Fish & Wildlife rule package would ban some reptile/amphibian sales and add enforcement tools; agency and advocates debate "intentional" language

The Department of Fish & Wildlife told the Natural Resources & Energy Committee on Thursday that a draft rule package would expand protections for reptiles and amphibians, add enforcement tools and penalties, and create confidentiality for sensitive threatened-species locations.

"Presently in Vermont, you cannot possess any live wild animals. … But beyond that, snakes and turtles and products have no protection," the department's enforcement director, Justin, told the committee as he described the new provisions and the law-enforcement rationale for them.

What the draft does: The package discussed (referred to in committee as 02:30 / proposed into 02:31) would: - Prohibit commercial possession, sale and certain taking of reptiles and amphibians unless authorized by department rule. - Create civil-penalty options and expand the department's enforcement tools for high-value or commercial-scale removal of turtles, snakes and other species. - Explicitly prohibit particular nonnative species (for example, pond sliders) from sale or distribution, while carving a limited transition for existing legally acquired pets and for licensed dealers in possession at a specified cutoff date. - Require the department to develop a species-specific confidential list of locations (for example, bat hibernacula or sensitive breeding sites) that would not be made public in regulatory proceedings to reduce risk to those sites.

Enforcement concerns and an "intentional" element: Colonel Justin (director of the wardens) said the House added language requiring proof of "intentional" taking in some provisions. Wardens and prosecutors told the committee that inserting "intentionally" as an element can make enforcement difficult. As Justin summarized, "proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt is next to impossible," citing an older Vermont Supreme Court decision the department reviewed.

The department and its attorney, Hannah Smith, told the committee the ban language now in the House bill largely overlaps with the department's original rulemaking authority and that some drafted sections could therefore be redundant. "With the language that prohibits the taking of reptiles and amphibians, this does become largely redundant because for the most part, you already in line. You cannot transport or possess a a live lab that you have," Hannah Smith said, adding that taxidermy sales were not intended to be banned and could be handled by exemptions.

Pond sliders concern: Committee members and the department flagged a transition-window problem for pet dealers if the statute bans sale of pond sliders after a set date. Officials supported language that would allow licensed dealers a limited time to sell legally acquired stock rather than abandon animals to avoid noncompliance.

Costs, penalties and scope: The department asked the committee to consider raising fines for some big-game and wildlife violations to better reflect the black-market value of trafficked animals and to provide appropriate deterrence. The committee also discussed whether civil enforcement under the environmental court should be available for severe commercial-scale trafficking.

Next steps: The department and stakeholders agreed to revisit the draft language on the intentionality standard and the transition language for pet dealers, and to refine which species and activities the rules would cover before the committee finalizes a recommendation.