I have a feeling that was a little loud. So welcome to the session on CORD. So if you've been in this room in the overpacked room for the last couple of hours, you've been hearing a lot about both on the vendor side and on the carrier side, what are we going to do about network function virtualization and SDN and how the cloud and all these things come together. And there's a lot of moving parts and people trying to figure out how all the pieces fit together. This is in that space, but we've taken another tack. And that is, we're just plowing straight ahead. And so we're looking at the central office, which is the very edge of the telco network. So in case, just as a little bit of background, this is not back in the data center. This is out at the very edge. So there's a large number of facilities out at the edge in a typical North American carrier network. So AT&T, for example, operates 4,700 central offices. These are the windowless buildings in your neighborhood all throughout the country. Each one of them then serves somewhere between 10 and 100,000 users. It's a combination of enterprise, residential, and mobile. Now, this facility has evolved in the last 40 or 50 years in an extremely ad hoc way. So there's really very little architectural integrity. It's just buy equipment and stack it up.  There's hardware going back for years. This is a huge source of CAPEX and OPEX. There's no doubt about it. It's just the sheer numbers. You might think you go into the backbone, and that's where the expensive stuff is, but there's only so many sites. It's the 4,700 sites at the edge that are the real expense. It's also because of the arcane hardware that's been accumulated over decades, it's very hard to introduce new services. So this is the problem the telcos are facing. And just to rub salt in the wounds, they look at the over-top carriers or the over-top providers like Google and Amazon, and they see how agile they are, and they see how they're taking advantage of commodity. So this is motivating. Cord is basically aiming at that problem on behalf of telcos. We want to give them the economies of the data center, and that is infrastructure built with as few commodity components as possible, and open source white box switches. So what I'm going to describe is an extremely green field approach. So keep that in mind. It's green field, but it's one that you can start and then grow. And then, of course, the agility of a cloud provider. So agility is just as important as the economies. Now, I mentioned AT&T as an example, and that's not just for illustrative purposes. This is something AT&T is committed to doing. So we're on target. Like I said, we're plowing ahead. We're hoping to deliver this in early 2016. And so what I'm going to do is describe the pieces that go into this. And it's bringing together a lot of parts. So the way that I think about it is that we're going from the legacy system to something that's built out of commodity. And we're going to do that by sprinkling the pixie dust of these acronyms on it. But really, the way to think about it is what we're after is software as a service. That's the way you compete, or the telcos compete with the cloud providers. They get to the point that everything looks like software as a service. And we're going to start at the very, very beginning, which is fiber to the home as a service. So we're going to tackle the problem at its very beginning. So back to this picture. I'm going to get to what we're going to do in just a second. But just for a moment, let me talk about what the legacy looks like. So there's a lot of through letter backernyms. We're going into the home. We have the CPE, of course. We're going to use, we're going to do this for GPON gig bit passive optical networking. We're going to have an optical line terminator in the central office. There's probably some ethernet aggregation switches that go on. And then B and G is the tall pole in the tent with a lot of functionality embedded in there. So we're basically going to replace the red boxes with commodity, and then run software to control it. So back in June, we did a proof of concept. And this will just give you a high level sort of vision of the pieces. I'm going to go into detail into this and how we're going to go forward with it. So in the home, we replace a perhaps complicated CPE with the simplest possible device that we can. In our proof of concept, we just use a very minimal net gearbox. And of course, in both of our laptop and our television set, running AT&T U-Verse are connected to that. We go then over the passive optical network into the central office slice data center where we have commodity components. And then we have the piece that I'm going to describe, which is a combination of OpenStack, Onos, and XOS running on top of that within this set of services. And what you'll see is the virtualized version of the OLT, the virtualized version of the CPE, and so on. I'm going to add the virtualized version of the CDN just as an example of another service you could run above and beyond the access. So that was the proof of concept. What we're pulling together right now, by the way, I should have said, Open Networking Lab is a non-profit sister organization of the Open Networking Foundation. They do standards. We do open source software. So we're building this a reference implementation of CORD. You can think of it as an open virtualized service delivery platform that, of course, delivers on the promise. And it's to be deployed in AT&T's. Some of their central office is just as a market trial in early 2016. So now we're thinking in terms of a pod. The pod gets put into the central office, serves a few customers, and then you grow from there. So what is the pod? It has a hardware blueprint, build materials, some assembly instructions, and so on. And it has open source software. There's going to be some core components that I'll walk through, and then we're going to populate it with a set of services. We're going to target G-Pond initially, but it's generalizable to other services as well. So let's start with the hardware. Again, this is just an illustration, but basically it looks like a data center. What's interesting about it, full of commodity this and commodity that, what's interesting about it, first of all, is the leaf spine fabric at the backbone. So we're optimizing for moving packets from east to west, not north to south. This is a typical data center. And secondly, in addition to racks of 1U servers, we have racks of 1U NICs. Basically, if you think of the data center as a giant computer, this is the NIC of that computer. These are basically 1U blades that have 48 G-Pond ports. Today, it's 1 gigabit. Tomorrow, it could be 10. And it's basically just an interface that goes out to all the homes. It's been stripped of all the control functionality. It's just the Mac chip, basically. But you can also think of it as kind of like a switch. It's a 48 port switch with one port going up to the top of rack. It's also open flow controlled, as are all of the switches in here. By the way, I won't say it again, but every time you see one of these, it's white box. This is not an existing switch from a vendor. This is purely white box. So we get racks of these, and we get racks of processors, and we connect it all together with a leaf spine fabric. So let me look just quickly at what's in here. Again, we're provisioning a very specific system as a reference implementation. So we're going to act on to get our white box switches, and we've sized it for the trial. And so I won't go through all the details, but we're basically doing a lot of 40 gig ports. And this is both for the leaf switches, which are top of rack, and the spine switches that sit above it. And if you look on this hardware, what you'll find is basically open compute project software stack. And so it's a Broadcom chip, but then on top of that, there's a hardware abstraction layer, and then there is an open flow agent. So everything here is open source. Well, right down to the Broadcom stuff. So that's the hardware. Everything's commodity. Everything's white box. So here's the software architecture. The way I want you to think about it is it's a pod, and you don't have to see inside of it. It looks like a device. It just happens to be a device that's internally connected to the access, connected upstream, and offers you an interface. It's a Rustful API. What we're going to give it is a high level declarative specification of the policy. We want that box to implement for us. Right now, we're working in Tosca. We're going to add Yang, because that's what the carriers want. Tosca is proving to be perfectly good. And then on top of that, this is now outside of our scope, is all the OSS, BSS pieces. And so every carrier is going to have something different there. Different vendors are going to have different solutions there. That's fine. Just give us the policy that controls this pod. So what I'm going to do now is look inside of the pod just a little bit. So when you look inside, you're going to find a very recursive definition. It's filled with services. You could call them microservices. I guess that's the vernacular today, but I just call them services. And I'm going to have a service that corresponds to virtual OLT, a virtualized version of the OLT device, a service that corresponds to the virtualized CPE, and so on. And there's a service graph. This service depends on that. Service depends on the following service. It's not linear. Sometimes you ask the CDN for some data. Sometimes you go out to the internet. When you ask the CDN, sometimes it gives you the data. Sometimes it has to go out to the internet to get on cache mesh. And that's just basically the main path in the reference implementation. We can now populate this with other services. And in fact, everything is a service in this model. OpenStack is a service. It's the service I go to to get VMs. Onos, the open network operating system is a service. It's the service I go to to get networks. We have a monitoring service, and you could add a whole bunch of other building block services to that, but just as a starting point, we definitely needed a monitoring service, and so on. It's a very recursive definition. Everything looks the same, and I'll start. Basically, I'm going to just drill down at each one of these objects and show you a little bit about what's inside. It offers a northbound interface. I told you there's a RESTful API, but you can come talk to it through by giving it Tosca specs. But basically, you would give the spec that says, this is a service graph I want to populate my particular pod with. These are the resource policies I want to impose upon those services. You can put bounds on how many of this and that each service consumes. I can give you a scaling policy. I basically say to the service scale up, scale down, but I don't tell it how to do that. That's up to the service. And I can then come and impose customer policy on it. Customer A wants this particular set of features. Customer B wants that set of features. So from an OSSBS point of view, whenever a user logs into the subscriber portal, it basically comes down and does the appropriate changes to that particular subscriber's account. So the other way that you can think about this is those are all very generic high-level specifications, but essentially, we're going to expose the interface of each one of these services northbound as well. And so I just think that that interface is really the union of all the service-specific interfaces. So if you wanted to change the features of a particular subscriber and turn parental control on, for example, that would be a call that would effectively get passed down this particular sequence to tell one of those services knew how to resolve it. In our particular case, it's the virtual CPE. So I'm showing you a picture of what's inside of a core reference implementation. But what I want to impress upon you is that it's actually extensible by design. So this is where we start. This was, in fact, the service graph that we started with for the proof of concept. But as we've gotten a little bit smarter, we wanted to change a couple things. So watch closely. The virtual CPE has been replaced by a virtual subscriber gateway. And the virtual BNG has been replaced by a virtual router. Just a little text change here, but it was really just basic modularity. We just substituted one implementation of the service for another because we wanted to make some changes. The service graph looks exactly the same. The rest of the framework works exactly the same. Well, why do we divide it into these services? Why is OLT carved out from the virtual service gateway? Because I might have multiple access technologies. And so GFAST is another technology that we're prototyping and that list could grow. Well, this is just focused on residential subscribers. What about the subscribers and enterprises? They just tack on by giving me a different service graph. So maybe it's a different access technology at this end, Metro Ethernet. And maybe the CPE is different because you give services different bundles of functionality. But it maybe shares the CDN because I'm caching content on behalf of everybody. And so the important point to take away from this, and I'm just sort of growing this as examples, is I can add additional cloud services. So you get Internet of Things, it's another service. You have other things you wanna offer mobile customers, their services that fit in here. And then you add additional access technologies as they become available. And that may be on a business unit by business unit cases. But it all fits in the same platform. So the thing to take away is that CORD is a platform, not a point solution. It's just what services I populate. And the way I define that is by the TASCA file I give it at the top. All right, I'm gonna drill down a little bit more. I've got these boxes and I wanna talk about what they are. Well, first of all, services are multi-tenant. This is really, the way we're thinking is what would Google do here? Right, this is not what what AT&T normally do. This is what would Google do. Well, they would offer as a multi-tenant service. Right, or Amazon. S3 is a multi-tenant service. You don't stand up a different storage service for every subscriber that comes along. They use a multi-tenant service. Each one of these are multi-tenant services. So when you turn your router on at home, powers up, you become a tenant of the virtual OLT service, which then becomes a tenant of the virtual CPE service, which becomes a tenant of the virtual B&G service. And each one of those services then offer a service abstraction.  A bucket or a volume or whatever S3 calls it. If you go to Volt, you get back a subscriber VLAN. When Volt becomes a tenant of the virtual CPE, it acquires a subscriber bundle. And when the virtual CPE becomes a tenant of the virtual B&G, it acquires a rotatable subnet. Okay, and the virtual CDN does exactly the same thing. It is a tenant of the virtual B&G and it gets back a rotatable subnet as well. Well, it turns out the virtual CDN does not have subscribers as its tenants. It has content providers as its tenants. There's really different kinds of tenants in a central office. And so the tenant abstraction is a CDN.  So services are multi-tenant. So if I look inside of this, this is in some sense the real crux of the story, is we're simply modeling VNFs as services. Well, this is my picture, what does it mean? Basically, it's a simple matter of separating the control and data plane, the controller. This is borrowing directly from SDN. The controller for the service is like a controller for a network. It's the control plane. That doesn't get in the way on all the data plane, movement of data, whether they're HTTP GITs or packet sends, that's all in the data plane, going to instances. The other thing is that the controller is the interface is system-wide, or network-wide, service-wide, and each individual instance is part of the implementation. So the implementation is the code, certainly, but it's also how do I achieve scalability and how do I achieve high availability? Those are implementation details. That's not up to the operator, that's up to the service developer. So there's a very crisp line drawn between the provider of a service and the user of a service. The box also implies a virtual network that the tenants of that service use to send messages to request operations from that particular service. And those virtual networks can be configured or customized in different ways, depending on how that service wants to, for example, implement, whether it wants to implement load balancing or not. That's an example of what you can vary. So when you start down this path, you quickly realize that there's an important distinction between tenants and instances that are often conflated. So in the case of the virtual CPE, and as a side note, the instances here are containers, not VMs. It's actually a one-to-one situation. Every time a new subscriber comes online, they get their own, their tenant abstraction was a subscriber bundle, and that subscriber bundle runs in its own instance, its own container. So we've got a container per subscriber. It turns out then in the implementation. But it's not always the case that you get a tenant per instance. A lot of scalable web services scale the tenant abstraction, whether it's a key, a value key store, or a CDN, or a scalable storage service. That's scaled across a set of instances, so the tenant abstraction, maybe through some DHT or something, is scaled in that way. So in the CDN case, the instance is actually a VM. So we're mixing and matching VMs and containers, and we have different models. Again, it's a service dependent question as to how that happens. Well, you've noticed that I've been using a couple of different colors for my services, and there's a reason for that. These services are implemented. The functionality, the behavior of the service is implemented in a VM or a container. And it's on the data plane. The packets actually pass into and out of the CDN. They pass into and out of the containers represented in a subscriber bundle. By the way, if I were to drill down in the subscriber bundle, I would find a Linux implementation where I turn different features on just by twiddling different aspects of Linux. If you wanted to put some modular system in there and turn features on by plugging in unplugging modules in the kernel and user space, that would be a perfectly good implementation. Still fits in this model. Okay, so these services you can kind of think as VMs on the data plane, the red ones. The blue ones are services that actually run in the control plane controlling the switching hardware. So now the picture gets a little bit more interesting because we've got multiple services to get the job done. So Onos is Owen Labs open network operating system. It is, I'll show you another slide in a second, but it scales, just like any other service, web service or cloud service might scale, uses OpenFlow to control the switches that sit below it. And it hosts multiple tenant applications. Virtual OLT and virtual B and G. But those aren't the only applications it hosts. It also hosts a neutron plugin, so that if in an open stack space, if you go and ask for a virtual network, it's actually being provided by, excuse me, it's actually being provided by Onos through the Onos neutron plugin. There's another application running that is doing segment routing, and I'm not gonna go into the details of segment routing, but it's basically the way that we set up flows between the top of the leaf switches here through the spine and down to the leaf switches on the other side. And so those are four apps all running on top of Onos. So the way that you think of Onos, and it is an operating system, or it's a platform as a service. It hosts, it's a platform that hosts applications. So we model it effectively as a platform as a service. But again, everything's a service, including platforms as a service. It's tenant abstraction is a control app. So you go to it as a tendency, I'd like to run the following control app. And that happens multiple times. So if I were to drill down one more and look inside of Onos just for a second, I would find a fairly typical scalable service. It's a service, excuse me, running in the control plane instead of the data plane. So it scales across a set of instances. And internally, it has a shared data store that's implementing a network graph. So that's its abstraction. And then the apps, those control programs basically get spread across the instances as well. So it scales as the white box switches, the networks grows, and it gives you high availability. So if one of these instances were to die, you still have others running. Okay, so those are the pieces. I'm gonna stand back, so I've done on my drilling down, I'm gonna stand back at a high level for just a minute. So I'm slightly abstracting here to keep my picture simple. But the purple box is the cord pod. It encapsulates a set of services that run inside of it according to some service graph. I think of that as the executable representation of the policy that I was given by the operator. So from above, I'm handed a policy, a specification of a policy to implement. I turn it into my internal representation. And then I turn on it and out comes a deployment of that particular policy on the underlying hardware. So I'm showing in this particular case that the output of this box is three virtual networks. One we call the virtual CPE LAN is being controlled by a control application. I'm not showing ONOS in the loop, but ONOS sits in between. So this control program controls this virtual network. Virtual B and G controls the WAN side virtual network. This is just a vanilla virtual network that I get from Neutron that's interconnecting the virtual CPE and the CDN. The CDN has also then connected the WAN because it has to go out to the white area network on a cache miss. Each one of these is then potentially scalable across a number of virtual machines or instances, containers in one case, virtual machines in another. So that's the output of the system. So what was the magic in here? Well, let's just go back to that high level picture again. It's a controller. The controller in this entire situation on behalf of the cord pod is where XOS fits in. So XOS is a controller for a set, well, what was the cord pod? It was this service delivery platform. It's a controller for a service delivery platform. Well, what is it a little bit more detail? I think of it as a framework for assembling and composing services. So assembling in the sense that if you gave me a virtual machine instance, I would have to do some work to turn it into a scalable service. That's a set of mechanisms that XOS gives you to elevate it to that point. If what you gave me was a virtual CDN that was already a scalable service, it had less work to do. But if you gave me just a VM image or a container image, you would have more work to do to turn it into a service and then the composition of those services. Just a little bit more detail. Internally, the implementation takes advantage of two pieces. The first piece is it's a data model. We think of that data model as representing the authoritative state of the system. This is what it ought to be. And then a back-end system that we call the synchronizer that keeps the operational system in sync with what the authoritative state of the system ought to be. We built, I've already told you all these other open source projects we're building on. The data model is implemented in Django and the synchronizer has a lot of pieces to it that we built, but it also leverages Ansible as it's kind of back-end mechanism to talk to all the other components and tell them what to do. So basically you can think of the synchronizer as generating the appropriate Ansible script recipe to do the right thing. It pays a lot of attention to partial failures. And so there was another session earlier that I couldn't get to, but FS check for the cloud. Things just go wrong. And you're constantly working to drive the operational state towards the goal of the authoritative state. And that's a constant synchronization problem. It's not like I issue a command and it just happened. If you think about FS check for just a second, what could be more deterministic than your disk? When you tell it to write a block, it really ought to write the block. But even disks go bad and things happen. There's a whole lot more complexity between you and what happens in the back-end in a cloud setting. So the synchronizer works hard to keep those in sync. OK, that's kind of an abstract description. If I were to just show you instead of the architecture, the software stack, it would look like this. XOS in some sense sits on top of Onos and OpenStack. But OpenStack, don't forget, also uses Onos as its mechanism for delivering virtual networks. So there's a somewhat subtle but very important point here, which is Onos, we have virtual networks that are implemented by services. And we have virtual networks that are used by services. So we're supporting both cases. You could just use a virtual network. You just use the neutron interface to get to it. But you might actually implement a virtual network, which is implemented a set of flow rules that give you some behavior. For example, the behavior of virtual OLT as an app that runs on top of Onos directly. XOS just basically unifies all of that.  It still looks like a service. You sometimes have to do more work or less work to assemble it. But at the top, you basically now have a set of services, and you can compose those services. So I'll do some questions. This is my last slide. I think there's plenty of time for questions. So again, the software distribution. Remember, there's a hardware recipe. The software distribution consists of these components. These three are basically in the control plane. OCP is what's running on the actual switches. It's the software in the switches. Again, this is an open source reference implementation. So there's a set of services that we're going to populate it with. And hopefully, that set will grow over time. And these are basically the access services. There will be other services as well. Monitoring is one that we already are working on pretty hard. Content delivery is one. This one doesn't happen to be open source. We assume that many services that you populate your cord pod with will, in fact, be proprietary. But it's one that we're using for demonstration purposes. There's more information. Those URLs are really, really long. But if you go to xosproject.org, it's not a very long web page. You can find the various papers associated with this in some of the presentations. So it looks like we've got a little bit of time for questions. So I'm happy to take them. Oh, I'm sorry. You've got to use the mic. I am told. Just a quick question on the previous slide. So you use open source for VCPE and VBNG? No, not from a vendor. I'm sorry, here? Yes, VCPE. What vendor? No vendor. Is it open source? This is open source. So this is a sufficient for the market trial with AT&T. This is a sufficient manipulation of Linux to give you a primitive set of features. And you're happy with the performance and scalability. Yeah, so AT&T in particular is extremely adamant that we run these in containers natively on Linux. We also run containers nested inside of KVM. But in terms of scaling up, so what happens, I could have sort of walked through a flow. When you turn your router home, you're assigned to VLAN and you get a container at the other side. That's your container that you can then configure. Another higher level question. Is there any concern from your customer about the privacy? Because now you mix CPE at home, like a tool. So some home internal traffic can go to your network, to the VHU. Yeah, so you're asking about privacy of it going in. That issue has not come up. But a related issue, which is it turns out you will want to run a little bit of functionality on the home CPE so that your home network doesn't die when your internet connection goes down. So you're probably running DHCP from there. But the issue of security of the privacy of the user's data being in the container has not been one that anyone has talked about. That may come out of the market trial. Good point. My question is too, do we need the exact application or do we need a combination of the application and the owners? Because it is a matter of implementing that application on top of the audio or the owners. Well, so from Court's point of view, some system doesn't matter, right? I mean, our implementation is based upon on us. The only key is that it is scalable and highly available in support of those apps, yeah. Because I mean, we're in a greenfield setting here. So which means that either whichever controller it may be, we need whatever the customer is accessing the application itself, control application. Sure, sure. Yeah, from an XOS point of view, ODL is a service. And then why the benefit of the owners for this kind of application? Oh, you want me to do an onus versus ODL discussion. I think I'll defer. Well, OK, I will. So I'm not deeply embedded in the onus project per se. I'm an user of onus. From my point of view, controlling switches with software-defined networking includes a combination of configuration management and control management. Legacy is strong. Legacy devices is very heavy use on the configuration side. Very little need for work on the control side. Greenfield, white box switches, it's 90% to control. There's not so much configuration to do. So if you're heavy on the control side, that's a really high scaling. Because just the time scales, it's a very rigorous scaling availability problem. And you need to design for that. And so I think that's onus designed. And I think ODL perhaps designed more for the configuration side. OK, I see. And then the last question is about the tenant in the CDN and the cases. So is that tenant is just like a client in the CP? You could call it a client, yeah. I mean, you have to distinguish between the principle that's the tenant, a subscriber or content provider, and the abstraction that the service gives you. It gives you a subscriber bundle. It gives you a volume. It gives you a virtual CDN. So there's an abstraction that the service gives you. That's kind of what I was focused on. So which means that it can be a virtualized version of the control plane of the CPE for that customer. A virtualized version of the control plane for the CPE. Yeah, I guess so. Physical CPE. Yeah, I mean, right. So that is, in fact, what you get here is you get a virtual. Control plane of. Right, you get a portal that you can, as a home subscriber, you log into and say, I want to turn parental control on for this iPad. Yeah, right. Now, what's interesting is that you didn't know, certainly as a subscriber, you wouldn't know this. And the architecture didn't know which of these services were going to satisfy that request. So the request enters from the home, and it gets passed down this graph until somebody can resolve it. So whether the virtual OLT implements parental control or the virtual CPE implements parental control, I don't care. So you basically make your default gateway to the upper plane in the somewhere in your tenant in the virtualized instance. All right, thank you. So how can you differentiate, I mean, when you are going to use in Tosca and when you are going to use in Yanmordo? That's an operator's call. I mean, we have found Tosca to be really good, direct representation of what these services do. Yang tends to be the preferred language of, certainly AT&T and other operators. Although I've heard talk that, well, it could be both either one. You mean they can only pick only one? No, no, no. We've just implemented Tosca so far. Yang is to come. OK. You could have multiple languages. There's just different representations of the API. Internally, it's all model-based, but the model internally is neither Yang or YAML. Internally, it's implemented in Django. Yeah, Django, but how can you do Jambo, right? How can we do Jambo? How can we mix them together? Because the YAML is more like non-working oriented and Tosca is one of the most resource-oriented. It certainly could be possible that you would represent different things in different languages. We haven't tried that, but it ought to be possible to do that. Because they both map into one internal representation. Coming from Yang's side, in the last six months, we've changed pretty much all the models in ATF to address what OpenConfig wanted. And AT&T is part of OpenConfig. So we include that state, we include telemetry in every model. You do anything, there is shadow, three, we should present states. Where is the state? In this case, how do you correlate config to B versus config S, E, and state as a result of the change? Well, it depends on your point of view. So from chord pods point of view, just a second, I was going the wrong way. The authoritative state is the representation in Django. And so there's a persistent database underneath that. And so I write to that persistent database, that's my view of the authoritative state.  You get back operational state, you need to compare it to your... Oh, where do we get the operational state? Sorry, I misunderstood. That's, so there's a couple of things. Part of it comes from the monitoring service. So there will be a lot of operational state there. But it's also the case that as we generate, as we use Ansible, we're doing it in such a way that it's attempting to drive the state. So it's item potent operations. We don't know for sure what the state was. We're always driving it towards what we think it ought to be. I'm sorry, I'm taking so much time, I'm just trying to understand. So how do you correlate operational state to your declarative state through Ansible and some kind of black magic? Yeah, it's magic. Seriously, it's part of the question for operations. Yeah, yeah, so from a human point of view or from the point of view of an analytics engine sitting up here, that's going to be through something like Solometer. That will be the operational state. So now in terms of correlating, it's going to be based. So everything that's recorded here is the events are all tagged that are traceable back through the state that's in the database here. Yeah, tons of details there, but I know what subscriber, I know the VLAN, I know the subscriber, I know the container ID, those are all correlatable in the database and marked appropriately in the events that get stuck in the Solometer. Do you feel going towards Yankee is the kind of way you are going to go or it's one of the ways you are considering what is the end result? End goal? This particular? Going towards Yankee seed. Something going to happen with onus or it's just something you are considering but not necessarily. I'm not quite sure I understood the question in terms of Yang and... In terms of going to switch to Yankee completely. Oh, Yang completely. So it's still undetermined exactly how deeply embedded Yang is going to be. So we're having conversations with people that know Yang much, much better than we do. Yang Forge, for example. And we can see a roadmap whereby we would use Yang Forge instead of Django. And we could get there. But it doesn't have persistent state and I want persistent state in here. Thank you. Okay, looks like we're done and there are no more questions. So thank you.


that we received from a well-meaning liberal was the following. He said, would you ever imagine the manager of a firm making a statement publicly in opposition to his board of directors? I ask you to consider if this is a firm and if the board of regents are the board of directors and if President Kerr in fact is the manager.  But wear a bunch of raw materials that don't mean to have any process upon us, don't mean to be made into any product, don't mean to end up being bought by some clients of the university, be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone.  And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, by all the apparatus and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who want it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all. We remind you the city survives because of these people's lives, the power to give lives. Put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, will be prevented from working, will be prevented from working at all.


So, good evening. It's Thursday, February 10th, 5.30pm, and this is the Senate Natural Resource and Energy Committee's public hearing. Good evening. My name is Christopher Bray, and I represent the Addison Senate District, and it's my honor to serve as chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee. And on behalf of the committee, I want to welcome you to a public forum on three fish and wildlife bills currently in our committee. Our goal this evening is to listen to you, to hear your thoughts, and to learn from you. And as part of getting started, I'd like to pause for a moment and ask the senators on the committee to introduce themselves. Why don't we go north to south by the district you represent? I'm Westman. So, I'm Rich Westman. I'm the senator from Wyrmwale County. Senator McDonald. Senator McCormack. I'm Dick McCormack. I represent the Windsor County District, Windsor County, London Dairy, and Mount Holly, although I think I'm south of Addison County. I'm Brian Campion. I am the state senator for Bennington County and Bloomington. Okay. And Senator Mark McDonald, our fifth committee member, is also here from Orange. So, the current pandemic makes it wise for us to gather as a large group, so we're using the best alternate we have, and that's an online public meeting. And while we're not seeing each other in person in the traditional way, I'd like to ask all of us to treat each other the same civility and respect that we use when speaking in person, neighbor to neighbor on the street, town meeting or town meeting. Vermont's a very small state, and regardless of where we are from and in what forms we enjoy the great outdoors, we're all still neighbors, and so I'm encouraging us all to be neighborly this evening. We all know the issues we are discussing can be emotional and controversial. So, to help us conduct a neighborly meeting, I'm going to ask speakers to address in a positive way what their thoughts are and not to personalize the conversation or speak about those who held a different view. Let's focus on the policy in the programs, not people and personalities. A few nuts and bolts about how the meeting will be conducted. So, all speakers will be given two minutes to speak. I'll call on speakers and also announce who's on deck so that you can prepare knowing you're next. Speakers will be invited in to become quote-unquote a panelist, so click to accept and you'll come on to the screen. Be sure to turn on your microphone and you can choose whether or not to turn on your video. We will show a timer on the screen. You can share a lot of information in two minutes. Please keep an eye on the time and honor the time limit to make it fair to all the others who come after you tonight speaking. We have ordered our list of names to alternate between those supporting and those opposing, and I would suggest that as you listen to those who go before you, you may want to consider revising your remarks to avoid repeating what's already been said and adding new material so that we can make the hearing even more comprehensive. In order to maximize the number of people we are going to hear from, members of the committee are not going to be asking questions or engaging in any sort of discussion or debate tonight. Our goal this evening is to hear from you. Please also do not show posters, photos, graphics on screen. We're here to listen to what you have to say. And once I finish my opening remarks, we'll begin testimony and continue for two full hours. And just for context where we are in our legislative process. So this hearing is a very brief survey to help the committee better understand the range of thinking of the people we represent. But tonight is just the beginning in the coming month. We will schedule regular committee time and take detailed testimony on these bills. Some of you may well participate in those committee meetings. And regardless, in addition, we are always welcoming your written comments, which you can send to us through our committee assistant Judith Newman via email. So I'm going to give her email address twice. So it's Judith Newman, and her email address is Jay Newman. So J-N-E-W-M-A-N at L-E-G period, state period, V-T period US. So I know that's a little awkward. So I'll just say it again. Jay Newman, J-N-E-W-M-A-N at ledge, L-E-G dot state dot V-T dot US. Okay. So getting to the bills we're discussing tonight, we're discussing three bills and they are S-129, which proposes to transfer the authority to adopt rules for the taking of fish wildlife and fur-bearing animals from the Fish and Wildlife Board to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The bill would also amend the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Board so that it serves in an advisory capacity to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The second bill is S-201, which prohibits the use of leg hold traps to take or attempt to take wildlife. And the third is S-281, which proposes to prohibit the pursuit of coyote with the aid of dogs, either for the training of dogs or for the taking of coyote. I also want to note that all these bills are currently in there as introduced form. It's a first draft, and as the committee works, we can add, remove, and rewrite the bill. One of the reasons we're having this panel and we invite your written and oral testimony committee is that we consider your suggestions and we can use that as we edit the bills. Okay. So thank you for your time, your attention and your participation. I'm just noting that it's 536. I'm going to make sure that no one loses any time because my introductory remarks took a few minutes. So the first speaker tonight is Michael Donnelly and on deck is Brenna Galdensi. So let's begin. Thank you. And I'm not seeing Mr. Donnelly yet. If you are in the sort of waiting room, you'll need to click on a button that accepts being promoted up to a quote unquote panelist, and then you'll come on to the screen with the committee. He's not here, Senator Bray. Okay. Thank you for that. So then we will move to our next witness, Brenna Galdensi. And just so that people know, on deck is Derek Williams. Good evening. I'm Brenna Galdensi, president and co founder of Protect Our Wildlife for Months representing over 3,000 supporters from every corner of the state. And we support all three of these bills. Banning leg hold traps and coyote hounding would be easy if the issues weren't subjected to a misinformation campaign fueled by sportsmen's lobbyists who claim that these bills are attacks on hunting. People who testified in support of these bills earlier this month are actually hunters or come from hunting families. So any misinformation that these bills are an attack on hunting is an attempt to mislead hunters. Leg hold traps and using packs of hounds to run down in mall coyotes have nothing to do with hunting. In fact, they are the opposite of hunting. Traps can't even distinguish between the intended victim, a bobcat, for example, and a protected species like a bald eagle. Non targeted animals like hawks and ravens are killed every year in leg hold traps. The argument that leg hold traps are a tradition is merely a red herring. Using snares was a tradition and they were banned decades ago in Vermont. We have more humane ways of doing things now. So why would anyone choose to hold on to practices that inflict tremendous suffering? Just because that's the way we did it hundreds of years ago. There's no shortage of evidence showing injured bobcats and other wildlife suffering and traps. We can do better. And remember, this does not ban all trapping. It bans only leg hold traps. As for coyote hounding, it is legalized dog fighting. But worse, it's multiple dogs against one of coyote. Lastly, we support S 129, which seeks to diversify the Fish and Wildlife Board as someone who's testified in front of the board numerous times and has been treated disrespectfully with hostility by some members directed towards me and others. The time is 10 seconds. The time has passed you to fix this broken system. Thank you. Thank you. So up next is Derek Williams and on deck is Jerry Huck. Mr. Williams, you could turn on your video and or but we'll certainly need to hear your your microphone on. Thank you. How's it going, everybody? I'm Derek Williams. I reside in New Bray, Vermont. First off, I'd like to say that I while this format works for me, I feel like this is going to negatively impact the access to a lot of people who will be negatively impacted by this bill. I work in a school every day five sending schools from two different states. And I believe that that's critically important to our state. And so is having an open and accessible legislative process. S 129 is an attempt at crippling a working board and replacing it with a less functional alternative. The only reasons that I can see anyone wanting to change this process is to shift the decision making power to the legislature and away from the governor and to increase the impact of those who are bound and determined to strip Vermont is of their ability to harvest Vermont's bountiful natural resources. This committee as a representative from each county, the members are appointed for one term by the sitting governor and the decisions they make are informed by the talented biologist law enforcement officers and administrators employed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. I personally believe in science and my read on the situation is that the board makes scientifically backed decisions that are in the best interests of Vermonters and grounded in the appreciation of the value of Vermont's wildlife and the goal of maintaining healthy wildlife populations. During this period of incredible stress on all of Vermont's resident residents, government and businesses, it strikes me as unethical that we are wasting so many resources discussing this bill that addresses a non existent issue and replaces a functioning body with one that is not backed by science and blatantly politically motivated. S 281, this bill attempts to ban a practice due to false information. My many experiences with hound hunting have never led me to believe that the hounds are unsafe. The speed at which others travel on back roads has been unsafe. Angry and anti hunters have made me feel unsafe. And there's risk navigating the back country that presents risks. However, my daughters started when they were seven and they frequently asked to go. This is an attack on our rural rights. And that's a reason we have so much divisiveness in our politics today. Please use your time more wisely. Thank you. Up now is Jerry hook and on deck is will stats. Thank you for letting me speak today. My husband and I support all three bills. We are not against hunting for food. In fact, hunting is one of the more honorable ways to feed yourself. I've known many hunters over the years and the vast majority of them do not support some of the things that have been endorsed by the Fish and Wildlife Board. So you have to ask yourself whether the board fully even represents the hunting community, much less other Vermont citizens who are heavily impacted by the board's decisions. Your hunters, for example, do not generally like it when coyote hunters in their hounds trespass on their land. Today, the selection process for board members is done without transparency. For my county, several people applied, but no one even got a confirmation after submitting their applications. Instead, someone who didn't submit an application got appointed. And to this day, no one can explain how this process happens. These are six year terms and board members are not required to recuse themselves from decisions where they have serious conflicts of interest. When voting on expanding trapping seasons for bobcats, it took intense public pressure and citizens packing board meetings just for the board to vote with the department, which is already incredibly, incredibly supportive of everything the board wants. We all have to live with the consequences of board decisions, but most of us are locked out of the process. I think this is undemocratic, and it needs to change. And I'm not the only one. The Association of Fish and Wildlife agencies has called for change to better align with modern values. Passing these bills can begin that transformation. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. Thank you. Next up is Will Statz and on deck is Dean Percival. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Okay, all right. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Will Statz, I live in town of Victory. I'm a wildlife biologist. I've worked in the field of wildlife conservation for nearly 40 years. Trapping is an important furbearer management tool is used for regulating furbearer populations, protecting crops and property, and has often been used in wildlife research studies. Trapping provides a means to harvest sustainable renewable resource and to weigh life from anywhere over moners. Trapping today is practice using best management practices, which provides guidelines to make trapping as humane as possible. And the foothold trap, it's not a leg hole trap, has undergone many modifications over the years is designed to restrain the animal until the trapper research arrives and not maim or harm the animals, which would be counterproductive. These traps have been used on countless wildlife studies to safely and you mainly capture animals, including links in Maine for research release. Foothold currently coyotes are thriving throughout Vermont perform a viable function or ecosystem as a predator. However, hunting and trapping are two tools that Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department uses to manage and maintain coyote populations within their ecological and social caring capacity. I would recommend that rather than single out one particular form of hunting methodology, I would suggest that we defer to our own experts at the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department who are charged with safeguarding our wildlife resources and their habitats. As we have seen with the pandemic over the couple of past couple years, please follow the science. I certainly don't have enough time to talk about hounds. But this is just one step in an effort to try to eliminate the use of hounds for all all taking pursuing all animals, despite the fact that it's a it's a legitimate tool that we've used on research projects many times with no harm to the animals. It's been used all over the world for capture safely capturing wildlife for research and relocation as well as hazing animals away from conflict areas. So what I would conclude is that the real threat to our wildlife is not trapping our hounds and hunters, but the increasing development threatens to suburbanize the rural landscape. We all share a common goal Vermont that has an abundant wild man's wildlife populations. I would suggest that we all work together hunters and trappers and non hunters. Okay. Thank you very much. Next up is Dean Percival. And on deck is Gary Davis. Either one of them are here. Okay. Then next up is Jennifer to tell in on deck is Ryan Delabriere. Miss Kettle. Miss Kettle.  And just in case you don't know, we can. There's your microphone on. Okay, the floor is yours. Please. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. I support all three of these bills. So far you have heard a lot about how these bills are an attack on hunting privileges, but I assure you they are not. They modernize the state's approach to wildlife management and bring our fishing game department into into line with how other state departments operate. For I am a native remontor and I grew up in a hunting family venison got us through some lean time. So I appreciate the role hunting plays and food security, but coyote hounding is nothing more than a barbaric form of dog fighting.  I mean, it creates more problems than it solves. I mean, there are documented cases of hounds attacking pets and the people they're trying that are trying to protect them. It's time to end this violent and reprehensible practice. As far as leg hold or foothold traps, the use of them is irresponsible. The traps themselves are inherently cruel and dangerous and made more so by the lack of regulation around their use. There's no way to make the devices safe or less cruel. That's why several states have restricted their use or ban them outright. Vermont needs to do the same. You know, the board itself is composed of individuals with a vested interest in the outcome of the rules and regulations that set moving the board to an advisory role will remove that conflict of interest. It will allow professionals with appropriate and amount of time. You're not. You have 16 15 seconds. Oh, well, anyway, it will allow professionals with the appropriate backgrounds, educations and qualifications to lead the board and make appropriate choices for wildlife based on evidence and not financial interest. Thank you. Okay. So I want to just remind people I would please ask anyone who's speaking not to characterize those who have of views other than your own and focus on what it is that you want to say in a positive way from your perspective. Thank you. Mr. Dobry air.  And on the on deck circle is Mary Ann Marotta. Hello, I'm Ryan DeLabrier. I'm from Wheelock Vermont. I'm testifying today to support all three of these bills. I guess, you know, most of what I was going to say has already been said as far as the facts about the good that can come out of trapping and all the best management practices that have gone into making trapping more humane, safe and less stressful on the animal. You know, as you've heard, there's been they use it in several studies and the animals are released with no harm and it's a widely used practice. Um, you know, in the coyote hound, Bill is it's the same thing that we see every year. It doesn't matter if it's coyote hounds, if it's bear hounds or what it is. It's an attack on hounds. And it's a unfortunately, it's a small group of people who are misrepresented and misunderstood. There's a lot of misinformation that's being promoted. And it's there's just not a lot of us that for one, this format really is usable for. I mean, it's a struggle for everybody to try to use this. And as far as the restructuring of the board, I mean, it's, you know, where is this current format failed? And I believe right now with the way it's set up, it's giving equal representation to everybody in the state, not just the population centers. I mean, the wildlife is spread throughout the state geographically. And I think by changing it to any way that it from what it is now, it has a you run the risk of 10 seconds, your decision making being shifted to the population centers. And I think that's a huge disservice to a lot of rural Vermonters who cherish this way of life. And the reason that I live in Vermont is not for a little bit. Okay, thank you, Mr. Dodger. Marianne Morata, you're not here. Okay, then Jason Michaud is up and on deck is Carolyn canning. Mr. Michaud, it's your turn. I'm going to ask one of the folks running the show behind the scenes is Mr. Michaud here. Yes, and I promoted him to panelists and now he seems to not be here. Okay, so Mr. Michaud, if you're still here and wanting to speak, there is a button to accept being promoted to panelists. If you click on that, you sort of come into the room on the screen with the rest of us. We don't see you in the next few seconds will decide will conclude you've decided otherwise, which is fine. And we'll go on to miss canning. Okay. So Carolyn canning, it is your turn. And on deck is Lee Cassidy is miss canning here. Not seeing she is here. I think Julie is trying to move her now. Okay. So this canning you can choose. There we go. Hi. Hi, I'm Caroline canning from Burlington. I'm concerned this board is not comprised of a diverse group of individuals who fairly represent wildlife. I feel it's important for such boards have a diversity of people. S 201, the use of leg hole traps was implemented during an era when we were hungry or poor and far less educated. We didn't comprehend the pain and suffering that occurred each time an animal became trapped. Today, we are much more aware of the pain, suffering and fear animals endure when trapped. It's unfathomable to me how we continue to use these archaic and gruesome devices that are so clearly inhumane. Trappers are supposed to check their traps every day, which means animals suffer over a prolonged period, and are subject to weather extremes and being preyed upon. In some cases, literally eaten alive. This daily check requirement is not enforceable. Many animals suffer far longer. Several years ago, my elderly father called me in a panic. He witnessed his cat arriving home with a mangled leg. The cat narrowly escaped death in a leg hole trap and had to have her leg imputated as 281. I'm quite sure none of us would want to fitness witness seeing our dogs or family pets endure what coyotes are faced with by hounding dogs. I'm very involved with dog rescue and I'm appalled by how they are trained and then let loose in our woods causing nightmarish havoc for surrounding wildlife. Why are hunters permitted to sit in their tracks? Why is it considered humane to continue this very disturbing barbaric practice in 2022? Hounding not only terrorizes the coyote, but all nearby. How can anyone consider this practice humane? Thank you for your time. Thank you. Up next is Lee Cassidy and on deck is Cynthia Hennard. They're not here. The next two people would be Joe Mullen and Pamela town. Okay, thank you. So Joseph Mullen, you are up and I'm coming through Mr Chairman. Yes, please. Perfect. Perfect. Good evening, Chair Bray, Vice Chair Westman and honorable members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy. My name is Joe Mullen. I'm from Grafton Mass, and I'm the Northeastern States Assistant Manager for the Congressional Sportsman's Foundation. I appear before you this evening to express my strong opposition to Senate bills 129, 201 and 281. I've submitted a letter of opposition outlining my primary concerns with these bills. So for now, I'm just going to provide some high level points. With regard to Senate bill 129, CSF opposes any efforts to restructure the composition of the Fish and Wildlife Board and the system by which the members are appointed. One only needs to look to New Jersey's Black Bear issue as a living, breathing case study for how this may end up. In that situation, politics killed the implementation of the state's Black Bear Management Plan, something that was compiled after on the ground studies from the state's wildlife biologists, removing the existing process with what's proposed in Senate bill 129 opens the door for stacking the board with those who may oppose hunting, fishing and trapping. Overhauling the board's composition is unnecessary. We'll most certainly decrease the efficiency and efficacy of the rulemaking process. CSF also voices its opposition to Senate bill 201. Trapping is a crucial component of modern wildlife management in Vermont. The methods have all been rigorously evaluated for their efficiency, selectivity, practicality and safety. State Fish and Wildlife agencies, including the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department have adopted best management practices through the regulatory process to ensure that the most effective, selective and humane technology is being used by the resident trappers. Finally, CSF opposes Senate bill 281. The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department relies on an existing science-based process that includes both biological and social data, and it is unquestionably in the best position to determine whether the use of dogs for coyote hunting should be permitted or banned. I'll wrap up by reiterating my opposition to these three bills. And I thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Right to the second. Okay. With that, next up is Pamela Town and on deck is John Audet. No, it would be Chris Bradley after that and then Diana Hansen. Okay. This is Pamela Town speaking. And I want to thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to express my feelings about these three bills. I am a fifth generation Vermonter from a long line of farmers with many hunters among them. We are rural people and have been since we moved to Vermont five generations ago. I fully support the bills S201, S281, and S129. The leg hold traps are completely indiscriminate. They trap protected and endangered animals and our pets in addition to the targeted animals. Once trapped, the animal suffers horribly until they get loose, often leaving a foot behind, or are killed by bludgeoning, strangling, stomping, drowning, or if they're lucky shooting. There are no regulations regarding what can be done to dispatch the animal. 88 countries have banned leg hold traps because of the inherent cruelty. For S281, the ban on coyote hounding, coyote hounding really is nothing more than legalized dog fighting with the exception that is a pack of hounds against a solitary coyote. Coyotes are killed simply because of hatred and many false myths with no basis in science. Coyote hounding also presents a property rights issue as hounds frequently pursue the coyote onto posted private property with no consequences. An S129 making the Fish and Wildlife Board advisory only in offering more inclusion. The Fish and Wildlife Board is currently made up of 14 hunters, trappers, and anglers granted with the power to set policy. The Fish and Wildlife Department of Vermont is charged with managing wildlife for the benefit of all Vermonters, not just for the few who hunt, trap, and fish. Setting policy and regulations should be the purview of the Vermont. Thank you, Ms. Town. I'm going to go with the list I have. I know that some people are not showing up, so I'll get a correction from someone who's keeping track of people coming in and out of the room I can't see. Next on my list is Sean O'Dette followed by Linda Danyam. Nope, they're not here. It goes Chris Bradley. Okay, so after that is Diana Hansen. Okay, so next up, thank you, Chris Bradley and on deck Diana Hansen.  I will reserve the picture if you would please. My name is Chris Bradley. I reside in Northfield and I'm the president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Clubs, representing over 14,000 members. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a registered lobbyist and completely unpaid. The Federation cannot support S-129 and S-201. As far as 281 goes, we agree with Commissioner Herrick that the issue of hunting coyote with dogs should be taken up by the Fish and Wildlife Department and Board, perhaps to the intent to establish permitting and related rules. Let me be clear, the Federation does not support dog fighting. We do not however see this activity in that manner. In talking to Wardens, with Wardens being the ones in the best position to know when this sort of activity occurs, they indicate that it may occur it is exceptionally rare. It is our understanding that local media has been blanketed with ads that proclaim hunting coyotes with dogs is synonymous with dog fighting. That is simply not the case. It is an exceptionally gross exaggeration and is put out there for one purpose, to inflame and mislead the public. The Federation lobbies on behalf of sports people and we follow the rules. When I say follow the rules, I mean we register as a lobbying organization. We pay for that privilege and we are fine if we do not report and we specifically have to report what we spend on such things as advertising that influences legislation. As it appears, the legislature is looking for things to act upon. When will the issue, when when will this issue be addressed by the legislature? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. Next up is Diana Hansen and on deck is William Pickens. Please begin, Ms. Hansen. Thank you so much. My name is Diana Hansen. I'm a resident of Craftsbury, Vermont and adding to my testimony last week where I shared a coyote hounding incident where hounds chased a coyote onto my property and caused property damage along with trauma to my family. I'd like to add that in the following weeks I sat in a meeting with my town select board and shared my deep concern for public safety after I'd witnessed the aggressiveness of the hound dogs as well as the fact that they could not be called off the hunt. These concerns were dismissed and that in the same year in October 2019, a couple hiking on the Catamount Trail were brutally attacked by radio colored hounds.  Another incident happened in the spring of 2021 where a woman was attacked and her dog was attacked while she was biking in Fairleaf, Vermont. According to the report, the hounds chased the woman and her dog for over two miles, attacking the dog at least 10 times until the woman was able to take refuge. Currently right now in my neighborhood, coyote hounders are running their dogs in the woods that connect directly to the ski trails run by the Craftsbury Outdoor Center. I absolutely believe it's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt again as these dogs run freely and aggressively through our forests. Following my incident in June 2019, I attended a Fish and Wildlife Board meeting where a group of Vermont law students and a petition signed by Vermonters proposed coyote hounding season only be open or closed so that it was closed during the spring and summer when coyote pelts are no longer valuable or not valuable. During this meeting, Vermonters shared concerns to serving experiences like my own and science to support shortening the season. Even after all of this information was shared by a packed room of all kinds of Vermonters, the board denied this position. So I first handly witnessed that these concerns of the public were not heard by the board and I do think that it's important we change that. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up is William Pickens and on deck is Catherine Bonnar. On deck is Bert Saldy and then Barbara Feliti. Okay. It is Mr. Okay, so I'm seeing on the screen, Katie Pickens. Okay. Yeah, you're seeing Katie Pickens. It's Bill Pickens actually. Okay. I'd like to talk about S201, which is a foothold trap, not a lake hold. Thank you very much. This statement includes farmers nuisance wildlife control people and property owners. You're going to stop them from using this trap. This foothold trap is a tool in the box of things that we can use to mitigate problems. You wouldn't ask a contractor to build your house with a finishing hammer. So why ask us not to use a perfectly good tool? These tools have been used in the past to help people do studies on coyotes, fishers, bobcats, otters and transporting them to different locations. It's S201 is just a bill to end trapping in the state of Vermont. That's all it is. On S129 on the board, I was on the board for six years. I'm no longer on the board. My knowledge of the board right now is correct something. I don't believe there's a trapper on the board now, an active trapper. The proposal is four people are put on the board by the governor, four people by the leader of the house, four people by the committee on committees. That board could be seriously stacked against any rules and regulations that might help the eastern part of the state. I think you're just putting the second layer in to modify some people that can't get their way and are upset. I run out of time. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your comments. Katherine Bodnar is not here. So we're going on to Bert Saldi. And on deck is Barbara Filiti. Can you folks hear me? Yes, we can. Yeah, Bert Saldi, Barry Vermont. The Fish and Wildlife Department has a history of extended back to 1866. Fish and Wildlife Board established in 1961. Back then there was seven members. Now there's 14 in each one from each county. Six year term. When with the authority to set season date, bag limits and other rule. Why would anybody in their right mind want to change the structure of these two bodies when it's been working just fine all these years? Fish and Wildlife with professionals on on the landscape, making the best decisions for wildlife based on science period. When you folks start legislating anti opinions into law, you need to be honest with both yourself and the public. There is no factual basis to remove these wildlife management tool. Any legislator that's picking the option of a voice of minority over the lifetime of value of other members as as community of your community aren't fixing the problem. You are establishing the option as a law and showing everybody that you don't care about community members that you as a connection to each other and land through these activities. Trappers help homeowners, farmers, miscipalities and deal with problem animal. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you, Mr. Salty. Thank you. Up next is Barbara Feliti and on deck is Matt Roy. On deck is Andrea Landsberg. Okay. And after that is Alana Stevenson. Okay, thank you. Barbara Feliti from Huntington. I support the three bills that are being considered. The Fish and Wildlife Board is an outlier. My question is why does this board have the authority to set rules? There are over 160 Vermont boards and commissions on the state website and the vast majority are advisory bodies or professional licensing boards. For the few boards that set rules such as the Board of Health, over half of the members must have relevant technical training as doctors and dentists. For the Fish and Wildlife Board, the only requirement is geographic diversity, not technical expertise or diversity of perspectives. So in my mind, there is no compelling or justifiable reason for the board to have the authority to set rules. The department's technical experts should set rules with advice from a diverse Fish and Wildlife Board. Regarding leg or traps and coyote hunting or coyote hounding, first I think S201 does not go far enough. All sport trappings should be banned in any need for nuisance trapping regulated by Fish and Wildlife Department. Trapping and hounding are constantly promoted as part of culture and tradition. What is forgotten is that cultures and traditions change over time. Cockfighting and dogfighting were once part of American culture. Over time, these were recognized as forms of animal cruelty and are now banned in all 50 states and in many states are felony. 17 states now banned some forms of hounding in 10 states ban or limit trapping due to public safety and animal cruelty concerns. Vermont should be a leader and not a laggard in this area. In my opinion, taking an inflexible position on trapping on sport trapping and hounding gives us an outdated approach to wildlife management. As Gandhi said, the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. It is time for Vermont to show moral progress in the humane treatment of our wildlife. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up is Andrea Lansberg and on deck subject to correction is Alana Stevenson. Hello. Go ahead. Thank you. Okay. Hello. My name is Andrea Lansberg. I'm from Cornwall, Vermont. First, I would like to comment on S 129. One example of my concern regarding the role of the Fish and Wildlife Board is that the board does not always listen to the Fish and Wildlife biologists. This was evidenced in 2016 when biologists advised the board to not support an extension to bobcat trapping season and that proposal was voted down. If the board was advisory only in the future, it would head off potential problems like this and allow the science and the guidance of experts to drive hunting and fishing decisions. I urge you to support this bill. With respect to S 201 and S 281, I find it very impossible to conceive of any legitimate reasons for continuing to allow the practices covered by these bills. And it has been shown in a UVM poll that the vast majority of Vermont residents agree it is time to eliminate the use of traps in whatever form we call them. And this is because there are more humane and sustainable ways to handle wildlife conflicts and trapping animal and getting ahold of animals for experimental reasons or monitoring them without having to resort to these barbaric traps. In addition, I'm certain that the majority of Vermonters would agree that there is no supportable reason to continue to permit hunting of coyotes with packs of dogs. This practice presents a danger to people and property as previously presented and is nothing more than legalized dog fighting. If coyotes are causing a legitimate problem for a landowner or farmer again, there are more humane ways to deal with this. I ask that you have the bravery to stand up and listen to the wishes of the majority of Vermonters and take the humane action possible. And please don't fall prey to the arguments of the slippery slope that this means an end of hunting in Vermont. It doesn't. And that's not what any of us are advocating. Thank you so much for your time and your willingness to listen. Thank you. Up next is Alana Stevenson. And I'm going to have to ask my off screen assistant to tell me the name after that please. After that is Mark Paul. Thank you. Please go ahead, Miss Stevenson. Hi, I'm Alana. I'm an animal behaviors professionally for 20 years as of March. I am masking that you all support all three bills. S 281 for coyote hounding. I think that all hounding should be banned. No one is in control of the dog, no less a pack of dogs. If the dog is visually out of sight and not within hearing distance, which is what hounding is all about to have verbal control over a pack of dogs running frenzied after a prey animal. It's impossible. Hounding is unregulated dog fighting, as people have said, and there is nothing sophisticated about the training as the methods are used in animal fighting. Hounding causes emotional trauma and has caused severe injury to people, pets, domestic animals, wildlife and to the dogs themselves.  And it poses a serious and legitimate safety risk for S 201. Traps are indiscriminate and not a legitimate conservation tool. There are no restrictions. So one individual can set over 100 traps. And to me, this outrageously is not illegal because it's not illegal. There's no reporting. So trappers can injure deer, falcons, 100 of other animals, including endangered species and domestic pets with no accountability and zero consequences. Setting traps on public lands, especially near public trails that are used by hikers and children and dog walkers and birders is irresponsible and it's a safety risk. For S 129, there is a double standard in how Vermont Fish and Wildlife operates and the requirements that places on others. And I think the board member should be credentialed and voted in. Yeah, or the board should be abolished or should be advisory. So I ask that you support that as well. Thank you. I just want to note that we've had quite a few no shows. So if anyone is wondering why we might have two people speaking in support in row as opposed to alternating as which is our original design. It's because people have chosen not to speak this evening. I think we'll be going back to the Deborah Hurlburt is up now. And next on deck is Mark Paul. Good evening. I'm Deborah Hurlburt from Salisbury. I speak as a Vermonter born and raised. I come from a long line of Vermonters that are or were hunters for my great grandfather, not to my dad and my brother. My brother taught me how to hunt in the woods. And he taught me how to track animals using prints in the snow, trampled pressed vegetation in the meadows. He was one of the best hunters I ever knew. I was taught by him to be respectful, responsible in the way one hunts, because everything we do as humans affects the environment in some shape or form. We would never use traps or hounds to hunt. Animals at all, the gift and art of hunting is being respectful of your prey and being respectful of the environment. The use of leg hold traps and hunting is not respectful or responsible. We have seen that the use of traps can be indiscriminate. It can leave animals, your pets, other wildlife threatened and endangered species vulnerable to the crushing jaws. It has been explained that this is similar to getting your hands slammed in the car door. This is not hunting by use by using hounds. It is abuse. It is torture and it is inhumane. There is no doubt that suffering is incurred in all animals that are captured and brutalized by traps and by the coyotes that are terrorized by dogs. Hounding is unsporting and is lack it lacks fair chase. I myself am very cautious now hiking into the woods because of the attacks that have happened on certain people by hounding dogs. I don't take my dogs out hiking because I am fearful of unseen traps. Therefore, our support bills 201, 129 and 281. Thank you for your time and your anticipated thoughtful consideration. Thank you, Ms. Hurlbert. Good evening, Mr. Paul. You are up and on deck is Andrew Marcus. Jennifer Lovett is on deck. Okay. Jennifer Lovett is on deck thank you for that. Ms. Delaney. Thank you and good evening senators and everyone else in attendance. My name is Mark Paul. I'm a biology and environmental science teacher and a third generation Bermuda. I support legal ethical hunting, but hounding and trapping are not hunting and not ethical. Unfortunately, they are legal. I hope that will change. Like many Vermonters, there is nothing I love more than being outside viewing and photographing wildlife. However, my interests are not represented by the Fish and Wildlife Board and the interests of most Vermonters who of course love to see wildlife, as do tourists, are also not represented. The majority of Vermonters do not have a voice in how our wildlife is treated because the current board is made up exclusively of hunters, hounders and trappers and maybe some anglers who represent a very small minority. I would like to see this change and encourage the passage of Bill S-129. As for Bill S-201, I encourage its passage. The use of leg hold traps is cruel and inhumane. Furbearers are mammals just like you and me. They have a nervous system just like you and me. And they experience pain, fear and terror just like you and me. If you don't believe me, watch a video of an animal caught in a trap being taunted by a trapper and they're out there. They're easy to find. Watch these videos and tell me these animals are not experiencing fear and terror. Please put an end to the use of leg hold traps. I also encourage the passage of Bill S-281, which will prohibit the pursuit of coyotes with the aid of dogs either for the training of dogs or for the taking of a coyote. Coyotes, as I have said, are mammals. They have a nervous system just like ours and experience pain, fear and terror just like we do. I'll never understand how people who own and love dogs can watch their pets torture and kill a coyote. Coyotes are wild dogs. Take a good look at one. They're beautiful animals. Not much different than our pets. What does this say? Thank you, Mr. Paul. Now is Jennifer Lovett and on deck is Jeremiah Lamefer. Leslie Pollitt is going to turn it up next. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. I'm not doing so well on the up next call. Please go ahead. It's your turn. Okay, thank you. As a conservation biologist, I feel S-129 must be passed. I was shocked to learn that all 14 members of the Fish and Wildlife Board were political appointees with no relevant qualifications. The department biologists, experienced professionals working in the field should be making the policies related to Vermont's wildlife and ecosystem management. The current board is overtly biased towards hunters and trappers and does not fairly represent the many stakeholders in Vermont's public lands. Their lack of relevant educational background, blatant biases and conflicts of interest make this passage of this bill extremely urgent. S-201, a ban on leg hole traps is long overdue. These devices are environmentally dangerous and kill or maim many non-target animals every year including domestic pets and endangered species and the dependent offspring of trapped animals. Public perception of the sadism of trapping is evolving and there is a global shift away from fur. Leg hole traps are not ethical nor are they justified by wildlife or environmental science. S-281 eliminates an incredibly violent and dangerous form of unsupervised dog fighting, perhaps the most egregious form of Vermont's relentless persecution of coyotes. Hounding is remarkably unregulated with no required permits for the hounds or mandatory reporting of kills. Because private posted land is not off limits, pets and livestock are vulnerable to attacks. The Fish and Wildlife Department knows that killing coyotes results in increased populations and likely more aggression directed at non-native prey. Coyotes do not significantly impact deer herd and provide numerous invaluable eco services. The best proven way to manage them is to co-exist with local packs and to dispel myths based on fear and competition for deer that are perpetuated by coyote hunters. Thank you, Miss Lovett. Up next is Leslie Pallett and on deck please, Miss Thelaney, is who? That's the last person that I have on the list. There's a phone number and there's four names that are in the attendees that I don't see on the list. Okay, so let's finish with the list and then we'll see where we're at. Okay. My name is Leslie Pallett. I live in Halifax, Vermont and I've been here full time with my partner for over 20 years and we own a fair amount of land and I'm a member of the Halifax Conservation Commission and of the Vermont Disaster Animal Relief Team. And I'm speaking tonight because I strongly support the ban on leg hold traps, the ban on coyote hounding and making the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board advisory more inclusive. And I'm going to come from a more personal story to back up what people have said here tonight at two events. A neighbor quite recently told me in a Vermont neighbor that a truck drove up near her house and her dogs got excited as she went out and spoke to the person who was starting to head into the woods and she asked if he was a hunter and he said, yeah, well, I'm a hounder. And so she said, what are you what are you hounding?  And he said, oh, no, the hounds ripped the coyote apart. And most of the time, I'm not even there to see it. So to me, this is not hunting. You know, on our land, we allow hunting from people that we know who are really good hunters. But this to me is a blood sport. And it makes me very nervous for our own animals because we have land of that there's no control. And then in terms of the leg hole trap, my partner's dog was caught in a trap was out there for three days in the rain and cold. And luckily, the trap was actually quite close to our house, maybe a football field away. So we found the dog and ended up having to have her leg taken off. But she survived at least. But also it's a cruel cause of great suffering to animals and unintended animals. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Miss Pollard. So I'm going to check in with Ms. Delaney. We have no one else who's on the list present to come into the room. Is that there's a Jane Fitz Williams that we're going to let in. She was not on my list, but she is on the list. And Julie's going to let her in, I believe. OK, so Miss Fitz Williams, please join the committee. OK, we can see your picture. You can turn on your video or not as you like, but we'll need you to turn on your microphone. There we go. How's that? How's that? Please start. Thank you. I'm Jane Fitzwilliam. I live in Putney, Vermont, and I support with all my heart all three bills. A lot of what I'm going to talk about has already been mentioned, but it just doesn't hurt to repeat that the brutality of inflicted on Vermont's wildlife and like held traps is indefensible. Only point one five percent of the population in Vermont are trappers. The cruelty is unimaginable, yet these trappers enjoy this past time and the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board allows it. Why does Fish and Wildlife allow like held trapping at all? It's barbaric, it's outlawed in 88 countries and eight U.S. states, cruel, archaic and a tradition that needs to stop. As far as S-281 hunting coyotes with dogs, as many have said, it is legalized dog fighting. And the end of the coyote is just unimaginable. It's so it's awful. You've probably all seen the videos. I've sent a few in myself. It's many dogs on one coyote and it's unregulated and it can cause damage to property. Hounding is a danger to people. Coyote hounders really are inside of their dogs. They're sitting in their vehicles with technology. That's not hunting. That's just bloodshed. They say that they're hounding because it's a tradition, but it can't really be a tradition in the 21st century with technology. As far as S-29, 14 unelected, non-credential people comprise the Fish and Wildlife Board. They do not represent the general population of Vermont. It needs to be restructured and it needs to be overseen by the wildlife biologists. We must do better and thank you for letting me speak. I appreciate it. Thank you, Ms. Fitzwilliam. I'm gonna ask Ms. Delaney to help you know who else. I know we're sort of taking care of a couple of hiccups with getting people into the room. So do we have other people ready to go? There's a couple names that are telling me they've registered, but I don't have them on my list. I assume that they were registered. Glenn Callahan, if you wanna move him up. Okay, let's do that because we've had so many people no show that we're gonna be able to finish the list and add it and then some. Yeah, and Lisa Jow Blow is next. Okay. So I'll watch for the next person to be on the screen. Go ahead, Julie. I think I got it. So Ms. Callahan, we see your tile and there you go. And now I think the only thing left is to turn on your microphone, please. There we go. Okay. All right. Thank you. Awesome. So I'm Renate Callahan from Johnson, LaMoy County, and I ask you on behalf of my husband, Glenn Callahan, and myself, please sign off on the bills that would significantly improve the situation of our wildlife. Starts with the S-1-2-9 for the board. And we need to have credentialed members on the Fish and Wildlife Board with degrees in wildlife biology and or ecology have been qualified candidates to take positions and the applications were swept aside in a manner without any explanation or even a response to the applicants. Need non-consumptive members to represent silent authority of amontas who prefer to see wildlife safe in the woods instead of stuffed and potted on a wall. As for Bill S-01, lack hold traps simply has to stop. It's nothing can be said, favor of still allowing a cold traps, corny bear traps, browning traps, or any other trapping device. There's such an outlet, woodlanders, animal abuse, aka control or management, I am beyond the point that a state like amontas is even still allowing it. It ought to be self-explanatory, hopefully. For the hunting, hunting coyotes with dogs, truly were to protect a livestock or with problem animals, but any numbers often only for ways to do so, it's not. Simply an emotion-based, primal, but last, still something. While land is posted, I already know that this doesn't mean a thing. Eight four, just start posting us that ex-paying land owner is totally ignored, favor of unregulated dogs. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gallaghan. Next up is Lisa Javlo. And then we have Lynn Andrews and Rana Gable. Thank you. So, Ms. Javlo, we can see your tile, but not whether it goes to your microphone. You can turn on your video or not. That's entirely okay. I'm gonna leave the video off only because my internet connection is not stable. I've been getting messages, so. Okay, please go ahead. Thank you, thank you for the opportunity to speak. You've heard a lot of material thus far this evening, some opinions, emotions, some data, some science. However, I would like to present you with a few simple facts. Fact one, I strongly support all three of these bills. Second, the fact that you are taking them up for consideration speaks to the growing sense of outrage at what goes on in Vermont's woods and a certain boardroom. If you weren't aware of that, these bills would never have made it off the wall. Fact three, you have a very important choice here and make no mistake. What you do with these bills will have far-reaching consequences. The future of Vermont is up to you. Fact four, the world we live in today is eons away from the world of the settlers that begat the sacred traditions to which opponents of these bills so desperately cling. Everything is at a tipping point. What kind of country we will become and whether we will even have a world for much longer. So your actions really, really matter. You can play the odds and try to determine which side you take will get you more future votes. You can side with an entrenched and very vocal minority that is desperate to preserve the status quo or you can support a kinder, more compassionate Vermont that values the lives of all who live here, whether they have feet, fur or feathers. This is the moment. The fate of these bills will say a lot about you and Vermont's future. I urge you to consider very carefully and cut through the noise. There is a lot at stake here and your actions will resonate for a long time to come. And fact five, there are far worse things than being called woke or a snowflake and they are happening every day to Vermont's wildlife. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Shablow. Next up is Lynn Andrews. And Ms. Delaney, do we have anyone on deck? Rona Gable. Thank you. Ms. Andrews, we see your tile. Awesome. Good evening, senators. Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can. It's your turn. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Lynn Andrews that I live in Pomfret, Vermont. I'm a little confused why so many people have talked about hunting because clearly hunting isn't one of the choices for what we're discussing tonight. I grew up in a family of hunters. Venison kept that freezer full so I understand the love for hunting. And I'm just saying that repetitively because this has nothing to do with hunting. Talking about banning coyote hounding, talking about leg hold traps and talking about adding some non-consumptives to the Fish and Wildlife Board that has nothing to do with deer hunting. It has nothing to do with bear hunting. We are hearing arguments that the status quo needs to stay. And then there are a lot of us who are like, what the status quo is not working. We are in the midst of a climate change crisis. We are experiencing things we've never experienced before. So why not err on the side of caution? Why not give it opportunity? I mean, like when was the last time there was a ban on hounding for coyotes? When was the last time we had a ban on leg hold traps? We've never tried it. It's not working anymore. We have no houses left in Vermont. There's gonna be more construction. Everybody wants to come here. Our COVID rates are great. Our schools are great. We got to protect what we have because they're coming and it's now. It has to be done right now. And I appreciate you taking the time to listen to all of us. I just think that this worry that we have about the future, what we do know is that wildlife only has the choices you're about to make to decide how it's gonna go for everyone. So thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gable. And sorry, thank you, Ms. Andrews. Up now is Rona Gable. And let me also pause once again and ask Ms. Delaney, do we have anyone on deck? I believe that's the last person that's everyone on the list and everyone that was in the attendee that was not on the list, I believe. All right, thank you very much. So Ms. Gable, the floor is yours. Thank you for taking the time this evening to hear our testimony. I would like to voice my support for all three bills. I'll begin with S129 regarding the Wildlife Advisory Board. The advisory board is stacked with anglers, hunters and trappers, not an accurate representation of Vermonters. I'll move on to S201, the leg hold trap. 75% of Vermonters support outlawing traps. I remain confused as to why we are putting the needs of 0.01% of Vermonters above the wishes of 75% of Vermonters. It's lobbyous, it's bizarre, it's pandering and it needs to stop. We can do better than this. We need to listen to what the majority of Vermonters want to do. Moving on to S281, coyote hounding. Hounding of all kinds is not, it's not sportsmanship. It's legalized dog fighting. It's not, I do feel that I need to state that I am from a hunting family because I see so much on the other side playing that this is anti-hunting, anti-hunting. It's not anti-hunting. My father was a hunter, my brother was a hunter. Many of my family members and friends are hunters. Ethical hunting is not what's at stake here. I don't know an ethical hunter who supports hounding or trapping. Please, please, thank you for listening and please consider, please consider science. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gabel. So I'm just going to confirm with Ms. Delaney. If no one left in our quote-unquote waiting room. I don't believe so. Julie, is there anybody that I'm missing or Jude? I don't think so. I don't have anybody else. Then I would like to thank members of the committee and thank everyone who came in this evening to provide testimony. As I said at the beginning, this is a public hearing just for us to hear a range of voices from around the state and we will be taking up bills in the ordinary way which is days of testimony. So there are opportunities to appear as a witness. There are also opportunities to provide us with written testimony and I'll give that email address one more time. It is J-N-E-W-M-A-N J Newman at ledge which is L-E-G dot state dot V-T dot U.S. So we welcome your comments. Thank you for coming out in the evening to help us hear a little more what the public's thinking about on these bills and we have concluded our hearing. Thank you committee members and thank you to legislative council and the IT staff that have stayed on this evening.


So in this example we're going to look at finding some minimal sufficient statistics. So we'll begin by recalling how we find minimal sufficient statistics in general using Fisher's Factorization Theorem. So basically you want to get the ratio of the distribution in terms of x and y and you look for when they are independent of whatever parameter you're interested in if and only if the statistic in terms of x is equal to the statistic in terms of y. So this is a very simple way of finding minimal sufficient statistics. So we'll begin with our first example looking at the normal distribution. So in the normal distribution if a single observation would have this distribution here so if I was to do the ratio of a single observation of x to a single observation of y we'd have f of x divided by f of y is equal to well this is to the power of minus a half here so 2 pi sigma squared to the power of minus a half e to minus x and then the x minus mu to be squared over 2 sigma squared and the same but in terms of y at the denominator. Okay basically you have something here that's the same above and below the line so we can get rid of it and make it simpler. So we have the exponential, we'll write it like the exponential and minus on the denominator becomes a plus on the numerator in terms of exponents so we have y minus mu squared over 2 sigma squared minus x minus mu to be squared over 2 sigma squared. Now that's a single observation but we're looking for something in terms of if we have more than one observation so we think in terms of a vector of observations instead becomes the product of this i equals 1 to n of the exponential of what we just have by i minus mu to be squared 2 sigma squared that's common minus x i minus mu to be squared and if we bring in this product it becomes a sum so we have the exponential of the sum of i equals 1 to n and we squared these terms out so y i squared minus 2 mu times the sum of y i plus n mu squared and then we have minus the sum of x i to be squared because it's x i squared and then minus so plus 2 mu the sum of y i x i I should say here and minus n mu squared and all of this is divided by 2 sigma squared so we tidy this up a bit so we have plus n mu squared minus n mu squared so they will cancel each other out so we simplify it so we have and gather terms in terms of so the sum from i equals 1 to n y i squared minus the sum from i equals 1 to n of x i squared and then we have let's say plus 2 mu times the sum of x i my equals 1 to n minus the sum of y i i equals 1 to n and all of this is divided by 2 sigma squared so this is constant with respect to mu if and only if the sum of x i is equal to the sum of y i so the sum of x i is a minimal sufficient statistic for mu and it's constant with respect to sigma squared if and only if and you have two things here that have to happen the sum of x i has to equal to the sum of y i because this has to essentially disappear and this has to disappear and the sum of x i squared is equal to the sum of y i squared so your minimal sufficient statistics for mu is the sum of x i or any simple function of the sum of x i for example the mean which is the sum of x i divided by your number of samples and your minimal sufficient statistic for sigma squared is the sum of x i i equals 1 to n and the sum of x i to b squared so that's how you calculate minimal sufficient statistics using the result of Fisher's factorization theorem