Coyote hunting in Vermont has been a free-for-all for decades. Just last November, a hunter shot a beloved pet dog named Sadie after she approached a food pile left out to lure coyotes. In February, a farmer spoke before the state legislature, bemoaning coyote-hunting hounds tearing through his property without permission. But perhaps most harrowing is the story of Laurie DeMuth and her dog, Spider, who in 2021 was repeatedly attacked by a pack of coyote-hunting hounds. “I was just furious,” DeMuth recalled. “I couldn’t understand what was happening, and why was there nobody there controlling the situation.”

Now, Vermont lawmakers have come up with what they hope will be a solution: a law that would prohibit the use of hounds to hunt coyotes and would outlaw bait piles. The Vermont Senate passed the bill, S.258, in March by a margin of 21 to eight, but it has languished in the Vermont House Committee on Environment and Energy since then. Now, with the legislative session closing on May 10, things are not looking good for the law. In order to pass the measure, lawmakers would have had to pass it out of committee and then have a floor vote. Crucially, they would need to do it with a veto-proof majority, as was done in the Senate, since Republican governor Phil Scott said he would reject the law if it reached his desk. 

For wildlife advocates, the bill under consideration is a much-needed law that would save lives and prevent what is essentially state-sanctioned dog fighting. The bill, however, is more than a coyote-hunting law. It’s part of a national movement to make wildlife management more equitable and ethical by ensuring that wildlife policy considers the lives of animals beyond their utility to people.  

“It’s imperative to acknowledge that hunting, trapping, and fishing do not happen in a vacuum; they exist within a complex ecosystem where their impacts can extend far beyond the immediate target species,” said Katie Nolan, a Vermont resident who is also the wild animals campaign specialist at In Defense of Animals. “Thus it is crucial to bring more diverse perspectives into the conversation and evaluate the broader impacts of these practices on other game species and non-game species, and their habitats.”

Like other state wildlife agencies, the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department primarily focuses on hunting. But in the last couple of generations, the number of hunters in Vermont has plummeted, from nearly 150,000 hunting licenses sold in the 1970s to around 60,000 in recent years. Wildlife advocates say the singular mission has excluded not just people who don’t hunt and trap but who also care about non-hunted animals. 

The proposed law would help expand the makeup of the Fish and Wildlife Board, which is currently made up of governor-appointed volunteers. Instead of the governor appointing all the members, he would nominate 14, and each chamber of the state legislature would recommend one person for a total of 16. The law would also require board members to have a science and wildlife background, something that critics say is sorely needed for a commission that creates wildlife policy. Lastly, the board would become an advisory body, and trained biologists at the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department would develop hunting regulations. (The Sierra Club’s Vermont Chapter has not taken a position on the bill.)

While the bill has enjoyed broad support among many conservation groups, private property advocates, and pet owners, hunters have come out in opposition to the bill. Groups such as the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and Safari Club International have expressed concerns about lost traditions and threats to wildlife management. In a statement, the New England chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers said it is “steadfast in its opposition to the bill, which would ultimately undermine a proven system of wildlife management and conservation.” 

Some individual hunters see S.258 as an existential threat to coyote hunting and even hunting as a whole. “I’m concerned about the future of hunting and fishing in the state,” said one hunter during a hearing on the bill in February. “Will my children and grandchildren continue to hunt?”

Senator Chris Bray, one of the bill’s sponsors, has tried to assuage these concerns in meetings, saying the bill would not be a blanket ban on coyote hunting. Conservation groups, too, have stressed that this bill is not anti-hunting. Rather, they point to what both sides of the debate have continually said they value: science. Coyote hunters say that hunts are needed to control the number of coyotes, lest their populations balloon to unsustainable levels that threaten deer, livestock, and people. Yet even the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife has said that indiscriminately killing coyotes is not an effective way to control numbers. 

“Where significant reductions in coyote numbers are locally achieved, the missing animals are soon replaced with young coyotes moving in from other locations,” reads a statement from the agency. “So any local population reduction is only short term.” 

When coyote populations do recover, researchers who study coyote-prey dynamics have found little to no evidence that coyotes significantly impact deer populations on a large scale. One article from Pennsylvania State had a simple answer to the question of whether killing coyotes saves deer: “No.” A study published in the Journal of Wildlife Management found that, overall, deer populations have been unaffected by rising coyote populations. Across North America, the biggest factor on deer populations is human hunters. For fawns, the biggest impact on survival is nurturing, or the amount of sustenance they gain from their mothers. 

Science aside, hunters have argued that coyote hunting is regulated and humane. But, until recently, there were no limits on hounding, and there’s still a year-round hunting season. The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board adopted a three-month hounding season last December only after the legislature required it to. Conservation groups also contend that allowing canines to fight is unethical and cruel. In the case of DeMuth and her dog Spider, a pack of four hunting hounds chased them down for nearly three miles before they reached the safety of a cabin porch. Even then, the dogs circled until the owner pulled up, grabbed the dogs, and fled the scene, leaving DeMuth traumatized. To her knowledge, the hunter hasn’t been held accountable for the attack. 

Despite that scare and several similar events that Vermonters have shared with the wildlife board, there is one influential voice who notably opposes the law. Christopher Herrick is the head of the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department. For him, the law is a solution in search of a problem. “Public engagement has always been a cornerstone of the department’s conservation efforts,” Herrick wrote in his public statement to the legislature. “Bill S.258 presumes that this is not the case.”

Conservationists and animal rights groups question that spirit of collaboration. Since at least 2019, groups like Protect Our Wildlife, Vermont Wildlife Coalition, and Green Mountain Animal Defenders have advocated for tighter restrictions on coyote hunting and reform on the Fish and Wildlife Board to no avail. Bob Galvin, of Animal Wellness Action, says many of his colleagues who have collaborated with the board don’t feel heard. 

Wildlife advocates from Washington to New Hampshire have shared similar stories of being excluded from decision-making on wildlife boards and commissions. At its core, the issue is about democracy, they say. These wildlife boards and commissions manage wildlife that belongs to everyone, not just a select few who hunt and trap. It’s also part of a wider realization that many animals are far more sentient than scientists believed a century ago. 

If S.258 fails, wildlife groups and the bill’s sponsors will have to start all over again in the next legislative session. Closer watchers say a new version of the bill could offer a chance to include tweaks and amendments that more lawmakers would support. For many of their constituents, the way the current Fish and Wildlife Board works feels broken. 

“I think it’s easy for some to say the system is working when they are the ones who have authority to set rules, or if their views are represented by those who do,” Vermont resident Barbara Felitti said during her statement to the legislature on S.258. “But for many of us, the current system does not represent us.”