Case Title: Hunters, Anglers & Trappers Assoc. of VT v. Winooski Valley Park District

Citation: 2006 VT 82

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-11-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Hunters, Anglers & Trappers Assoc. of VT v. Winooski Valley 
  Park District (2005-056)

2006 VT 82

[Filed 17-Nov-2006]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2006 VT 82

                                No. 2005-056


  Hunters, Anglers and Trappers                  Supreme Court
  Association of Vermont, Inc.
                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        Chittenden Superior Court


  Winooski Valley Park District                  March Term, 2006 


  Matthew I. Katz, J.

  Jacob B. Perkinson, South Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Richard C. Whittlesey of Roesler, Whittlesey, Meekins & Amidon, Burlington,
    for Defendant-Appellee.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

        
       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.   This appeal arises from a challenge by
  plaintiff Hunters, Anglers and Trappers Association of Vermont, Inc.
  ("HAT") to the Winooski Valley Park District's posted ban on hunting and
  trapping on lands within the District.  The superior court upheld the
  hunting ban, granting summary judgment to the District on HAT's principal
  claim.  HAT contends the court erred by: (1) concluding that the District
  possessed the authority to prevent hunting and trapping within the
  District; (2) relying on evidence outside the record, and refusing to order
  discovery, regarding the issue of whether hunting and trapping could be
  accomplished safely within the District; (3) dismissing as moot HAT's
  claims that the District lacked authority to ban possession of firearms
  within the District; and (4) failing to rule on HAT's motion to amend its
  complaint to add further claims against the District.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows. 
  HAT is a non-profit corporation "comprised of people and entities
  interested in the activities of hunters, anglers and trappers in Vermont." 
  The District is a union municipal district containing portions of the
  municipalities of Burlington, Colchester, Essex, Jericho, South Burlington,
  Williston, and Winooski.  It was chartered in 1972 to engage in "[t]he
  planning of its lands and waters in the Winooski Valley for the purposes of
  conservation, recreation, the establishment of parks and the preservation
  of natural areas" and "[t]he acquisition and management of lands and waters
  in the Winooski Valley."  Under the statute allowing formation of union
  municipal districts, such districts possess all of the powers of a
  municipal corporation upon their formation, 24 V.S.A. § 4865, including the
  power to acquire real property.  10 V.S.A. § 6302.  The District has
  acquired an ownership interest in approximately 1,730 acres of land, and it
  leases an additional 134 acres.  The District manages this land as parkland
  that is open to the public for a variety of uses.  The District does not
  allow hunting, shooting, or trapping on any District property, and it has
  posted signs to that effect according to the requirements applicable to
  private property owners under 10 V.S.A. § 5201.  Prior to the commencement
  of this action, the District's signs prohibiting hunting also included a
  ban on the possession of firearms.
   
       ¶  3.  In February 2003, HAT filed a complaint seeking an injunction
  to prevent the District from regulating hunting and trapping.  HAT also
  sought to enjoin the District from banning the possession of firearms on
  its lands.  The complaint alleged that the District's ban on hunting,
  trapping, and firearm possession violated both the Vermont Constitution's
  protection of the right to hunt and 24 V.S.A. § 2295, which prohibits
  municipalities from directly regulating hunting or trapping.  During the
  course of the ensuing litigation, the District changed its policy to
  eliminate its ban on the possession of firearms, and began changing the
  wording of its signs accordingly.  HAT and the District filed cross-motions
  for summary judgment regarding the hunting and trapping ban.  HAT also
  filed a "conditional" motion to amend its complaint, seeking to add further
  claims in the event that the court ruled in favor of the District on the
  original claims.  These additional claims alleged that the District's
  actions violated due process and the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, and
  requested declaratory relief stating that the District did not have the
  right to ban possession of firearms on its lands.  

       ¶  4.  In July 2003, the superior court ruled that the District's
  elimination of its ban on the possession of firearms would render that part
  of the litigation moot, assuming the District followed through by changing
  the wording of its signs.  In October 2003, following further submissions
  related to the District's progress toward changing its signs, the court
  ruled that the firearm possession claim was moot.  In the same order, the
  court ruled that the District possessed legal authority to prohibit hunting
  and trapping on its own lands.  The court did not rule on HAT's motion to
  amend its complaint.  Instead, it gave HAT until the end of October 2003 to
  show cause why the action should not be dismissed, given its rulings in
  favor of the District.  Within that period, HAT submitted affidavits from
  hunters attesting that it was safe to hunt on the District's lands.  HAT's
  submission sought to contradict any assertion that hunting was necessarily
  unsafe on the District's lands, and stated that "good cause exists to allow
  the requested amendment of its Complaint and that this case should not be
  dismissed."  In January 2005, the court entered final judgment in favor of
  the District.  This appeal followed.
   
                                     I.

       ¶  5.   HAT's principal claim on appeal is that the court erred by
  concluding that the District has the legal authority to prohibit hunting
  and trapping on its own lands.  We review this question of law de novo. 
  Charbonneau v. Gorczyk, 2003 VT 105, ¶ 2, 176 Vt. 140, 828 A.2d 117.  HAT's
  assertion rests on the Vermont Constitution, general principles of local
  government law, and a statutory provision that specifically prohibits
  municipalities from regulating hunting and trapping. 

       ¶  6.  First, HAT argues that Chapter II, § 67 of the Vermont
  Constitution guarantees the right to hunt and trap.  Section 67 provides:

    The inhabitants of this State shall have liberty in seasonable
    times, to hunt and fowl on the lands they hold, and on other lands
    not inclosed, and in like manner to fish in all boatable and other
    waters (not private property) under proper regulations, to be made
    and provided by the General Assembly.

  Vt. Const. ch. II, § 67.  We agree with HAT that this provision provides
  constitutional hunting rights, but those rights are not necessarily
  implicated in this case.  Section 67 vests the Legislature with the power
  to regulate hunting and trapping even on privately held lands, and we have
  previously held that the Legislature may delegate this power to some other
  "body or person."  Elliott v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 117 Vt. 61, 69,