Vermont Supreme Court Backs the Hunt: State's Coyote and Trapping Rules Survive Legal Challenge
A years-long legal battle over Vermont's hunting and trapping regulations reached its conclusion this month when the Vermont Supreme Court sided with the state's Fish and Wildlife Department, allowing the rules governing coyote hounding and trapping to remain on the books. The ruling closes out a multistage court fight that began in 2024, pitted wildlife advocacy organizations against the state's fish and wildlife establishment, and raised fundamental questions about how far government agencies can stray from legislative mandates when writing the rules that govern outdoor pursuits.
For hunters and trappers in Vermont and across the country, the decision carries practical and symbolic weight. It affirms that a state wildlife agency can craft regulations that honor the traditions of the field while navigating the increasingly aggressive legal landscape that surrounds hunting and trapping in the Northeast. It also sets a new and significant legal precedent about the relationship between regulatory agencies and legislative oversight — one that will matter far beyond the Green Mountains.
Four Years in the Making: The Road to the Supreme Court
The 2022 Legislative Catalyst
In 2022, the Vermont Legislature enacted two laws — Act 159 and Act 165 — directing the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife to address long-standing concerns about trapping practices and the controversial practice of hunting coyotes with hounds, known as "coyote hounding." Act 165 also imposed a moratorium on coyote hounding until new rules consistent with legislative intent were adopted. The legislative action signaled a shifting political climate in Montpelier, where an increasingly vocal constituency of animal welfare advocates had spent years pressuring lawmakers to rein in practices they viewed as dangerous to pets, livestock, and private landowners.
In 2022, lawmakers adopted a temporary ban on hunting coyotes with hounds until the board could propose new regulations that reduce friction between coyote hunters, landowners and pets. Namely, lawmakers charged the board with requiring that coyote hunters be able to "control" their dogs on hunts. Lawmakers also called for stricter trapping regulations, including changing what kinds of traps are allowed and where they can be set, as well as for restrictions on how trappers can kill animals. The dual mandate was specific and pointed, leaving little ambiguity about what the legislature wanted to see addressed.
A Definition Dispute at the Heart of "Control"
The word "control" turned into the central battlefield of the entire controversy. One key requirement of the legislation was that hounds used to hunt coyotes be "controlled" to minimize conflicts with the public and meet statutory safety standards. The department defined "control" to mean that hounds must simply be outfitted with GPS and training collars — even if the handler is a mile or more away, inside a vehicle, with no line of sight or verbal control over the dogs. This definition fails to prevent hounds from trespassing on posted private property or harassing landowners, pets, and livestock.
Wildlife advocates pointed to real-world incidents to illustrate their argument that the department's definition was unworkable. Recently on Christmas Eve, an Addison County landowner who has experienced multiple incursions by hounds and hounders reported hounds chasing a lone coyote on his property — clear evidence that the coyote hounding rule is ineffective. There are also ongoing concerns about hounds chasing coyotes into roadways, creating serious risks for motorists. The department, for its part, maintained that equipping dogs with GPS and electronic training collars represented a workable, enforceable standard.
LCAR Objects — And Is Ignored
The regulatory process escalated when the legislature's own oversight mechanism entered the picture. In 2023, the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules, which oversees all state rulemaking, warned the Department and Board that their proposed rule did not meet legislative intent. The committee provided multiple opportunities for revision. The department and board ignored those warnings and moved forward anyway — an unusual act of defiance of the legislative branch that left wildlife advocates with no option but to pursue legal action.
LCAR's formal objection covered four specific areas. The Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules, a committee tasked with reviewing new rules put forward by agencies, saw through the hollow recommendations Fish and Wildlife made to the rule and denied four parts of the rule. They specifically rejected the narrow definition of "public trails," the definition of "control of hounds," including trapping in the definition of hunting, and exempting traps set in water or under ice from having to be set back away from trails. Despite those objections being formally registered, the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules formally objected to the new regulations, arguing they were not sufficient to justify lifting the moratorium on hunting coyotes with hounds. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife adopted the rules anyway, lifting the moratorium.
The Lawsuit and the Lower Courts
A Coalition Heads to Court
In early January 2024, a coalition of four wildlife advocacy groups in the state — Protect Our Wildlife, Animal Wellness Action, Center for a Humane Economy and Vermont Wildlife Coalition — filed a lawsuit in Washington County Civil Court, alleging the new regulations don't do what lawmakers called for in statute. The complaint was extensive, drawing on affidavits from landowners who had experienced hound incursions and raising specific legal questions about how the board had constructed its definitions.
The trapping side of the lawsuit focused heavily on setbacks — the required distances between trap placements and public-use areas. In the case of the trapping rules, the groups argued the rules do not include adequate setbacks. For example, while the rules require that trappers don't set traps near "public trails," the definition of public trails did not include trails on private land used by the public, according to the lawsuit. "Public hiking trails in Vermont often traverse private land, including many of the nearly 100 (Green Mountain Club) access trails, trailheads for the Long Trail, Appalachian Trail, and Kingdom Heritage trail, as well as many other publicly used trails on private lands in the state," the lawsuit states.
The advocates also took issue with how the board had treated traps placed in water. The Department and Board interpreted this requirement so narrowly that it applies to only a small fraction of lands. They further exempted all traps placed in water — including shallow streams — from setback requirements altogether. As a result, dogs drinking from streams along trails or culverts receive no protection — an outcome clearly inconsistent with legislative intent and public safety.
The Lower Court Rules for the State
The case went first before Washington County Superior Court. In his ruling, Superior Court Judge Timothy Tomasi noted that this is the first time the state has had any oversight of coyote hunting with dogs. He said the regulations preserve the type of hunting while reducing risks it may present. That ruling handed a preliminary win to the state, but the advocacy groups were not finished. After the lower court ruling, the nonprofit appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on Jan. 14 of 2026. The justices took several months to deliberate before issuing their decision.
The Supreme Court Rules: What It Decided
The Core Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court rejected a challenge by wildlife advocates to Vermont's new regulations on trapping and on hunting coyotes with dogs. The court ruled that the state Fish and Wildlife Board had satisfied the Vermont Legislature's intent, despite objections from lawmakers. The ruling was a clean win for the Department of Fish and Wildlife on the substantive questions — the trapping setbacks, the definition of "control," the treatment of water-set traps — all survived judicial scrutiny.
Speaking for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, attorney Catherine Gjessing said the department was pleased with the court's decision. And Commissioner Jason Batchelder said the department is excited to have Vermont's first regulations on hunting coyotes on the books. Commissioner Batchelder said: "I think that's the beauty of this process. The people who are trapping and the people who enjoy wildlife for its intrinsic value, I think they can all be proud of this rule." The new hunting and trapping rules are in effect now.
Historic Significance: Vermont's First Coyote Rules
It is worth pausing on what the ruling actually preserves. The rules constitute Vermont's first ever regulations on hunting coyotes, a move the Department of Fish and Wildlife says is positive. Before these regulations were written and fought over in court, coyote hunting in Vermont — including with packs of hounds — operated in a regulatory vacuum. No permit was required, no standards governed how hunters deployed their dogs, and no baseline accountability existed for what happened when those dogs crossed onto neighboring land or chased game into traffic. The rules that the Supreme Court has now validated represent the baseline from which all future regulatory refinement will proceed.
The new regulations established a permitting structure for coyote dog hunting that includes requirements like department-registered dogs bearing numbered ID tags, landowner permission requirements for releasing hounds on posted land, and standards for training and hunting seasons. A person hunting coyotes with the aid of dogs is encouraged to seek landowner permission before releasing dogs, and "taking coyote with the aid of dogs" for the purposes of this rule means that one or more dogs with Department Registration Dog-Tags are on the ground whether in pursuit of a coyote or not. Hunters must also apply through a permit process administered by the commissioner before taking coyotes with dogs.
The LCAR Precedent: A Sleeper Issue with Long Legs
The Secondary Ruling That Could Change Everything
Beyond the immediate question of whether the coyote and trapping rules would stand, the Vermont Supreme Court issued a secondary ruling that may prove more consequential in the long run. In addition to upholding the trapping and coyote hunting regulations, the court also said that if the legislative committee formally objects to a rule adopted by a state agency, that agency loses the privilege of deference from the courts if the regulation faces a legal challenge.
This is a significant structural shift in how Vermont's regulatory process works. Normally, courts extend "deference" to agency interpretations of their own enabling statutes — meaning the agency gets the benefit of the doubt when its regulatory choices are challenged in court. The Supreme Court's ruling strips away that deference whenever LCAR has placed a formal objection on the record. In plain terms: if Fish and Wildlife, or any other state agency, writes a rule that the legislature's oversight committee finds deficient, future courts will review that rule with fresh eyes rather than deferring to the agency's judgment.
Advocacy Groups Claim a Partial Win
Brenna Galdenzi, the president of Protect Our Wildlife and one of the named plaintiffs, was candid about the mixed result. She said: "At the end of the day, really, both the trapping and hounding rules don't go far enough to protect people and their pets." Her organization would like to see recreational trapping and hunting coyotes with dogs banned in Vermont. But she acknowledged that the secondary ruling on LCAR's authority was a meaningful gain for the advocacy side.
Galdenzi called this latter ruling a win. "We didn't get the rules that we wanted to be reevaluated or revisited, but the bigger picture, the equally important result of this ruling, is that LCAR has teeth," she said. "It sets that precedent and kind of keeps state agencies like Vermont Fish and Wildlife in check in having to follow legislative mandate and legislative intent."
That framing suggests the advocacy groups are already thinking about the next round. With LCAR's objections now carrying real legal consequences for agency deference, any future revision to Vermont's trapping or coyote hunting rules will need to be written with far greater attention to legislative intent — or risk being struck down under a stricter standard of judicial review. For trappers and coyote hunters, the takeaway is that the rules that just survived this challenge may face a harder road next time if a future board strays too far from what the legislature has directed.
What the Rules Actually Require: A Field-Level Breakdown
Coyote Hounding
Under the validated rules, anyone who wants to hunt coyotes with dogs in Vermont must obtain a coyote dog permit from the Fish and Wildlife Commissioner. Up to four dogs may be registered under a single permit, each bearing a numbered department dog-tag. The regulations require that any person releasing dogs on posted land obtain the written permission of the landowner beforehand. Hunter education shall include the recommendation that persons hunting coyotes with dogs seek landowner permission prior to pursuing coyotes with dogs. The department's definition of "control" — outfitting dogs with GPS and electronic training collars — survived the legal challenge, meaning that standard of accountability now has judicial backing.
No person shall take coyote with or without the aid of dogs with a bow and arrow or crossbow if the arrow or bolt has an arrowhead that measures less than seven-eighths of an inch at its widest point or that has less than two sharp cutting edges. The rules also establish defined training and hunting seasons for coyote dog hunting, creating for the first time a structured calendar framework around a practice that previously had no seasonal restrictions.
Trapping
Lawmakers called for stricter trapping regulations, including changing what kinds of traps are allowed and where they can be set, as well as for restrictions on how trappers can kill animals. Lawmakers also took issue with how the board treated traps, objecting to exemptions for setbacks from trails for traps set in the water and under ice. The rules that the Supreme Court upheld reflect the department's interpretation of those mandates, which includes body-gripping trap restrictions with seasonal set requirements and geographic placement standards tied to the department's definition of public trail.
Critics argue the setback standards are insufficient — particularly the exemptions for water-set traps — but the court found the department had acted within its legal authority in drawing those lines where it did. The question of what constitutes a "public trail" in the context of Vermont's sprawling system of hiking paths that cross private land remains a real-world tension that the ruling does not fully resolve. Trappers working near the Long Trail corridor or the Appalachian Trail's Vermont sections should be aware that the issue of trail definitions is likely to remain contested in future rulemaking cycles.
The Bigger Picture: Wildlife Management in a Polarized Era
Coyotes and the Northeast's Shifting Landscape
Coyotes in New England are not the same animal that ranchers contend with in the West. The Eastern coyote — sometimes called the "coywolf" — is a hybrid, carrying genetic material from wolves, domestic dogs, and western coyotes that colonized the region over the last century. They are larger, more adaptable, and more comfortable around human settlement than their western counterparts. Vermont's forests, farm edges, and suburban fringes provide excellent habitat, and coyote populations have expanded considerably in recent decades. For hunters, trappers, and landowners dealing with livestock depredation, that population pressure creates a genuine management imperative.
The tension at the heart of this legal dispute reflects a broader national pattern: traditional wildlife management, long governed by hunters and trappers through state fish and wildlife boards dominated by practitioners, is facing sustained challenge from an urban and suburban population that interacts with wildlife primarily as observers rather than harvesters. Vermont's Fish and Wildlife Board, for instance, is mostly made up of people who hunt, fish or trap — a composition that advocacy groups have repeatedly targeted as structurally biased against reform.
The Legislative Push for a Board Overhaul
The legal challenge was not the only front on which hunting and trapping opponents pressed their case. In the Vermont legislature, concurrent with the court battle, reform-minded lawmakers introduced proposals to fundamentally restructure how the state's fish and wildlife rules are made. Lawmakers heard testimony on S.258, which would ban hunting coyotes with dogs and baiting coyotes. It would also shift who gets to weigh in on state regulations around hunting and fishing. The bill had many hunters and trappers in the state concerned — though groups that advocate for animal rights say the changes are necessary.
Lawmakers on Vermont's Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee introduced a bill that would take away the rulemaking authority of the Fish and Wildlife Board and ban indefinitely the hunting of coyotes with dogs. The bill would also ban the use of bait to hunt coyotes. That legislative push has not succeeded — the rules remain in place — but it signals the direction of pressure that Vermont's hunting and trapping community faces. The political dynamics that produced this court fight are not going away.
Historical Parallels: New England's Long War Over Trapping
Vermont is not the first New England state to fight these battles in court and in the legislature. Massachusetts banned almost all body-hold trapping in 1996 through a ballot initiative, a move that hunters and trappers argued devastated furbearer management and led to population explosions in beaver and other species. Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire have all seen sustained campaigns to restrict or ban various forms of trapping, with varying outcomes. Vermont has historically been more resistant to these restrictions, in part because of its strong rural culture and the relative political power of its agricultural and hunting communities. The Supreme Court ruling suggests that Vermont's courts, at least for now, are not prepared to let advocacy litigation override the judgment of the state's fish and wildlife professionals.
What It Means for Vermont Hunters and Trappers Right Now
The most important practical takeaway from the Vermont Supreme Court's decision is straightforward: the rules are in effect and they have now survived both trial court and appellate scrutiny. Hunters pursuing coyotes with dogs need permits, need to register their dogs with the department, and need written landowner permission before releasing hounds on posted land. Trappers must comply with the body-gripping trap placement requirements and seasonal restrictions that the new rules establish.
The LCAR deference ruling, however, introduces a layer of legal uncertainty that practitioners should not ignore. If a future Fish and Wildlife Board writes trapping or hunting regulations that draw a formal LCAR objection — as happened in 2023 — those regulations will face judicial review without the usual presumption of agency correctness. That means the department and the board have a stronger institutional incentive than ever before to write rules that satisfy legislative intent on their face, rather than relying on post-hoc legal defense. For hunters and trappers who engage in the rulemaking process through public comment or board meetings, this creates both opportunity and risk: the legislature now has sharper teeth when it comes to supervising the regulatory output of the agencies that govern their sports.
For now, the coyote season is open to permitted hounders, the traps can go in the ground under the validated rules, and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife has the court's backing on the framework it spent years constructing. Whether that framework satisfies all sides is another matter entirely — but in the arena of administrative law, a Supreme Court affirmation is as solid a foundation as a regulatory system can get.
