> pole. I did not see where she came from, and she didn't stay long (eggs
> need to stay warm perhaps?) but she dropped back into the tall vegetation
> in the same vicinity as where I saw a pair yesterday. I think we should
> mark our calendars and expect to see food deliveries or fecal sac dumpings
> in about a week...I will post audio and mediocre photos to eBird when I get
> a chance!
>
> So cool!
>
> Ali
>
 

Back to top
Date: 7/3/21 2:12 pm
From: alison wagner <alikatofvt...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] THREE Dickcissels on Lagoon Road
Bear with me, Birders!

My friend Enid Elizabeth alerted me this morning after she observed TWO MALE DICKCISSELS on Lagoon Road! Re-dickcisselous! So after running an errand I decided to return to my post again to see if I could be so lucky...Sure enough, two were singing in rounds. One stayed in the general area between utility pole 3 & 4 (from Charlotte Road, where it seems to be seen most often) and the other one teed up repeatedly on the chain link fencing that surrounds the Vt Natural gas piping near Charlotte Road. Jim & Teresa Phillips and I hung out to see if the female would also show up. Sure enough, after about an hour she appeared on the line near the third pole. I did not see where she came from, and she didn't stay long (eggs need to stay warm perhaps?) but she dropped back into the tall vegetation in the same vicinity as where I saw a pair yesterday. I think we should mark our calendars and expect to see food deliveries or fecal sac dumpings in about a week...I will post audio and mediocre photos to eBird when I get a chance!

So cool!

Ali
 

Back to top
Date: 7/3/21 1:44 pm
From: Richard Littauer <richard.littauer...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Project 251: Completed!
On June 30th, I submitted a final checklist
<https://ebird.org/vt/checklist/S91038133> from the town green in
Middletown Springs. On January 1st, I challenged us to collectively see if
we could submit complete checklists from every town in Vermont this year;
with a few hours to go until half of the year, we completed this mission,
collectively birding in every single town and gore in the state.

This is the first year that every town in Vermont has a checklist submitted
on eBird! Hooray!

You can see what species were found in each town on the map, here:
https://birdinginvermont.com/251. Note that these lists are only for
species on checklists which were shared with my extra eBird account - more
birds have been seen in some of these towns, for sure.

I'm grateful to all of the contributors, who gave up afternoons and
weekends to drive around and submit checklists for science. Thanks go
to Bernard
Foy <https://ebird.org/profile/NzU0MA/US-VT>, Carol Yarnell
<https://ebird.org/profile/MzAyNDYw/US-VT>, Cedar Stanistreet
<https://ebird.org/profile/NDM2MDU1/US-VT>, Charlotte Bill
<https://ebird.org/vt/profile/MTEwMDg2/US-VT>, Chelsea Carroll
<https://ebird.org/profile/NjQ1MjQy/US-VT>, Chris Rimmer
<https://ebird.org/profile/Mjc3NzU/US-VT-017>, Coleen Lawlor
<https://ebird.org/profile/NzU3NzM5/US-VT>, David Eberly
<https://ebird.org/profile/MTgzMDM/US-VT-021>, David Guertin
<https://ebird.org/vt/profile/MTYyNTk2Ng/US-VT>, Erika Mitchell
<https://ebird.org/profile/MjQ3Njg1/US-VT>, Hal Bill
<https://ebird.org/profile/MzA5MTY0/US-VT>, Jim Sparrell
<https://ebird.org/profile/MzUwMjAw/US-VT>, JoAnne Russo
<https://ebird.org/profile/OTE2NDg/US-VT>, Kent McFarland
<https://ebird.org/vt/profile/MjAwNjI/US-VT>, Kevin Tolan
<https://ebird.org/vt/profile/OTE4MTQ2/US-VT>, Kyle Jones
<https://ebird.org/profile/MTM5Nzgz/US-VT>, Maeve Kim
<https://ebird.org/profile/MjM4MzU/US-VT>, Nathaniel Sharp
<https://ebird.org/vt/profile/MTgxNDYz/US-VT>, Patricia Folsom
<https://ebird.org/profile/MzE0Njg/US-VT>, Rebecca Giroux
<https://ebird.org/vt/profile/MTc3ODI0/US-VT>, Richard Littauer
<https://ebird.org/vt/profile/Mjg0MTUx/US-VT>, Sharon Glezen
<https://ebird.org/profile/OTMyMTgz/US-VT>, Steven Lamonde
<https://ebird.org/profile/NTQwNTA1/US-VT>, Susan Elliott
<https://ebird.org/profile/MjQzNw/US-VT>, Terry Marron
<https://ebird.org/vt/profile/MjkwMzY3/US-VT>, Tim Holland
<https://ebird.org/profile/NTE5MTg4/US-VT>, Zac Cota
<https://ebird.org/profile/NDIwNDA1/US-VT>, Annette Goyne, Barbara Powers,
Noel Dodge, Rich Kelley, Rita Pitkin, Ron and Lynn Wild, and Susan Paradis.
You're all super cool people.

I'm not accepting checklists for the rest of the year. Let's start again on
January 1st next year, yeah?

If you want to join the 251 club using eBird, you can see what towns you
have birded in here: https://birdinginvermont.com/towns.

Thanks, all!

Best,
R
 

Back to top
Date: 7/3/21 3:20 am
From: BRUCE FLEWELLING <bflewelling3263...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Mount Horrid Falcons
Four Peregrine Falcon chicks have fledged on Mount Horrid. In the next few weeks they will be putting on a show of their flying ability.
They can be observed from the Forest Service observation site on RT 73, just east of Brandon Gap. Enjoy!

Bruce Flewelling

RT. 73, Rochester
 

Back to top
Date: 7/2/21 2:50 pm
From: Chris Rimmer <crimmer...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Mansfield Week 5 update
No photographers were able to join us on Mansfield with us this week, so we
have no blog post. However, we experienced a good overnight banding
session, with weather that was a far cry from last week's. Instead of
fighting the cloud-soaked cold in 4-5 layers, several of us wore no more
than shorts and a t-shirt the entire time! Birds were active, with vocal
activity higher than during the previous two weeks. We captured 65
individuals overall, including the season's first fledgling, a junco. Our
final tally included:

Blue Jay -- 1 new yearling bird of unknown sex
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher -- 1 new adult of unknown sex
Winter Wren -- 3 new bandings; male and 2 females with regressing brood
patch
Bicknell's Thrush -- 12: 5 new, 2 returns (female from 2014, male from
2020), 5 within-season recaps
Swainson's Thrush -- 3 new males
American Robin -- 3 new males
Purple Finch -- 2: new female and within-season recap yearling male
Dark-eyed Junco (Slate-colored) -- 9; 8 new (including recent fledgling)
and 1 within-season recap
White-throated Sparrow -- 4 new
Ovenbird -- 1 new yearling male
Blackpoll Warbler -- 16: 6 new, 1 return male from 2020, 9 within-season
recaps
Yellow-rumped Warbler (Myrtle) -- 10: 9 new, 1 return male from 2019
Black-throated Green Warbler -- 1 new male (4th of season!)

We now have 25 GPS tags on adult Bicknell's Thrush (19 males, 6 females),
and we again recaptured 2 birds that we had tagged 1-2 weeks earlier. Both
(including an incubating female) were in excellent condition and had gained
weight.

It's hard to believe we're halfway through our field season up there...

Chris

________________________

Chris Rimmer
Vermont Center for Ecostudies
PO Box 420 | Norwich, Vermont 05055
802.649.1431 x202
http://vtecostudies.org/
 

Back to top
Date: 7/2/21 9:16 am
From: Maeve Kim <maevekim7...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] More loon chick pix
Your photos are always just lovely, Ian. Thank you so much for sharing them!
Maeve Kim, Jericho Center

> On Jul 2, 2021, at 7:38 AM, Ian Clark <lenscapon...> wrote:
>
> There are more loon chick pix up on my blog, in two posts.
>
>
>
> A second pair that I follow now have a chick:
> https://tinyurl.com/52hvp2pe
>
>
>
> And I got to check in one the first pair of loons with two chicks when the
> chicks were 11 and 12 days old:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/2zjar6zh
>
>
>
>
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
> Ian Clark
> PO Box 51
> West Newbury, VT 05085
> (848) 702-0774
>
> www.IanClark.com <http://www.IanClark.com>
 

Back to top
Date: 7/2/21 4:45 am
From: Roo Slagle <roospin...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] unfamiliar hummingbird behavior recently
Hi all,
I just watched the U courtship happen yesterday and today. Maybe they are working on the second brood. They think it’s never too late.
Roo
 

Back to top
Date: 7/2/21 4:39 am
From: Ian Clark <lenscapon...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] More loon chick pix
There are more loon chick pix up on my blog, in two posts.



A second pair that I follow now have a chick:
https://tinyurl.com/52hvp2pe



And I got to check in one the first pair of loons with two chicks when the
chicks were 11 and 12 days old:

https://tinyurl.com/2zjar6zh





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Ian Clark
PO Box 51
West Newbury, VT 05085
(848) 702-0774

www.IanClark.com <http://www.IanClark.com>
 

Back to top
Date: 7/1/21 8:53 am
From: John Aberth <johnaberth1...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
Hounds are very destructive for all kinds of wildlife, although it is
very difficult to measure this exactly precisely because the hounds
are freeroaming and are not monitored in any systematic way. But it
only stands to reason that hounds freeroaming through the woods will
cause damage, including to nesting birds. It is also true that there
remains almost no justification for hunting of furbearers. I have
researched this extensively (I hold a Ph.D. from the University of
Cambridge in England), and there is no scientific data or evidence to
support claims that hunting/trapping of furbearers helps control their
populations. Quite the opposite in fact, indiscriminate hunting
disrupts pack hierarchies and leads to more dispersal and compensatory
increases in reproduction. There is abundant evidence/research that
furbearers self regulate their populations in line with the biological
carrying capacity of the land and prey species. Furbearers are more
valuable alive than dead, because studies have shown that they help
limit spread of Lyme Disease that breeds in mice populations, and we
have an epidemic of Lyme Disease spreading in Vermont right now. The
Vermont Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, however, refuses to acknowledge
this research and is singularly focused on expanding hunting and
trapping opportunities, regardless of the impacts and outcomes. At
this point, all hunting/trapping of furbearers is wanton waste. This
is a FACT.

John Aberth

On 7/1/21, Charlie La Rosa <charlie.larosa...> wrote:
> Thanks, Brenna.
>
> A couple of things. You are correct in regard to reporting kills and the
> lack of limits placed on the killing of coyotes and skunks, etc. The
> reporting requirements at Missisquoi pertain to migratory game birds. I
> should have made that distinction clear. There are defined limits according
> to species of waterfowl and reporting must be done daily.
>
> In addition, we should all note that these refuge proposals are periodic.
> The majority of the proposals for both Missisquoi and Conte are updates of
> previous required periodic plans. The use of the word 'proposal' can be
> problematic in this case. The plans being proposed are very similar to the
> plans under which the refuges have already been working. For example, the
> hunting of bears, with or without hounds, on Conte has been going on for
> years in alignment with VT hunting regulations. The proposed plan for
> 2021-22 is for that to continue. Bear hunting at Missisquoi is virtually a
> moot point. Bears are seldom killed by hunters in the towns of Swanton,
> Highgate, Alburg. Usually no kills are recorded. In the years that a bear
> is killed by a hunter it is probably shot on wooded uplands outside the
> refuge and probably by a hunter who was actually seeking a deer and
> happened upon an opportunity to shoot a bear. (Hunting licenses include a
> tag that allows the hunter to take a bear during the short late season
> only.) I would bet that the same is true for the Eagle Point unit of the
> refuge that is located in Derby. The refuge unit is mostly open and marshy
> and the US/Canada border lies just inside the woods there. Any animal that
> headed for the woods would momentarily arrive in Canada!
>
> So, if we are concerned that the gates of the refuges are being thrown open
> for extensive* new* hunting opportunities, then we are mistaken. As for
> hounds doing extensive damage to nesting birds, I think that would be
> difficult to support with any data and thus of not much use in advocating
> against bear hounds. Rather, I think a more consequential proposal, at
> least as far as bird populations go, would be to ban free-roaming pet cats.
> I think convincing data could be found on predation by free-roaming pets
> and feral cats. That's something that should apply statewide.
>
> Another proposal that might garner a lot of support, including within VTFW,
> would be to stop the hunting of coyotes and other furbearers with the help
> of hounds. Calling our legislators on that could be fruitful. Establishing
> closed seasons for the hunting of each species of furbearer would also find
> significant support among the public, I believe.
>
> The refuges try to align their regulations with state regulations. If the
> state adopts a rule the federal refuges are almost certain to follow suit.
> In some instances, for example where state laws prohibiting shooting on or
> close to public roads would not apply on federal refuge roads, the refuges
> have put in place rules for their roads that mirror the state laws.
>
> I think this is a good thread, a good discussion, and I hope it may lead to
> a few changes.
>
> Charlie LaRosa
> So. Washington
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:38 AM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...> wrote:
>
>> Thank you, John. Like trapping, hounding is an exceptionally cruel and
>> indiscriminate method of capturing / killing wildlife. Our Refuge lands
>> should be off limits to both recreational activities.
>>
>>
>> *Brenna Galdenzi*
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:25 AM John Aberth <johnaberth1...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I second Brenna's comments. Hounders will cause tremendous damage to
>> > nesting birds and many other species of wildlife. This form of hunting
>> > should really not be allowed at all, because hounds routinely trespass
>> even
>> > on legally posted land and violate private property owner rights. With
>> > regard to the Conte and Missisquoi refuges, such hunting makes a
>> > mockery
>> of
>> > the very notion of these reserves serving as a "refuge" for wildlife.
>> > If
>> > you care at all about birds and their survival in these challenging
>> times,
>> > you to need to step up and speak out against allowing additional
>> > hunting
>> on
>> > the refuges. We need your voices heard now!
>> >
>> > John Aberth
>> > Roxbury, VT
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:10 AM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hello Charlie,
>> > > Before asking folks to participate in a public comment process, I am
>> > always
>> > > sure to know exactly what it is that is being proposed. What you've
>> noted
>> > > is not a thorough accounting of the proposed changes. The Plan seeks
>> > > to
>> > not
>> > > only open hunting to include snipe, woodcock and also skunk, opossum,
>> > > weasel, and coyote that you noted, but also raccoon, grey and red
>> > > fox.
>> > > Hounds may be used to pursue coyotes, foxes, and raccoons, so
>> > > hounding
>> > will
>> > > be an allowable activity. The VT Fish & Wildlife Dept does not
>> > > require
>> > any
>> > > reporting of these species that are hunted nor are there any bag
>> limits.
>> > > There are also no wanton waste prohibitions around the hunting of
>> > > these
>> > > animals. Where did you read that hunters will be required to report
>> their
>> > > kills? I don't recall any special use permits being required.
>> > >
>> > > It is not up to me to assume how many people may choose to hunt
>> > Missisquoi
>> > > for these additional species, but I do know that Vermont has its
>> > > share
>> of
>> > > predator haters just like see out West with wolves. These hunters
>> > > hold
>> > > complete disdain for coyotes, especially, who they view as
>> > > competition
>> > over
>> > > those species they wish to hunt. The wanton waste and unethical acts
>> I've
>> > > witnessed
>> > > <
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bfs9Wsme0ZCw9vDf-gyasaf1fVFCUfLs/view
>> > > >directed
>> > > at coyotes in VT is unthinkable and these hunters will undoubtedly
>> > > take
>> > > advantage of new land to hunt.
>> > >
>> > > The hunting at Conte is much worse than Missisquoi, namely because
>> > > they
>> > > allow bear and bobcat hunting, including hounding *that starts on
>> > > June
>> > 1st*
>> > > during the training season. This places ground nesting birds like the
>> > > spruce grouse in direct danger as well as deer fawn, moose calves
>> > > etc.
>> If
>> > > the federally protected Canada lynx is still on Conte, they will be
>> > > in
>> > > danger by bobcat hunters and hounders. I encourage people to read
>> > > this
>> > > action alert on Conte:
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://mailchi.mp/c138ee913de5/stop-hounding-on-vermonts-national-wildlife-refuge?e=d9f570b96a
>> > >
>> > > *Thanks,*
>> > > *Brenna Galdenzi*
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:19 AM Charlie La Rosa <
>> > <charlie.larosa...>
>> > > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Thank you, Ken, for your reasoned and detailed additional comments
>> and
>> > > the
>> > > > links you have provided in this thread.
>> > > >
>> > > > I encourage everyone interested in this thread to read the actual
>> > refuge
>> > > > plan update in full. We should all be on the same page! (Sorry.
>> > Couldn't
>> > > > resist.)
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Missisquoi_Web%20Opening%20Package.pdf
>> > > >
>> > > > As I read it, I noted that there is no mention of bear hunting
>> > > > either
>> > > with
>> > > > or without dogs. The only big game that I saw mentioned was
>> > white-tailed
>> > > > deer. Even wild turkeys were not included. Thus, although I have
>> > > > not
>> > > > contacted refuge personnel, it looks like the "hounding" issue may
>> > > > be
>> > > moot
>> > > > in any case. Beagles could still be used for rabbit/hare hunting,
>> and I
>> > > > have never seen any damage done by beagles beyond tracks in the
>> > > > mud.
>> As
>> > > > mentioned above, using pointing/flushing/retrieving dogs is a good
>> > thing.
>> > > > Retrievers are actually required for waterfowl hunting within the
>> > refuge
>> > > in
>> > > > some situations. Another good thing.
>> > > >
>> > > > I believe the sense of the use of the term "inviolate" in the
>> original
>> > > act
>> > > > creating the refuges was not meant to exclude hunting. It referred
>> more
>> > > to
>> > > > maintaining the geographical integrity of the unit and prohibiting
>> > > > commercial uses and possible destruction of valuable habitat. One
>> > reason
>> > > > for creating refuges was to provide habitat beneficial to wildlife
>> and
>> > to
>> > > > maintain populations in healthy numbers that would be sufficient to
>> > > > actually allow for contolled hunting. Those who supported the act
>> > > > had
>> > > > witnessed the decline in habitat and wildlife as farming
>> progressively
>> > > took
>> > > > over the prairies and the pothole environments were eliminated.
>> > > > They
>> > > wanted
>> > > > to stop the loss of something they valued. Both on and off refuges,
>> > > species
>> > > > that have always had smaller populations are protected by allowing
>> > only a
>> > > > small number of individuals to be taken, only certain numbers of
>> > > > each
>> > > sex,
>> > > > or none at all.
>> > > >
>> > > > Hunting is actually quite restrictive on the Missisquoi refuge as
>> > > > it
>> is
>> > > on
>> > > > other federal refuges and state lands like Dead Creek. The number
>> > > > of
>> > > people
>> > > > hunting at Missisquoi, for example, is restricted, large parts of
>> > > > the
>> > > > refuge are off-limits completely for hunting, there are rules
>> > > > specifying which species may be taken and how many individuals can
>> > > > be
>> > > > taken, and all hunters must complete a form at the end of the day
>> > showing
>> > > > what species were killed and how many.
>> > > >
>> > > > The allowing of hunting of skunk, opossum, weasel, and coyote in
>> > > > some
>> > > parts
>> > > > of the refuge may have (although I have no evidence) more to do
>> > > > with
>> > > > complying with federal policies promoted during the previous
>> > > administration
>> > > > than any desire to greatly increase hunting. With the possible
>> > exception
>> > > of
>> > > > coyote, the number of hunters who actually gear up to go out and
>> > > > seek
>> > > > skunk, opossum, and either species of weasel is very small. I know
>> > > > a
>> > few
>> > > > folks who do pursue coyote. In any case, I'm fully confident that
>> > > > if
>> > the
>> > > > numbers of these species, or any others, indicated that hunting
>> should
>> > be
>> > > > scaled back that the refuge personnel would do that as is stated in
>> the
>> > > > draft plan.
>> > > >
>> > > > We tend to react quickly when we hear or read of something that
>> sounds
>> > > > terrible to us. Pretty natural stuff. It appears that the changes
>> > > proposed
>> > > > in the draft plan are minor and will be of little consequence. I
>> expect
>> > > > that those who frequent the refuge will notice no change in the
>> > > environment
>> > > > or in the number of individuals and species present on the refuge
>> from
>> > > year
>> > > > to year due to activities on the refuge. What happens off the
>> > > > refuge
>> as
>> > > > development expands and habitats shrink or change due to natural
>> > > succession
>> > > > or climate change is a different problem. As always, we have a
>> > > > right
>> > and
>> > > > sometimes a duty to question policy proposals and to seek data from
>> the
>> > > > refuge personnel that supports any changes they may recommend. I am
>> > glad
>> > > > that there are people out there who are concerned about such things
>> and
>> > > who
>> > > > keep their eye on the ball.
>> > > >
>> > > > By the way, the blinds put up in the refuge can be a great place to
>> > watch
>> > > > and photograph wildlife, especially waterfowl, prior to the hunting
>> > > season.
>> > > > If you go out in a canoe or kayak, keep an eye on the weather.
>> Crossing
>> > > > those bays can be dangerous in the dark in a stiff fall wind if
>> you're
>> > > > trying to get out there early.
>> > > >
>> > > > I also encourage working with the VT Fish and Wildlife Department,
>> > making
>> > > > use of their resources, and offering your help in teaching classes.
>> > > > I
>> > > took
>> > > > the Wildlife Management for Educators course years ago at the
>> facility
>> > on
>> > > > Buck Lake. I got to work in the field with department biologists
>> during
>> > > the
>> > > > day and participate in classroom work and even formal policy
>> > > > debates
>> in
>> > > the
>> > > > evening. There was an outdoor birding class, too! The course is a
>> full
>> > > week
>> > > > and is still being offered today. I'll copy the link below. Also,
>> > monitor
>> > > > the activities and events articles and newsletters on the
>> > > > department
>> > > > website. Some of them may not be up your alley, but it's good to
>> attend
>> > > > some and learn more about wildlife, hunting and fishing, management
>> > > policy
>> > > > and proposals, and meet some folks you might not normally run into.
>> The
>> > > > course at Buck Lake is offered for graduate credit but is offered
>> > > > to
>> > > > informal teachers, as well. I know that includes quite a few of us.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://vtfishandwildlife.com/learn-more/conservation-education/wildlife-management-and-outdoor-education-techniques-for-educators
>> > > >
>> > > > Charlie La Rosa
>> > > > So. Washington
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:29 AM Ken Copenhaver
>> > > > <copenhvr...>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > More info on expanded hunting opportunities from CORFA (Coalition
>> of
>> > > > Refuge
>> > > > > Friends and Advocates):
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://coalitionofrefugefriends.com/2020/04/17/expanding-hunting-fishing-at-refuges-hatcheries/
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And a more comprehensive article from NWRA (National Wildlife
>> Refuge
>> > > > > Association):
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://www.refugeassociation.org/news/2020/4/16/examining-the-new-draft-regulations-expanding-hunting-and-fishing-on-national-wildlife-refuges
>> > > > > Their greatest concern wasn't the hunting itself, but the
>> > underfunding
>> > > of
>> > > > > refuges resulting in inadequate enforcement and administrative
>> > > > > capabilities. Since this was written in 2020, the Refuge System
>> has
>> > > > > received some additional funding. Time will tell how that
>> translates
>> > > > into
>> > > > > better staffing.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --Ken Copenhaver
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:59 AM lawlor <lawlor.coleen...>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > I want to support our conversation on helping MWR, as well as
>> > birds
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > other species in Vermont. I am glad we are discussing this and
>> > very
>> > > > > > pleased to hear a variety of thoughts . In particular want to
>> thank
>> > > > you,
>> > > > > > Ken, for the suggestion we contact our representatives. I can’t
>> > > believe
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > hadn’t crossed my mind on this issue, but it hadn’t.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Do more for birds.
>> > > > > > Coleen Lawlor,
>> > > > > > Rockingham Vermont
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Sent from my iPhone
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Jun 28, 2021, at 10:03 PM, Ken Copenhaver <
>> <copenhvr...>
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I should have made the distinction between bird dogs and
>> > > > > > > other
>> > > dogs,
>> > > > > > > referred to here as hounds. In fact, the refuge strongly
>> > > encourages
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > use of retrievers for waterfowl hunting, and in some areas
>> > requires
>> > > > > them.
>> > > > > > > See
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/map/?facility=Missisquoi+National+Wildlife+Refuge
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --Ken
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 6:38 PM Brenna
>> > > > > > >> <dbgaldenzi...>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> I hope you don’t mind if I share my perspective? I take no
>> issue
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > bird
>> > > > > > >> dogs. In fact, they assist the hunter in preventing wanton
>> > waste.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> I consider the hounding of coyotes, bears, and other animals
>> > akin
>> > > to
>> > > > > > >> animal fighting where six or more hounds run down one animal
>> to
>> > > the
>> > > > > > point
>> > > > > > >> of exhaustion. There is a lot of info here if folks are
>> > > > > interested—much
>> > > > > > >> different from bird dogs:
>> > > > > > >> https://www.protectourwildlifevt.org/hunting-with-hounds
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Brenna
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Sent from my iPhone, which has been known to mess with me.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>> On Jun 28, 2021, at 6:31 PM, BRUCE FLEWELLING <
>> > > > > > >> <bflewelling3263...> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> Mr. Coperhaven,
>> > > > > > >>> Do I understand your comment "--specific methods of
>> > > > > > >>> hunting,
>> > such
>> > > > as
>> > > > > > >> with dogs." to include all dogs, including retrievers? As
>> > > > > > >> I'm
>> > sure
>> > > > you
>> > > > > > >> know, a good retriever is vital in assuring that upland
>> > > > > > >> birds
>> > and
>> > > > > > waterfowl
>> > > > > > >> are recovered and counted in the daily bag limits.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> Bruce Flewelling
>> > > > > > >>> RT. 73, Rochester
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>>> On 06/28/2021 5:44 PM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> I have a few thoughts to add to this discussion. At least
>> one
>> > > > > person
>> > > > > > >>>> mentioned that the previous administration had directed
>> > > > > > >>>> the
>> > U.S.
>> > > > > Fish
>> > > > > > >> and
>> > > > > > >>>> Wildlife Service to expand hunting opportunities on
>> > > > > > >>>> National
>> > > > > Wildlife
>> > > > > > >>>> Refuges. Based on my memory, I believe this to be true
>> > (though
>> > > I
>> > > > > > >> haven't
>> > > > > > >>>> done the research to verify it). The current proposal
>> > > > > > >>>> from
>> > > > > Missisquoi
>> > > > > > >> NWR
>> > > > > > >>>> is apparently the result of this directive. I know the
>> > > employees
>> > > > at
>> > > > > > >>>> Missisquoi want as much as anyone to protect the flora and
>> > fauna
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >>>> refuge. It's very likely that they are being required to
>> > submit
>> > > > > this
>> > > > > > >>>> expanded hunting proposal, and that they are doing it in a
>> way
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > >>>> protects the refuge as much as possible.
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> Increasing hunting on some very large refuges in very low
>> > > > population
>> > > > > > >> areas
>> > > > > > >>>> would probably result in little additional hunting
>> > > > > > >>>> pressure
>> on
>> > > the
>> > > > > > >> allowed
>> > > > > > >>>> species. I suspect it is these large, remote refuges that
>> the
>> > > > > > previous
>> > > > > > >>>> administration had in mind when encouraging more hunting.
>> > > > However,
>> > > > > > >>>> Missisquoi is a relatively small refuge (about 6800 acres,
>> of
>> > > > which
>> > > > > > >> about
>> > > > > > >>>> 40% is off-limits to hunting anyway) in a relatively
>> populated
>> > > > area.
>> > > > > > I
>> > > > > > >>>> hope that these factors are taken into consideration when
>> the
>> > > > > proposed
>> > > > > > >> plan
>> > > > > > >>>> is evaluated.
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> While it might be somewhat useful to object to additional
>> > > hunting
>> > > > on
>> > > > > > >> this
>> > > > > > >>>> particular refuge, another option would be to question the
>> > > > expanded
>> > > > > > >> hunting
>> > > > > > >>>> policy in general and to advocate for its being reverted
>> > > > > > >>>> to
>> > the
>> > > > old
>> > > > > > >>>> policy. Possible contacts would be Senators Leahy and
>> > Sanders,
>> > > > > > >>>> Representative Welch, and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> Part of the reason for my original post (possibly not
>> > > > > > well-articulated)
>> > > > > > >> was
>> > > > > > >>>> to point out that to object to hunting on a refuge
>> > > > > > >>>> "because
>> > > it's a
>> > > > > > >> refuge"
>> > > > > > >>>> won't be very persuasive, since controlled hunting *is*
>> > allowed
>> > > on
>> > > > > > >> National
>> > > > > > >>>> Wildlife Refuges. More persuasive would be objections to
>> > > specific
>> > > > > > >> species
>> > > > > > >>>> and their role in the ecosystem, and to specific methods
>> > > > > > >>>> of
>> > > > hunting,
>> > > > > > >> such
>> > > > > > >>>> as with dogs.
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > > >>>> --Ken Copenhaver
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:08 AM Brenna <
>> > <dbgaldenzi...>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Elinor,
>> > > > > > >>>>> Here's a recent Action Alert with information on who to
>> write
>> > > at
>> > > > > > >> Missisquoi
>> > > > > > >>>>> and Conte for those interested:
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://mailchi.mp/c1961eac9d14/action-alert-usfws-to-expand-hunting-on-vermonts-wildlife-refuges
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> Brenna Galdenzi
>> > > > > > >>>>> Stowe, VT
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 8:56 AM Elinor Osborn <
>> > > > > > >>>>> <0000037bc09f69f4-dmarc-request...> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Can someone please give an address to contact
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Mississquoi
>> > > about
>> > > > > > this?
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Elinor
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Elinor Osborn
>> > > > > > >>>>>> 1286 Lost Nation Rd
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Craftsbury Common VT 05827
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>> 802 586-9994
>> > > > > > >>>>>> <elinor91...>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2021, at 8:54 AM, Mark Paul <
>> > <mrpbirder...>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Well said John!
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:53 AM John Aberth <
>> > > > > <johnaberth1...>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> We should not be allowing more hunting on the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Missisquoi
>> > > > > Wildlife
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Refuge.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> This is supposed to be a refuge, not a killing ground.
>> > > > Woodcock
>> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > >>>>>> already
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> listed as a species of concern. Hounding causes great
>> > > > > destruction
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> nesting birds and other species incidentally targeted
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> by
>> > the
>> > > > > > hounds
>> > > > > > >> as
>> > > > > > >>>>>> they
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> run loose over the land. Vermont birders need to step
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> up
>> > and
>> > > > > speak
>> > > > > > >> out
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> against this plan to expand hunting if they really
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> care
>> > > about
>> > > > > > birds.
>> > > > > > >>>>>> Let's
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> not just post our appreciation for these animals, but
>> > really
>> > > > do
>> > > > > > >>>>>> something
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> for a change and make a difference.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> John Aberth
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Roxbury, VT
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 12:29 PM Ken Copenhaver <
>> > > > > > <copenhvr...>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Despite being called "refuges" and despite whatever
>> ideas
>> > > > > people
>> > > > > > >>>>> might
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> have
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> about what a "refuge" should be, hunting is one of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > allowed
>> > > > > > >>>>>> activities
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on National Wildlife Refuges. As I understand it,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> each
>> > > > refuge
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> required
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to submit a plan justifying what species may and may
>> not
>> > be
>> > > > > > hunted
>> > > > > > >> on
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> that
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refuge. The plan is then accepted or rejected by the
>> > > > regional
>> > > > > > >> office
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> based
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on its adherence to national standards for hunting on
>> > > > refuges.
>> > > > > > >>>>> Species
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> are
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> selected based on sustainability and balance, among
>> other
>> > > > > > factors,
>> > > > > > >>>>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> are
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> based on known population data. The "take" is
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> closely
>> > > > > controlled
>> > > > > > >> by
>> > > > > > >>>>>> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> number of permits issued.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hunters have a large stake in the very existence of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > refuge
>> > > > > > >>>>> system.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Much of the cost of land acquisition, particularly
>> > refuges
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > >>>>> include
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wetlands, has been paid for with proceeds from the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> sale
>> > of
>> > > > Duck
>> > > > > > >>>>> Stamps.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Waterfowl hunters are required to buy Duck Stamps,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
>> > many
>> > > > > > >>>>> non-hunters
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> buy
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> them to support land conservation. This is from the
>> U.S.
>> > > > Fish
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Wildlife
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> website:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> "For every dollar you spend on Federal *Duck Stamps*,
>> > > > > > ninety-eight
>> > > > > > >>>>>> cents
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> goes directly to purchase vital habitat or acquire
>> > > > conservation
>> > > > > > >>>>>> easements
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> System.
>> > > Since
>> > > > > > 1934,
>> > > > > > >> 6
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> million acres have been acquired using Federal *Duck
>> > Stamp*
>> > > > > > >>>>> revenues."
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> While I gave up hunting decades ago, I understand why
>> > > people
>> > > > > hunt
>> > > > > > >>>>> and I
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> understand why hunting is allowed on National
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Wildlife
>> > > > Refuges.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> However, I
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> do have reservations about using dogs for hunting
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> other
>> > > than
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> waterfowl. If dogs will be allowed to run through
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > woods, I
>> > > > > > >> think
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> they
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> will be unacceptably destructive considering the
>> > relatively
>> > > > > small
>> > > > > > >>>>>> amount
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> woodlands available on the Missisquoi refuge. That's
>> my
>> > > gut
>> > > > > > feel,
>> > > > > > >>>>>> based
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> on
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> no data.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ken Copenhaver
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> www.avg.com
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:39 AM Barbara Brosnan <
>> > > > > > >> <bbrosnan...>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the heads up. I did send our
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> objection
>> to
>> > > > > adding
>> > > > > > >>>>> Snipe
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Woodcock to the prey list as well as coyote, red fox
>> > > etc. I
>> > > > > > also
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> remembered to include Missisquoi NWR in the subject
>> > line.
>> > > > My
>> > > > > > >>>>> husband
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> added
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> his name to our email as well.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Barbara Brosnan
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Weybridge
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> From: Vermont Birds <VTBIRD...> On Behalf
>> Of
>> > > > Brenna
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2021 11:03 AM
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> To: <VTBIRD...>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara,
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> If you wish to comment, please note "Missisquoi NWR"
>> in
>> > > the
>> > > > > > >> subject
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> line
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of an email, and address to "
>> > <HuntFishRuleComments...>
>> > > "
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Brenna
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:00 AM Barbara Powers <
>> > > > > > >>>>>> <barkiepvt...>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Please don’t expand the number of species that can
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be
>> > > > hunted
>> > > > > at
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge. The point of a refuge
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > to
>> > > > > have a
>> > > > > > >>>>> safe
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> place where a variety of species can refuel and
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rest
>> > and
>> > > be
>> > > > > > safe
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> while
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> actively pursuing their lives. There are so many
>> other
>> > > > places
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vermont available for hunting. Opening up the
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> refuge
>> > > would
>> > > > > > >> totally
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> change the safety of the area for species that are
>> > > already
>> > > > > > under
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> survival stress.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for considering this opinion.
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Barbara Powers
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manchester Center, Vermont
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
 

Back to top
Date: 7/1/21 8:09 am
From: Sue Wetmore <000006207b3956ac-dmarc-request...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Dickcissel
The Cold Spring Rd dickcissel was still singing this morning and chasing bobolinks.
A flock of deer flies invaded my car and were unwanted passengers back to Brandon.
Sue Wetmore

Sent from my iPod
 

Back to top
Date: 7/1/21 5:35 am
From: Brenna <dbgaldenzi...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
Morning all,
Yes, there is concern among folks at FWS about hounds disturbing ground nests. According to the Conte refuge manager, a study is currently underway that will provide additional insight on this. And it’s not just ground nests that are disturbed. It’s also vegetation. Unsupervised hounds that are released into the woods, especially during the “training” season, put moose calves, deer fawn and other non-target animals at risk. These are typically large, powerful breeds like plott hounds.

Dogs must be leashed on Refuge lands, which I agree with. Why do hounders get an exception?

Brenna
www.ProtectOurWildlifeVT.org

Sent from my iPhone, which has been known to mess with me.

> On Jul 1, 2021, at 5:53 AM, BRUCE FLEWELLING <bflewelling3263...> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Charlie, for mentioning "hounding" disturbing ground nesting birds. In the discussions of the proposals, this was often mentioned as being a problem. I'm curious if there has been any scientific research that shows this to be the case. If someone knows that there has been, please send me a link to the study. Thanks!
>
> Bruce Flewelling
> RT. 73, Rochester
>
>> On 07/01/2021 1:56 AM Charlie La Rosa <charlie.larosa...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Brenna.
>>
>> A couple of things. You are correct in regard to reporting kills and the
>> lack of limits placed on the killing of coyotes and skunks, etc. The
>> reporting requirements at Missisquoi pertain to migratory game birds. I
>> should have made that distinction clear. There are defined limits according
>> to species of waterfowl and reporting must be done daily.
>>
>> In addition, we should all note that these refuge proposals are periodic.
>> The majority of the proposals for both Missisquoi and Conte are updates of
>> previous required periodic plans. The use of the word 'proposal' can be
>> problematic in this case. The plans being proposed are very similar to the
>> plans under which the refuges have already been working. For example, the
>> hunting of bears, with or without hounds, on Conte has been going on for
>> years in alignment with VT hunting regulations. The proposed plan for
>> 2021-22 is for that to continue. Bear hunting at Missisquoi is virtually a
>> moot point. Bears are seldom killed by hunters in the towns of Swanton,
>> Highgate, Alburg. Usually no kills are recorded. In the years that a bear
>> is killed by a hunter it is probably shot on wooded uplands outside the
>> refuge and probably by a hunter who was actually seeking a deer and
>> happened upon an opportunity to shoot a bear. (Hunting licenses include a
>> tag that allows the hunter to take a bear during the short late season
>> only.) I would bet that the same is true for the Eagle Point unit of the
>> refuge that is located in Derby. The refuge unit is mostly open and marshy
>> and the US/Canada border lies just inside the woods there. Any animal that
>> headed for the woods would momentarily arrive in Canada!
>>
>> So, if we are concerned that the gates of the refuges are being thrown open
>> for extensive* new* hunting opportunities, then we are mistaken. As for
>> hounds doing extensive damage to nesting birds, I think that would be
>> difficult to support with any data and thus of not much use in advocating
>> against bear hounds. Rather, I think a more consequential proposal, at
>> least as far as bird populations go, would be to ban free-roaming pet cats.
>> I think convincing data could be found on predation by free-roaming pets
>> and feral cats. That's something that should apply statewide.
>>
>> Another proposal that might garner a lot of support, including within VTFW,
>> would be to stop the hunting of coyotes and other furbearers with the help
>> of hounds. Calling our legislators on that could be fruitful. Establishing
>> closed seasons for the hunting of each species of furbearer would also find
>> significant support among the public, I believe.
>>
>> The refuges try to align their regulations with state regulations. If the
>> state adopts a rule the federal refuges are almost certain to follow suit.
>> In some instances, for example where state laws prohibiting shooting on or
>> close to public roads would not apply on federal refuge roads, the refuges
>> have put in place rules for their roads that mirror the state laws.
>>
>> I think this is a good thread, a good discussion, and I hope it may lead to
>> a few changes.
>>
>> Charlie LaRosa
>> So. Washington
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:38 AM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you, John. Like trapping, hounding is an exceptionally cruel and
>>> indiscriminate method of capturing / killing wildlife. Our Refuge lands
>>> should be off limits to both recreational activities.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Brenna Galdenzi*
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:25 AM John Aberth <johnaberth1...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I second Brenna's comments. Hounders will cause tremendous damage to
>>>> nesting birds and many other species of wildlife. This form of hunting
>>>> should really not be allowed at all, because hounds routinely trespass
>>> even
>>>> on legally posted land and violate private property owner rights. With
>>>> regard to the Conte and Missisquoi refuges, such hunting makes a mockery
>>> of
>>>> the very notion of these reserves serving as a "refuge" for wildlife. If
>>>> you care at all about birds and their survival in these challenging
>>> times,
>>>> you to need to step up and speak out against allowing additional hunting
>>> on
>>>> the refuges. We need your voices heard now!
>>>>
>>>> John Aberth
>>>> Roxbury, VT
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:10 AM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Charlie,
>>>>> Before asking folks to participate in a public comment process, I am
>>>> always
>>>>> sure to know exactly what it is that is being proposed. What you've
>>> noted
>>>>> is not a thorough accounting of the proposed changes. The Plan seeks to
>>>> not
>>>>> only open hunting to include snipe, woodcock and also skunk, opossum,
>>>>> weasel, and coyote that you noted, but also raccoon, grey and red fox.
>>>>> Hounds may be used to pursue coyotes, foxes, and raccoons, so hounding
>>>> will
>>>>> be an allowable activity. The VT Fish & Wildlife Dept does not require
>>>> any
>>>>> reporting of these species that are hunted nor are there any bag
>>> limits.
>>>>> There are also no wanton waste prohibitions around the hunting of these
>>>>> animals. Where did you read that hunters will be required to report
>>> their
>>>>> kills? I don't recall any special use permits being required.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not up to me to assume how many people may choose to hunt
>>>> Missisquoi
>>>>> for these additional species, but I do know that Vermont has its share
>>> of
>>>>> predator haters just like see out West with wolves. These hunters hold
>>>>> complete disdain for coyotes, especially, who they view as competition
>>>> over
>>>>> those species they wish to hunt. The wanton waste and unethical acts
>>> I've
>>>>> witnessed
>>>>> <
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bfs9Wsme0ZCw9vDf-gyasaf1fVFCUfLs/view
>>>>>> directed
>>>>> at coyotes in VT is unthinkable and these hunters will undoubtedly take
>>>>> advantage of new land to hunt.
>>>>>
>>>>> The hunting at Conte is much worse than Missisquoi, namely because they
>>>>> allow bear and bobcat hunting, including hounding *that starts on June
>>>> 1st*
>>>>> during the training season. This places ground nesting birds like the
>>>>> spruce grouse in direct danger as well as deer fawn, moose calves etc.
>>> If
>>>>> the federally protected Canada lynx is still on Conte, they will be in
>>>>> danger by bobcat hunters and hounders. I encourage people to read this
>>>>> action alert on Conte:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://mailchi.mp/c138ee913de5/stop-hounding-on-vermonts-national-wildlife-refuge?e=d9f570b96a
>>>>>
>>>>> *Thanks,*
>>>>> *Brenna Galdenzi*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:19 AM Charlie La Rosa <
>>>> <charlie.larosa...>
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you, Ken, for your reasoned and detailed additional comments
>>> and
>>>>> the
>>>>>> links you have provided in this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I encourage everyone interested in this thread to read the actual
>>>> refuge
>>>>>> plan update in full. We should all be on the same page! (Sorry.
>>>> Couldn't
>>>>>> resist.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Missisquoi_Web%20Opening%20Package.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I read it, I noted that there is no mention of bear hunting either
>>>>> with
>>>>>> or without dogs. The only big game that I saw mentioned was
>>>> white-tailed
>>>>>> deer. Even wild turkeys were not included. Thus, although I have not
>>>>>> contacted refuge personnel, it looks like the "hounding" issue may be
>>>>> moot
>>>>>> in any case. Beagles could still be used for rabbit/hare hunting,
>>> and I
>>>>>> have never seen any damage done by beagles beyond tracks in the mud.
>>> As
>>>>>> mentioned above, using pointing/flushing/retrieving dogs is a good
>>>> thing.
>>>>>> Retrievers are actually required for waterfowl hunting within the
>>>> refuge
>>>>> in
>>>>>> some situations. Another good thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe the sense of the use of the term "inviolate" in the
>>> original
>>>>> act
>>>>>> creating the refuges was not meant to exclude hunting. It referred
>>> more
>>>>> to
>>>>>> maintaining the geographical integrity of the unit and prohibiting
>>>>>> commercial uses and possible destruction of valuable habitat. One
>>>> reason
>>>>>> for creating refuges was to provide habitat beneficial to wildlife
>>> and
>>>> to
>>>>>> maintain populations in healthy numbers that would be sufficient to
>>>>>> actually allow for contolled hunting. Those who supported the act had
>>>>>> witnessed the decline in habitat and wildlife as farming
>>> progressively
>>>>> took
>>>>>> over the prairies and the pothole environments were eliminated. They
>>>>> wanted
>>>>>> to stop the loss of something they valued. Both on and off refuges,
>>>>> species
>>>>>> that have always had smaller populations are protected by allowing
>>>> only a
>>>>>> small number of individuals to be taken, only certain numbers of each
>>>>> sex,
>>>>>> or none at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hunting is actually quite restrictive on the Missisquoi refuge as it
>>> is
>>>>> on
>>>>>> other federal refuges and state lands like Dead Creek. The number of
>>>>> people
>>>>>> hunting at Missisquoi, for example, is restricted, large parts of the
>>>>>> refuge are off-limits completely for hunting, there are rules
>>>>>> specifying which species may be taken and how many individuals can be
>>>>>> taken, and all hunters must complete a form at the end of the day
>>>> showing
>>>>>> what species were killed and how many.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The allowing of hunting of skunk, opossum, weasel, and coyote in some
>>>>> parts
>>>>>> of the refuge may have (although I have no evidence) more to do with
>>>>>> complying with federal policies promoted during the previous
>>>>> administration
>>>>>> than any desire to greatly increase hunting. With the possible
>>>> exception
>>>>> of
>>>>>> coyote, the number of hunters who actually gear up to go out and seek
>>>>>> skunk, opossum, and either species of weasel is very small. I know a
>>>> few
>>>>>> folks who do pursue coyote. In any case, I'm fully confident that if
>>>> the
>>>>>> numbers of these species, or any others, indicated that hunting
>>> should
>>>> be
>>>>>> scaled back that the refuge personnel would do that as is stated in
>>> the
>>>>>> draft plan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We tend to react quickly when we hear or read of something that
>>> sounds
>>>>>> terrible to us. Pretty natural stuff. It appears that the changes
>>>>> proposed
>>>>>> in the draft plan are minor and will be of little consequence. I
>>> expect
>>>>>> that those who frequent the refuge will notice no change in the
>>>>> environment
>>>>>> or in the number of individuals and species present on the refuge
>>> from
>>>>> year
>>>>>> to year due to activities on the refuge. What happens off the refuge
>>> as
>>>>>> development expands and habitats shrink or change due to natural
>>>>> succession
>>>>>> or climate change is a different problem. As always, we have a right
>>>> and
>>>>>> sometimes a duty to question policy proposals and to seek data from
>>> the
>>>>>> refuge personnel that supports any changes they may recommend. I am
>>>> glad
>>>>>> that there are people out there who are concerned about such things
>>> and
>>>>> who
>>>>>> keep their eye on the ball.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, the blinds put up in the refuge can be a great place to
>>>> watch
>>>>>> and photograph wildlife, especially waterfowl, prior to the hunting
>>>>> season.
>>>>>> If you go out in a canoe or kayak, keep an eye on the weather.
>>> Crossing
>>>>>> those bays can be dangerous in the dark in a stiff fall wind if
>>> you're
>>>>>> trying to get out there early.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also encourage working with the VT Fish and Wildlife Department,
>>>> making
>>>>>> use of their resources, and offering your help in teaching classes. I
>>>>> took
>>>>>> the Wildlife Management for Educators course years ago at the
>>> facility
>>>> on
>>>>>> Buck Lake. I got to work in the field with department biologists
>>> during
>>>>> the
>>>>>> day and participate in classroom work and even formal policy debates
>>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>>> evening. There was an outdoor birding class, too! The course is a
>>> full
>>>>> week
>>>>>> and is still being offered today. I'll copy the link below. Also,
>>>> monitor
>>>>>> the activities and events articles and newsletters on the department
>>>>>> website. Some of them may not be up your alley, but it's good to
>>> attend
>>>>>> some and learn more about wildlife, hunting and fishing, management
>>>>> policy
>>>>>> and proposals, and meet some folks you might not normally run into.
>>> The
>>>>>> course at Buck Lake is offered for graduate credit but is offered to
>>>>>> informal teachers, as well. I know that includes quite a few of us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://vtfishandwildlife.com/learn-more/conservation-education/wildlife-management-and-outdoor-education-techniques-for-educators
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Charlie La Rosa
>>>>>> So. Washington
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:29 AM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More info on expanded hunting opportunities from CORFA (Coalition
>>> of
>>>>>> Refuge
>>>>>>> Friends and Advocates):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://coalitionofrefugefriends.com/2020/04/17/expanding-hunting-fishing-at-refuges-hatcheries/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And a more comprehensive article from NWRA (National Wildlife
>>> Refuge
>>>>>>> Association):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.refugeassociation.org/news/2020/4/16/examining-the-new-draft-regulations-expanding-hunting-and-fishing-on-national-wildlife-refuges
>>>>>>> Their greatest concern wasn't the hunting itself, but the
>>>> underfunding
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> refuges resulting in inadequate enforcement and administrative
>>>>>>> capabilities. Since this was written in 2020, the Refuge System
>>> has
>>>>>>> received some additional funding. Time will tell how that
>>> translates
>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> better staffing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Ken Copenhaver
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:59 AM lawlor <lawlor.coleen...>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I want to support our conversation on helping MWR, as well as
>>>> birds
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> other species in Vermont. I am glad we are discussing this and
>>>> very
>>>>>>>> pleased to hear a variety of thoughts . In particular want to
>>> thank
>>>>>> you,
>>>>>>>> Ken, for the suggestion we contact our representatives. I can’t
>>>>> believe
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> hadn’t crossed my mind on this issue, but it hadn’t.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do more for birds.
>>>>>>>> Coleen Lawlor,
>>>>>>>> Rockingham Vermont
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 2021, at 10:03 PM, Ken Copenhaver <
>>> <copenhvr...>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I should have made the distinction between bird dogs and other
>>>>> dogs,
>>>>>>>>> referred to here as hounds. In fact, the refuge strongly
>>>>> encourages
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> use of retrievers for waterfowl hunting, and in some areas
>>>> requires
>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>> See
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/map/?facility=Missisquoi+National+Wildlife+Refuge
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --Ken
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 6:38 PM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hope you don’t mind if I share my perspective? I take no
>>> issue
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> bird
>>>>>>>>>> dogs. In fact, they assist the hunter in preventing wanton
>>>> waste.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I consider the hounding of coyotes, bears, and other animals
>>>> akin
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> animal fighting where six or more hounds run down one animal
>>> to
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>> of exhaustion. There is a lot of info here if folks are
>>>>>>> interested—much
>>>>>>>>>> different from bird dogs:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.protectourwildlifevt.org/hunting-with-hounds
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Brenna
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone, which has been known to mess with me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 2021, at 6:31 PM, BRUCE FLEWELLING <
>>>>>>>>>> <bflewelling3263...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mr. Coperhaven,
>>>>>>>>>>> Do I understand your comment "--specific methods of hunting,
>>>> such
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> with dogs." to include all dogs, including retrievers? As I'm
>>>> sure
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> know, a good retriever is vital in assuring that upland birds
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> waterfowl
>>>>>>>>>> are recovered and counted in the daily bag limits.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bruce Flewelling
>>>>>>>>>>> RT. 73, Rochester
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/28/2021 5:44 PM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a few thoughts to add to this discussion. At least
>>> one
>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned that the previous administration had directed the
>>>> U.S.
>>>>>>> Fish
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wildlife Service to expand hunting opportunities on National
>>>>>>> Wildlife
>>>>>>>>>>>> Refuges. Based on my memory, I believe this to be true
>>>> (though
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>> done the research to verify it). The current proposal from
>>>>>>> Missisquoi
>>>>>>>>>> NWR
>>>>>>>>>>>> is apparently the result of this directive. I know the
>>>>> employees
>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>> Missisquoi want as much as anyone to protect the flora and
>>>> fauna
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> refuge. It's very likely that they are being required to
>>>> submit
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> expanded hunting proposal, and that they are doing it in a
>>> way
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> protects the refuge as much as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Increasing hunting on some very large refuges in very low
>>>>>> population
>>>>>>>>>> areas
>>>>>>>>>>>> would probably result in little additional hunting pressure
>>> on
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>>>>>> species. I suspect it is these large, remote refuges that
>>> the
>>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>>>>>> administration had in mind when encouraging more hunting.
>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Missisquoi is a relatively small refuge (about 6800 acres,
>>> of
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> 40% is off-limits to hunting anyway) in a relatively
>>> populated
>>>>>> area.
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> hope that these factors are taken into consideration when
>>> the
>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>> plan
>>>>>>>>>>>> is evaluated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> While it might be somewhat useful to object to additional
>>>>> hunting
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> particular refuge, another option would be to question the
>>>>>> expanded
>>>>>>>>>> hunting
>>>>>>>>>>>> policy in general and to advocate for its being reverted to
>>>> the
>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>>>> policy. Possible contacts would be Senators Leahy and
>>>> Sanders,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Representative Welch, and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the reason for my original post (possibly not
>>>>>>>> well-articulated)
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>> to point out that to object to hunting on a refuge "because
>>>>> it's a
>>>>>>>>>> refuge"
>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be very persuasive, since controlled hunting *is*
>>>> allowed
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> National
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wildlife Refuges. More persuasive would be objections to
>>>>> specific
>>>>>>>>>> species
>>>>>>>>>>>> and their role in the ecosystem, and to specific methods of
>>>>>> hunting,
>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>> as with dogs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> --Ken Copenhaver
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:08 AM Brenna <
>>>> <dbgaldenzi...>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Elinor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a recent Action Alert with information on who to
>>> write
>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> Missisquoi
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Conte for those interested:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://mailchi.mp/c1961eac9d14/action-alert-usfws-to-expand-hunting-on-vermonts-wildlife-refuges
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brenna Galdenzi
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stowe, VT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 8:56 AM Elinor Osborn <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <0000037bc09f69f4-dmarc-request...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone please give an address to contact Mississquoi
>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Elinor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Elinor Osborn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1286 Lost Nation Rd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craftsbury Common VT 05827
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 802 586-9994
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <elinor91...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2021, at 8:54 AM, Mark Paul <
>>>> <mrpbirder...>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well said John!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:53 AM John Aberth <
>>>>>>> <johnaberth1...>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should not be allowing more hunting on the Missisquoi
>>>>>>> Wildlife
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refuge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is supposed to be a refuge, not a killing ground.
>>>>>> Woodcock
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listed as a species of concern. Hounding causes great
>>>>>>> destruction
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nesting birds and other species incidentally targeted by
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> hounds
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run loose over the land. Vermont birders need to step up
>>>> and
>>>>>>> speak
>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against this plan to expand hunting if they really care
>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> birds.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not just post our appreciation for these animals, but
>>>> really
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a change and make a difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Aberth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roxbury, VT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 12:29 PM Ken Copenhaver <
>>>>>>>> <copenhvr...>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Despite being called "refuges" and despite whatever
>>> ideas
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what a "refuge" should be, hunting is one of the
>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on National Wildlife Refuges. As I understand it, each
>>>>>> refuge
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to submit a plan justifying what species may and may
>>> not
>>>> be
>>>>>>>> hunted
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refuge. The plan is then accepted or rejected by the
>>>>>> regional
>>>>>>>>>> office
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on its adherence to national standards for hunting on
>>>>>> refuges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Species
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selected based on sustainability and balance, among
>>> other
>>>>>>>> factors,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on known population data. The "take" is closely
>>>>>>> controlled
>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of permits issued.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hunters have a large stake in the very existence of the
>>>>>> refuge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Much of the cost of land acquisition, particularly
>>>> refuges
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wetlands, has been paid for with proceeds from the sale
>>>> of
>>>>>> Duck
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stamps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waterfowl hunters are required to buy Duck Stamps, and
>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-hunters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them to support land conservation. This is from the
>>> U.S.
>>>>>> Fish
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wildlife
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> website:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "For every dollar you spend on Federal *Duck Stamps*,
>>>>>>>> ninety-eight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes directly to purchase vital habitat or acquire
>>>>>> conservation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>> 1934,
>>>>>>>>>> 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million acres have been acquired using Federal *Duck
>>>> Stamp*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> revenues."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I gave up hunting decades ago, I understand why
>>>>> people
>>>>>>> hunt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand why hunting is allowed on National Wildlife
>>>>>> Refuges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do have reservations about using dogs for hunting other
>>>>> than
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waterfowl. If dogs will be allowed to run through the
>>>>>> woods, I
>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be unacceptably destructive considering the
>>>> relatively
>>>>>>> small
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> woodlands available on the Missisquoi refuge. That's
>>> my
>>>>> gut
>>>>>>>> feel,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Copenhaver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.avg.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:39 AM Barbara Brosnan <
>>>>>>>>>> <bbrosnan...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the heads up. I did send our objection
>>> to
>>>>>>> adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snipe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Woodcock to the prey list as well as coyote, red fox
>>>>> etc. I
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remembered to include Missisquoi NWR in the subject
>>>> line.
>>>>>> My
>>>>>>>>>>>>> husband
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his name to our email as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barbara Brosnan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Weybridge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Vermont Birds <VTBIRD...> On Behalf
>>> Of
>>>>>> Brenna
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2021 11:03 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: <VTBIRD...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you wish to comment, please note "Missisquoi NWR"
>>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an email, and address to "
>>>> <HuntFishRuleComments...>
>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brenna
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:00 AM Barbara Powers <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <barkiepvt...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please don’t expand the number of species that can be
>>>>>> hunted
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge. The point of a refuge is
>>>> to
>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> safe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place where a variety of species can refuel and rest
>>>> and
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> safe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actively pursuing their lives. There are so many
>>> other
>>>>>> places
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vermont available for hunting. Opening up the refuge
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the safety of the area for species that are
>>>>> already
>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival stress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for considering this opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barbara Powers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manchester Center, Vermont
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
 

Back to top
Date: 7/1/21 2:53 am
From: BRUCE FLEWELLING <bflewelling3263...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
Thank you, Charlie, for mentioning "hounding" disturbing ground nesting birds. In the discussions of the proposals, this was often mentioned as being a problem. I'm curious if there has been any scientific research that shows this to be the case. If someone knows that there has been, please send me a link to the study. Thanks!

Bruce Flewelling
RT. 73, Rochester

> On 07/01/2021 1:56 AM Charlie La Rosa <charlie.larosa...> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks, Brenna.
>
> A couple of things. You are correct in regard to reporting kills and the
> lack of limits placed on the killing of coyotes and skunks, etc. The
> reporting requirements at Missisquoi pertain to migratory game birds. I
> should have made that distinction clear. There are defined limits according
> to species of waterfowl and reporting must be done daily.
>
> In addition, we should all note that these refuge proposals are periodic.
> The majority of the proposals for both Missisquoi and Conte are updates of
> previous required periodic plans. The use of the word 'proposal' can be
> problematic in this case. The plans being proposed are very similar to the
> plans under which the refuges have already been working. For example, the
> hunting of bears, with or without hounds, on Conte has been going on for
> years in alignment with VT hunting regulations. The proposed plan for
> 2021-22 is for that to continue. Bear hunting at Missisquoi is virtually a
> moot point. Bears are seldom killed by hunters in the towns of Swanton,
> Highgate, Alburg. Usually no kills are recorded. In the years that a bear
> is killed by a hunter it is probably shot on wooded uplands outside the
> refuge and probably by a hunter who was actually seeking a deer and
> happened upon an opportunity to shoot a bear. (Hunting licenses include a
> tag that allows the hunter to take a bear during the short late season
> only.) I would bet that the same is true for the Eagle Point unit of the
> refuge that is located in Derby. The refuge unit is mostly open and marshy
> and the US/Canada border lies just inside the woods there. Any animal that
> headed for the woods would momentarily arrive in Canada!
>
> So, if we are concerned that the gates of the refuges are being thrown open
> for extensive* new* hunting opportunities, then we are mistaken. As for
> hounds doing extensive damage to nesting birds, I think that would be
> difficult to support with any data and thus of not much use in advocating
> against bear hounds. Rather, I think a more consequential proposal, at
> least as far as bird populations go, would be to ban free-roaming pet cats.
> I think convincing data could be found on predation by free-roaming pets
> and feral cats. That's something that should apply statewide.
>
> Another proposal that might garner a lot of support, including within VTFW,
> would be to stop the hunting of coyotes and other furbearers with the help
> of hounds. Calling our legislators on that could be fruitful. Establishing
> closed seasons for the hunting of each species of furbearer would also find
> significant support among the public, I believe.
>
> The refuges try to align their regulations with state regulations. If the
> state adopts a rule the federal refuges are almost certain to follow suit.
> In some instances, for example where state laws prohibiting shooting on or
> close to public roads would not apply on federal refuge roads, the refuges
> have put in place rules for their roads that mirror the state laws.
>
> I think this is a good thread, a good discussion, and I hope it may lead to
> a few changes.
>
> Charlie LaRosa
> So. Washington
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:38 AM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...> wrote:
>
> > Thank you, John. Like trapping, hounding is an exceptionally cruel and
> > indiscriminate method of capturing / killing wildlife. Our Refuge lands
> > should be off limits to both recreational activities.
> >
> >
> > *Brenna Galdenzi*
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:25 AM John Aberth <johnaberth1...> wrote:
> >
> > > I second Brenna's comments. Hounders will cause tremendous damage to
> > > nesting birds and many other species of wildlife. This form of hunting
> > > should really not be allowed at all, because hounds routinely trespass
> > even
> > > on legally posted land and violate private property owner rights. With
> > > regard to the Conte and Missisquoi refuges, such hunting makes a mockery
> > of
> > > the very notion of these reserves serving as a "refuge" for wildlife. If
> > > you care at all about birds and their survival in these challenging
> > times,
> > > you to need to step up and speak out against allowing additional hunting
> > on
> > > the refuges. We need your voices heard now!
> > >
> > > John Aberth
> > > Roxbury, VT
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:10 AM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Charlie,
> > > > Before asking folks to participate in a public comment process, I am
> > > always
> > > > sure to know exactly what it is that is being proposed. What you've
> > noted
> > > > is not a thorough accounting of the proposed changes. The Plan seeks to
> > > not
> > > > only open hunting to include snipe, woodcock and also skunk, opossum,
> > > > weasel, and coyote that you noted, but also raccoon, grey and red fox.
> > > > Hounds may be used to pursue coyotes, foxes, and raccoons, so hounding
> > > will
> > > > be an allowable activity. The VT Fish & Wildlife Dept does not require
> > > any
> > > > reporting of these species that are hunted nor are there any bag
> > limits.
> > > > There are also no wanton waste prohibitions around the hunting of these
> > > > animals. Where did you read that hunters will be required to report
> > their
> > > > kills? I don't recall any special use permits being required.
> > > >
> > > > It is not up to me to assume how many people may choose to hunt
> > > Missisquoi
> > > > for these additional species, but I do know that Vermont has its share
> > of
> > > > predator haters just like see out West with wolves. These hunters hold
> > > > complete disdain for coyotes, especially, who they view as competition
> > > over
> > > > those species they wish to hunt. The wanton waste and unethical acts
> > I've
> > > > witnessed
> > > > <
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bfs9Wsme0ZCw9vDf-gyasaf1fVFCUfLs/view
> > > > >directed
> > > > at coyotes in VT is unthinkable and these hunters will undoubtedly take
> > > > advantage of new land to hunt.
> > > >
> > > > The hunting at Conte is much worse than Missisquoi, namely because they
> > > > allow bear and bobcat hunting, including hounding *that starts on June
> > > 1st*
> > > > during the training season. This places ground nesting birds like the
> > > > spruce grouse in direct danger as well as deer fawn, moose calves etc.
> > If
> > > > the federally protected Canada lynx is still on Conte, they will be in
> > > > danger by bobcat hunters and hounders. I encourage people to read this
> > > > action alert on Conte:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://mailchi.mp/c138ee913de5/stop-hounding-on-vermonts-national-wildlife-refuge?e=d9f570b96a
> > > >
> > > > *Thanks,*
> > > > *Brenna Galdenzi*
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:19 AM Charlie La Rosa <
> > > <charlie.larosa...>
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you, Ken, for your reasoned and detailed additional comments
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > links you have provided in this thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > I encourage everyone interested in this thread to read the actual
> > > refuge
> > > > > plan update in full. We should all be on the same page! (Sorry.
> > > Couldn't
> > > > > resist.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Missisquoi_Web%20Opening%20Package.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > As I read it, I noted that there is no mention of bear hunting either
> > > > with
> > > > > or without dogs. The only big game that I saw mentioned was
> > > white-tailed
> > > > > deer. Even wild turkeys were not included. Thus, although I have not
> > > > > contacted refuge personnel, it looks like the "hounding" issue may be
> > > > moot
> > > > > in any case. Beagles could still be used for rabbit/hare hunting,
> > and I
> > > > > have never seen any damage done by beagles beyond tracks in the mud.
> > As
> > > > > mentioned above, using pointing/flushing/retrieving dogs is a good
> > > thing.
> > > > > Retrievers are actually required for waterfowl hunting within the
> > > refuge
> > > > in
> > > > > some situations. Another good thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe the sense of the use of the term "inviolate" in the
> > original
> > > > act
> > > > > creating the refuges was not meant to exclude hunting. It referred
> > more
> > > > to
> > > > > maintaining the geographical integrity of the unit and prohibiting
> > > > > commercial uses and possible destruction of valuable habitat. One
> > > reason
> > > > > for creating refuges was to provide habitat beneficial to wildlife
> > and
> > > to
> > > > > maintain populations in healthy numbers that would be sufficient to
> > > > > actually allow for contolled hunting. Those who supported the act had
> > > > > witnessed the decline in habitat and wildlife as farming
> > progressively
> > > > took
> > > > > over the prairies and the pothole environments were eliminated. They
> > > > wanted
> > > > > to stop the loss of something they valued. Both on and off refuges,
> > > > species
> > > > > that have always had smaller populations are protected by allowing
> > > only a
> > > > > small number of individuals to be taken, only certain numbers of each
> > > > sex,
> > > > > or none at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hunting is actually quite restrictive on the Missisquoi refuge as it
> > is
> > > > on
> > > > > other federal refuges and state lands like Dead Creek. The number of
> > > > people
> > > > > hunting at Missisquoi, for example, is restricted, large parts of the
> > > > > refuge are off-limits completely for hunting, there are rules
> > > > > specifying which species may be taken and how many individuals can be
> > > > > taken, and all hunters must complete a form at the end of the day
> > > showing
> > > > > what species were killed and how many.
> > > > >
> > > > > The allowing of hunting of skunk, opossum, weasel, and coyote in some
> > > > parts
> > > > > of the refuge may have (although I have no evidence) more to do with
> > > > > complying with federal policies promoted during the previous
> > > > administration
> > > > > than any desire to greatly increase hunting. With the possible
> > > exception
> > > > of
> > > > > coyote, the number of hunters who actually gear up to go out and seek
> > > > > skunk, opossum, and either species of weasel is very small. I know a
> > > few
> > > > > folks who do pursue coyote. In any case, I'm fully confident that if
> > > the
> > > > > numbers of these species, or any others, indicated that hunting
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > scaled back that the refuge personnel would do that as is stated in
> > the
> > > > > draft plan.
> > > > >
> > > > > We tend to react quickly when we hear or read of something that
> > sounds
> > > > > terrible to us. Pretty natural stuff. It appears that the changes
> > > > proposed
> > > > > in the draft plan are minor and will be of little consequence. I
> > expect
> > > > > that those who frequent the refuge will notice no change in the
> > > > environment
> > > > > or in the number of individuals and species present on the refuge
> > from
> > > > year
> > > > > to year due to activities on the refuge. What happens off the refuge
> > as
> > > > > development expands and habitats shrink or change due to natural
> > > > succession
> > > > > or climate change is a different problem. As always, we have a right
> > > and
> > > > > sometimes a duty to question policy proposals and to seek data from
> > the
> > > > > refuge personnel that supports any changes they may recommend. I am
> > > glad
> > > > > that there are people out there who are concerned about such things
> > and
> > > > who
> > > > > keep their eye on the ball.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, the blinds put up in the refuge can be a great place to
> > > watch
> > > > > and photograph wildlife, especially waterfowl, prior to the hunting
> > > > season.
> > > > > If you go out in a canoe or kayak, keep an eye on the weather.
> > Crossing
> > > > > those bays can be dangerous in the dark in a stiff fall wind if
> > you're
> > > > > trying to get out there early.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also encourage working with the VT Fish and Wildlife Department,
> > > making
> > > > > use of their resources, and offering your help in teaching classes. I
> > > > took
> > > > > the Wildlife Management for Educators course years ago at the
> > facility
> > > on
> > > > > Buck Lake. I got to work in the field with department biologists
> > during
> > > > the
> > > > > day and participate in classroom work and even formal policy debates
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > evening. There was an outdoor birding class, too! The course is a
> > full
> > > > week
> > > > > and is still being offered today. I'll copy the link below. Also,
> > > monitor
> > > > > the activities and events articles and newsletters on the department
> > > > > website. Some of them may not be up your alley, but it's good to
> > attend
> > > > > some and learn more about wildlife, hunting and fishing, management
> > > > policy
> > > > > and proposals, and meet some folks you might not normally run into.
> > The
> > > > > course at Buck Lake is offered for graduate credit but is offered to
> > > > > informal teachers, as well. I know that includes quite a few of us.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://vtfishandwildlife.com/learn-more/conservation-education/wildlife-management-and-outdoor-education-techniques-for-educators
> > > > >
> > > > > Charlie La Rosa
> > > > > So. Washington
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:29 AM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > More info on expanded hunting opportunities from CORFA (Coalition
> > of
> > > > > Refuge
> > > > > > Friends and Advocates):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://coalitionofrefugefriends.com/2020/04/17/expanding-hunting-fishing-at-refuges-hatcheries/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And a more comprehensive article from NWRA (National Wildlife
> > Refuge
> > > > > > Association):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://www.refugeassociation.org/news/2020/4/16/examining-the-new-draft-regulations-expanding-hunting-and-fishing-on-national-wildlife-refuges
> > > > > > Their greatest concern wasn't the hunting itself, but the
> > > underfunding
> > > > of
> > > > > > refuges resulting in inadequate enforcement and administrative
> > > > > > capabilities. Since this was written in 2020, the Refuge System
> > has
> > > > > > received some additional funding. Time will tell how that
> > translates
> > > > > into
> > > > > > better staffing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Ken Copenhaver
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:59 AM lawlor <lawlor.coleen...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I want to support our conversation on helping MWR, as well as
> > > birds
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > other species in Vermont. I am glad we are discussing this and
> > > very
> > > > > > > pleased to hear a variety of thoughts . In particular want to
> > thank
> > > > > you,
> > > > > > > Ken, for the suggestion we contact our representatives. I can’t
> > > > believe
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > hadn’t crossed my mind on this issue, but it hadn’t.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do more for birds.
> > > > > > > Coleen Lawlor,
> > > > > > > Rockingham Vermont
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 2021, at 10:03 PM, Ken Copenhaver <
> > <copenhvr...>
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I should have made the distinction between bird dogs and other
> > > > dogs,
> > > > > > > > referred to here as hounds. In fact, the refuge strongly
> > > > encourages
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > use of retrievers for waterfowl hunting, and in some areas
> > > requires
> > > > > > them.
> > > > > > > > See
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/map/?facility=Missisquoi+National+Wildlife+Refuge
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --Ken
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 6:38 PM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I hope you don’t mind if I share my perspective? I take no
> > issue
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > bird
> > > > > > > >> dogs. In fact, they assist the hunter in preventing wanton
> > > waste.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I consider the hounding of coyotes, bears, and other animals
> > > akin
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> animal fighting where six or more hounds run down one animal
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > >> of exhaustion. There is a lot of info here if folks are
> > > > > > interested—much
> > > > > > > >> different from bird dogs:
> > > > > > > >> https://www.protectourwildlifevt.org/hunting-with-hounds
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Brenna
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Sent from my iPhone, which has been known to mess with me.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> On Jun 28, 2021, at 6:31 PM, BRUCE FLEWELLING <
> > > > > > > >> <bflewelling3263...> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Mr. Coperhaven,
> > > > > > > >>> Do I understand your comment "--specific methods of hunting,
> > > such
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> with dogs." to include all dogs, including retrievers? As I'm
> > > sure
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> know, a good retriever is vital in assuring that upland birds
> > > and
> > > > > > > waterfowl
> > > > > > > >> are recovered and counted in the daily bag limits.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Bruce Flewelling
> > > > > > > >>> RT. 73, Rochester
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On 06/28/2021 5:44 PM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> I have a few thoughts to add to this discussion. At least
> > one
> > > > > > person
> > > > > > > >>>> mentioned that the previous administration had directed the
> > > U.S.
> > > > > > Fish
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >>>> Wildlife Service to expand hunting opportunities on National
> > > > > > Wildlife
> > > > > > > >>>> Refuges. Based on my memory, I believe this to be true
> > > (though
> > > > I
> > > > > > > >> haven't
> > > > > > > >>>> done the research to verify it). The current proposal from
> > > > > > Missisquoi
> > > > > > > >> NWR
> > > > > > > >>>> is apparently the result of this directive. I know the
> > > > employees
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > >>>> Missisquoi want as much as anyone to protect the flora and
> > > fauna
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> refuge. It's very likely that they are being required to
> > > submit
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >>>> expanded hunting proposal, and that they are doing it in a
> > way
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>>> protects the refuge as much as possible.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Increasing hunting on some very large refuges in very low
> > > > > population
> > > > > > > >> areas
> > > > > > > >>>> would probably result in little additional hunting pressure
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> allowed
> > > > > > > >>>> species. I suspect it is these large, remote refuges that
> > the
> > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > >>>> administration had in mind when encouraging more hunting.
> > > > > However,
> > > > > > > >>>> Missisquoi is a relatively small refuge (about 6800 acres,
> > of
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > >> about
> > > > > > > >>>> 40% is off-limits to hunting anyway) in a relatively
> > populated
> > > > > area.
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >>>> hope that these factors are taken into consideration when
> > the
> > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > >> plan
> > > > > > > >>>> is evaluated.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> While it might be somewhat useful to object to additional
> > > > hunting
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > >>>> particular refuge, another option would be to question the
> > > > > expanded
> > > > > > > >> hunting
> > > > > > > >>>> policy in general and to advocate for its being reverted to
> > > the
> > > > > old
> > > > > > > >>>> policy. Possible contacts would be Senators Leahy and
> > > Sanders,
> > > > > > > >>>> Representative Welch, and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Part of the reason for my original post (possibly not
> > > > > > > well-articulated)
> > > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > >>>> to point out that to object to hunting on a refuge "because
> > > > it's a
> > > > > > > >> refuge"
> > > > > > > >>>> won't be very persuasive, since controlled hunting *is*
> > > allowed
> > > > on
> > > > > > > >> National
> > > > > > > >>>> Wildlife Refuges. More persuasive would be objections to
> > > > specific
> > > > > > > >> species
> > > > > > > >>>> and their role in the ecosystem, and to specific methods of
> > > > > hunting,
> > > > > > > >> such
> > > > > > > >>>> as with dogs.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>>> --Ken Copenhaver
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:08 AM Brenna <
> > > <dbgaldenzi...>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Hi Elinor,
> > > > > > > >>>>> Here's a recent Action Alert with information on who to
> > write
> > > > at
> > > > > > > >> Missisquoi
> > > > > > > >>>>> and Conte for those interested:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://mailchi.mp/c1961eac9d14/action-alert-usfws-to-expand-hunting-on-vermonts-wildlife-refuges
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Brenna Galdenzi
> > > > > > > >>>>> Stowe, VT
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 8:56 AM Elinor Osborn <
> > > > > > > >>>>> <0000037bc09f69f4-dmarc-request...> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Can someone please give an address to contact Mississquoi
> > > > about
> > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Elinor
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Elinor Osborn
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 1286 Lost Nation Rd
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Craftsbury Common VT 05827
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> 802 586-9994
> > > > > > > >>>>>> <elinor91...>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2021, at 8:54 AM, Mark Paul <
> > > <mrpbirder...>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Well said John!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:53 AM John Aberth <
> > > > > > <johnaberth1...>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> We should not be allowing more hunting on the Missisquoi
> > > > > > Wildlife
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Refuge.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> This is supposed to be a refuge, not a killing ground.
> > > > > Woodcock
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >>>>>> already
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> listed as a species of concern. Hounding causes great
> > > > > > destruction
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> nesting birds and other species incidentally targeted by
> > > the
> > > > > > > hounds
> > > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > > >>>>>> they
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> run loose over the land. Vermont birders need to step up
> > > and
> > > > > > speak
> > > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> against this plan to expand hunting if they really care
> > > > about
> > > > > > > birds.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Let's
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> not just post our appreciation for these animals, but
> > > really
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > >>>>>> something
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> for a change and make a difference.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> John Aberth
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Roxbury, VT
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 12:29 PM Ken Copenhaver <
> > > > > > > <copenhvr...>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Despite being called "refuges" and despite whatever
> > ideas
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > >>>>> might
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> about what a "refuge" should be, hunting is one of the
> > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > >>>>>> activities
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on National Wildlife Refuges. As I understand it, each
> > > > > refuge
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> required
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to submit a plan justifying what species may and may
> > not
> > > be
> > > > > > > hunted
> > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refuge. The plan is then accepted or rejected by the
> > > > > regional
> > > > > > > >> office
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> based
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on its adherence to national standards for hunting on
> > > > > refuges.
> > > > > > > >>>>> Species
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> selected based on sustainability and balance, among
> > other
> > > > > > > factors,
> > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> based on known population data. The "take" is closely
> > > > > > controlled
> > > > > > > >> by
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> number of permits issued.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hunters have a large stake in the very existence of the
> > > > > refuge
> > > > > > > >>>>> system.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Much of the cost of land acquisition, particularly
> > > refuges
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>>>> include
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wetlands, has been paid for with proceeds from the sale
> > > of
> > > > > Duck
> > > > > > > >>>>> Stamps.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Waterfowl hunters are required to buy Duck Stamps, and
> > > many
> > > > > > > >>>>> non-hunters
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> buy
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> them to support land conservation. This is from the
> > U.S.
> > > > > Fish
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Wildlife
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> website:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> "For every dollar you spend on Federal *Duck Stamps*,
> > > > > > > ninety-eight
> > > > > > > >>>>>> cents
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> goes directly to purchase vital habitat or acquire
> > > > > conservation
> > > > > > > >>>>>> easements
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
> > > > Since
> > > > > > > 1934,
> > > > > > > >> 6
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> million acres have been acquired using Federal *Duck
> > > Stamp*
> > > > > > > >>>>> revenues."
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> While I gave up hunting decades ago, I understand why
> > > > people
> > > > > > hunt
> > > > > > > >>>>> and I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> understand why hunting is allowed on National Wildlife
> > > > > Refuges.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> However, I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> do have reservations about using dogs for hunting other
> > > > than
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> waterfowl. If dogs will be allowed to run through the
> > > > > woods, I
> > > > > > > >> think
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> they
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> will be unacceptably destructive considering the
> > > relatively
> > > > > > small
> > > > > > > >>>>>> amount
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> woodlands available on the Missisquoi refuge. That's
> > my
> > > > gut
> > > > > > > feel,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> based
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> no data.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ken Copenhaver
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> www.avg.com
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:39 AM Barbara Brosnan <
> > > > > > > >> <bbrosnan...>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the heads up. I did send our objection
> > to
> > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > >>>>> Snipe
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Woodcock to the prey list as well as coyote, red fox
> > > > etc. I
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> remembered to include Missisquoi NWR in the subject
> > > line.
> > > > > My
> > > > > > > >>>>> husband
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> added
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> his name to our email as well.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Barbara Brosnan
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Weybridge
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> From: Vermont Birds <VTBIRD...> On Behalf
> > Of
> > > > > Brenna
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2021 11:03 AM
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> To: <VTBIRD...>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> If you wish to comment, please note "Missisquoi NWR"
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> subject
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> line
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of an email, and address to "
> > > <HuntFishRuleComments...>
> > > > "
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Brenna
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:00 AM Barbara Powers <
> > > > > > > >>>>>> <barkiepvt...>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Please don’t expand the number of species that can be
> > > > > hunted
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge. The point of a refuge is
> > > to
> > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > >>>>> safe
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> place where a variety of species can refuel and rest
> > > and
> > > > be
> > > > > > > safe
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> while
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> actively pursuing their lives. There are so many
> > other
> > > > > places
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vermont available for hunting. Opening up the refuge
> > > > would
> > > > > > > >> totally
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> change the safety of the area for species that are
> > > > already
> > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> survival stress.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for considering this opinion.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Barbara Powers
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manchester Center, Vermont
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
 

Back to top
Date: 6/30/21 10:57 pm
From: Charlie La Rosa <charlie.larosa...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
Thanks, Brenna.

A couple of things. You are correct in regard to reporting kills and the
lack of limits placed on the killing of coyotes and skunks, etc. The
reporting requirements at Missisquoi pertain to migratory game birds. I
should have made that distinction clear. There are defined limits according
to species of waterfowl and reporting must be done daily.

In addition, we should all note that these refuge proposals are periodic.
The majority of the proposals for both Missisquoi and Conte are updates of
previous required periodic plans. The use of the word 'proposal' can be
problematic in this case. The plans being proposed are very similar to the
plans under which the refuges have already been working. For example, the
hunting of bears, with or without hounds, on Conte has been going on for
years in alignment with VT hunting regulations. The proposed plan for
2021-22 is for that to continue. Bear hunting at Missisquoi is virtually a
moot point. Bears are seldom killed by hunters in the towns of Swanton,
Highgate, Alburg. Usually no kills are recorded. In the years that a bear
is killed by a hunter it is probably shot on wooded uplands outside the
refuge and probably by a hunter who was actually seeking a deer and
happened upon an opportunity to shoot a bear. (Hunting licenses include a
tag that allows the hunter to take a bear during the short late season
only.) I would bet that the same is true for the Eagle Point unit of the
refuge that is located in Derby. The refuge unit is mostly open and marshy
and the US/Canada border lies just inside the woods there. Any animal that
headed for the woods would momentarily arrive in Canada!

So, if we are concerned that the gates of the refuges are being thrown open
for extensive* new* hunting opportunities, then we are mistaken. As for
hounds doing extensive damage to nesting birds, I think that would be
difficult to support with any data and thus of not much use in advocating
against bear hounds. Rather, I think a more consequential proposal, at
least as far as bird populations go, would be to ban free-roaming pet cats.
I think convincing data could be found on predation by free-roaming pets
and feral cats. That's something that should apply statewide.

Another proposal that might garner a lot of support, including within VTFW,
would be to stop the hunting of coyotes and other furbearers with the help
of hounds. Calling our legislators on that could be fruitful. Establishing
closed seasons for the hunting of each species of furbearer would also find
significant support among the public, I believe.

The refuges try to align their regulations with state regulations. If the
state adopts a rule the federal refuges are almost certain to follow suit.
In some instances, for example where state laws prohibiting shooting on or
close to public roads would not apply on federal refuge roads, the refuges
have put in place rules for their roads that mirror the state laws.

I think this is a good thread, a good discussion, and I hope it may lead to
a few changes.

Charlie LaRosa
So. Washington




On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:38 AM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...> wrote:

> Thank you, John. Like trapping, hounding is an exceptionally cruel and
> indiscriminate method of capturing / killing wildlife. Our Refuge lands
> should be off limits to both recreational activities.
>
>
> *Brenna Galdenzi*
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:25 AM John Aberth <johnaberth1...> wrote:
>
> > I second Brenna's comments. Hounders will cause tremendous damage to
> > nesting birds and many other species of wildlife. This form of hunting
> > should really not be allowed at all, because hounds routinely trespass
> even
> > on legally posted land and violate private property owner rights. With
> > regard to the Conte and Missisquoi refuges, such hunting makes a mockery
> of
> > the very notion of these reserves serving as a "refuge" for wildlife. If
> > you care at all about birds and their survival in these challenging
> times,
> > you to need to step up and speak out against allowing additional hunting
> on
> > the refuges. We need your voices heard now!
> >
> > John Aberth
> > Roxbury, VT
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:10 AM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Charlie,
> > > Before asking folks to participate in a public comment process, I am
> > always
> > > sure to know exactly what it is that is being proposed. What you've
> noted
> > > is not a thorough accounting of the proposed changes. The Plan seeks to
> > not
> > > only open hunting to include snipe, woodcock and also skunk, opossum,
> > > weasel, and coyote that you noted, but also raccoon, grey and red fox.
> > > Hounds may be used to pursue coyotes, foxes, and raccoons, so hounding
> > will
> > > be an allowable activity. The VT Fish & Wildlife Dept does not require
> > any
> > > reporting of these species that are hunted nor are there any bag
> limits.
> > > There are also no wanton waste prohibitions around the hunting of these
> > > animals. Where did you read that hunters will be required to report
> their
> > > kills? I don't recall any special use permits being required.
> > >
> > > It is not up to me to assume how many people may choose to hunt
> > Missisquoi
> > > for these additional species, but I do know that Vermont has its share
> of
> > > predator haters just like see out West with wolves. These hunters hold
> > > complete disdain for coyotes, especially, who they view as competition
> > over
> > > those species they wish to hunt. The wanton waste and unethical acts
> I've
> > > witnessed
> > > <
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bfs9Wsme0ZCw9vDf-gyasaf1fVFCUfLs/view
> > > >directed
> > > at coyotes in VT is unthinkable and these hunters will undoubtedly take
> > > advantage of new land to hunt.
> > >
> > > The hunting at Conte is much worse than Missisquoi, namely because they
> > > allow bear and bobcat hunting, including hounding *that starts on June
> > 1st*
> > > during the training season. This places ground nesting birds like the
> > > spruce grouse in direct danger as well as deer fawn, moose calves etc.
> If
> > > the federally protected Canada lynx is still on Conte, they will be in
> > > danger by bobcat hunters and hounders. I encourage people to read this
> > > action alert on Conte:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://mailchi.mp/c138ee913de5/stop-hounding-on-vermonts-national-wildlife-refuge?e=d9f570b96a
> > >
> > > *Thanks,*
> > > *Brenna Galdenzi*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:19 AM Charlie La Rosa <
> > <charlie.larosa...>
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank you, Ken, for your reasoned and detailed additional comments
> and
> > > the
> > > > links you have provided in this thread.
> > > >
> > > > I encourage everyone interested in this thread to read the actual
> > refuge
> > > > plan update in full. We should all be on the same page! (Sorry.
> > Couldn't
> > > > resist.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Missisquoi_Web%20Opening%20Package.pdf
> > > >
> > > > As I read it, I noted that there is no mention of bear hunting either
> > > with
> > > > or without dogs. The only big game that I saw mentioned was
> > white-tailed
> > > > deer. Even wild turkeys were not included. Thus, although I have not
> > > > contacted refuge personnel, it looks like the "hounding" issue may be
> > > moot
> > > > in any case. Beagles could still be used for rabbit/hare hunting,
> and I
> > > > have never seen any damage done by beagles beyond tracks in the mud.
> As
> > > > mentioned above, using pointing/flushing/retrieving dogs is a good
> > thing.
> > > > Retrievers are actually required for waterfowl hunting within the
> > refuge
> > > in
> > > > some situations. Another good thing.
> > > >
> > > > I believe the sense of the use of the term "inviolate" in the
> original
> > > act
> > > > creating the refuges was not meant to exclude hunting. It referred
> more
> > > to
> > > > maintaining the geographical integrity of the unit and prohibiting
> > > > commercial uses and possible destruction of valuable habitat. One
> > reason
> > > > for creating refuges was to provide habitat beneficial to wildlife
> and
> > to
> > > > maintain populations in healthy numbers that would be sufficient to
> > > > actually allow for contolled hunting. Those who supported the act had
> > > > witnessed the decline in habitat and wildlife as farming
> progressively
> > > took
> > > > over the prairies and the pothole environments were eliminated. They
> > > wanted
> > > > to stop the loss of something they valued. Both on and off refuges,
> > > species
> > > > that have always had smaller populations are protected by allowing
> > only a
> > > > small number of individuals to be taken, only certain numbers of each
> > > sex,
> > > > or none at all.
> > > >
> > > > Hunting is actually quite restrictive on the Missisquoi refuge as it
> is
> > > on
> > > > other federal refuges and state lands like Dead Creek. The number of
> > > people
> > > > hunting at Missisquoi, for example, is restricted, large parts of the
> > > > refuge are off-limits completely for hunting, there are rules
> > > > specifying which species may be taken and how many individuals can be
> > > > taken, and all hunters must complete a form at the end of the day
> > showing
> > > > what species were killed and how many.
> > > >
> > > > The allowing of hunting of skunk, opossum, weasel, and coyote in some
> > > parts
> > > > of the refuge may have (although I have no evidence) more to do with
> > > > complying with federal policies promoted during the previous
> > > administration
> > > > than any desire to greatly increase hunting. With the possible
> > exception
> > > of
> > > > coyote, the number of hunters who actually gear up to go out and seek
> > > > skunk, opossum, and either species of weasel is very small. I know a
> > few
> > > > folks who do pursue coyote. In any case, I'm fully confident that if
> > the
> > > > numbers of these species, or any others, indicated that hunting
> should
> > be
> > > > scaled back that the refuge personnel would do that as is stated in
> the
> > > > draft plan.
> > > >
> > > > We tend to react quickly when we hear or read of something that
> sounds
> > > > terrible to us. Pretty natural stuff. It appears that the changes
> > > proposed
> > > > in the draft plan are minor and will be of little consequence. I
> expect
> > > > that those who frequent the refuge will notice no change in the
> > > environment
> > > > or in the number of individuals and species present on the refuge
> from
> > > year
> > > > to year due to activities on the refuge. What happens off the refuge
> as
> > > > development expands and habitats shrink or change due to natural
> > > succession
> > > > or climate change is a different problem. As always, we have a right
> > and
> > > > sometimes a duty to question policy proposals and to seek data from
> the
> > > > refuge personnel that supports any changes they may recommend. I am
> > glad
> > > > that there are people out there who are concerned about such things
> and
> > > who
> > > > keep their eye on the ball.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, the blinds put up in the refuge can be a great place to
> > watch
> > > > and photograph wildlife, especially waterfowl, prior to the hunting
> > > season.
> > > > If you go out in a canoe or kayak, keep an eye on the weather.
> Crossing
> > > > those bays can be dangerous in the dark in a stiff fall wind if
> you're
> > > > trying to get out there early.
> > > >
> > > > I also encourage working with the VT Fish and Wildlife Department,
> > making
> > > > use of their resources, and offering your help in teaching classes. I
> > > took
> > > > the Wildlife Management for Educators course years ago at the
> facility
> > on
> > > > Buck Lake. I got to work in the field with department biologists
> during
> > > the
> > > > day and participate in classroom work and even formal policy debates
> in
> > > the
> > > > evening. There was an outdoor birding class, too! The course is a
> full
> > > week
> > > > and is still being offered today. I'll copy the link below. Also,
> > monitor
> > > > the activities and events articles and newsletters on the department
> > > > website. Some of them may not be up your alley, but it's good to
> attend
> > > > some and learn more about wildlife, hunting and fishing, management
> > > policy
> > > > and proposals, and meet some folks you might not normally run into.
> The
> > > > course at Buck Lake is offered for graduate credit but is offered to
> > > > informal teachers, as well. I know that includes quite a few of us.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://vtfishandwildlife.com/learn-more/conservation-education/wildlife-management-and-outdoor-education-techniques-for-educators
> > > >
> > > > Charlie La Rosa
> > > > So. Washington
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:29 AM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > More info on expanded hunting opportunities from CORFA (Coalition
> of
> > > > Refuge
> > > > > Friends and Advocates):
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://coalitionofrefugefriends.com/2020/04/17/expanding-hunting-fishing-at-refuges-hatcheries/
> > > > >
> > > > > And a more comprehensive article from NWRA (National Wildlife
> Refuge
> > > > > Association):
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.refugeassociation.org/news/2020/4/16/examining-the-new-draft-regulations-expanding-hunting-and-fishing-on-national-wildlife-refuges
> > > > > Their greatest concern wasn't the hunting itself, but the
> > underfunding
> > > of
> > > > > refuges resulting in inadequate enforcement and administrative
> > > > > capabilities. Since this was written in 2020, the Refuge System
> has
> > > > > received some additional funding. Time will tell how that
> translates
> > > > into
> > > > > better staffing.
> > > > >
> > > > > --Ken Copenhaver
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:59 AM lawlor <lawlor.coleen...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I want to support our conversation on helping MWR, as well as
> > birds
> > > > and
> > > > > > other species in Vermont. I am glad we are discussing this and
> > very
> > > > > > pleased to hear a variety of thoughts . In particular want to
> thank
> > > > you,
> > > > > > Ken, for the suggestion we contact our representatives. I can’t
> > > believe
> > > > > it
> > > > > > hadn’t crossed my mind on this issue, but it hadn’t.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do more for birds.
> > > > > > Coleen Lawlor,
> > > > > > Rockingham Vermont
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Jun 28, 2021, at 10:03 PM, Ken Copenhaver <
> <copenhvr...>
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I should have made the distinction between bird dogs and other
> > > dogs,
> > > > > > > referred to here as hounds. In fact, the refuge strongly
> > > encourages
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > use of retrievers for waterfowl hunting, and in some areas
> > requires
> > > > > them.
> > > > > > > See
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/map/?facility=Missisquoi+National+Wildlife+Refuge
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --Ken
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 6:38 PM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I hope you don’t mind if I share my perspective? I take no
> issue
> > > > with
> > > > > > bird
> > > > > > >> dogs. In fact, they assist the hunter in preventing wanton
> > waste.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I consider the hounding of coyotes, bears, and other animals
> > akin
> > > to
> > > > > > >> animal fighting where six or more hounds run down one animal
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > point
> > > > > > >> of exhaustion. There is a lot of info here if folks are
> > > > > interested—much
> > > > > > >> different from bird dogs:
> > > > > > >> https://www.protectourwildlifevt.org/hunting-with-hounds
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Brenna
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Sent from my iPhone, which has been known to mess with me.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> On Jun 28, 2021, at 6:31 PM, BRUCE FLEWELLING <
> > > > > > >> <bflewelling3263...> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Mr. Coperhaven,
> > > > > > >>> Do I understand your comment "--specific methods of hunting,
> > such
> > > > as
> > > > > > >> with dogs." to include all dogs, including retrievers? As I'm
> > sure
> > > > you
> > > > > > >> know, a good retriever is vital in assuring that upland birds
> > and
> > > > > > waterfowl
> > > > > > >> are recovered and counted in the daily bag limits.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Bruce Flewelling
> > > > > > >>> RT. 73, Rochester
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> On 06/28/2021 5:44 PM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I have a few thoughts to add to this discussion. At least
> one
> > > > > person
> > > > > > >>>> mentioned that the previous administration had directed the
> > U.S.
> > > > > Fish
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >>>> Wildlife Service to expand hunting opportunities on National
> > > > > Wildlife
> > > > > > >>>> Refuges. Based on my memory, I believe this to be true
> > (though
> > > I
> > > > > > >> haven't
> > > > > > >>>> done the research to verify it). The current proposal from
> > > > > Missisquoi
> > > > > > >> NWR
> > > > > > >>>> is apparently the result of this directive. I know the
> > > employees
> > > > at
> > > > > > >>>> Missisquoi want as much as anyone to protect the flora and
> > fauna
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> refuge. It's very likely that they are being required to
> > submit
> > > > > this
> > > > > > >>>> expanded hunting proposal, and that they are doing it in a
> way
> > > > that
> > > > > > >>>> protects the refuge as much as possible.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Increasing hunting on some very large refuges in very low
> > > > population
> > > > > > >> areas
> > > > > > >>>> would probably result in little additional hunting pressure
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > >> allowed
> > > > > > >>>> species. I suspect it is these large, remote refuges that
> the
> > > > > > previous
> > > > > > >>>> administration had in mind when encouraging more hunting.
> > > > However,
> > > > > > >>>> Missisquoi is a relatively small refuge (about 6800 acres,
> of
> > > > which
> > > > > > >> about
> > > > > > >>>> 40% is off-limits to hunting anyway) in a relatively
> populated
> > > > area.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > >>>> hope that these factors are taken into consideration when
> the
> > > > > proposed
> > > > > > >> plan
> > > > > > >>>> is evaluated.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> While it might be somewhat useful to object to additional
> > > hunting
> > > > on
> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > >>>> particular refuge, another option would be to question the
> > > > expanded
> > > > > > >> hunting
> > > > > > >>>> policy in general and to advocate for its being reverted to
> > the
> > > > old
> > > > > > >>>> policy. Possible contacts would be Senators Leahy and
> > Sanders,
> > > > > > >>>> Representative Welch, and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Part of the reason for my original post (possibly not
> > > > > > well-articulated)
> > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > >>>> to point out that to object to hunting on a refuge "because
> > > it's a
> > > > > > >> refuge"
> > > > > > >>>> won't be very persuasive, since controlled hunting *is*
> > allowed
> > > on
> > > > > > >> National
> > > > > > >>>> Wildlife Refuges. More persuasive would be objections to
> > > specific
> > > > > > >> species
> > > > > > >>>> and their role in the ecosystem, and to specific methods of
> > > > hunting,
> > > > > > >> such
> > > > > > >>>> as with dogs.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>> --Ken Copenhaver
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:08 AM Brenna <
> > <dbgaldenzi...>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Elinor,
> > > > > > >>>>> Here's a recent Action Alert with information on who to
> write
> > > at
> > > > > > >> Missisquoi
> > > > > > >>>>> and Conte for those interested:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://mailchi.mp/c1961eac9d14/action-alert-usfws-to-expand-hunting-on-vermonts-wildlife-refuges
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Brenna Galdenzi
> > > > > > >>>>> Stowe, VT
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 8:56 AM Elinor Osborn <
> > > > > > >>>>> <0000037bc09f69f4-dmarc-request...> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Can someone please give an address to contact Mississquoi
> > > about
> > > > > > this?
> > > > > > >>>>>> Elinor
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Elinor Osborn
> > > > > > >>>>>> 1286 Lost Nation Rd
> > > > > > >>>>>> Craftsbury Common VT 05827
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> 802 586-9994
> > > > > > >>>>>> <elinor91...>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2021, at 8:54 AM, Mark Paul <
> > <mrpbirder...>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Well said John!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:53 AM John Aberth <
> > > > > <johnaberth1...>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> We should not be allowing more hunting on the Missisquoi
> > > > > Wildlife
> > > > > > >>>>>> Refuge.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> This is supposed to be a refuge, not a killing ground.
> > > > Woodcock
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > >>>>>> already
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> listed as a species of concern. Hounding causes great
> > > > > destruction
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> nesting birds and other species incidentally targeted by
> > the
> > > > > > hounds
> > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > >>>>>> they
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> run loose over the land. Vermont birders need to step up
> > and
> > > > > speak
> > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> against this plan to expand hunting if they really care
> > > about
> > > > > > birds.
> > > > > > >>>>>> Let's
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> not just post our appreciation for these animals, but
> > really
> > > > do
> > > > > > >>>>>> something
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> for a change and make a difference.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> John Aberth
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Roxbury, VT
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 12:29 PM Ken Copenhaver <
> > > > > > <copenhvr...>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Despite being called "refuges" and despite whatever
> ideas
> > > > > people
> > > > > > >>>>> might
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> have
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> about what a "refuge" should be, hunting is one of the
> > > > allowed
> > > > > > >>>>>> activities
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on National Wildlife Refuges. As I understand it, each
> > > > refuge
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> required
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to submit a plan justifying what species may and may
> not
> > be
> > > > > > hunted
> > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> refuge. The plan is then accepted or rejected by the
> > > > regional
> > > > > > >> office
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> based
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> on its adherence to national standards for hunting on
> > > > refuges.
> > > > > > >>>>> Species
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> selected based on sustainability and balance, among
> other
> > > > > > factors,
> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> based on known population data. The "take" is closely
> > > > > controlled
> > > > > > >> by
> > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> number of permits issued.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hunters have a large stake in the very existence of the
> > > > refuge
> > > > > > >>>>> system.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Much of the cost of land acquisition, particularly
> > refuges
> > > > that
> > > > > > >>>>> include
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wetlands, has been paid for with proceeds from the sale
> > of
> > > > Duck
> > > > > > >>>>> Stamps.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Waterfowl hunters are required to buy Duck Stamps, and
> > many
> > > > > > >>>>> non-hunters
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> buy
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> them to support land conservation. This is from the
> U.S.
> > > > Fish
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Wildlife
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> website:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> "For every dollar you spend on Federal *Duck Stamps*,
> > > > > > ninety-eight
> > > > > > >>>>>> cents
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> goes directly to purchase vital habitat or acquire
> > > > conservation
> > > > > > >>>>>> easements
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
> > > Since
> > > > > > 1934,
> > > > > > >> 6
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> million acres have been acquired using Federal *Duck
> > Stamp*
> > > > > > >>>>> revenues."
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> While I gave up hunting decades ago, I understand why
> > > people
> > > > > hunt
> > > > > > >>>>> and I
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> understand why hunting is allowed on National Wildlife
> > > > Refuges.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> However, I
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> do have reservations about using dogs for hunting other
> > > than
> > > > > for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> waterfowl. If dogs will be allowed to run through the
> > > > woods, I
> > > > > > >> think
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> they
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> will be unacceptably destructive considering the
> > relatively
> > > > > small
> > > > > > >>>>>> amount
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> woodlands available on the Missisquoi refuge. That's
> my
> > > gut
> > > > > > feel,
> > > > > > >>>>>> based
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> no data.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ken Copenhaver
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> www.avg.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:39 AM Barbara Brosnan <
> > > > > > >> <bbrosnan...>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the heads up. I did send our objection
> to
> > > > > adding
> > > > > > >>>>> Snipe
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Woodcock to the prey list as well as coyote, red fox
> > > etc. I
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> remembered to include Missisquoi NWR in the subject
> > line.
> > > > My
> > > > > > >>>>> husband
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> added
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> his name to our email as well.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Barbara Brosnan
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Weybridge
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> From: Vermont Birds <VTBIRD...> On Behalf
> Of
> > > > Brenna
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2021 11:03 AM
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> To: <VTBIRD...>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> If you wish to comment, please note "Missisquoi NWR"
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > >> subject
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> line
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of an email, and address to "
> > <HuntFishRuleComments...>
> > > "
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Brenna
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:00 AM Barbara Powers <
> > > > > > >>>>>> <barkiepvt...>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Please don’t expand the number of species that can be
> > > > hunted
> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge. The point of a refuge is
> > to
> > > > > have a
> > > > > > >>>>> safe
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> place where a variety of species can refuel and rest
> > and
> > > be
> > > > > > safe
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> while
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> actively pursuing their lives. There are so many
> other
> > > > places
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vermont available for hunting. Opening up the refuge
> > > would
> > > > > > >> totally
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> change the safety of the area for species that are
> > > already
> > > > > > under
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> survival stress.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for considering this opinion.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Barbara Powers
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manchester Center, Vermont
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
 

Back to top
Date: 6/30/21 7:56 pm
From: R Stewart <2cnewbirds...>
Subject: [VTBIRD] Fwd: eBird Report - 650 Cold Springs Road, West Haven, Vermont, US (43.653, -73.392), Jun 29, 2021
Grassland Bird Bonanza! This spot was at the crest of the hill before the
farm that is ahead on the left. (Maybe the only one on that end of the
road.!) What a delight seeing all the Bobolink activity - sitting on wire,
carrying food, singing... The Meadowlarks were equally surprising - even
more so than the 'stake out' Dickcissel!

Before getting to this spot, we had recorded Savannah and Field Sparrow and
Kestral! Beautiful corner of VT! Rolling hills. Lots of farm fields.


650 Cold Springs Road, West Haven, Vermont, US (43.653, -73.392), Rutland,
Vermont, US
Jun 29, 2021 10:51 AM - 11:21 AM
Protocol: Traveling
0.09 mile(s)
7 species

Barn Swallow 2
Cedar Waxwing 2
Song Sparrow 1
Bobolink 28 Two fields on both sides of road, uncut and birds active
Eastern Meadowlark 5 In field south of hedgerow and iron gated field
Red-winged Blackbird 2
Dickcissel 1 On wire.

View this checklist online at https://ebird.org/checklist/S90975718

This report was generated automatically by eBird v3 (https://ebird.org/home)


--
Ruth Stewart
E. Dorset VT
 

Back to top
Date: 6/30/21 6:38 am
From: Brenna <dbgaldenzi...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
Thank you, John. Like trapping, hounding is an exceptionally cruel and
indiscriminate method of capturing / killing wildlife. Our Refuge lands
should be off limits to both recreational activities.


*Brenna Galdenzi*

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:25 AM John Aberth <johnaberth1...> wrote:

> I second Brenna's comments. Hounders will cause tremendous damage to
> nesting birds and many other species of wildlife. This form of hunting
> should really not be allowed at all, because hounds routinely trespass even
> on legally posted land and violate private property owner rights. With
> regard to the Conte and Missisquoi refuges, such hunting makes a mockery of
> the very notion of these reserves serving as a "refuge" for wildlife. If
> you care at all about birds and their survival in these challenging times,
> you to need to step up and speak out against allowing additional hunting on
> the refuges. We need your voices heard now!
>
> John Aberth
> Roxbury, VT
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:10 AM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...> wrote:
>
> > Hello Charlie,
> > Before asking folks to participate in a public comment process, I am
> always
> > sure to know exactly what it is that is being proposed. What you've noted
> > is not a thorough accounting of the proposed changes. The Plan seeks to
> not
> > only open hunting to include snipe, woodcock and also skunk, opossum,
> > weasel, and coyote that you noted, but also raccoon, grey and red fox.
> > Hounds may be used to pursue coyotes, foxes, and raccoons, so hounding
> will
> > be an allowable activity. The VT Fish & Wildlife Dept does not require
> any
> > reporting of these species that are hunted nor are there any bag limits.
> > There are also no wanton waste prohibitions around the hunting of these
> > animals. Where did you read that hunters will be required to report their
> > kills? I don't recall any special use permits being required.
> >
> > It is not up to me to assume how many people may choose to hunt
> Missisquoi
> > for these additional species, but I do know that Vermont has its share of
> > predator haters just like see out West with wolves. These hunters hold
> > complete disdain for coyotes, especially, who they view as competition
> over
> > those species they wish to hunt. The wanton waste and unethical acts I've
> > witnessed
> > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bfs9Wsme0ZCw9vDf-gyasaf1fVFCUfLs/view
> > >directed
> > at coyotes in VT is unthinkable and these hunters will undoubtedly take
> > advantage of new land to hunt.
> >
> > The hunting at Conte is much worse than Missisquoi, namely because they
> > allow bear and bobcat hunting, including hounding *that starts on June
> 1st*
> > during the training season. This places ground nesting birds like the
> > spruce grouse in direct danger as well as deer fawn, moose calves etc. If
> > the federally protected Canada lynx is still on Conte, they will be in
> > danger by bobcat hunters and hounders. I encourage people to read this
> > action alert on Conte:
> >
> >
> https://mailchi.mp/c138ee913de5/stop-hounding-on-vermonts-national-wildlife-refuge?e=d9f570b96a
> >
> > *Thanks,*
> > *Brenna Galdenzi*
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:19 AM Charlie La Rosa <
> <charlie.larosa...>
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you, Ken, for your reasoned and detailed additional comments and
> > the
> > > links you have provided in this thread.
> > >
> > > I encourage everyone interested in this thread to read the actual
> refuge
> > > plan update in full. We should all be on the same page! (Sorry.
> Couldn't
> > > resist.)
> > >
> > >
> https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Missisquoi_Web%20Opening%20Package.pdf
> > >
> > > As I read it, I noted that there is no mention of bear hunting either
> > with
> > > or without dogs. The only big game that I saw mentioned was
> white-tailed
> > > deer. Even wild turkeys were not included. Thus, although I have not
> > > contacted refuge personnel, it looks like the "hounding" issue may be
> > moot
> > > in any case. Beagles could still be used for rabbit/hare hunting, and I
> > > have never seen any damage done by beagles beyond tracks in the mud. As
> > > mentioned above, using pointing/flushing/retrieving dogs is a good
> thing.
> > > Retrievers are actually required for waterfowl hunting within the
> refuge
> > in
> > > some situations. Another good thing.
> > >
> > > I believe the sense of the use of the term "inviolate" in the original
> > act
> > > creating the refuges was not meant to exclude hunting. It referred more
> > to
> > > maintaining the geographical integrity of the unit and prohibiting
> > > commercial uses and possible destruction of valuable habitat. One
> reason
> > > for creating refuges was to provide habitat beneficial to wildlife and
> to
> > > maintain populations in healthy numbers that would be sufficient to
> > > actually allow for contolled hunting. Those who supported the act had
> > > witnessed the decline in habitat and wildlife as farming progressively
> > took
> > > over the prairies and the pothole environments were eliminated. They
> > wanted
> > > to stop the loss of something they valued. Both on and off refuges,
> > species
> > > that have always had smaller populations are protected by allowing
> only a
> > > small number of individuals to be taken, only certain numbers of each
> > sex,
> > > or none at all.
> > >
> > > Hunting is actually quite restrictive on the Missisquoi refuge as it is
> > on
> > > other federal refuges and state lands like Dead Creek. The number of
> > people
> > > hunting at Missisquoi, for example, is restricted, large parts of the
> > > refuge are off-limits completely for hunting, there are rules
> > > specifying which species may be taken and how many individuals can be
> > > taken, and all hunters must complete a form at the end of the day
> showing
> > > what species were killed and how many.
> > >
> > > The allowing of hunting of skunk, opossum, weasel, and coyote in some
> > parts
> > > of the refuge may have (although I have no evidence) more to do with
> > > complying with federal policies promoted during the previous
> > administration
> > > than any desire to greatly increase hunting. With the possible
> exception
> > of
> > > coyote, the number of hunters who actually gear up to go out and seek
> > > skunk, opossum, and either species of weasel is very small. I know a
> few
> > > folks who do pursue coyote. In any case, I'm fully confident that if
> the
> > > numbers of these species, or any others, indicated that hunting should
> be
> > > scaled back that the refuge personnel would do that as is stated in the
> > > draft plan.
> > >
> > > We tend to react quickly when we hear or read of something that sounds
> > > terrible to us. Pretty natural stuff. It appears that the changes
> > proposed
> > > in the draft plan are minor and will be of little consequence. I expect
> > > that those who frequent the refuge will notice no change in the
> > environment
> > > or in the number of individuals and species present on the refuge from
> > year
> > > to year due to activities on the refuge. What happens off the refuge as
> > > development expands and habitats shrink or change due to natural
> > succession
> > > or climate change is a different problem. As always, we have a right
> and
> > > sometimes a duty to question policy proposals and to seek data from the
> > > refuge personnel that supports any changes they may recommend. I am
> glad
> > > that there are people out there who are concerned about such things and
> > who
> > > keep their eye on the ball.
> > >
> > > By the way, the blinds put up in the refuge can be a great place to
> watch
> > > and photograph wildlife, especially waterfowl, prior to the hunting
> > season.
> > > If you go out in a canoe or kayak, keep an eye on the weather. Crossing
> > > those bays can be dangerous in the dark in a stiff fall wind if you're
> > > trying to get out there early.
> > >
> > > I also encourage working with the VT Fish and Wildlife Department,
> making
> > > use of their resources, and offering your help in teaching classes. I
> > took
> > > the Wildlife Management for Educators course years ago at the facility
> on
> > > Buck Lake. I got to work in the field with department biologists during
> > the
> > > day and participate in classroom work and even formal policy debates in
> > the
> > > evening. There was an outdoor birding class, too! The course is a full
> > week
> > > and is still being offered today. I'll copy the link below. Also,
> monitor
> > > the activities and events articles and newsletters on the department
> > > website. Some of them may not be up your alley, but it's good to attend
> > > some and learn more about wildlife, hunting and fishing, management
> > policy
> > > and proposals, and meet some folks you might not normally run into. The
> > > course at Buck Lake is offered for graduate credit but is offered to
> > > informal teachers, as well. I know that includes quite a few of us.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://vtfishandwildlife.com/learn-more/conservation-education/wildlife-management-and-outdoor-education-techniques-for-educators
> > >
> > > Charlie La Rosa
> > > So. Washington
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:29 AM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > More info on expanded hunting opportunities from CORFA (Coalition of
> > > Refuge
> > > > Friends and Advocates):
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://coalitionofrefugefriends.com/2020/04/17/expanding-hunting-fishing-at-refuges-hatcheries/
> > > >
> > > > And a more comprehensive article from NWRA (National Wildlife Refuge
> > > > Association):
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.refugeassociation.org/news/2020/4/16/examining-the-new-draft-regulations-expanding-hunting-and-fishing-on-national-wildlife-refuges
> > > > Their greatest concern wasn't the hunting itself, but the
> underfunding
> > of
> > > > refuges resulting in inadequate enforcement and administrative
> > > > capabilities. Since this was written in 2020, the Refuge System has
> > > > received some additional funding. Time will tell how that translates
> > > into
> > > > better staffing.
> > > >
> > > > --Ken Copenhaver
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:59 AM lawlor <lawlor.coleen...>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I want to support our conversation on helping MWR, as well as
> birds
> > > and
> > > > > other species in Vermont. I am glad we are discussing this and
> very
> > > > > pleased to hear a variety of thoughts . In particular want to thank
> > > you,
> > > > > Ken, for the suggestion we contact our representatives. I can’t
> > believe
> > > > it
> > > > > hadn’t crossed my mind on this issue, but it hadn’t.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do more for birds.
> > > > > Coleen Lawlor,
> > > > > Rockingham Vermont
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Jun 28, 2021, at 10:03 PM, Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I should have made the distinction between bird dogs and other
> > dogs,
> > > > > > referred to here as hounds. In fact, the refuge strongly
> > encourages
> > > > the
> > > > > > use of retrievers for waterfowl hunting, and in some areas
> requires
> > > > them.
> > > > > > See
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/map/?facility=Missisquoi+National+Wildlife+Refuge
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Ken
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 6:38 PM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I hope you don’t mind if I share my perspective? I take no issue
> > > with
> > > > > bird
> > > > > >> dogs. In fact, they assist the hunter in preventing wanton
> waste.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I consider the hounding of coyotes, bears, and other animals
> akin
> > to
> > > > > >> animal fighting where six or more hounds run down one animal to
> > the
> > > > > point
> > > > > >> of exhaustion. There is a lot of info here if folks are
> > > > interested—much
> > > > > >> different from bird dogs:
> > > > > >> https://www.protectourwildlifevt.org/hunting-with-hounds
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Brenna
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Sent from my iPhone, which has been known to mess with me.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On Jun 28, 2021, at 6:31 PM, BRUCE FLEWELLING <
> > > > > >> <bflewelling3263...> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Mr. Coperhaven,
> > > > > >>> Do I understand your comment "--specific methods of hunting,
> such
> > > as
> > > > > >> with dogs." to include all dogs, including retrievers? As I'm
> sure
> > > you
> > > > > >> know, a good retriever is vital in assuring that upland birds
> and
> > > > > waterfowl
> > > > > >> are recovered and counted in the daily bag limits.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Bruce Flewelling
> > > > > >>> RT. 73, Rochester
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> On 06/28/2021 5:44 PM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I have a few thoughts to add to this discussion. At least one
> > > > person
> > > > > >>>> mentioned that the previous administration had directed the
> U.S.
> > > > Fish
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >>>> Wildlife Service to expand hunting opportunities on National
> > > > Wildlife
> > > > > >>>> Refuges. Based on my memory, I believe this to be true
> (though
> > I
> > > > > >> haven't
> > > > > >>>> done the research to verify it). The current proposal from
> > > > Missisquoi
> > > > > >> NWR
> > > > > >>>> is apparently the result of this directive. I know the
> > employees
> > > at
> > > > > >>>> Missisquoi want as much as anyone to protect the flora and
> fauna
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>> refuge. It's very likely that they are being required to
> submit
> > > > this
> > > > > >>>> expanded hunting proposal, and that they are doing it in a way
> > > that
> > > > > >>>> protects the refuge as much as possible.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Increasing hunting on some very large refuges in very low
> > > population
> > > > > >> areas
> > > > > >>>> would probably result in little additional hunting pressure on
> > the
> > > > > >> allowed
> > > > > >>>> species. I suspect it is these large, remote refuges that the
> > > > > previous
> > > > > >>>> administration had in mind when encouraging more hunting.
> > > However,
> > > > > >>>> Missisquoi is a relatively small refuge (about 6800 acres, of
> > > which
> > > > > >> about
> > > > > >>>> 40% is off-limits to hunting anyway) in a relatively populated
> > > area.
> > > > > I
> > > > > >>>> hope that these factors are taken into consideration when the
> > > > proposed
> > > > > >> plan
> > > > > >>>> is evaluated.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> While it might be somewhat useful to object to additional
> > hunting
> > > on
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >>>> particular refuge, another option would be to question the
> > > expanded
> > > > > >> hunting
> > > > > >>>> policy in general and to advocate for its being reverted to
> the
> > > old
> > > > > >>>> policy. Possible contacts would be Senators Leahy and
> Sanders,
> > > > > >>>> Representative Welch, and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Part of the reason for my original post (possibly not
> > > > > well-articulated)
> > > > > >> was
> > > > > >>>> to point out that to object to hunting on a refuge "because
> > it's a
> > > > > >> refuge"
> > > > > >>>> won't be very persuasive, since controlled hunting *is*
> allowed
> > on
> > > > > >> National
> > > > > >>>> Wildlife Refuges. More persuasive would be objections to
> > specific
> > > > > >> species
> > > > > >>>> and their role in the ecosystem, and to specific methods of
> > > hunting,
> > > > > >> such
> > > > > >>>> as with dogs.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>> --Ken Copenhaver
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:08 AM Brenna <
> <dbgaldenzi...>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Hi Elinor,
> > > > > >>>>> Here's a recent Action Alert with information on who to write
> > at
> > > > > >> Missisquoi
> > > > > >>>>> and Conte for those interested:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://mailchi.mp/c1961eac9d14/action-alert-usfws-to-expand-hunting-on-vermonts-wildlife-refuges
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Brenna Galdenzi
> > > > > >>>>> Stowe, VT
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 8:56 AM Elinor Osborn <
> > > > > >>>>> <0000037bc09f69f4-dmarc-request...> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Can someone please give an address to contact Mississquoi
> > about
> > > > > this?
> > > > > >>>>>> Elinor
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Elinor Osborn
> > > > > >>>>>> 1286 Lost Nation Rd
> > > > > >>>>>> Craftsbury Common VT 05827
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 802 586-9994
> > > > > >>>>>> <elinor91...>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2021, at 8:54 AM, Mark Paul <
> <mrpbirder...>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Well said John!
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:53 AM John Aberth <
> > > > <johnaberth1...>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> We should not be allowing more hunting on the Missisquoi
> > > > Wildlife
> > > > > >>>>>> Refuge.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> This is supposed to be a refuge, not a killing ground.
> > > Woodcock
> > > > > are
> > > > > >>>>>> already
> > > > > >>>>>>>> listed as a species of concern. Hounding causes great
> > > > destruction
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> nesting birds and other species incidentally targeted by
> the
> > > > > hounds
> > > > > >> as
> > > > > >>>>>> they
> > > > > >>>>>>>> run loose over the land. Vermont birders need to step up
> and
> > > > speak
> > > > > >> out
> > > > > >>>>>>>> against this plan to expand hunting if they really care
> > about
> > > > > birds.
> > > > > >>>>>> Let's
> > > > > >>>>>>>> not just post our appreciation for these animals, but
> really
> > > do
> > > > > >>>>>> something
> > > > > >>>>>>>> for a change and make a difference.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> John Aberth
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Roxbury, VT
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 12:29 PM Ken Copenhaver <
> > > > > <copenhvr...>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Despite being called "refuges" and despite whatever ideas
> > > > people
> > > > > >>>>> might
> > > > > >>>>>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> about what a "refuge" should be, hunting is one of the
> > > allowed
> > > > > >>>>>> activities
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> on National Wildlife Refuges. As I understand it, each
> > > refuge
> > > > is
> > > > > >>>>>>>> required
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to submit a plan justifying what species may and may not
> be
> > > > > hunted
> > > > > >> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> refuge. The plan is then accepted or rejected by the
> > > regional
> > > > > >> office
> > > > > >>>>>>>> based
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> on its adherence to national standards for hunting on
> > > refuges.
> > > > > >>>>> Species
> > > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> selected based on sustainability and balance, among other
> > > > > factors,
> > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> based on known population data. The "take" is closely
> > > > controlled
> > > > > >> by
> > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> number of permits issued.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hunters have a large stake in the very existence of the
> > > refuge
> > > > > >>>>> system.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Much of the cost of land acquisition, particularly
> refuges
> > > that
> > > > > >>>>> include
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wetlands, has been paid for with proceeds from the sale
> of
> > > Duck
> > > > > >>>>> Stamps.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Waterfowl hunters are required to buy Duck Stamps, and
> many
> > > > > >>>>> non-hunters
> > > > > >>>>>>>> buy
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> them to support land conservation. This is from the U.S.
> > > Fish
> > > > > and
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Wildlife
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> website:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> "For every dollar you spend on Federal *Duck Stamps*,
> > > > > ninety-eight
> > > > > >>>>>> cents
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> goes directly to purchase vital habitat or acquire
> > > conservation
> > > > > >>>>>> easements
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
> > Since
> > > > > 1934,
> > > > > >> 6
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> million acres have been acquired using Federal *Duck
> Stamp*
> > > > > >>>>> revenues."
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> While I gave up hunting decades ago, I understand why
> > people
> > > > hunt
> > > > > >>>>> and I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> understand why hunting is allowed on National Wildlife
> > > Refuges.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> However, I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> do have reservations about using dogs for hunting other
> > than
> > > > for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> waterfowl. If dogs will be allowed to run through the
> > > woods, I
> > > > > >> think
> > > > > >>>>>>>> they
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> will be unacceptably destructive considering the
> relatively
> > > > small
> > > > > >>>>>> amount
> > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> woodlands available on the Missisquoi refuge. That's my
> > gut
> > > > > feel,
> > > > > >>>>>> based
> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> no data.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ken Copenhaver
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> www.avg.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:39 AM Barbara Brosnan <
> > > > > >> <bbrosnan...>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the heads up. I did send our objection to
> > > > adding
> > > > > >>>>> Snipe
> > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Woodcock to the prey list as well as coyote, red fox
> > etc. I
> > > > > also
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> remembered to include Missisquoi NWR in the subject
> line.
> > > My
> > > > > >>>>> husband
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> added
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> his name to our email as well.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Barbara Brosnan
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Weybridge
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> From: Vermont Birds <VTBIRD...> On Behalf Of
> > > Brenna
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2021 11:03 AM
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> To: <VTBIRD...>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> If you wish to comment, please note "Missisquoi NWR" in
> > the
> > > > > >> subject
> > > > > >>>>>>>> line
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of an email, and address to "
> <HuntFishRuleComments...>
> > "
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Brenna
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:00 AM Barbara Powers <
> > > > > >>>>>> <barkiepvt...>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Please don’t expand the number of species that can be
> > > hunted
> > > > at
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge. The point of a refuge is
> to
> > > > have a
> > > > > >>>>> safe
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> place where a variety of species can refuel and rest
> and
> > be
> > > > > safe
> > > > > >>>>>>>> while
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> actively pursuing their lives. There are so many other
> > > places
> > > > > in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vermont available for hunting. Opening up the refuge
> > would
> > > > > >> totally
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> change the safety of the area for species that are
> > already
> > > > > under
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> survival stress.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for considering this opinion.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Barbara Powers
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manchester Center, Vermont
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
 

Back to top
Date: 6/30/21 5:26 am
From: John Aberth <johnaberth1...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
I second Brenna's comments. Hounders will cause tremendous damage to
nesting birds and many other species of wildlife. This form of hunting
should really not be allowed at all, because hounds routinely trespass even
on legally posted land and violate private property owner rights. With
regard to the Conte and Missisquoi refuges, such hunting makes a mockery of
the very notion of these reserves serving as a "refuge" for wildlife. If
you care at all about birds and their survival in these challenging times,
you to need to step up and speak out against allowing additional hunting on
the refuges. We need your voices heard now!

John Aberth
Roxbury, VT

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:10 AM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...> wrote:

> Hello Charlie,
> Before asking folks to participate in a public comment process, I am always
> sure to know exactly what it is that is being proposed. What you've noted
> is not a thorough accounting of the proposed changes. The Plan seeks to not
> only open hunting to include snipe, woodcock and also skunk, opossum,
> weasel, and coyote that you noted, but also raccoon, grey and red fox.
> Hounds may be used to pursue coyotes, foxes, and raccoons, so hounding will
> be an allowable activity. The VT Fish & Wildlife Dept does not require any
> reporting of these species that are hunted nor are there any bag limits.
> There are also no wanton waste prohibitions around the hunting of these
> animals. Where did you read that hunters will be required to report their
> kills? I don't recall any special use permits being required.
>
> It is not up to me to assume how many people may choose to hunt Missisquoi
> for these additional species, but I do know that Vermont has its share of
> predator haters just like see out West with wolves. These hunters hold
> complete disdain for coyotes, especially, who they view as competition over
> those species they wish to hunt. The wanton waste and unethical acts I've
> witnessed
> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bfs9Wsme0ZCw9vDf-gyasaf1fVFCUfLs/view
> >directed
> at coyotes in VT is unthinkable and these hunters will undoubtedly take
> advantage of new land to hunt.
>
> The hunting at Conte is much worse than Missisquoi, namely because they
> allow bear and bobcat hunting, including hounding *that starts on June 1st*
> during the training season. This places ground nesting birds like the
> spruce grouse in direct danger as well as deer fawn, moose calves etc. If
> the federally protected Canada lynx is still on Conte, they will be in
> danger by bobcat hunters and hounders. I encourage people to read this
> action alert on Conte:
>
> https://mailchi.mp/c138ee913de5/stop-hounding-on-vermonts-national-wildlife-refuge?e=d9f570b96a
>
> *Thanks,*
> *Brenna Galdenzi*
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:19 AM Charlie La Rosa <charlie.larosa...>
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you, Ken, for your reasoned and detailed additional comments and
> the
> > links you have provided in this thread.
> >
> > I encourage everyone interested in this thread to read the actual refuge
> > plan update in full. We should all be on the same page! (Sorry. Couldn't
> > resist.)
> >
> > https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Missisquoi_Web%20Opening%20Package.pdf
> >
> > As I read it, I noted that there is no mention of bear hunting either
> with
> > or without dogs. The only big game that I saw mentioned was white-tailed
> > deer. Even wild turkeys were not included. Thus, although I have not
> > contacted refuge personnel, it looks like the "hounding" issue may be
> moot
> > in any case. Beagles could still be used for rabbit/hare hunting, and I
> > have never seen any damage done by beagles beyond tracks in the mud. As
> > mentioned above, using pointing/flushing/retrieving dogs is a good thing.
> > Retrievers are actually required for waterfowl hunting within the refuge
> in
> > some situations. Another good thing.
> >
> > I believe the sense of the use of the term "inviolate" in the original
> act
> > creating the refuges was not meant to exclude hunting. It referred more
> to
> > maintaining the geographical integrity of the unit and prohibiting
> > commercial uses and possible destruction of valuable habitat. One reason
> > for creating refuges was to provide habitat beneficial to wildlife and to
> > maintain populations in healthy numbers that would be sufficient to
> > actually allow for contolled hunting. Those who supported the act had
> > witnessed the decline in habitat and wildlife as farming progressively
> took
> > over the prairies and the pothole environments were eliminated. They
> wanted
> > to stop the loss of something they valued. Both on and off refuges,
> species
> > that have always had smaller populations are protected by allowing only a
> > small number of individuals to be taken, only certain numbers of each
> sex,
> > or none at all.
> >
> > Hunting is actually quite restrictive on the Missisquoi refuge as it is
> on
> > other federal refuges and state lands like Dead Creek. The number of
> people
> > hunting at Missisquoi, for example, is restricted, large parts of the
> > refuge are off-limits completely for hunting, there are rules
> > specifying which species may be taken and how many individuals can be
> > taken, and all hunters must complete a form at the end of the day showing
> > what species were killed and how many.
> >
> > The allowing of hunting of skunk, opossum, weasel, and coyote in some
> parts
> > of the refuge may have (although I have no evidence) more to do with
> > complying with federal policies promoted during the previous
> administration
> > than any desire to greatly increase hunting. With the possible exception
> of
> > coyote, the number of hunters who actually gear up to go out and seek
> > skunk, opossum, and either species of weasel is very small. I know a few
> > folks who do pursue coyote. In any case, I'm fully confident that if the
> > numbers of these species, or any others, indicated that hunting should be
> > scaled back that the refuge personnel would do that as is stated in the
> > draft plan.
> >
> > We tend to react quickly when we hear or read of something that sounds
> > terrible to us. Pretty natural stuff. It appears that the changes
> proposed
> > in the draft plan are minor and will be of little consequence. I expect
> > that those who frequent the refuge will notice no change in the
> environment
> > or in the number of individuals and species present on the refuge from
> year
> > to year due to activities on the refuge. What happens off the refuge as
> > development expands and habitats shrink or change due to natural
> succession
> > or climate change is a different problem. As always, we have a right and
> > sometimes a duty to question policy proposals and to seek data from the
> > refuge personnel that supports any changes they may recommend. I am glad
> > that there are people out there who are concerned about such things and
> who
> > keep their eye on the ball.
> >
> > By the way, the blinds put up in the refuge can be a great place to watch
> > and photograph wildlife, especially waterfowl, prior to the hunting
> season.
> > If you go out in a canoe or kayak, keep an eye on the weather. Crossing
> > those bays can be dangerous in the dark in a stiff fall wind if you're
> > trying to get out there early.
> >
> > I also encourage working with the VT Fish and Wildlife Department, making
> > use of their resources, and offering your help in teaching classes. I
> took
> > the Wildlife Management for Educators course years ago at the facility on
> > Buck Lake. I got to work in the field with department biologists during
> the
> > day and participate in classroom work and even formal policy debates in
> the
> > evening. There was an outdoor birding class, too! The course is a full
> week
> > and is still being offered today. I'll copy the link below. Also, monitor
> > the activities and events articles and newsletters on the department
> > website. Some of them may not be up your alley, but it's good to attend
> > some and learn more about wildlife, hunting and fishing, management
> policy
> > and proposals, and meet some folks you might not normally run into. The
> > course at Buck Lake is offered for graduate credit but is offered to
> > informal teachers, as well. I know that includes quite a few of us.
> >
> >
> >
> https://vtfishandwildlife.com/learn-more/conservation-education/wildlife-management-and-outdoor-education-techniques-for-educators
> >
> > Charlie La Rosa
> > So. Washington
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:29 AM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > More info on expanded hunting opportunities from CORFA (Coalition of
> > Refuge
> > > Friends and Advocates):
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://coalitionofrefugefriends.com/2020/04/17/expanding-hunting-fishing-at-refuges-hatcheries/
> > >
> > > And a more comprehensive article from NWRA (National Wildlife Refuge
> > > Association):
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.refugeassociation.org/news/2020/4/16/examining-the-new-draft-regulations-expanding-hunting-and-fishing-on-national-wildlife-refuges
> > > Their greatest concern wasn't the hunting itself, but the underfunding
> of
> > > refuges resulting in inadequate enforcement and administrative
> > > capabilities. Since this was written in 2020, the Refuge System has
> > > received some additional funding. Time will tell how that translates
> > into
> > > better staffing.
> > >
> > > --Ken Copenhaver
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:59 AM lawlor <lawlor.coleen...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I want to support our conversation on helping MWR, as well as birds
> > and
> > > > other species in Vermont. I am glad we are discussing this and very
> > > > pleased to hear a variety of thoughts . In particular want to thank
> > you,
> > > > Ken, for the suggestion we contact our representatives. I can’t
> believe
> > > it
> > > > hadn’t crossed my mind on this issue, but it hadn’t.
> > > >
> > > > Do more for birds.
> > > > Coleen Lawlor,
> > > > Rockingham Vermont
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > > On Jun 28, 2021, at 10:03 PM, Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I should have made the distinction between bird dogs and other
> dogs,
> > > > > referred to here as hounds. In fact, the refuge strongly
> encourages
> > > the
> > > > > use of retrievers for waterfowl hunting, and in some areas requires
> > > them.
> > > > > See
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/map/?facility=Missisquoi+National+Wildlife+Refuge
> > > > >
> > > > > --Ken
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 6:38 PM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I hope you don’t mind if I share my perspective? I take no issue
> > with
> > > > bird
> > > > >> dogs. In fact, they assist the hunter in preventing wanton waste.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I consider the hounding of coyotes, bears, and other animals akin
> to
> > > > >> animal fighting where six or more hounds run down one animal to
> the
> > > > point
> > > > >> of exhaustion. There is a lot of info here if folks are
> > > interested—much
> > > > >> different from bird dogs:
> > > > >> https://www.protectourwildlifevt.org/hunting-with-hounds
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Brenna
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sent from my iPhone, which has been known to mess with me.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Jun 28, 2021, at 6:31 PM, BRUCE FLEWELLING <
> > > > >> <bflewelling3263...> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Mr. Coperhaven,
> > > > >>> Do I understand your comment "--specific methods of hunting, such
> > as
> > > > >> with dogs." to include all dogs, including retrievers? As I'm sure
> > you
> > > > >> know, a good retriever is vital in assuring that upland birds and
> > > > waterfowl
> > > > >> are recovered and counted in the daily bag limits.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Bruce Flewelling
> > > > >>> RT. 73, Rochester
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On 06/28/2021 5:44 PM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I have a few thoughts to add to this discussion. At least one
> > > person
> > > > >>>> mentioned that the previous administration had directed the U.S.
> > > Fish
> > > > >> and
> > > > >>>> Wildlife Service to expand hunting opportunities on National
> > > Wildlife
> > > > >>>> Refuges. Based on my memory, I believe this to be true (though
> I
> > > > >> haven't
> > > > >>>> done the research to verify it). The current proposal from
> > > Missisquoi
> > > > >> NWR
> > > > >>>> is apparently the result of this directive. I know the
> employees
> > at
> > > > >>>> Missisquoi want as much as anyone to protect the flora and fauna
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > >>>> refuge. It's very likely that they are being required to submit
> > > this
> > > > >>>> expanded hunting proposal, and that they are doing it in a way
> > that
> > > > >>>> protects the refuge as much as possible.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Increasing hunting on some very large refuges in very low
> > population
> > > > >> areas
> > > > >>>> would probably result in little additional hunting pressure on
> the
> > > > >> allowed
> > > > >>>> species. I suspect it is these large, remote refuges that the
> > > > previous
> > > > >>>> administration had in mind when encouraging more hunting.
> > However,
> > > > >>>> Missisquoi is a relatively small refuge (about 6800 acres, of
> > which
> > > > >> about
> > > > >>>> 40% is off-limits to hunting anyway) in a relatively populated
> > area.
> > > > I
> > > > >>>> hope that these factors are taken into consideration when the
> > > proposed
> > > > >> plan
> > > > >>>> is evaluated.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> While it might be somewhat useful to object to additional
> hunting
> > on
> > > > >> this
> > > > >>>> particular refuge, another option would be to question the
> > expanded
> > > > >> hunting
> > > > >>>> policy in general and to advocate for its being reverted to the
> > old
> > > > >>>> policy. Possible contacts would be Senators Leahy and Sanders,
> > > > >>>> Representative Welch, and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Part of the reason for my original post (possibly not
> > > > well-articulated)
> > > > >> was
> > > > >>>> to point out that to object to hunting on a refuge "because
> it's a
> > > > >> refuge"
> > > > >>>> won't be very persuasive, since controlled hunting *is* allowed
> on
> > > > >> National
> > > > >>>> Wildlife Refuges. More persuasive would be objections to
> specific
> > > > >> species
> > > > >>>> and their role in the ecosystem, and to specific methods of
> > hunting,
> > > > >> such
> > > > >>>> as with dogs.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>> --Ken Copenhaver
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:08 AM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Hi Elinor,
> > > > >>>>> Here's a recent Action Alert with information on who to write
> at
> > > > >> Missisquoi
> > > > >>>>> and Conte for those interested:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://mailchi.mp/c1961eac9d14/action-alert-usfws-to-expand-hunting-on-vermonts-wildlife-refuges
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Brenna Galdenzi
> > > > >>>>> Stowe, VT
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 8:56 AM Elinor Osborn <
> > > > >>>>> <0000037bc09f69f4-dmarc-request...> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Can someone please give an address to contact Mississquoi
> about
> > > > this?
> > > > >>>>>> Elinor
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Elinor Osborn
> > > > >>>>>> 1286 Lost Nation Rd
> > > > >>>>>> Craftsbury Common VT 05827
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> 802 586-9994
> > > > >>>>>> <elinor91...>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2021, at 8:54 AM, Mark Paul <mrpbirder...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Well said John!
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:53 AM John Aberth <
> > > <johnaberth1...>
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> We should not be allowing more hunting on the Missisquoi
> > > Wildlife
> > > > >>>>>> Refuge.
> > > > >>>>>>>> This is supposed to be a refuge, not a killing ground.
> > Woodcock
> > > > are
> > > > >>>>>> already
> > > > >>>>>>>> listed as a species of concern. Hounding causes great
> > > destruction
> > > > to
> > > > >>>>>>>> nesting birds and other species incidentally targeted by the
> > > > hounds
> > > > >> as
> > > > >>>>>> they
> > > > >>>>>>>> run loose over the land. Vermont birders need to step up and
> > > speak
> > > > >> out
> > > > >>>>>>>> against this plan to expand hunting if they really care
> about
> > > > birds.
> > > > >>>>>> Let's
> > > > >>>>>>>> not just post our appreciation for these animals, but really
> > do
> > > > >>>>>> something
> > > > >>>>>>>> for a change and make a difference.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> John Aberth
> > > > >>>>>>>> Roxbury, VT
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 12:29 PM Ken Copenhaver <
> > > > <copenhvr...>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Despite being called "refuges" and despite whatever ideas
> > > people
> > > > >>>>> might
> > > > >>>>>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>> about what a "refuge" should be, hunting is one of the
> > allowed
> > > > >>>>>> activities
> > > > >>>>>>>>> on National Wildlife Refuges. As I understand it, each
> > refuge
> > > is
> > > > >>>>>>>> required
> > > > >>>>>>>>> to submit a plan justifying what species may and may not be
> > > > hunted
> > > > >> on
> > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>> refuge. The plan is then accepted or rejected by the
> > regional
> > > > >> office
> > > > >>>>>>>> based
> > > > >>>>>>>>> on its adherence to national standards for hunting on
> > refuges.
> > > > >>>>> Species
> > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>> selected based on sustainability and balance, among other
> > > > factors,
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>>> based on known population data. The "take" is closely
> > > controlled
> > > > >> by
> > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>> number of permits issued.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hunters have a large stake in the very existence of the
> > refuge
> > > > >>>>> system.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Much of the cost of land acquisition, particularly refuges
> > that
> > > > >>>>> include
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wetlands, has been paid for with proceeds from the sale of
> > Duck
> > > > >>>>> Stamps.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Waterfowl hunters are required to buy Duck Stamps, and many
> > > > >>>>> non-hunters
> > > > >>>>>>>> buy
> > > > >>>>>>>>> them to support land conservation. This is from the U.S.
> > Fish
> > > > and
> > > > >>>>>>>> Wildlife
> > > > >>>>>>>>> website:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> "For every dollar you spend on Federal *Duck Stamps*,
> > > > ninety-eight
> > > > >>>>>> cents
> > > > >>>>>>>>> goes directly to purchase vital habitat or acquire
> > conservation
> > > > >>>>>> easements
> > > > >>>>>>>>> for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
> Since
> > > > 1934,
> > > > >> 6
> > > > >>>>>>>>> million acres have been acquired using Federal *Duck Stamp*
> > > > >>>>> revenues."
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> While I gave up hunting decades ago, I understand why
> people
> > > hunt
> > > > >>>>> and I
> > > > >>>>>>>>> understand why hunting is allowed on National Wildlife
> > Refuges.
> > > > >>>>>>>> However, I
> > > > >>>>>>>>> do have reservations about using dogs for hunting other
> than
> > > for
> > > > >>>>>>>>> waterfowl. If dogs will be allowed to run through the
> > woods, I
> > > > >> think
> > > > >>>>>>>> they
> > > > >>>>>>>>> will be unacceptably destructive considering the relatively
> > > small
> > > > >>>>>> amount
> > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>> woodlands available on the Missisquoi refuge. That's my
> gut
> > > > feel,
> > > > >>>>>> based
> > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>>> no data.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Ken Copenhaver
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> www.avg.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:39 AM Barbara Brosnan <
> > > > >> <bbrosnan...>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the heads up. I did send our objection to
> > > adding
> > > > >>>>> Snipe
> > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Woodcock to the prey list as well as coyote, red fox
> etc. I
> > > > also
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> remembered to include Missisquoi NWR in the subject line.
> > My
> > > > >>>>> husband
> > > > >>>>>>>>> added
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> his name to our email as well.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Barbara Brosnan
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Weybridge
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> From: Vermont Birds <VTBIRD...> On Behalf Of
> > Brenna
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2021 11:03 AM
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> To: <VTBIRD...>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> If you wish to comment, please note "Missisquoi NWR" in
> the
> > > > >> subject
> > > > >>>>>>>> line
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> of an email, and address to "<HuntFishRuleComments...>
> "
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Brenna
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:00 AM Barbara Powers <
> > > > >>>>>> <barkiepvt...>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Please don’t expand the number of species that can be
> > hunted
> > > at
> > > > >> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge. The point of a refuge is to
> > > have a
> > > > >>>>> safe
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> place where a variety of species can refuel and rest and
> be
> > > > safe
> > > > >>>>>>>> while
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> actively pursuing their lives. There are so many other
> > places
> > > > in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vermont available for hunting. Opening up the refuge
> would
> > > > >> totally
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> change the safety of the area for species that are
> already
> > > > under
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> survival stress.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for considering this opinion.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Barbara Powers
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manchester Center, Vermont
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
 

Back to top
Date: 6/30/21 5:10 am
From: Brenna <dbgaldenzi...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
Hello Charlie,
Before asking folks to participate in a public comment process, I am always
sure to know exactly what it is that is being proposed. What you've noted
is not a thorough accounting of the proposed changes. The Plan seeks to not
only open hunting to include snipe, woodcock and also skunk, opossum,
weasel, and coyote that you noted, but also raccoon, grey and red fox.
Hounds may be used to pursue coyotes, foxes, and raccoons, so hounding will
be an allowable activity. The VT Fish & Wildlife Dept does not require any
reporting of these species that are hunted nor are there any bag limits.
There are also no wanton waste prohibitions around the hunting of these
animals. Where did you read that hunters will be required to report their
kills? I don't recall any special use permits being required.

It is not up to me to assume how many people may choose to hunt Missisquoi
for these additional species, but I do know that Vermont has its share of
predator haters just like see out West with wolves. These hunters hold
complete disdain for coyotes, especially, who they view as competition over
those species they wish to hunt. The wanton waste and unethical acts I've
witnessed
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bfs9Wsme0ZCw9vDf-gyasaf1fVFCUfLs/view>directed
at coyotes in VT is unthinkable and these hunters will undoubtedly take
advantage of new land to hunt.

The hunting at Conte is much worse than Missisquoi, namely because they
allow bear and bobcat hunting, including hounding *that starts on June 1st*
during the training season. This places ground nesting birds like the
spruce grouse in direct danger as well as deer fawn, moose calves etc. If
the federally protected Canada lynx is still on Conte, they will be in
danger by bobcat hunters and hounders. I encourage people to read this
action alert on Conte:
https://mailchi.mp/c138ee913de5/stop-hounding-on-vermonts-national-wildlife-refuge?e=d9f570b96a

*Thanks,*
*Brenna Galdenzi*



On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:19 AM Charlie La Rosa <charlie.larosa...>
wrote:

> Thank you, Ken, for your reasoned and detailed additional comments and the
> links you have provided in this thread.
>
> I encourage everyone interested in this thread to read the actual refuge
> plan update in full. We should all be on the same page! (Sorry. Couldn't
> resist.)
>
> https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Missisquoi_Web%20Opening%20Package.pdf
>
> As I read it, I noted that there is no mention of bear hunting either with
> or without dogs. The only big game that I saw mentioned was white-tailed
> deer. Even wild turkeys were not included. Thus, although I have not
> contacted refuge personnel, it looks like the "hounding" issue may be moot
> in any case. Beagles could still be used for rabbit/hare hunting, and I
> have never seen any damage done by beagles beyond tracks in the mud. As
> mentioned above, using pointing/flushing/retrieving dogs is a good thing.
> Retrievers are actually required for waterfowl hunting within the refuge in
> some situations. Another good thing.
>
> I believe the sense of the use of the term "inviolate" in the original act
> creating the refuges was not meant to exclude hunting. It referred more to
> maintaining the geographical integrity of the unit and prohibiting
> commercial uses and possible destruction of valuable habitat. One reason
> for creating refuges was to provide habitat beneficial to wildlife and to
> maintain populations in healthy numbers that would be sufficient to
> actually allow for contolled hunting. Those who supported the act had
> witnessed the decline in habitat and wildlife as farming progressively took
> over the prairies and the pothole environments were eliminated. They wanted
> to stop the loss of something they valued. Both on and off refuges, species
> that have always had smaller populations are protected by allowing only a
> small number of individuals to be taken, only certain numbers of each sex,
> or none at all.
>
> Hunting is actually quite restrictive on the Missisquoi refuge as it is on
> other federal refuges and state lands like Dead Creek. The number of people
> hunting at Missisquoi, for example, is restricted, large parts of the
> refuge are off-limits completely for hunting, there are rules
> specifying which species may be taken and how many individuals can be
> taken, and all hunters must complete a form at the end of the day showing
> what species were killed and how many.
>
> The allowing of hunting of skunk, opossum, weasel, and coyote in some parts
> of the refuge may have (although I have no evidence) more to do with
> complying with federal policies promoted during the previous administration
> than any desire to greatly increase hunting. With the possible exception of
> coyote, the number of hunters who actually gear up to go out and seek
> skunk, opossum, and either species of weasel is very small. I know a few
> folks who do pursue coyote. In any case, I'm fully confident that if the
> numbers of these species, or any others, indicated that hunting should be
> scaled back that the refuge personnel would do that as is stated in the
> draft plan.
>
> We tend to react quickly when we hear or read of something that sounds
> terrible to us. Pretty natural stuff. It appears that the changes proposed
> in the draft plan are minor and will be of little consequence. I expect
> that those who frequent the refuge will notice no change in the environment
> or in the number of individuals and species present on the refuge from year
> to year due to activities on the refuge. What happens off the refuge as
> development expands and habitats shrink or change due to natural succession
> or climate change is a different problem. As always, we have a right and
> sometimes a duty to question policy proposals and to seek data from the
> refuge personnel that supports any changes they may recommend. I am glad
> that there are people out there who are concerned about such things and who
> keep their eye on the ball.
>
> By the way, the blinds put up in the refuge can be a great place to watch
> and photograph wildlife, especially waterfowl, prior to the hunting season.
> If you go out in a canoe or kayak, keep an eye on the weather. Crossing
> those bays can be dangerous in the dark in a stiff fall wind if you're
> trying to get out there early.
>
> I also encourage working with the VT Fish and Wildlife Department, making
> use of their resources, and offering your help in teaching classes. I took
> the Wildlife Management for Educators course years ago at the facility on
> Buck Lake. I got to work in the field with department biologists during the
> day and participate in classroom work and even formal policy debates in the
> evening. There was an outdoor birding class, too! The course is a full week
> and is still being offered today. I'll copy the link below. Also, monitor
> the activities and events articles and newsletters on the department
> website. Some of them may not be up your alley, but it's good to attend
> some and learn more about wildlife, hunting and fishing, management policy
> and proposals, and meet some folks you might not normally run into. The
> course at Buck Lake is offered for graduate credit but is offered to
> informal teachers, as well. I know that includes quite a few of us.
>
>
> https://vtfishandwildlife.com/learn-more/conservation-education/wildlife-management-and-outdoor-education-techniques-for-educators
>
> Charlie La Rosa
> So. Washington
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:29 AM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
> wrote:
>
> > More info on expanded hunting opportunities from CORFA (Coalition of
> Refuge
> > Friends and Advocates):
> >
> >
> https://coalitionofrefugefriends.com/2020/04/17/expanding-hunting-fishing-at-refuges-hatcheries/
> >
> > And a more comprehensive article from NWRA (National Wildlife Refuge
> > Association):
> >
> >
> https://www.refugeassociation.org/news/2020/4/16/examining-the-new-draft-regulations-expanding-hunting-and-fishing-on-national-wildlife-refuges
> > Their greatest concern wasn't the hunting itself, but the underfunding of
> > refuges resulting in inadequate enforcement and administrative
> > capabilities. Since this was written in 2020, the Refuge System has
> > received some additional funding. Time will tell how that translates
> into
> > better staffing.
> >
> > --Ken Copenhaver
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:59 AM lawlor <lawlor.coleen...> wrote:
> >
> > > I want to support our conversation on helping MWR, as well as birds
> and
> > > other species in Vermont. I am glad we are discussing this and very
> > > pleased to hear a variety of thoughts . In particular want to thank
> you,
> > > Ken, for the suggestion we contact our representatives. I can’t believe
> > it
> > > hadn’t crossed my mind on this issue, but it hadn’t.
> > >
> > > Do more for birds.
> > > Coleen Lawlor,
> > > Rockingham Vermont
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Jun 28, 2021, at 10:03 PM, Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I should have made the distinction between bird dogs and other dogs,
> > > > referred to here as hounds. In fact, the refuge strongly encourages
> > the
> > > > use of retrievers for waterfowl hunting, and in some areas requires
> > them.
> > > > See
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/map/?facility=Missisquoi+National+Wildlife+Refuge
> > > >
> > > > --Ken
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 6:38 PM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I hope you don’t mind if I share my perspective? I take no issue
> with
> > > bird
> > > >> dogs. In fact, they assist the hunter in preventing wanton waste.
> > > >>
> > > >> I consider the hounding of coyotes, bears, and other animals akin to
> > > >> animal fighting where six or more hounds run down one animal to the
> > > point
> > > >> of exhaustion. There is a lot of info here if folks are
> > interested—much
> > > >> different from bird dogs:
> > > >> https://www.protectourwildlifevt.org/hunting-with-hounds
> > > >>
> > > >> Brenna
> > > >>
> > > >> Sent from my iPhone, which has been known to mess with me.
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Jun 28, 2021, at 6:31 PM, BRUCE FLEWELLING <
> > > >> <bflewelling3263...> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Mr. Coperhaven,
> > > >>> Do I understand your comment "--specific methods of hunting, such
> as
> > > >> with dogs." to include all dogs, including retrievers? As I'm sure
> you
> > > >> know, a good retriever is vital in assuring that upland birds and
> > > waterfowl
> > > >> are recovered and counted in the daily bag limits.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Bruce Flewelling
> > > >>> RT. 73, Rochester
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On 06/28/2021 5:44 PM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have a few thoughts to add to this discussion. At least one
> > person
> > > >>>> mentioned that the previous administration had directed the U.S.
> > Fish
> > > >> and
> > > >>>> Wildlife Service to expand hunting opportunities on National
> > Wildlife
> > > >>>> Refuges. Based on my memory, I believe this to be true (though I
> > > >> haven't
> > > >>>> done the research to verify it). The current proposal from
> > Missisquoi
> > > >> NWR
> > > >>>> is apparently the result of this directive. I know the employees
> at
> > > >>>> Missisquoi want as much as anyone to protect the flora and fauna
> of
> > > the
> > > >>>> refuge. It's very likely that they are being required to submit
> > this
> > > >>>> expanded hunting proposal, and that they are doing it in a way
> that
> > > >>>> protects the refuge as much as possible.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Increasing hunting on some very large refuges in very low
> population
> > > >> areas
> > > >>>> would probably result in little additional hunting pressure on the
> > > >> allowed
> > > >>>> species. I suspect it is these large, remote refuges that the
> > > previous
> > > >>>> administration had in mind when encouraging more hunting.
> However,
> > > >>>> Missisquoi is a relatively small refuge (about 6800 acres, of
> which
> > > >> about
> > > >>>> 40% is off-limits to hunting anyway) in a relatively populated
> area.
> > > I
> > > >>>> hope that these factors are taken into consideration when the
> > proposed
> > > >> plan
> > > >>>> is evaluated.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> While it might be somewhat useful to object to additional hunting
> on
> > > >> this
> > > >>>> particular refuge, another option would be to question the
> expanded
> > > >> hunting
> > > >>>> policy in general and to advocate for its being reverted to the
> old
> > > >>>> policy. Possible contacts would be Senators Leahy and Sanders,
> > > >>>> Representative Welch, and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Part of the reason for my original post (possibly not
> > > well-articulated)
> > > >> was
> > > >>>> to point out that to object to hunting on a refuge "because it's a
> > > >> refuge"
> > > >>>> won't be very persuasive, since controlled hunting *is* allowed on
> > > >> National
> > > >>>> Wildlife Refuges. More persuasive would be objections to specific
> > > >> species
> > > >>>> and their role in the ecosystem, and to specific methods of
> hunting,
> > > >> such
> > > >>>> as with dogs.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> --Ken Copenhaver
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:08 AM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Hi Elinor,
> > > >>>>> Here's a recent Action Alert with information on who to write at
> > > >> Missisquoi
> > > >>>>> and Conte for those interested:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://mailchi.mp/c1961eac9d14/action-alert-usfws-to-expand-hunting-on-vermonts-wildlife-refuges
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Brenna Galdenzi
> > > >>>>> Stowe, VT
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 8:56 AM Elinor Osborn <
> > > >>>>> <0000037bc09f69f4-dmarc-request...> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Can someone please give an address to contact Mississquoi about
> > > this?
> > > >>>>>> Elinor
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Elinor Osborn
> > > >>>>>> 1286 Lost Nation Rd
> > > >>>>>> Craftsbury Common VT 05827
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 802 586-9994
> > > >>>>>> <elinor91...>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2021, at 8:54 AM, Mark Paul <mrpbirder...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Well said John!
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:53 AM John Aberth <
> > <johnaberth1...>
> > > >
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> We should not be allowing more hunting on the Missisquoi
> > Wildlife
> > > >>>>>> Refuge.
> > > >>>>>>>> This is supposed to be a refuge, not a killing ground.
> Woodcock
> > > are
> > > >>>>>> already
> > > >>>>>>>> listed as a species of concern. Hounding causes great
> > destruction
> > > to
> > > >>>>>>>> nesting birds and other species incidentally targeted by the
> > > hounds
> > > >> as
> > > >>>>>> they
> > > >>>>>>>> run loose over the land. Vermont birders need to step up and
> > speak
> > > >> out
> > > >>>>>>>> against this plan to expand hunting if they really care about
> > > birds.
> > > >>>>>> Let's
> > > >>>>>>>> not just post our appreciation for these animals, but really
> do
> > > >>>>>> something
> > > >>>>>>>> for a change and make a difference.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> John Aberth
> > > >>>>>>>> Roxbury, VT
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 12:29 PM Ken Copenhaver <
> > > <copenhvr...>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Despite being called "refuges" and despite whatever ideas
> > people
> > > >>>>> might
> > > >>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>> about what a "refuge" should be, hunting is one of the
> allowed
> > > >>>>>> activities
> > > >>>>>>>>> on National Wildlife Refuges. As I understand it, each
> refuge
> > is
> > > >>>>>>>> required
> > > >>>>>>>>> to submit a plan justifying what species may and may not be
> > > hunted
> > > >> on
> > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>> refuge. The plan is then accepted or rejected by the
> regional
> > > >> office
> > > >>>>>>>> based
> > > >>>>>>>>> on its adherence to national standards for hunting on
> refuges.
> > > >>>>> Species
> > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>> selected based on sustainability and balance, among other
> > > factors,
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>> based on known population data. The "take" is closely
> > controlled
> > > >> by
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>> number of permits issued.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hunters have a large stake in the very existence of the
> refuge
> > > >>>>> system.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Much of the cost of land acquisition, particularly refuges
> that
> > > >>>>> include
> > > >>>>>>>>> wetlands, has been paid for with proceeds from the sale of
> Duck
> > > >>>>> Stamps.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Waterfowl hunters are required to buy Duck Stamps, and many
> > > >>>>> non-hunters
> > > >>>>>>>> buy
> > > >>>>>>>>> them to support land conservation. This is from the U.S.
> Fish
> > > and
> > > >>>>>>>> Wildlife
> > > >>>>>>>>> website:
> > > >>>>>>>>> "For every dollar you spend on Federal *Duck Stamps*,
> > > ninety-eight
> > > >>>>>> cents
> > > >>>>>>>>> goes directly to purchase vital habitat or acquire
> conservation
> > > >>>>>> easements
> > > >>>>>>>>> for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Since
> > > 1934,
> > > >> 6
> > > >>>>>>>>> million acres have been acquired using Federal *Duck Stamp*
> > > >>>>> revenues."
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> While I gave up hunting decades ago, I understand why people
> > hunt
> > > >>>>> and I
> > > >>>>>>>>> understand why hunting is allowed on National Wildlife
> Refuges.
> > > >>>>>>>> However, I
> > > >>>>>>>>> do have reservations about using dogs for hunting other than
> > for
> > > >>>>>>>>> waterfowl. If dogs will be allowed to run through the
> woods, I
> > > >> think
> > > >>>>>>>> they
> > > >>>>>>>>> will be unacceptably destructive considering the relatively
> > small
> > > >>>>>> amount
> > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>> woodlands available on the Missisquoi refuge. That's my gut
> > > feel,
> > > >>>>>> based
> > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>> no data.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>> Ken Copenhaver
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
> > > >>>>>>>>> www.avg.com
> > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:39 AM Barbara Brosnan <
> > > >> <bbrosnan...>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the heads up. I did send our objection to
> > adding
> > > >>>>> Snipe
> > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Woodcock to the prey list as well as coyote, red fox etc. I
> > > also
> > > >>>>>>>>>> remembered to include Missisquoi NWR in the subject line.
> My
> > > >>>>> husband
> > > >>>>>>>>> added
> > > >>>>>>>>>> his name to our email as well.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Barbara Brosnan
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Weybridge
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>>>>> From: Vermont Birds <VTBIRD...> On Behalf Of
> Brenna
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2021 11:03 AM
> > > >>>>>>>>>> To: <VTBIRD...>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> If you wish to comment, please note "Missisquoi NWR" in the
> > > >> subject
> > > >>>>>>>> line
> > > >>>>>>>>>> of an email, and address to "<HuntFishRuleComments...>"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Brenna
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:00 AM Barbara Powers <
> > > >>>>>> <barkiepvt...>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Please don’t expand the number of species that can be
> hunted
> > at
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge. The point of a refuge is to
> > have a
> > > >>>>> safe
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> place where a variety of species can refuel and rest and be
> > > safe
> > > >>>>>>>> while
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> actively pursuing their lives. There are so many other
> places
> > > in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vermont available for hunting. Opening up the refuge would
> > > >> totally
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> change the safety of the area for species that are already
> > > under
> > > >>>>>>>>>> survival stress.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for considering this opinion.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Barbara Powers
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manchester Center, Vermont
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
 

Back to top
Date: 6/30/21 4:32 am
From: Veer Frost <0000038039fb4cf6-dmarc-request...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
I seem to be failing to find in Charlie's deeply reasonable and
generous summation of why we shouldn't be getting our knickers in a
twist about the expanded hunting proposal at Missisquoi any reference
to the inclusion of declining bird species, unless it is the line
referring to the management principle that, upon determining that a
decline has gone a bit too far, fewer will be allowed to be taken.
Good news for all concerned. My personal belief is that what hides
behind pure reason is now evident in our dying world. The current
comment call is an opportunity to influence a very small bird-related
matter yet one that has the potential to save a few small and
beautiful lives. There will still be plenty of 'take' to be taken.Veer
Frost, Passumpsic

On 6/30/2021 at 12:19 AM, "Charlie La Rosa" wrote:Thank you, Ken, for
your reasoned and detailed additional comments and the
links you have provided in this thread.

I encourage everyone interested in this thread to read the actual
refuge
plan update in full. We should all be on the same page! (Sorry.
Couldn't
resist.)

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Missisquoi_Web%20Opening%20Package.pdf

As I read it, I noted that there is no mention of bear hunting either
with
or without dogs. The only big game that I saw mentioned was
white-tailed
deer. Even wild turkeys were not included. Thus, although I have not
contacted refuge personnel, it looks like the "hounding" issue may be
moot
in any case. Beagles could still be used for rabbit/hare hunting, and
I
have never seen any damage done by beagles beyond tracks in the mud.
As
mentioned above, using pointing/flushing/retrieving dogs is a good
thing.
Retrievers are actually required for waterfowl hunting within the
refuge in
some situations. Another good thing.

I believe the sense of the use of the term "inviolate" in the original
act
creating the refuges was not meant to exclude hunting. It referred
more to
maintaining the geographical integrity of the unit and prohibiting
commercial uses and possible destruction of valuable habitat. One
reason
for creating refuges was to provide habitat beneficial to wildlife and
to
maintain populations in healthy numbers that would be sufficient to
actually allow for contolled hunting. Those who supported the act had
witnessed the decline in habitat and wildlife as farming progressively
took
over the prairies and the pothole environments were eliminated. They
wanted
to stop the loss of something they valued. Both on and off refuges,
species
that have always had smaller populations are protected by allowing
only a
small number of individuals to be taken, only certain numbers of each
sex,
or none at all.

Hunting is actually quite restrictive on the Missisquoi refuge as it
is on
other federal refuges and state lands like Dead Creek. The number of
people
hunting at Missisquoi, for example, is restricted, large parts of the
refuge are off-limits completely for hunting, there are rules
specifying which species may be taken and how many individuals can be
taken, and all hunters must complete a form at the end of the day
showing
what species were killed and how many.

The allowing of hunting of skunk, opossum, weasel, and coyote in some
parts
of the refuge may have (although I have no evidence) more to do with
complying with federal policies promoted during the previous
administration
than any desire to greatly increase hunting. With the possible
exception of
coyote, the number of hunters who actually gear up to go out and seek
skunk, opossum, and either species of weasel is very small. I know a
few
folks who do pursue coyote. In any case, I'm fully confident that if
the
numbers of these species, or any others, indicated that hunting should
be
scaled back that the refuge personnel would do that as is stated in
the
draft plan.

We tend to react quickly when we hear or read of something that sounds
terrible to us. Pretty natural stuff. It appears that the changes
proposed
in the draft plan are minor and will be of little consequence. I
expect
that those who frequent the refuge will notice no change in the
environment
or in the number of individuals and species present on the refuge from
year
to year due to activities on the refuge. What happens off the refuge
as
development expands and habitats shrink or change due to natural
succession
or climate change is a different problem. As always, we have a right
and
sometimes a duty to question policy proposals and to seek data from
the
refuge personnel that supports any changes they may recommend. I am
glad
that there are people out there who are concerned about such things
and who
keep their eye on the ball.

By the way, the blinds put up in the refuge can be a great place to
watch
and photograph wildlife, especially waterfowl, prior to the hunting
season.
If you go out in a canoe or kayak, keep an eye on the weather.
Crossing
those bays can be dangerous in the dark in a stiff fall wind if you're
trying to get out there early.

I also encourage working with the VT Fish and Wildlife Department,
making
use of their resources, and offering your help in teaching classes. I
took
the Wildlife Management for Educators course years ago at the facility
on
Buck Lake. I got to work in the field with department biologists
during the
day and participate in classroom work and even formal policy debates
in the
evening. There was an outdoor birding class, too! The course is a full
week
and is still being offered today. I'll copy the link below. Also,
monitor
the activities and events articles and newsletters on the department
website. Some of them may not be up your alley, but it's good to
attend
some and learn more about wildlife, hunting and fishing, management
policy
and proposals, and meet some folks you might not normally run into.
The
course at Buck Lake is offered for graduate credit but is offered to
informal teachers, as well. I know that includes quite a few of us.

https://vtfishandwildlife.com/learn-more/conservation-education/wildlife-management-and-outdoor-education-techniques-for-educators

Charlie La Rosa
So. Washington

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:29 AM Ken Copenhaver wrote:

> More info on expanded hunting opportunities from CORFA (Coalition of
Refuge
> Friends and Advocates):
>
>
https://coalitionofrefugefriends.com/2020/04/17/expanding-hunting-fishing-at-refuges-hatcheries/
>
> And a more comprehensive article from NWRA (National Wildlife Refuge
> Association):
>
>
https://www.refugeassociation.org/news/2020/4/16/examining-the-new-draft-regulations-expanding-hunting-and-fishing-on-national-wildlife-refuges
> Their greatest concern wasn't the hunting itself, but the
underfunding of
> refuges resulting in inadequate enforcement and administrative
> capabilities. Since this was written in 2020, the Refuge System has
> received some additional funding. Time will tell how that
translates into
> better staffing.
>
> --Ken Copenhaver
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:59 AM lawlor wrote:
>
> > I want to support our conversation on helping MWR, as well as
birds and
> > other species in Vermont. I am glad we are discussing this and
very
> > pleased to hear a variety of thoughts . In particular want to
thank you,
> > Ken, for the suggestion we contact our representatives. I can’t
believe
> it
> > hadn’t crossed my mind on this issue, but it hadn’t.
> >
> > Do more for birds.
> > Coleen Lawlor,
> > Rockingham Vermont
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Jun 28, 2021, at 10:03 PM, Ken Copenhaver
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I should have made the distinction between bird dogs and
other dogs,
> > > referred to here as hounds. In fact, the refuge strongly
encourages
> the
> > > use of retrievers for waterfowl hunting, and in some areas
requires
> them.
> > > See
> > >
> >
>
https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/map/?facility=Missisquoi+National+Wildlife+Refuge
> > >
> > > --Ken
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 6:38 PM Brenna wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I hope you don’t mind if I share my perspective? I take no
issue with
> > bird
> > >> dogs. In fact, they assist the hunter in preventing wanton
waste.
> > >>
> > >> I consider the hounding of coyotes, bears, and other animals
akin to
> > >> animal fighting where six or more hounds run down one animal to
the
> > point
> > >> of exhaustion. There is a lot of info here if folks are
> interested—much
> > >> different from bird dogs:
> > >> https://www.protectourwildlifevt.org/hunting-with-hounds
> > >>
> > >> Brenna
> > >>
> > >> Sent from my iPhone, which has been known to mess with me.
> > >>
> > >>> On Jun 28, 2021, at 6:31 PM, BRUCE FLEWELLING <
> > >> <bflewelling3263...> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Mr. Coperhaven,
> > >>> Do I understand your comment "--specific methods of hunting,
such as
> > >> with dogs." to include all dogs, including retrievers? As I'm
sure you
> > >> know, a good retriever is vital in assuring that upland birds
and
> > waterfowl
> > >> are recovered and counted in the daily bag limits.
> > >>>
> > >>> Bruce Flewelling
> > >>> RT. 73, Rochester
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 06/28/2021 5:44 PM Ken Copenhaver wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have a few thoughts to add to this discussion. At least
one
> person
> > >>>> mentioned that the previous administration had directed the
U.S.
> Fish
> > >> and
> > >>>> Wildlife Service to expand hunting opportunities on National
> Wildlife
> > >>>> Refuges. Based on my memory, I believe this to be true
(though I
> > >> haven't
> > >>>> done the research to verify it). The current proposal from
> Missisquoi
> > >> NWR
> > >>>> is apparently the result of this directive. I know the
employees at
> > >>>> Missisquoi want as much as anyone to protect the flora and
fauna of
> > the
> > >>>> refuge. It's very likely that they are being required to
submit
> this
> > >>>> expanded hunting proposal, and that they are doing it in a
way that
> > >>>> protects the refuge as much as possible.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Increasing hunting on some very large refuges in very low
population
> > >> areas
> > >>>> would probably result in little additional hunting pressure
on the
> > >> allowed
> > >>>> species. I suspect it is these large, remote refuges that
the
> > previous
> > >>>> administration had in mind when encouraging more hunting.
However,
> > >>>> Missisquoi is a relatively small refuge (about 6800 acres, of
which
> > >> about
> > >>>> 40% is off-limits to hunting anyway) in a relatively
populated area.
> > I
> > >>>> hope that these factors are taken into consideration when the
> proposed
> > >> plan
> > >>>> is evaluated.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> While it might be somewhat useful to object to additional
hunting on
> > >> this
> > >>>> particular refuge, another option would be to question the
expanded
> > >> hunting
> > >>>> policy in general and to advocate for its being reverted to
the old
> > >>>> policy. Possible contacts would be Senators Leahy and
Sanders,
> > >>>> Representative Welch, and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Part of the reason for my original post (possibly not
> > well-articulated)
> > >> was
> > >>>> to point out that to object to hunting on a refuge "because
it's a
> > >> refuge"
> > >>>> won't be very persuasive, since controlled hunting *is*
allowed on
> > >> National
> > >>>> Wildlife Refuges. More persuasive would be objections to
specific
> > >> species
> > >>>> and their role in the ecosystem, and to specific methods of
hunting,
> > >> such
> > >>>> as with dogs.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> --Ken Copenhaver
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:08 AM Brenna
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Elinor,
> > >>>>> Here's a recent Action Alert with information on who to
write at
> > >> Missisquoi
> > >>>>> and Conte for those interested:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>
> >
>
https://mailchi.mp/c1961eac9d14/action-alert-usfws-to-expand-hunting-on-vermonts-wildlife-refuges
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Brenna Galdenzi
> > >>>>> Stowe, VT
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 8:56 AM Elinor Osborn <
> > >>>>> <0000037bc09f69f4-dmarc-request...> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Can someone please give an address to contact Mississquoi
about
> > this?
> > >>>>>> Elinor
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Elinor Osborn
> > >>>>>> 1286 Lost Nation Rd
> > >>>>>> Craftsbury Common VT 05827
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 802 586-9994
> > >>>>>> <elinor91...>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2021, at 8:54 AM, Mark Paul
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Well said John!
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:53 AM John Aberth <
> <johnaberth1...>
> > >
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> We should not be allowing more hunting on the Missisquoi
> Wildlife
> > >>>>>> Refuge.
> > >>>>>>>> This is supposed to be a refuge, not a killing ground.
Woodcock
> > are
> > >>>>>> already
> > >>>>>>>> listed as a species of concern. Hounding causes great
> destruction
> > to
> > >>>>>>>> nesting birds and other species incidentally targeted by
the
> > hounds
> > >> as
> > >>>>>> they
> > >>>>>>>> run loose over the land. Vermont birders need to step up
and
> speak
> > >> out
> > >>>>>>>> against this plan to expand hunting if they really care
about
> > birds.
> > >>>>>> Let's
> > >>>>>>>> not just post our appreciation for these animals, but
really do
> > >>>>>> something
> > >>>>>>>> for a change and make a difference.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> John Aberth
> > >>>>>>>> Roxbury, VT
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 12:29 PM Ken Copenhaver <
> > <copenhvr...>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Despite being called "refuges" and despite whatever
ideas
> people
> > >>>>> might
> > >>>>>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>>> about what a "refuge" should be, hunting is one of the
allowed
> > >>>>>> activities
> > >>>>>>>>> on National Wildlife Refuges. As I understand it, each
refuge
> is
> > >>>>>>>> required
> > >>>>>>>>> to submit a plan justifying what species may and may not
be
> > hunted
> > >> on
> > >>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>> refuge. The plan is then accepted or rejected by the
regional
> > >> office
> > >>>>>>>> based
> > >>>>>>>>> on its adherence to national standards for hunting on
refuges.
> > >>>>> Species
> > >>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>> selected based on sustainability and balance, among
other
> > factors,
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>> based on known population data. The "take" is closely
> controlled
> > >> by
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> number of permits issued.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hunters have a large stake in the very existence of the
refuge
> > >>>>> system.
> > >>>>>>>>> Much of the cost of land acquisition, particularly
refuges that
> > >>>>> include
> > >>>>>>>>> wetlands, has been paid for with proceeds from the sale
of Duck
> > >>>>> Stamps.
> > >>>>>>>>> Waterfowl hunters are required to buy Duck Stamps, and
many
> > >>>>> non-hunters
> > >>>>>>>> buy
> > >>>>>>>>> them to support land conservation. This is from the
U.S. Fish
> > and
> > >>>>>>>> Wildlife
> > >>>>>>>>> website:
> > >>>>>>>>> "For every dollar you spend on Federal *Duck Stamps*,
> > ninety-eight
> > >>>>>> cents
> > >>>>>>>>> goes directly to purchase vital habitat or acquire
conservation
> > >>>>>> easements
> > >>>>>>>>> for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Since
> > 1934,
> > >> 6
> > >>>>>>>>> million acres have been acquired using Federal *Duck
Stamp*
> > >>>>> revenues."
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> While I gave up hunting decades ago, I understand why
people
> hunt
> > >>>>> and I
> > >>>>>>>>> understand why hunting is allowed on National Wildlife
Refuges.
> > >>>>>>>> However, I
> > >>>>>>>>> do have reservations about using dogs for hunting other
than
> for
> > >>>>>>>>> waterfowl. If dogs will be allowed to run through the
woods, I
> > >> think
> > >>>>>>>> they
> > >>>>>>>>> will be unacceptably destructive considering the
relatively
> small
> > >>>>>> amount
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>> woodlands available on the Missisquoi refuge. That's my
gut
> > feel,
> > >>>>>> based
> > >>>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>>> no data.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>> Ken Copenhaver
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>
> >
>
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
> > >>>>>>>>> www.avg.com
> > >>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>
> >
>
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:39 AM Barbara Brosnan <
> > >> <bbrosnan...>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the heads up. I did send our objection
to
> adding
> > >>>>> Snipe
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> Woodcock to the prey list as well as coyote, red fox
etc. I
> > also
> > >>>>>>>>>> remembered to include Missisquoi NWR in the subject
line. My
> > >>>>> husband
> > >>>>>>>>> added
> > >>>>>>>>>> his name to our email as well.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Barbara Brosnan
> > >>>>>>>>>> Weybridge
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>>>>> From: Vermont Birds On Behalf Of Brenna
> > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2021 11:03 AM
> > >>>>>>>>>> To: <VTBIRD...>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara,
> > >>>>>>>>>> If you wish to comment, please note "Missisquoi NWR" in
the
> > >> subject
> > >>>>>>>> line
> > >>>>>>>>>> of an email, and address to
"<HuntFishRuleComments...>"
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Brenna
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:00 AM Barbara Powers <
> > >>>>>> <barkiepvt...>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Please don’t expand the number of species that can
be hunted
> at
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge. The point of a refuge is
to
> have a
> > >>>>> safe
> > >>>>>>>>>>> place where a variety of species can refuel and rest
and be
> > safe
> > >>>>>>>> while
> > >>>>>>>>>>> actively pursuing their lives. There are so many other
places
> > in
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Vermont available for hunting. Opening up the refuge
would
> > >> totally
> > >>>>>>>>>>> change the safety of the area for species that are
already
> > under
> > >>>>>>>>>> survival stress.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for considering this opinion.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Barbara Powers
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Manchester Center, Vermont
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>
> >
>
 

Back to top
Date: 6/30/21 4:11 am
From: Coleen Lawlor <lawlor.coleen...>
Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
Replying to Charlie La Rosa

Hounding is proposed for both Silvio Conte WLRs in Vermont including Putney
Mountain. You can find link to the full proposal at

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_5/NWRS/North_Zone/Silvio_O_Conte_Complex/Silvio_O_Conte/PDFs/Silvio%20O%20Conte%20Hunting%20and%20Fishing%20Plan%202021.pdf


https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_5/NWRS/North_Zone/Silvio_O_Conte_Complex/Silvio_O_Conte/PDFs/Silvio%20O%20Conte%20Hunting%20and%20Fishing%20Plan%202021.pdf

Coleen Lawlor, Rockingham Vermont




On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:19 AM Charlie La Rosa <charlie.larosa...>
wrote:

> Thank you, Ken, for your reasoned and detailed additional comments and the
> links you have provided in this thread.
>
> I encourage everyone interested in this thread to read the actual refuge
> plan update in full. We should all be on the same page! (Sorry. Couldn't
> resist.)
>
> https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Missisquoi_Web%20Opening%20Package.pdf
>
> As I read it, I noted that there is no mention of bear hunting either with
> or without dogs. The only big game that I saw mentioned was white-tailed
> deer. Even wild turkeys were not included. Thus, although I have not
> contacted refuge personnel, it looks like the "hounding" issue may be moot
> in any case. Beagles could still be used for rabbit/hare hunting, and I
> have never seen any damage done by beagles beyond tracks in the mud. As
> mentioned above, using pointing/flushing/retrieving dogs is a good thing.
> Retrievers are actually required for waterfowl hunting within the refuge in
> some situations. Another good thing.
>
> I believe the sense of the use of the term "inviolate" in the original act
> creating the refuges was not meant to exclude hunting. It referred more to
> maintaining the geographical integrity of the unit and prohibiting
> commercial uses and possible destruction of valuable habitat. One reason
> for creating refuges was to provide habitat beneficial to wildlife and to
> maintain populations in healthy numbers that would be sufficient to
> actually allow for contolled hunting. Those who supported the act had
> witnessed the decline in habitat and wildlife as farming progressively took
> over the prairies and the pothole environments were eliminated. They wanted
> to stop the loss of something they valued. Both on and off refuges, species
> that have always had smaller populations are protected by allowing only a
> small number of individuals to be taken, only certain numbers of each sex,
> or none at all.
>
> Hunting is actually quite restrictive on the Missisquoi refuge as it is on
> other federal refuges and state lands like Dead Creek. The number of people
> hunting at Missisquoi, for example, is restricted, large parts of the
> refuge are off-limits completely for hunting, there are rules
> specifying which species may be taken and how many individuals can be
> taken, and all hunters must complete a form at the end of the day showing
> what species were killed and how many.
>
> The allowing of hunting of skunk, opossum, weasel, and coyote in some parts
> of the refuge may have (although I have no evidence) more to do with
> complying with federal policies promoted during the previous administration
> than any desire to greatly increase hunting. With the possible exception of
> coyote, the number of hunters who actually gear up to go out and seek
> skunk, opossum, and either species of weasel is very small. I know a few
> folks who do pursue coyote. In any case, I'm fully confident that if the
> numbers of these species, or any others, indicated that hunting should be
> scaled back that the refuge personnel would do that as is stated in the
> draft plan.
>
> We tend to react quickly when we hear or read of something that sounds
> terrible to us. Pretty natural stuff. It appears that the changes proposed
> in the draft plan are minor and will be of little consequence. I expect
> that those who frequent the refuge will notice no change in the environment
> or in the number of individuals and species present on the refuge from year
> to year due to activities on the refuge. What happens off the refuge as
> development expands and habitats shrink or change due to natural succession
> or climate change is a different problem. As always, we have a right and
> sometimes a duty to question policy proposals and to seek data from the
> refuge personnel that supports any changes they may recommend. I am glad
> that there are people out there who are concerned about such things and who
> keep their eye on the ball.
>
> By the way, the blinds put up in the refuge can be a great place to watch
> and photograph wildlife, especially waterfowl, prior to the hunting season.
> If you go out in a canoe or kayak, keep an eye on the weather. Crossing
> those bays can be dangerous in the dark in a stiff fall wind if you're
> trying to get out there early.
>
> I also encourage working with the VT Fish and Wildlife Department, making
> use of their resources, and offering your help in teaching classes. I took
> the Wildlife Management for Educators course years ago at the facility on
> Buck Lake. I got to work in the field with department biologists during the
> day and participate in classroom work and even formal policy debates in the
> evening. There was an outdoor birding class, too! The course is a full week
> and is still being offered today. I'll copy the link below. Also, monitor
> the activities and events articles and newsletters on the department
> website. Some of them may not be up your alley, but it's good to attend
> some and learn more about wildlife, hunting and fishing, management policy
> and proposals, and meet some folks you might not normally run into. The
> course at Buck Lake is offered for graduate credit but is offered to
> informal teachers, as well. I know that includes quite a few of us.
>
>
> https://vtfishandwildlife.com/learn-more/conservation-education/wildlife-management-and-outdoor-education-techniques-for-educators
>
> Charlie La Rosa
> So. Washington
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:29 AM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
> wrote:
>
> > More info on expanded hunting opportunities from CORFA (Coalition of
> Refuge
> > Friends and Advocates):
> >
> >
> https://coalitionofrefugefriends.com/2020/04/17/expanding-hunting-fishing-at-refuges-hatcheries/
> >
> > And a more comprehensive article from NWRA (National Wildlife Refuge
> > Association):
> >
> >
> https://www.refugeassociation.org/news/2020/4/16/examining-the-new-draft-regulations-expanding-hunting-and-fishing-on-national-wildlife-refuges
> > Their greatest concern wasn't the hunting itself, but the underfunding of
> > refuges resulting in inadequate enforcement and administrative
> > capabilities. Since this was written in 2020, the Refuge System has
> > received some additional funding. Time will tell how that translates
> into
> > better staffing.
> >
> > --Ken Copenhaver
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:59 AM lawlor <lawlor.coleen...> wrote:
> >
> > > I want to support our conversation on helping MWR, as well as birds
> and
> > > other species in Vermont. I am glad we are discussing this and very
> > > pleased to hear a variety of thoughts . In particular want to thank
> you,
> > > Ken, for the suggestion we contact our representatives. I can’t believe
> > it
> > > hadn’t crossed my mind on this issue, but it hadn’t.
> > >
> > > Do more for birds.
> > > Coleen Lawlor,
> > > Rockingham Vermont
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Jun 28, 2021, at 10:03 PM, Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I should have made the distinction between bird dogs and other dogs,
> > > > referred to here as hounds. In fact, the refuge strongly encourages
> > the
> > > > use of retrievers for waterfowl hunting, and in some areas requires
> > them.
> > > > See
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/map/?facility=Missisquoi+National+Wildlife+Refuge
> > > >
> > > > --Ken
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 6:38 PM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I hope you don’t mind if I share my perspective? I take no issue
> with
> > > bird
> > > >> dogs. In fact, they assist the hunter in preventing wanton waste.
> > > >>
> > > >> I consider the hounding of coyotes, bears, and other animals akin to
> > > >> animal fighting where six or more hounds run down one animal to the
> > > point
> > > >> of exhaustion. There is a lot of info here if folks are
> > interested—much
> > > >> different from bird dogs:
> > > >> https://www.protectourwildlifevt.org/hunting-with-hounds
> > > >>
> > > >> Brenna
> > > >>
> > > >> Sent from my iPhone, which has been known to mess with me.
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Jun 28, 2021, at 6:31 PM, BRUCE FLEWELLING <
> > > >> <bflewelling3263...> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Mr. Coperhaven,
> > > >>> Do I understand your comment "--specific methods of hunting, such
> as
> > > >> with dogs." to include all dogs, including retrievers? As I'm sure
> you
> > > >> know, a good retriever is vital in assuring that upland birds and
> > > waterfowl
> > > >> are recovered and counted in the daily bag limits.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Bruce Flewelling
> > > >>> RT. 73, Rochester
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On 06/28/2021 5:44 PM Ken Copenhaver <copenhvr...> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have a few thoughts to add to this discussion. At least one
> > person
> > > >>>> mentioned that the previous administration had directed the U.S.
> > Fish
> > > >> and
> > > >>>> Wildlife Service to expand hunting opportunities on National
> > Wildlife
> > > >>>> Refuges. Based on my memory, I believe this to be true (though I
> > > >> haven't
> > > >>>> done the research to verify it). The current proposal from
> > Missisquoi
> > > >> NWR
> > > >>>> is apparently the result of this directive. I know the employees
> at
> > > >>>> Missisquoi want as much as anyone to protect the flora and fauna
> of
> > > the
> > > >>>> refuge. It's very likely that they are being required to submit
> > this
> > > >>>> expanded hunting proposal, and that they are doing it in a way
> that
> > > >>>> protects the refuge as much as possible.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Increasing hunting on some very large refuges in very low
> population
> > > >> areas
> > > >>>> would probably result in little additional hunting pressure on the
> > > >> allowed
> > > >>>> species. I suspect it is these large, remote refuges that the
> > > previous
> > > >>>> administration had in mind when encouraging more hunting.
> However,
> > > >>>> Missisquoi is a relatively small refuge (about 6800 acres, of
> which
> > > >> about
> > > >>>> 40% is off-limits to hunting anyway) in a relatively populated
> area.
> > > I
> > > >>>> hope that these factors are taken into consideration when the
> > proposed
> > > >> plan
> > > >>>> is evaluated.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> While it might be somewhat useful to object to additional hunting
> on
> > > >> this
> > > >>>> particular refuge, another option would be to question the
> expanded
> > > >> hunting
> > > >>>> policy in general and to advocate for its being reverted to the
> old
> > > >>>> policy. Possible contacts would be Senators Leahy and Sanders,
> > > >>>> Representative Welch, and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Part of the reason for my original post (possibly not
> > > well-articulated)
> > > >> was
> > > >>>> to point out that to object to hunting on a refuge "because it's a
> > > >> refuge"
> > > >>>> won't be very persuasive, since controlled hunting *is* allowed on
> > > >> National
> > > >>>> Wildlife Refuges. More persuasive would be objections to specific
> > > >> species
> > > >>>> and their role in the ecosystem, and to specific methods of
> hunting,
> > > >> such
> > > >>>> as with dogs.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> --Ken Copenhaver
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:08 AM Brenna <dbgaldenzi...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Hi Elinor,
> > > >>>>> Here's a recent Action Alert with information on who to write at
> > > >> Missisquoi
> > > >>>>> and Conte for those interested:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://mailchi.mp/c1961eac9d14/action-alert-usfws-to-expand-hunting-on-vermonts-wildlife-refuges
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Brenna Galdenzi
> > > >>>>> Stowe, VT
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 8:56 AM Elinor Osborn <
> > > >>>>> <0000037bc09f69f4-dmarc-request...> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Can someone please give an address to contact Mississquoi about
> > > this?
> > > >>>>>> Elinor
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Elinor Osborn
> > > >>>>>> 1286 Lost Nation Rd
> > > >>>>>> Craftsbury Common VT 05827
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 802 586-9994
> > > >>>>>> <elinor91...>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2021, at 8:54 AM, Mark Paul <mrpbirder...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Well said John!
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 7:53 AM John Aberth <
> > <johnaberth1...>
> > > >
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> We should not be allowing more hunting on the Missisquoi
> > Wildlife
> > > >>>>>> Refuge.
> > > >>>>>>>> This is supposed to be a refuge, not a killing ground.
> Woodcock
> > > are
> > > >>>>>> already
> > > >>>>>>>> listed as a species of concern. Hounding causes great
> > destruction
> > > to
> > > >>>>>>>> nesting birds and other species incidentally targeted by the
> > > hounds
> > > >> as
> > > >>>>>> they
> > > >>>>>>>> run loose over the land. Vermont birders need to step up and
> > speak
> > > >> out
> > > >>>>>>>> against this plan to expand hunting if they really care about
> > > birds.
> > > >>>>>> Let's
> > > >>>>>>>> not just post our appreciation for these animals, but really
> do
> > > >>>>>> something
> > > >>>>>>>> for a change and make a difference.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> John Aberth
> > > >>>>>>>> Roxbury, VT
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 12:29 PM Ken Copenhaver <
> > > <copenhvr...>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Despite being called "refuges" and despite whatever ideas
> > people
> > > >>>>> might
> > > >>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>> about what a "refuge" should be, hunting is one of the
> allowed
> > > >>>>>> activities
> > > >>>>>>>>> on National Wildlife Refuges. As I understand it, each
> refuge
> > is
> > > >>>>>>>> required
> > > >>>>>>>>> to submit a plan justifying what species may and may not be
> > > hunted
> > > >> on
> > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>> refuge. The plan is then accepted or rejected by the
> regional
> > > >> office
> > > >>>>>>>> based
> > > >>>>>>>>> on its adherence to national standards for hunting on
> refuges.
> > > >>>>> Species
> > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>> selected based on sustainability and balance, among other
> > > factors,
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>> based on known population data. The "take" is closely
> > controlled
> > > >> by
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>> number of permits issued.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hunters have a large stake in the very existence of the
> refuge
> > > >>>>> system.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Much of the cost of land acquisition, particularly refuges
> that
> > > >>>>> include
> > > >>>>>>>>> wetlands, has been paid for with proceeds from the sale of
> Duck
> > > >>>>> Stamps.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Waterfowl hunters are required to buy Duck Stamps, and many
> > > >>>>> non-hunters
> > > >>>>>>>> buy
> > > >>>>>>>>> them to support land conservation. This is from the U.S.
> Fish
> > > and
> > > >>>>>>>> Wildlife
> > > >>>>>>>>> website:
> > > >>>>>>>>> "For every dollar you spend on Federal *Duck Stamps*,
> > > ninety-eight
> > > >>>>>> cents
> > > >>>>>>>>> goes directly to purchase vital habitat or acquire
> conservation
> > > >>>>>> easements
> > > >>>>>>>>> for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Since
> > > 1934,
> > > >> 6
> > > >>>>>>>>> million acres have been acquired using Federal *Duck Stamp*
> > > >>>>> revenues."
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> While I gave up hunting decades ago, I understand why people
> > hunt
> > > >>>>> and I
> > > >>>>>>>>> understand why hunting is allowed on National Wildlife
> Refuges.
> > > >>>>>>>> However, I
> > > >>>>>>>>> do have reservations about using dogs for hunting other than
> > for
> > > >>>>>>>>> waterfowl. If dogs will be allowed to run through the
> woods, I
> > > >> think
> > > >>>>>>>> they
> > > >>>>>>>>> will be unacceptably destructive considering the relatively
> > small
> > > >>>>>> amount
> > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>> woodlands available on the Missisquoi refuge. That's my gut
> > > feel,
> > > >>>>>> based
> > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>>> no data.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>> Ken Copenhaver
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
> > > >>>>>>>>> www.avg.com
> > > >>>>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:39 AM Barbara Brosnan <
> > > >> <bbrosnan...>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the heads up. I did send our objection to
> > adding
> > > >>>>> Snipe
> > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Woodcock to the prey list as well as coyote, red fox etc. I
> > > also
> > > >>>>>>>>>> remembered to include Missisquoi NWR in the subject line.
> My
> > > >>>>> husband
> > > >>>>>>>>> added
> > > >>>>>>>>>> his name to our email as well.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Barbara Brosnan
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Weybridge
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>>>>> From: Vermont Birds <VTBIRD...> On Behalf Of
> Brenna
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2021 11:03 AM
> > > >>>>>>>>>> To: <VTBIRD...>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VTBIRD] Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> If you wish to comment, please note "Missisquoi NWR" in the
> > > >> subject
> > > >>>>>>>> line
> > > >>>>>>>>>> of an email, and address to "<HuntFishRuleComments...>"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Brenna
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 11:00 AM Barbara Powers <
> > > >>>>>> <barkiepvt...>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Please don’t expand the number of species that can be
> hunted
> > at
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Missisquoi Wildlife Refuge. The point of a refuge is to
> > have a
> > > >>>>> safe
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> place where a variety of species can refuel and rest and be
> > > safe
> > > >>>>>>>> while
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> actively pursuing their lives. There are so many other
> places
> > > in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vermont available for hunting. Opening up the refuge would
> > > >> totally
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> change the safety of the area for species that are already
> > > under
> > > >>>>>>>>>> survival stress.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for considering this opinion.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Barbara Powers
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manchester Center, Vermont
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
 

Join us on Facebook!