Meeting Minutes

Cary Medical Center - Caribou Room
163 Van Buren Road
Caribou , Maine
Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

Agenda

I. Call to Order 9:30 a.m.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Any-deer Permit Allocations 2017 - Judy Camuso

B. Step 2

1. Furbearer Seasons/Beaver Closures 2017-2018 - Judy Camuso
2. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Fish Waters 2018 - Francis Brautigam
3. Eastport Special Hunt - Judy Camuso

C. Step 1

1. Wildlife in Captivity Chapter 7 Rules - Jim Connolly

V. Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 a.m.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment 12:00 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
April 21, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, Upstairs Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Tim Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Tim Place Warden Service Lieutenant
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Don Dudley (Chair)
Dick Fortier
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Jerry Scribner
Larry Farrington
Jenny Starbird
Lance Wheaton

Guests:

John Glowa, South China
Deidre Fleming, Portland Press Herald

I. Call to Order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Thurston.

Vote: Unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. 2017 Moose Permit Allocations

Ms. Camuso stated we were not proposing any changes from what was presented at Step 1. This was a very similar proposal to last year. Mortality had been much lower than in previous years. We had 30% mortality in the western unit which was normal and less than 5% mortality in northern Maine. New Hampshire and Vermont were seeing similar mortality rates. There were two key variables to the winter tick's ability to impact moose survival and those were moose density and climate. If the climate was unsuitable to ticks in the spring and fall then they were less likely to survive. If moose density was low enough not to encourage the spread of that parasite we would see less mortality from ticks.

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to adopt the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

2. 2017-18 Migratory Waterfowl Seasons

Ms. Camuso stated there were no further changes from the amendments discussed at Step 2. There had been some confusion about the youth hunting dates for the north zone. The USFWS allowed us to have 2 youth days but they had to be outside the regular season.

Council member comments and questions

Mr. Farrington asked why we were proposing to change back to the original framework for the north zone.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there was concern expressed from the public that the northern zone was not in an appropriate time period. The focus had been the southern portion of the northern zone. People were interested in hunting at a different time. We considered that, and public comments, and the waterfowl council voted to go back to the original framework not the split season we had proposed.

Mr. Wheaton stated having read the comments, in his area if the northern zone wasn't open earlier the ducks would be gone and they would not get a chance to hunt at all. He was in favor of the change back to the original framework.

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to adopt the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

3. Boat Navigation Rules

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there were no changes from the original at Step 1. This was the rules of the road for boating and we wanted it in place for this season. We had a lot of education to do to get people to understand what the rules of the waterways were.

Commissioner Woodcock stated one of the primary reasons we were undertaking this project was so that the adjudicatory process had a basis to fall back on when it came time for prosecution.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there had been serious boating accidents that had caused us to move forward with this.

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to adopt the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

B. Step 2

1. Fall Turkey Season - WMD 27

Ms. Camuso stated this was a proposal to open WMD 27 to one turkey in the fall. It had been open in the spring, but not the fall. Our pullet surveys and regional staff and warden service all felt that area could support a one bird harvest in the fall. No public comments had been received.

There were no further questions or comments.

C. Step 1

1. Any-Deer Permit Allocations - 2017

Ms. Camuso stated we did not have a preliminary allocation of permits. Kyle Ravana was working with the data. There was a multi-step process. The first step was to do a quality check on all the data to make sure there was no duplication, etc. Then, for all animals harvested biological staff collected data for 15-20% of all the animals harvested. Kyle would take that data and compare it to the harvest data and run an analysis and that was the basis for starting the any-deer permit process. He would look at the age structure of all the animals harvested as well as the buck kill; buck per square mile and winter severity. Kyle would run a preliminary analysis that he sent to regional staff to review. After their review they would send their input on what was happening locally in the regions. They were planning to meet in early May to run the any-deer permit allocation process.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Scribner stated his concern was making sure the public had the appropriate time to react and to provide input. Thinking back historically in terms of permit allocations for moose and deer permits, was this the way it normally occurred in terms of not having the preliminary figures in Step 1?

Commissioner Woodcock stated the deer permit allocation process relied heavily on the books coming back from tagging agents. We had some delays in that process and we working on improving the system. Without the books, or a certain percentage we would not be able to calculate correctly. The process may be a tad behind schedule but not by much.

There were no further questions or comments.

V. Other Business

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had a couple of heritage fish water bill discussions in the Legislature that had been vibrant. Both bills focused on the state heritage fish waters law and LD 1018 put in by Representative Black of Wilton was a bill that would prohibit stocking or live bait on the tributaries to the state heritage fish waters. Tributaries were defined as direct and indirect tributaries. That had the possibility to create quite a spider web in some situations. As you could well imagine direct and indirect tributaries could go a ways into the water system, whether it did or not needed to be examined. We testified in opposition to the bill which created quite a stir with a lot of people, the notion that the Department would testify in opposition to protecting heritage fish. We were currently at 561heritage waters in Maine. The question was, did we want to throw a blanket over all of the tributaries and simply add all state heritage fish waters and tributaries. He was not a proponent of that at the current time without examining how that impacted the tributary system and the heritage water system. There was stocking involved in some of those distant places. He was not in favor of making the tributary law a blanket law. We would be proposing some heritage water additions from the survey waters that Trout Unlimited and Audubon assisted the Department with. They were concerned because not enough waters had been put on the list from their surveys. They had done a great job with the surveys, not all of the waters were in his opinion heritage fish waters and they recognized that also. To say or imply that the Department staff was not cognizant of how valuable wild brook trout were to Maine was incorrect. To have 561 waters on the heritage list and 97% of the wild lake and pond brook trout population left in the continental United States was a key indicator that we did value them highly. Not all regions held these waters.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the second law, LD 1236 would have taken away the Commissioner's ability to declare the heritage fish waters with rulemaking. The bill we testified in opposition to was the original bill, there had been some amendments to the language proposed.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

John Glowa stated 2 years ago IFW staff met with folks at Avian Haven to discuss the problem of lead poisoning Maine's eagles. Within the last 2 weeks Maine's oldest documented eagle at 34 years of age and 2 others were found injured probably from fighting with other eagles. All 3 had elevated lead levels in their blood. His question for the Commissioner was when was the Department going to act on the lead ammunition problem?

Commissioner Woodcock stated he appreciated the question.

Mr. Glowa stated he would keep asking until he got the answer he was looking for.

Mr. Thurston asked how long the average eagle survived.

Ms. Camuso stated 34 was on the upper end of the scale for eagles nationally, it was probably one of the oldest known birds in the country. A normal lifespan would be 20-25 years. The greatest mortality occurred within their first year, as was true for most birds up to 70% of the animals did not survive their first year. We were anticipating to do another aerial survey of bald eagles which we tried to do every 5 years. We currently estimated the population at over 900 pairs of nesting eagles. We were beginning to see issues with eagles and their impact on sea bird nesting islands.

Mr. Gundersen asked if we knew what kind of ammunition the eagles were getting and how they were getting it.

Mr. Glowa stated the information he had was lead ammunition shattered into thousands of fragments in the carcass of an animal and it could be an animal that was shot and wandered off. Deer and moose processors, some of the meat they discarded which was obviously contaminated with fragments went to coyote bait and by setting out the poison bait it was a death trap for eagles and other birds of prey that might come in and feed on it. It only took one tiny fragment of lead to kill an eagle.

Mr. Thurston asked if we were also seeing raven mortality from lead.

Ms. Camuso stated corvids were typically not as impacted by lead.

Mr. Thurston asked if there were any other sources where eagles could pick up lead besides fish with lead sinkers.

Mr. Glowa stated he did not know if that was a concern, but he did know lead ammunition was a very serious issue.

Mr. Wheaton stated one morning he counted 26 different eagles on a trip in his area. He did not know how many were killed by vehicles. Mr. Glowa was talking about one eagle, Mr. Wheaton was not sure they had enough trees for them to nest in, we had more eagles than we had ever had. He was also seeing a lot less ospreys and loons. He would like to save the eagle, but not at the expense of everything else.

Mr. Glowa stated he would not claim that Maine's eagle population was in trouble. He would encourage people to go to Avian Haven to see the sick birds and talk to staff and see what they went through. Or go to Avian Haven's website to watch the video of the sick eagle dying. Eagles were protected by federal law and there was a non-toxic alternative. The non-toxic alternatives were law in California and that law would spread across the United States. There was also an issue of human public health and humans consuming wild game with lead fragments in it.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there was a lot of research being done, Mr. Glowa had sited some of it. We were working on the issue and had been for awhile.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting would be in conjunction with the Moose Permit Lottery Drawing and was scheduled for June 17, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. at Cary Medical Center, Caribou in the Caribou Room.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Farrington and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
March 29, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, Upstairs Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Bonnie Holding, Information and Education Director
Tim Place Warden Service Lieutenant
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Don Dudley (Chair)
Jeff Lewis (Vice-chair)
Dick Fortier
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Jerry Scribner
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham
Jenny Starbird

Guests:
Don Kleiner, Maine Professional Guides Association
Jim Fleming, Kennebec Valley Furtakers

I. Call to Order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier.

Vote: Unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Chapter 8 Rules ? Bats

Ms. Camuso stated there were no changes to the proposal. We received few comments probably because we had some working groups along the way. The only substantive comment we received was from Acadia National Park for us to provide some additional protections for rocky slopes, but we did not feel we had a good enough understanding of how bats were utilizing those areas to factor in how it related to the proposal.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to adopt the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Thurston.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

B. Step 2

1. 2017 Moose Permit Allocations

Ms. Camuso stated the comment period would end the following day. A public hearing was held and two members of the public attended.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Dudley asked about the winter mortality.

Ms. Camuso stated there had been no mortality in March. The proposal was being portrayed that we were cutting permits again. Staff had been lobbying to cut permits in those districts because of such historically low populations in that area and poor hunter satisfaction. We had met the objectives for that area.

Mr. Fortier asked if it would maintain the objective or if it would start to rise overall in all the districts.

Ms. Camuso stated there were many variables. One of the things we were looking at with New Hampshire and Vermont, we knew the tick had an impact on moose. There was more evidence to suggest that it was a density dependence issue. Higher moose populations were more likely to have more impact from winter tick. What we didn't know was at which level did we need to lower the moose population to mitigate for the impact. That would require that we purposefully lower the moose population to prevent mortality from ticks. That would be hard to communicate to the public because it was sort of counter intuitive that we were purposefully lowering the population to minimize mortality. That was one of the recommendations in the big game plan was to look at an area and try and scientifically determine what level did we see minimized impact from winter tick on moose survivorship.

Mr. Fortier stated he realized it had been a tough winter up north and he was glad to see the collaring in that zone and to see the moose were evidently surviving.

Mr. Scribner asked about the tick study in Vermont. Didn't they take action in a couple of their districts and did we have any information from that.

Ms. Camuso stated they did in the Northeast Kingdom. Compared to Maine it was a small area. It was taking quite a long time to see results. They had shown a very slight adjustment in productivity and gotten only slightly higher. The ability to see moose there had gone down which made some people less happy.

Mr. Thurston stated New Hampshire had gone down to 50 permits.

Ms. Camuso stated New Hampshire had gone down but they were proposing to start increasing their permits again in the same thought that they may need to lower the moose population to minimize mortality in the long run. We worked with New Hampshire and Vermont and shared knowledge across the region.

Mr. Farrington stated one of the public comments suggested an inoculation program for the moose.

Ms. Camuso stated people wanted to help and find a solution. You could put a collar on your dog or cat and people were optimistic that they could apply that to moose without considering how challenging it would be to inoculate or apply something like that to an entire population of wild animals. The stress associated with the encounter was not rational.

Mr. Dudley asked if any of the collared moose were inoculated.

Ms. Camuso stated that would render the tick study invalid.

Mrs. Oldham stated she reached out to some people and they seemed ok with what was being suggested in the proposal. Foresters and loggers were encouraged by what they were seeing.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we often heard about public hearing attendance or lack thereof. There was a time not long ago when public hearings were extremely viable in terms of the population of them. They didn't have access to comments via the internet and today a comment on the internet counted the same as a comment at a public hearing. He thought people were beginning to appreciate that more than they did at first. Becky transcribed the hearings and he received a copy along with the electronic comments and it really didn't have an extra bearing. Some people thought it did because of their presence, but technically it did not. He thought unless there was a hot button issue, generally we probably would not see great attendance at public hearings any longer.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. 2017-18 Migratory Waterfowl Seasons

Mr. Connolly stated the packet included a recommendation from the waterfowl council. Basically the only change we would suggest would be reverting back to the original framework for the north zone season. The comments were uniform that they were unhappy with that part of the proposal because of the ice-in in the northern zone. Extending the season in the northern part of the north zone wasn't productive for them and actually diminished opportunity. There were three changes to the proposal because they affected different parts. The increase in the black duck bag limit and the decrease in the pintail limit we did not receive any adverse comments related to that.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston asked if reverting back to the original season was detrimental to the ducks.

Mr. Sullivan stated no, there would be no population effects.

Mrs. Oldham stated Mr. Sullivan's initial comments on the season were that his first thoughts in terms of ice-in, ice-out was to try to change the parameters of the northern zone and that was shut down. What she didn't understand was did that require legislation to change the parameters of the north and south zone to accommodate the weather change that we'd seen for the last decade.

Mr. Connolly stated the zone changes were only available periodically, every 5 years. We were at an in between time. The last time we looked at a zone change it was a battle across the board. When the line was moved, the people that were further from the edge were unhappy, the people at the edge were happy because they flip flopped. Creating a change acceptable to everybody was going to be very difficult.

Mr. Sullivan stated the next change was to be in effect in 2021.

Mr. Farrington stated it was his understanding that the federal government set the number of days that we could hunt, and we decided when.

Mr. Sullivan stated we had the federal guidelines and we could set the seasons within that structure; days and bag limits.

Mr. Lewis asked about woodcock and sea ducks. The guides had stated they didn't like the later season.

Mr. Sullivan stated there was a small number of guides that preferred later. It went from 107 to 60 days, but those 60 days were really the core time for sea duck hunting. There had been a small number that would prefer the sea duck season started January 31 and counted backwards. The woodcock numbers, what it came down to was habitat loss. Long term from the 1960's we had been on a slow decline. The affect that hunting had on the population trend was negligible.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he was surprised at the lack of comments regarding the 2 black duck limit.

Mr. Sullivan stated it had been at a 1 black duck limit for 34 years. At the same time the number of black duck hunters was declining. The system in place was responsive. It was adaptable so we should be able to see the ability to respond to the seasons and population before seeing a crash.

Mr. Farrington asked about the number of federal duck permits issued in Maine.

Mr. Sullivan stated he had the number of state permits which if you hunted ducks you also needed the federal stamp and that was 12,000. In general the number was stable or slightly increasing the last few years.

There were no further questions or comments

3. Boat Navigation Rules

Commissioner Woodcock stated the process of developing the proposal had been a long one. We were trying to parallel the federal rules as much as possible and to have a basis in rule in order to be prosecuted. The rule was commonsensical but if there was an accident and someone violated a law we had to have something in place to be able to move forward in the legal system.

There were no further comments or questions.

C. Step 1

1. Fall Turkey Season - WMD 27

Ms. Camuso stated the Department was proposing to open WMD 27 to a fall turkey harvest of either sex for a 1 bird bag limit. There were 3 zones in the state currently in the fall where you could take 2 birds, 1 bird or no birds. Given the data and discussion with regional staff and warden service we believed the population could sustain a fall harvest so we were proposing to open with 1 bird.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated she saw in the proposal that spring harvest was one of the factors when setting a season. How big a factor was that? In some of the northern zones she thought in the last few years had just been opened to turkey hunting. There weren't a lot of turkey hunters in her area although the population of turkeys appeared to be increasing. How much did spring harvest impact, she thought we would have more birds harvested in the fall. Were there other ways to evaluate?

Mr. Sullivan stated it tended to be the opposite where spring harvest was higher in general, 6,000 in the spring vs. 2,000 in the fall. The spring harvest was one of three things we looked at; documented reproduction; observed viable population. He looked at overall the last 5 years we had seen rises and falls in spring harvest and that same trend had occurred in WMD 27 so it didn't suggest anything was different in terms of population trajectory there.

Mr. Fortier stated there had been a learning curve up north, but it was catching on.

Mrs. Oldham stated in WMD 7 there weren't a lot of turkey hunters. She thought there were some areas where the spring harvest did not reflect the number of birds that were available.

Mr. Sullivan stated that was one of the reasons they were comfortable with WMD 27, there were a lot of birds out there and they started off conservatively with a 1 bird limit.

Mr. Thurston stated we'd had a lot of effort with proposed new areas to hunt to manage to a desired level of turkeys in the state. Was there any thought to starting earlier for the spring season? There could be more opportunity in the spring, that's when it was best was early.

Mr. Sullivan stated it had been discussed. The big game planning process, one of the things that was identified was looking at nesting phenology. The mean date that hens were on the nest so we weren't affecting production. We were putting in for research to look at that between southern and central Maine.

Mr. Fortier asked if coyotes were a large predator for turkeys.

Mr. Sullivan stated coyotes took more adults than most other predators that were preying on them.

There were no further questions or comments.

V. Other Business

There were no items under Other Business.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Don Kleiner stated the annual Maine Professional Guides Association banquet was being held on April 8, 2017. The legendary Maine guide award would be presented.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for April 21, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW, 284 State Street, Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
February 22, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, Upstairs Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Charlie Todd, Wildlife Biologist, E & T Species Coordinator
Bonnie Holding, Information and Education Director
Joel Wilkinson, Warden Service Colonel
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Don Dudley (Chair)
Dick Fortier
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Jerry Scribner
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham

Guests:
John Glowa, South China
Deidre Fleming, Portland Press Herald
Don Kleiner, Maine Professional Guides Association
James Cote, Maine Trappers Association
Gary Corson, New Sharon
Jim Fleming, Kennebec Valley Furtakers

I. Call to Order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Thurston.

Vote: Unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Chapter 8 rules ? bats

Ms. Camuso stated we held a public hearing and 3 written comments had been received. Only three people attended the hearing and Maine Audubon was one of the three. The Maine Forest Products Council was there in support of the proposal and one citizen that commented for the Department to be more proactive in education for home owners to minimize the potential take on bats.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Scribner stated in reading the input from the group in Acadia, there was some concern regarding that we hadn't included boulders and areas that were rocky, in their opinion, also was prime habitat for some of the bat species. Had we thought about including that?

Mr. Todd stated we had considered it. It was a new subject that we were actively getting information on. In all the things to do in bat conservation, that had risen to the top in the last year. It seemed like the rocky slopes, big chunky boulder fields did have some special benefits for several of our listed bats. However, he did not feel we were far enough along to know what the right management needs were, unlike forest practices where there was a 150 foot seasonal buffer if we knew of a maternity roost tree. That was based on the odds that the animals were going to be close by. We were also trying to achieve consistency between state and federal policy. The National Park Service was advising many steps beyond what the USFWS was. We would know more about the subject in the next year or two.

Mr. Fortier stated people may think their camp was plugged up and no bats could get in, but then there they were. We should be cautious and do it right. In the north Maine woods there were a lot of boulders.

Mr. Todd stated we had really only investigated some really prime spots, but we didn't know how far they went and in what direction. A little rocky outcrop on a hill might not be enough. Most of the rocky slopes were very quiet places, there wasn't a lot of activity, recreation might be the highest risk.

Mr. Dudley stated the last two years you could count the bats you'd see. Previously it was like a wall of bats, he thought it made a huge difference in the insects. The insects had been worse in the last couple years.

Mr. Todd stated the forest products industry had been tremendously helpful on the issue and they had a vested interest. Several of the bats specialized in taking moths off the foliage so they had a role in not just biting insects but others like the forest pests as well.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we would be doing more in putting best practices out for home owners and camp owners as part of dealing with buildings and widespread incidental take of bats. He felt it was important people understood what they could do to not harm bats during the breeding season.

Commissioner Woodcock stated our scientific group had been working very diligently on the bat scenario. The concern was relatively new. They had a very thorough discussion and public process and he felt we were in a good place with what we had to work with.

C. Step 1

1. 2017 Moose Permit Allocations

Ms. Camuso stated this was the preliminary recommendation for moose permit allocations. There were no changes from last year other than eliminating the permits in WMDs 23, 25 and 26. There had been low success rates there and the biologists felt we had met the goals and brought the population down to minimize the moose/vehicle collisions. The rate had dropped 50% in the last ten years and believed we could accomplish what was needed through education and outreach. Last year the 3 WMDs combined only had 60 permits. A public hearing had been scheduled.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston stated he thought we were entertaining the idea of a September hunt in WMDs 7 and 8.

Ms. Camuso stated the big game planning process was still underway, and that was one of the discussions they had in the group. Before moving forward, we would want to finalize the plan and collect public comment and meet in the communities.

Mr. Fortier asked how the overall general health of the moose looked?

Ms. Camuso stated they looked good. The moose that were collared all looked really healthy.

Mr. Fortier asked if the tick count was down or about the same.

Ms. Camuso stated she thought the tick loads for the fall harvest, at the check stations we had biologists and that was one of the things they did was monitor the tick loads. She thought they were lower, but not significantly lower.

Mr. Scribner stated he visited the Department website looking at the moose harvest success rates and the harvest data that spoke to the age of the moose appeared to be incomplete.

Ms. Camuso stated that would take some time. The moose teeth, if there was a biologist on hand and could identify it as a yearling or calf they would do that but beyond that the teeth had to be sliced and aged individually.

Mr. Dudley asked about the flight counts.

Ms. Camuso stated Lee Kantar had been out a number of times. The weather had not been ideal for some of the flights but they had done 4 or 5 so far and things looked excellent.

Mr. Farrington asked if more moose had been collared this year.

Ms. Camuso stated we had two study areas. NH and VT also had study areas.

Mr. Fortier asked about changing the week of the moose hunt out of November. He felt it was easier for law enforcement. Had it helped lessen any poaching and areas of shooting moose?

Colonel Wilkinson stated the November hunt had always been a concern for law enforcement for a number of reasons. There were more hunter conflicts that occurred between deer hunters, moose hunters, road blockages, the increased amount of firearms that showed up during deer season on a moose hunt. You had a moose permit in November and everyone would bring a rifle because they could deer hunt too. The temptation was there sometimes to do things you were not supposed to. Warden service had always been supportive to try and keep the hunt in September and October. The cow hunts were always a challenge because they would have some small bulls shot and left. He thought it improved the hunt and made it a little cleaner but there was still some work to do.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. 2017-18 Migratory Waterfowl Seasons

Mr. Connolly stated the comment period was open and a public hearing was scheduled for March 13, 2017. We were taking comments and would respond after the end of the comment period.

There were no further questions.

3. Boat Navigation Rules

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated these were essentially rules of the road for watercraft. We learned how to drive in drivers ed, we knew who had the right of way. If you took the actions at a 4-way intersection and put it in writing, it would be very complicated to read and understand. When reading through the proposal, they may question what actually was being said. Essentially we were trying to avoid collisions, trying to prepare a foundation for boaters on the waters to navigate safely and not be in conflict with each other. When investigating boating accidents, who was at fault? What did the public have for direction on what the correct course of action was? The proposal was the correct course of action when navigating on inland waters and also coastal waters. This would also apply to public boaters on the salt water as well as on inland waters. They came from the federal code of regulations, the warden service reviewed and edited to make it more readable. This would be a good foundation for boat navigation.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Commissioner Woodcock stated an important part was the foundation for the court system when trying to adjudicate issues involving boating accidents or boating law. We were attempting to make sure there was a firm foundation for them also.

Colonel Wilkinson stated there had been a couple fatal boating accidents and generally when there was a fatal accident there was a criminal investigation. In those cases we would move forward with manslaughter charges; in order to prove manslaughter you had to have culpable state of mind. We did not have a good standard of conduct in place, we tried to defer to the federal recreational boating rules and their standards but a lot of district attorneys were not comfortable with that as we did not have our own. Essentially in a case like that you were trying to prove the conduct was a standard deviation from what the normal and reasonable person would do and what the state expected of them when they were out boating. That was what the standard of conduct did; it memorialized it in rule and set what the guidelines were.

Mrs. Oldham stated there was no reference to alcohol or drug use.

Colonel Wilkinson stated that was in law. The proposal was just the rules of operation, it did not get into prohibited acts of OUI, operating to endanger or things of that nature. Those were generally misdemeanor offenses. The standard of conduct would fall into felony level cases when somebody was killed.

Mrs. Oldham stated in Part C, the risk of collision, there was a lot of reference to radar which really didn't have much application on inland waters.

Colonel Wilkinson stated state waters were up to 3 miles out and we dealt primarily with inland waters. Marine Patrol dealt with coastal waters. We did have watercraft with radar on larger lakes and they used it. The specifics regarding navigation with radar was to use due regard, you couldn't solely rely on it and if you did rely on it there were some things to be aware of. For instance, if you picked up another watercraft approaching you you should maneuver yourself in a manner that was drastic enough they could tell you were changing your course. The same rules of the road applied but you could not solely rely on your radar. This was language taken from the federal boating safety act which we summarized and tried to keep more concise and user friendly.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated Marine Patrol would be using the rules to enforce recreational boating within the 3 mile limit.

Colonel Wilkinson stated anything beyond that the Coast Guard would investigate. Marine Patrol did a fair amount of boating accidents within the state waters.

There were no further questions or comments.

V. Other Business

Commissioner Woodcock stated he presented the biennial budget proposal to the IFW Committee and would be before the Appropriations Committee the following week. The budget discussion began from the baseline from the last biennial budget and we were given the target of that baseline. A couple of the service increases to the Department were information technology (IT) and dispatch increase. When there were significant increases there had to be an offset in order to achieve the baseline from last time. The Department shared agency wide any burdens that were incurred. We were $140,000 below target, and out of that also came a reduction of 7 positions in the Department. Some were filled, some were not filled. The positions we were addressing to offset the increases, there were 3 vacant positions that were proposed to be eliminated; 1 Bio III position (supervisor of WRAS division in Bangor); Management Analyst II; Licensing and Registration Office Associate II. In addition to that, these were not vacancies ? 2 fish culturists, 1 field warden and 1 warden investigator. There were 7 positions total, a couple of them were being reorganized and the others proposed to be eliminated. That would bring the total number of employees down to about 294.

Commissioner Woodcock stated another point being made to the legislative committee was a proposed savings in the restructure of how we published our laws to the general public. We were looking at an electronic opportunity to publish laws in the future. We asked how many of the books were being used that we printed and sent out and surprisingly we found in a random survey that quite a few of them were not used. We were looking at several opportunities for electronic transmission. There was an app going out for fishing regulations. We were also looking at the possibility of phasing out the fishing law book printed version. Snowmobile, ATV, hunting, trapping were also being looked at for electronic versions. Many things were happening in the electronic arena. It was immediately accessible information.

Mrs. Oldham stated regarding personnel and positions being eliminated, in the fisheries management meeting Mr. Brautigam had said that they were looking for a third person to handle data analysis. It had been proposed but not funded, was that position included in the current budget?

Commissioner Woodcock stated the handling of the data was part of the discussion for the cold water biologist some of the data that would be effecting the cold water species. That position was currently going through the process of hiring. It had been vacant for some time. Having a sole data manager for fisheries was not part of the current plan, but the Department did have resources that we could use for data management that would assist the fisheries division.

Mr. Fortier stated some areas had no cell phone or data coverage. There would have to be an education part to let people know that in some areas of Maine they would need to print something out ahead of time because once they got there, they could not look it up on the computer. For example putting in for moose permits, everybody got their application and they sent it in and there was a loss in funds at that point because people had to go online to do it. Not everyone was connected.

Commissioner Woodcock stated if the app was built into your phone you should have use of it without connectivity. Part of the process for the Department was the discussion of what did the public need and want to be able to access, and what could we supply. It wasn't far away that it would be commonplace that everybody would have a device of some kind that got them to anything they wanted in the world. The Department had to make sure it was keeping pace with that type of thinking.

Mr. Gundersen stated he taught hunter safety and one of the things he expressed was planning their hunt. They planned for where they were going and what they were going to do and looking up the laws and knowing what they were was going to become part of that.

Mr. Farrington asked what percentage of a reduction would there be in the printed law books?
We would still have to print some for those that could not get online.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he was not sure the amount, it was something we were still looking at.

Mr. Thurston asked if the baseline was similar across all Departments.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he was always reluctant to talk about other Department, but the notion was that they hold the baseline and everyone operated from there.

There were no further questions or comments.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

There were no public comments or questions.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for March 29, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW, 284 State Street, Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mr. Farrington to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
January 25, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, Upstairs Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Bonnie Holding, Information and Education Director
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Don Dudley (Chair) - by phone
Jeff Lewis (Vice-Chair) - by phone
Dick Fortier - by phone- by phone
Jenny Starbird - by phone
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Jerry Scribner
Larry Farrington

Guests:
John Glowa, South China
Deidre Fleming, Portland Press Herald
Don Kleiner, Maine Professional Guides Association
Jason Prillo, Winthrop
James Cote, Maine Trappers Association

I. Call to Order

Commissioner Woodcock called the meeting to order and stated that since both the Chair and Vice-Chair were participating by phone, he would like the members in attendance to make a nomination to chair the meeting.

A motion was made by Mr. Scribner to nominate Mr. Gundersen to chair the meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Thurston.

Vote: Unanimous ? Mr. Gundersen would chair the meeting.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Scribner to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Farrington.

Vote: Unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

There were no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. Chapter 8 rules ? bats

Ms. Camuso stated in 2015 the Department, through the legislative process, listed three species of bats as either threatened or endangered. White-nose syndrome devastated many of the bat species throughout the northeast and through a lot of their range in North America. Concurrently, the USFWS listed Northern long-eared bats as threatened. Recognizing the cause of the decline was a fungus impacting the bat species and this was really the first time the Department had listed a species that had such wide spread range. We knew we would have to put out some guidelines for people so they would not be personally responsible for any potential take. After the species listing we reconvened and tried to come up with mechanisms to protect certain activities, i.e. forest industry, logging, homeowners. We did not have the authority to issue those broad exemptions so during the next legislative session the Department received the authority to address them in rule. The Department now had statutory authority to issue both widespread incidental take permits (ITP) and also broad activity exemptions. We had always had the ability to issue individual ITP; if a person or organization was going to have some impact we could work with them to develop a plan to minimize and mitigate impacts to a listed species. We also had authority to issue a wide spread ITP such as we did for Barrow's Goldeneye. This would be an otherwise lawful activity that the Department believed did not have an impact on the species, but wanted to be able to protect people participating in the activity.

Ms. Camuso stated the proposal would address some of the concerns we had dealing with the public, homeowners and logging industry. Protection guidelines were outlined, we would be prohibiting cutting of trees within a ? mile of a known hibernacula. There were only a few of them in the state where we knew the bats had historically over wintered. It was a very vulnerable situation for them so we had restricted tree cutting within ? mile without permission from the Department. Similarly, we were prohibiting tree removal within 150 feet of maternity roosts during June and July, and permanently prohibiting entrance into those hibernacula during the vulnerable season without permission from the Commissioner.

Ms. Camuso stated we would also be requesting a period of time during which people could not exclude bats from abandoned buildings. These were not areas that people were using such as a shed, barn, etc. These were areas that were falling down and if that had to come down we were asking that it wasn't taken down between June and July, the critical period for the bats. We would be covering any accidental mortality that might happen outside the June/July period if the building needed to be demolished or restored. We would also be looking to develop specific ITPs for any accidental mortality of either little brown bat or Eastern small-footed bat that would result from the operation of a wind turbine. In the broad exemption category we would basically be exempting anybody from take because we did not believe any of the activities had the likelihood of causing take or would not have a serious impact on the population. In Maine, we had no known mortality of Northern long-eared bats from wind turbines. This policy was consistent with the way USFWS handled their policy. We would be putting out some best practices and guidelines to help people understand things they could do to potentially minimize impacts.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated Charlie Todd, our endangered species specialist, had agreed to come to the Step 2 meeting so during the deliberation of public comment, staff would be available to answer any questions. We had an informational meeting with constituent groups prior to drafting the proposal to hear their concerns. A public hearing had been scheduled for February 6, 2017.

Mr. Farrington asked what the educational process would be.

Commissioner Woodcock stated it would not be possible for us to make contact with all the citizens of Maine so we were trying to create a broad exemption so there would not be a concern for them. We would put information out electronically.

There were no further questions or comments.

V. Other Business

1. Moose update

Ms. Camuso stated we had almost all the data for the 2016 moose season. It appeared to be successful. Excluding the southern Maine hunt there appeared to be a 73% success rate across the range. The overall harvest was 1,550. The moose were healthy and robust. The regional biologist and species specialist would be meeting in February to review the data and make preliminary recommendations on the permit allocations. The moose research project was in its 4th year. This year we were able to get VT to participate so we now had both NH, VT and two study areas in Maine. That was a productivity and survival study of moose in Maine; we had 168 collared moose.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston asked about the funding for the project, was it from the sale of nonresident permits?

Ms. Camuso stated there was a moose research fund that contributed a small component and that came from the nonresident permit. A project of this magnitude was quite costly, and we relied on our federal (Pittman Robertson) monies which was a built in surtax on the sale of hunting, trapping and shooting equipment. 75% of the project costs were made with federal dollars and the remaining portion of the project was paid for with a split between the moose research fund and the Commissioner's office account.

Mr. Farrington asked if there was any significant change in the tick count on the harvested moose.

Ms. Camuso stated we were seeing a difference between the level of ticks in WMD 2 and 8. There did appear to be a heavier tick load in the southern district. Grid tick counts were done on moose by biologists when they were brought to the tagging stations.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he would normally receive calls on tick concerns when someone shot a moose during the season, or they were not seeing moose. The calls he had received this season were people who wanted to talk about the fact that there weren't ticks on the moose they had shot. The 73% figure was the historical average.

Ms. Camuso stated one of the important components of the collared moose study was that when we had a mortality event, staff was on scene within 24 hours to do a field necropsy. There was a limited group of people that had those skills. We did not have staff to handle additional study areas.

Mr. Thurston asked where he might be able to go to find results from the study.

Ms. Camuso stated when the animal was captured and collared, they took blood samples, tick count, etc. and that was sent to the University of Maine Health Lab. When we had a mortality event, we did a necropsy and would bring back as much of the animal to the health lab as we could. Making comparisons between the various health indicators that they monitored when the moose was captured compared to where it was when it died. That was something a veterinarian needed to address and we were working with the University on that. We were still trying to determine what were healthy levels or unhealthy levels for moose, a lot of this had not been done before in the East.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. 2017 Migratory Waterfowl season update

Mr. Connolly stated the proposal included an increase to the daily bag limit on black ducks from 1 to 2 in accordance with the USFWS frameworks. USFWS gave us the framework for how we could construct our season and then we apportioned the data between the zones in accordance with what they gave us. We did have the opportunity to increase the limit on black ducks in the coming season and we were recommending that. We were also proposing a split in the north zone to allow for a later duck hunting opportunity for waterfowlers at the southern end of the season. The season as proposed would run from September 27 to November 25, close for 8 days, and then December 8 ? December 16. This was in response to input from waterfowlers over the last few years that late season migrant ducks were arriving after the traditional north zone closure in central Maine; December 3 was the closure for 2016.

There were no further questions or comments.

3. Boat Navigation rules

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there would be rulemaking moving forward that were essentially "rules of the road" for boating. In some of our boating accidents where there had been negligence of one party or the other, during the prosecution phase, it had been raised to the Warden Service who had the right of way and what should they have done differently in the operation of their boat. There were rules of the road that everyone followed so if we did something inappropriately and caused an accident then they could assess negligence based on what the driving rules of the road were. For watercraft, there were federal navigation rules but we did not have rules in Maine on how you should appropriately operate watercraft. We were putting together a proposal to adopt a set of rules for operating watercraft. It was pretty comprehensive but thought it would provide the necessary direction that the Warden Service and prosecutors needed in Maine to address operating to endanger. We had operational statutes currently, but they did not have the direction such as who should yield, etc.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington asked if it would be a reflection of the Coast Guard rules.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated yes.

Mr. Farrington asked if there had been discussion of boating safety licenses.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we had a boating safety course but it was not mandatory. There had been suggestions in the Legislature for mandatory boating education.

Mr. Farrington stated there were people with no experience renting boats and driving 80 or 90 miles an hour up the lake.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the rulemaking would help wardens address those situations.

Mr. Gundersen asked if they would be posted at the boat launches.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we would come up with summaries and information materials at boat launches.

Mr. Gundersen stated he felt part of the problem with the boating course was finding people to teach them. He felt the same about snowmobiles and 4-wheelers that we should somehow put the burden back on the people that were selling them, that they should have to sponsor safety courses.

Mr. Farrington asked what the objection was in the Legislature regarding boat rules and mandatory courses.

Commissioner Woodcock stated placing the burden back on the dealers was one of them. It had been discussed at length. When the discussions originally took place, we did not have online testing so that could play a part into new discussions.

Don Kleiner stated he assumed we would copy over the Coast Guard inland rules, how much of the commercial aspect were we planning to copy over.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated it was purely operational, whether it was commercial or not.

Mr. Thurston stated the computer for training was not as good as the classroom, but before people rented boats we could have an informational video that people would have view at the dealer's before they rented a boat. It could summarize the safety features and do's and don'ts.

There were no further questions or comments.

4. Eastport Special Hunt ? season review

Ms. Camuso stated she believed the City would be developing a formal report. There were 30 permits issued, 22 to residents and 8 to nonresidents. 11 does were harvested in the 2-week period, of the does 36% were visibly known to be lactating. Tom Schaeffer, the regional biologist, stated he believed they were all adult does. They had only 2 minor complaints that warden service dealt with and had no violations or infractions. Overall it went well and the biologist felt the people on the island were receptive. Based on the winter to date, Tom Schaeffer felt pretty confident that we would likely issue any-deer permits in WMD 27 in 2017. That was very preliminary because the data was not in and it was early in the season. They suspected the City would like to continue the special hunt for at least 2 more years. Some of the things they were looking to do now that they had one year behind them that worked pretty well would be to increase the number of permits and allow people to take multiple does up to a certain number. Maine Medical also provided kits for collecting ticks, but there were none found on the carcasses.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Commissioner Woodcock stated the tick discussion was fascinating. We had a tick discussion in our other special hunt in Islesboro and it was the reason for the hunt from the beginning. Eastport from the beginning had not indicated any concerns with Lyme disease or ticks.

Mr. Farrington stated from previous discussions, it was his understanding that the Commissioner could not open a portion of a WMD to receive antlerless deer permits.

Commissioner Woodcock stated that was one of the conflicts in WMD 27, some areas reported they had no deer, some reported having too many. We had included in our legislative packet the provision that gave the Commissioner the opportunity to be able to have within a zone a section that you may be able to have any-deer permits where the rest of the zone did not. If it passed, it would give the Commissioner the ability to address overpopulation.

Mr. Scribner stated he hoped the Department did not lose sight of the fact that no ticks were found on the 11 deer harvested in Eastport. Whether it was climate or habitat there may be something there we could learn from in terms of managing for ticks.

There were no further questions or comments.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

Mr. Scribner stated he had received an email from John Glowa addressing two concerns which he had requested be provided to the rest of the Council. The information was provided in their packet.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Deidre Fleming stated she had spent some time on Eastport when writing an article about the deer there. What she thought was curious was the chair of their committee, Chris Bartlett, had lived there for 20 ? 30 years and he said they'd always had 2 dogs in their family and never found a tick on their dogs and they spent most of their time outside.

John Glowa stated he had two issues he would like to bring up. Before getting into those issues he would like to bring up the issue of deer being killed on I95. It was becoming more and more common to put in place wildlife crossings over/under the highway. Something the Department may want to look into especially in areas that could not afford to lose 20 or 30 deer. One of the two issues he wanted to bring up was what he understood to be lack of a rule governing the operation of the Advisory Council. He looked for a rule and couldn't find anything. One role of the Council was to provide information and advice to the Department. Last year he requested the Council advise the Commissioner to revise the 2015 Maine Wildlife Action Plan to include the wolf. He stated the Council took no action other than to refer his request back to IFW, the agency that excluded the wolf to begin with. It was apparent there was no formal legally enforceable procedure for the Council to receive, consider and convey requests from the public to the Department. If the Council refused to take action, the public had no legal recourse. For this reason, he requested the Council inform the Department that a formal rule was needed to guide the conduct of the Council's business and that the Council advise the Department to take action. He thought the public's involvement in the Council's business was going to increase. It was frustrating to come to the Council and present an idea and then have no action.

Mr. Glowa stated he wanted to recognize the death of a famous eagle in Bangor that died of lead poisoning, and a second eagle died of lead poisoning at Avian Haven. He had brought the issue up to the Council and Department last year. Part of his goal was to educate. He had learned that coyote hunters often got bait from deer and moose processors and may contain pieces contaminated with lead fragments. Those pieces could be death traps for eagles. One way to address the eagle issue would be to talk to processors and hunters and get them not to use carcasses from animals that had been shot. He asked that something be done by way of working with them to voluntarily keep the tainted meat from being used for bait. Mr. Glowa stated they had been working with the Dept. of Agriculture and Forestry about the Hunters for the Hungry program. Other states x-rayed the meat when it came in before distribution and Maine had no such process in place. Simply eyeballing the meat was not sufficient to ensure there was no lead contamination. They had also spoken with DHHS and they were not aware of the Hunters for the Hungry program and part of their role is protecting health. They understood there was no safe level of lead consumption for children and they wanted to make sure to find a way to protect wildlife and people.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had received the information on the lead issue and read them. Much of that had come from USFWS also. The lead issue had been brought to the forefront and a lot of people were discussing it. Regarding the Advisory Council, the Council had been in existence since approximately 1929. It was statutorily set up to advise and inform the Commissioner. There was not always a perfect recourse with a board because they set their own agendas. The process of the public informing the Council was for them to pass it on to the Department, which they did. He was not aware of many circumstances where boards had sets of rules that demanded of them specific actions when the public was involved. Normally, the recourse would be if you had an elected official you did not vote them back in. The Advisory Council members were appointed, recommendations were made. He felt the Council had functioned well, the public had an opportunity to interact and that information came forward to the Commissioner. As far as the action on the request, the Council was not obligated to take an action only to pass the information forward.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next two meetings were scheduled for February 22, 2017 and March 29, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW, 284 State Street, Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Scribner and that was seconded by Mr. Thurston to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
November 21, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, Upstairs Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Bonnie Holding, Information and Education Director
Tom Schaeffer, Regional Wildlife Biologist - Jonesboro
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries Division Director
Tim Place, Lieutenant, Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Don Dudley (Chair)
Jeff Lewis (Vice-Chair) - by phone
Dick Fortier
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Jerry Scribner
Lance Wheaton
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Fern & Sylvia Bosse, Norway
Georgie Wheaton
Jim Fleming, Kennebec Valley Fur Takers
John Glowa, South China
Deidre Fleming, Portland Press Herald
Don Kleiner, Maine Professional Guides Association
Chris Bartlett, Eastport Deer Committee
David Oakes, Canton
Jason Prillo, Winthrop
Tammy Turcotte, Brunswick
Eden Turcotte, Brunswick
Dave Christen, Rangeley

I. Call to Order

Council Chair Don Dudley called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton.

Vote: Unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Eastport Deer Reduction Special Hunt

Commissioner Woodcock stated the Eastport hunt had been addressed with the Council and his consideration of the rule came down to one element. It was different than the seasons discussed previously in that the public health issue did not take center stage as much as it did in Islesboro. We had some concern with the length of the hunt as it was proposed as a three year hunt. The Commissioner stated after reviewing all of the comments, he would be making a change to the proposal that it be a one year hunt, not a three year hunt. The one year would give an opportunity to have some type of control of the mechanism and evaluate it and make a decision if the season would continue.

Mrs. Oldham stated she was glad the proposal had been modified. Before she knew about the change to one year, she had made a good faith effort to put aside her dislike of special hunts and look at the problem with an open mind. She wanted to re-examine the problem and the reasonable assumption they could make about it. Did Eastport really have a deer problem? There was the evidence in support, they heard from city officials, legislators, the regional biologist, public comment, news articles and Mr. Wheaton who went there and observed. There was no biologic data (pellet counts) that they could measure success but they heard estimates from the biologist anywhere from 20 to 50 deer per square mile in that municipality. The public safety factor with the car/deer collisions and the social carrying capacity looked to be exceeded. If the deer density was as much as they had been led to believe she thought that was a reasonable assumption that it exceeded the 10 deer per square mile threshold for Lyme disease. Even though it was not currently a problem, it would be. The conclusion she came to, the City of Eastport did have a deer problem and was in need of a solution.

Mrs. Oldham discussed what had caused the deer problem. In their documentation, 11 years ago there was a rearrangement of the WMDs which eliminated the doe harvest during regular archery season when no antlerless permits were issued. The Department had a role in creating the problem and should be part of the solution. The other problem was there were limited areas to hunt in Eastport. There was private land that had been posted and municipal land that was closed to regular hunting and would somehow be opened for the special hunt. There were reportedly a fair number of residents in Eastport that were feeding deer. She thought all those things had contributed to the problem. Would 30 permits of mostly resident hunters solve the problem? She believed the answer was no. An additional 30 permits did not cover the natural reproductive increase in the deer population. A one or three year hunt would not fix the problem. This was her 10th year on the Advisory Council representing different areas of the state. There had not been a single success of a special resident only hunt. If a tool did not work, you either fixed the tool or threw it out. The special hunts had never achieved objective.

Mrs. Oldham stated she had an alternative proposal. There was pressure to do something for the current year so the one year hunt was achieved. Secondly, it was her understanding that the Commissioner had the authority to ban deer feeding when there was a public safety issue. This was one of the main reasons for bringing the proposal forward, car/deer collisions. That could be done immediately; if they banned deer feeding within city limits of Eastport that would disperse the deer and would make them more harvestable. She also thought a portion of the special hunt harvest should be donated to Hunters for the Hungry. If the one year special hunt was granted she thought during the course of the next year, Eastport city officials and residents had to continue to work on the problem. They needed to approach their local legislators for an exemption to the current law so antlerless harvest was allowed during regular archery and possibly creating a sunset law that would create an expanded archery season for Eastport. They also needed to create a plan to utilize municipal land during regular archery seasons. She would strongly encourage that they involve the IFW landowner relations manager to talk to some of the private landowners and see if they would be willing to work with their neighbors in Eastport to achieve deer reduction.

Mr. Wheaton stated after being there and seeing it, Mrs. Oldham stated Eastport closed off some of their land. Eastport did not have a lot of land. Where Mr. Wheaton lived there were miles and miles but no deer. He did not blame Eastport for the management, he blamed IFW for not allowing antlerless deer to be taken. It should have been allowed all along and it would have eliminated the problem. It was stated at the last meeting that they were "everybody's" deer. The deer could be tranquilized and transported across the bridge, why was that not being discussed? If they could have some for seed in Washington County, with the rod and gun clubs there they could do it and it wouldn't cost the Department anything and people would be glad to move some of those deer. As far as feeding the deer, let the people feed them. They may die from a car but they wouldn't suffer day after day getting nothing to eat.

Mrs. Oldham stated the argument against not feeding the deer was that it congregated them. The deer would disperse and leave Eastport if there was no food for them. They could leave Eastport it was not as isolated as other islands they had talked about.

Mr. Thurston stated he agreed with Mrs. Oldham that the special hunt would not fix the problem. He felt they needed to make it an expanded archery zone so there was more hunting. The deer could come and go as they pleased. He had seen deer swim before from islands in the ocean. He thought feeding did present a challenge for the dispersement of the deer. 30 permits would not solve the problem. It was an archery hunt and he was not sure how successful they would be.

Mr. Farrington asked how it had gotten to this point. There were biologists in the area, couldn't they make recommendations to the Department to split the zone or allow people to take antlerless deer in Eastport. As far as the 30 permits for one year, it would not work. Listening to Mrs. Oldham there was history to say the special hunt would not work. How feasible was it to move deer? They could move more deer by tranquilizing them then they would by giving out 30 permits. If the deer were as thin as Mr. Wheaton stated who would want to eat them?

Mr. Thurston stated when you had too much of a population, would we transfer unhealthy deer (ticks) to an area that possibly had healthy deer. Was that a consideration?

Mr. Dudley asked to hear from biologist Tom Schaeffer. They had questions on recruitment, 30 deer was the amount picked to harvest what was the recruitment rate, they did not know because they didn't have the population. 20 to 50 per square mile was more than they would be taking out. If there were doe permits allowed in WMD 27 then the archers on the island could technically shoot does. What was the possibility of getting that changed?

Tom Schaeffer stated they had debated that recommendation for the last couple of years. The winter of 2014-15 was a very severe winter and Eastport was hit as hard as any on the east coast. We managed deer in accordance with the management system and the system recommended that we would not expand hunting opportunities in a WMD after a severe winter. WMD 27 remained bucks only. We did not manage deer on a town by town basis, we had to manage at a district level. We maintained the course after the severe winter and looked at resulting data the next fall and found the buck kill index stayed pretty flat and declined a little in the WMD. It was a struggle to manage deer where you had localized problems when the WMD data was telling you the population was in decline or stable. The number of 30 permits was very conservative. Eastport was aware of that and there were discussions with the deer committee. There were people concerned in Eastport about archery as an effective tool for deer hunting. They were concerned about trespassing, etc. The number 30 came up as a consensus number by the deer committee for the first year to gain public confidence in the process that the deer committee could be effective in devising a plan with the Department and if it was successful in years two and three they would look at expanding the proposed number of permits. The Department did explore the possibilities of introducing a token number of permits into all of WMD 27. Because of our management system, because of that buck kill index we had to tow the line for another year. We were hopeful given winter severity this year that next year we would be able to recommend some permits for WMD 27. In WMD 27 he had at least 4 other areas that were beginning to complain about deer numbers. We had local areas with deer numbers beginning to increase and cause social problems. We had suggestions that they wanted public hearings to discuss our recommendations should we introduce permits. It would be controversial because WMD 27 remained below our target objective.

Mr. Wheaton stated we had a problem and had to address the problem now. His recommendation would be to have the hunt and knock the number down somewhat and watch it carefully. Now was not the time to move deer. But, next summer if there was still a problem we should look forward and represent some of the other people and put the deer to sleep and move them. He did not think there would be any more cost.

Mr. Gundersen asked Mr. Schaeffer if we knew how many deer were taken there during the regular archery season.

Mr. Schaeffer stated no, not yet for this year.

Mr. Gundersen asked if he thought it was feasible to move deer from Eastport.

Mr. Schaeffer stated that was an option that deer committees had always explored. Generally the Department was negative on trying to pursue that. It was very costly. We were using controlled substances to tranquilize deer so the Department had to be a participant, it took the attendance of a vet and Department staff to administer drugs. There was a high mortality experienced in whitetail deer, they were a very high strung animal and when you tried to immobilize them and move them there was a phenomenon called capture myopathy where there was a high mortality rate in handling the animals. There was also evidence that deer moved into strange territory also exacerbated the problem of survival. It was a very labor intensive approach. He was not aware of any private contractors that were qualified.

Mr. Scribner stated given the time constraints and it being a December hunt could they overcome any logistical hurdles between now and then to have a successful hunt.

Mr. Schaeffer stated the city played a major role. We were talking about landowners and property rights. The city had the responsibility of contacting landowners and on the Department's side of things, once they sent us the names of those being awarded a permit we had to vet them and make sure they did not have a history of fish and wildlife violations. We would then draw up the permits. We could move forward from the Department's standpoint.

Chris Bartlett stated they had been very active in gaining landowner permission for hunters to be part of the special hunt if it were to move forward. They had also been very active in spreading word of the possibility of the special hunt so that potential applicants were aware. They were confident from a city administrator's perspective that they could process the applications and get them to the Department in a timely manner. They felt they could be successful if the hunt were to move forward.

Mr. Fortier stated as far as deer feeding, he thought it was appropriate. In his area when he saw people feeding deer, number one, it not be near a roadway because that presented a hazard. When the snow was deep some deer feeding was done and the deer stayed in those areas. When you stopped feeding the deer they started dispersing. They found with the cutting of the woods and lack of feed in certain areas the deer moved into the farming areas. He did visit Eastport and the deer needed to be addressed, but he did not think they would meet their objective. He liked the idea of the one year hunt and come back with a report. He would like to see some kind of report for what was being done as far as the tick population. People may not know they had a tick problem until it was too late. If we did not try to do something now it would get worse. He was in favor of getting the hunt underway. Regarding moving deer, he did not know how they would move them and the deer survive going into an area where they did not know where the feed was.

Mr. Lewis stated with Eastport compared to Islesboro and some of the other special hunts, the amount of land to hunt just wasn't there and it was a problem that was created by changing the season to bucks only and not being able to have the expanded hunt there. He was a warden there for some time and there was not an issue then. He agreed that one year was good. He didn't know what the overall population was on the island but it wouldn't be anything close to what Islesboro was, there just wasn't the land to sustain that.

Mr. Dudley stated it was a complex problem. We spoke about all the deer that were on the small island and pretty heavily populated so he understood there was going to be a real problem. As far as the ticks he agreed with Mr. Fortier, probably there was more of a tick problem there than they realized. He agreed they had to do something to try and alleviate the problem.

Commissioner Woodcock stated deer feeding was a complicated matter. It created scenarios for deer that were appropriate if done appropriately. It could contribute to the opposite effect if not done appropriately. The tranquilizing of the animal and moving it, he thought there was a social part too. WMD 27 also had some agricultural entities and there may not be many deer in some of those areas where the agriculture was taking place. If deer were moved into an area where agriculture took place and they contributed to the concerns of the agricultural community, you may be addressing a social issue you didn't have previously. Discussions about moving deer had been ongoing, it had not been something the Department was interested in at this time. Expanded opportunities, could we make changes to the season? There was a firearms ordinance in Eastport so it restricted the methods used to hunt. Could they refocus on WMD 27 and analyze it again after the winter and hunting season; we would do that. Reporting on the tick population, that had a lot to do with local health care as well as biologic care from the Department. This was an opportunity for the Department and Eastport to arrive at a place to help with the problem ongoing. He would rekindle the concept of the special hunt for one year and the reexamination after.

Mrs. Oldham stated for clarification, there was no baiting during the special hunt.

Commissioner Woodcock stated that was correct.

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to adopt the proposal as amended with a one year hunt, and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

2. Shooting Ranges

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there were no changes to the proposal. These were rules for the two Department shooting ranges in Fryeburg and Augusta. Both ranges were scheduled for major reconstruction and the rules would be for both of them. There was some last minute consideration in terms of steel core ammunition and determined that steel core ammunition was primarily prohibited at most ranges. It was not readily available at gun shops and the concern was that inexpensive (Wolf) ammunition that a lot of people shot with would be allowed. We were standing with the language to prohibit the use of steel core ammunition at the ranges.

Mrs. Oldham asked what the amount of the grant was.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated $700,000 for each range.

Mr. Connolly stated we were putting out an RFP for the design and then could get an estimate on construction to put out for bid.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we were cautious in the timing of our range improvements because we wanted others to have their opportunities.

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to adopt the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Thurston.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

B. Step 2

There were no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

There were no items under Step 1.

V. Other Business

There were no items under Other Business.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated he wanted to touch briefly on the subject of tagging game. We were looking at people still bringing an animal into a station. It was complicated in looking at what systems were available and going through the state process for procurement. We were looking at coming up with a system where we could get data in quicker.

Ms. Camuso stated what we would like to see was the hunter going to the tagging station and they would have a scanner or reader so it would automatically fill in the hunting information so the person did not have to enter it. The system would need to be able to communicate with our licensing system as well. We were looking at what other states had done and companies they had used. Most likely we would need to do a test with a small group of stations and in order to be effective the station would need to have either cell or wireless to upload the data. We would anticipate it taking about 5 years before all stations could be brought on board and functioning. We were referring to it as direct data entry because we did not want people to think we were switching to an electronic tagging system which was very different. In discussions with others that had electronic tagging, compliance went down to 40-60%. We felt we needed the data from all the animals and was not willing to risk that level of compliance.

Jason Prillo stated he would like to propose for the Chapter 7 technical committee that they add two new people. One person directly involved in the exotics trade and also an additional scientist, Ian Bricknell from the University of Maine Orono.

Chris Bartlett stated he would like to thank the Department and Council for approving Eastport's request. It would allow them to move forward in starting to remove does from the island and to continue to improve landowner relations and public perception so they could increase areas for hunters in future years. He thought they would learn a lot from the hunt. They would be diligent in reporting back on what they learned in their successes.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next two meetings were scheduled for January 25, 2017 and February 22, 2017 at IFW, 284 State Street, Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
October 7, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, Upstairs Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau Resource Management
Nate Webb, Special Projects Coordinator
Bonnie Holding, Information and Education Director
Tom Schaeffer, Regional Wildlife Biologist - Jonesboro
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries Division Director
Tim Place, Lieutenant, Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Don Dudley (Chair)
Jeff Lewis (Vice-Chair)
Dick Fortier
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Jerry Scribner
Lance Wheaton
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Fern & Sylvia Bosse, Norway
Connie Gulagas, Cape Elizabeth
Jerry Wright, Cape Elizabeth
James Cote, MTA
Jim Fleming, Kennebec Valley Fur Takers
John Glowa, South China
Jeff Reardon, TU
Karen Coker, WildWatch ME, Cape Elizabeth
Elaine Selekas, WildWatch Me
Katie Hansberry, HSUS
Deidre Fleming, Portland Press Herald
Don Kleiner, Maine Professional Guides Association
Chris Bartlett, Eastport Deer Committee
A.J. Higgins, ME Public Radio
Richard Hessline, Brownfield

I. Call to Order

Council Chair Don Dudley called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Lewis.

Vote: Unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Furbearer Seasons/Beaver Closures 2016/17

Commissioner Woodcock stated the Department was established to promote the use of wildlife and to use hunting and trapping as the preferred management tools. Therefore, the Department provided the public the opportunity to sustainably harvest some wildlife species. Similar to other fish and wildlife agencies across North America, the Department used population indices within an adaptive management framework to adjust hunting and trapping seasons for furbearers and other wildlife. Adaptive management was a widely accepted scientific approach to adjusting hunting and trapping regulations for wildlife and did not cause wildlife to become threatened or endangered. The Department had a long history of successfully managing furbearers. When appropriate we established bag limits, adjusted allowable practices or shortened hunting or trapping seasons to ensure that harvest did not exceed management goals. In the past, this included shortening the hunting season for bobcats, establishing bag limits for fisher and martin and restricting trapping near beaver lodges and dams. Hunting and trapping were established in statute as appropriate tools to manage wildlife populations.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had many comments during the process. Many of the comments were directly related to opposition to trapping and hunting in general. Those were statutory provisions and were not in the rulemaking process for the Department. Discussions related to the validity of those management tools were not pertinent to the rulemaking process although they were accepted as part of the process. The Council was presented all of the comments and hopefully had a chance to read them all.

Mr. Connolly stated the comments had been summarized. There were 55 comments that were just opposed to trapping in general as a tool. That wasn't what the rule was about. Trapping, hunting and fishing were established in statute and we were authorized to use those in our wildlife management techniques. There were 26 comments that there was no data or insufficient data to support the proposed changes. Most wildlife in North America, both harvested and unharvested, were tracked using indices. When a species was harvested, harvest data was often used to develop the indices. The population of bobcats in Maine was tracked using an index that incorporated harvest as it related to trapping effort to track the trends in bobcat populations. The Department was always interested in collecting more detailed information. The index currently in use had successfully regulated the harvest of the species for decades. The data used to direct the beaver harvest was also based on adaptive management. Historically the species was managed through population based indices because the population was recovering from a low population and interest in harvest was high. By the mid 1980's the beaver population was fully recovered. As populations continued to grow, the Department's managements adapted to include considerations for increasing property damage complaints. By requiring mandatory reporting of harvested beaver we ensured that harvest was at sustainable levels and was at or below levels identified in the beaver management plan. After that, the primary objective was addressed. We adjusted beaver regulations to help minimize beaver/human conflicts.

Mr. Connolly stated he had mentioned to the Advisory Council, when we were working with the public with regards to wildlife we were always working to find ways to recognize that wildlife were a part of the environment and to find ways to work with them to accept that. We worked with landowners to deal with water levels when roads were being impacted. Beaver normally would dam up near a culvert and flood roadways or low lying areas. We looked to try and maintain that wetland and the water level at an appropriate level. Beaver by their nature spread out on the landscape up and down a flowage and established colonies and began to impact water levels and the habitat of the area. This could start causing property damage and we used trapping as a tool to address those issues.

Mr. Connolly stated there were 13 comments that furbearer management decisions should not be based on fur prices, that the proposed hunting and trapping season extensions were intended to allow trappers to harvest more animals in order to increase the amount of revenue generated from fur sales. That was what people were claiming but that was not true. We did not manage any species based on the return of revenue to the Department. The seasons were set based on the characteristics of the animals that we were working with and the tools we had to address the issues. The Department did not recommend changes to hunting or trapping seasons based on economic factors. In fact, the Department regularly restricted opportunities for harvest when doing so was in the best interest of the species. For example, in recent years we reduced moose permits and closed the turkey hunting season in portions of northern Maine despite reductions in revenue these changes caused. However, trapping effort was strongly correlated to fur prices. Fur prices were used as an index for trapper effort. Fur prices were currently low which had resulted in a decline of trapper effort and lower harvest levels for some species. For some species like beaver, this required an adjustment to season lengths in order to maintain harvest levels to meet management objectives.

Mr. Connolly stated there was a comment about inappropriate seasons because there were no bag limits for bobcat and beaver. Bag limits were a management tool that was utilized to prevent over harvesting of certain species and/or distribute the harvest of a species equally amongst individual license holders. Bag limits were often employed when a species had high harvest pressure, low reproductive rates or was highly susceptible to harvest. With beaver and bobcat, the Department monitored the harvest and our data identified the harvest rates were low, populations were healthy and both species did not exhibit low reproductive rates. Therefore, bag limits were not currently needed for the management of the species.

Mr. Connolly stated there were also 15 comments regarding extending the bobcat season and that it would result in an increase in the incidental take of lynx. We did not have any records of bobcat hunters accidentally killing a lynx in Maine. Hunters were required by law to identify their target before shooting and the Department provided extensive information to hunters and trappers to ensure that they could distinguish between bobcat and lynx. Bobcat hunters tended to avoid the areas where lynx were abundant and the most common method for hunting bobcat, tracking hounds, allowed hunters to determine the species before pursuing the animal. Accidentally killing a lynx during the bobcat season would be a violation of both federal and state law and would be investigated by appropriate authorities.

Mr. Connolly stated another comment was that beavers were important for maintaining wetlands so efforts should be focused on maintaining beaver on the landscape. Normally, we would work with the landowner and where appropriate manage the water level through a beaver deceiver, which was a piping system with fencing that allowed the water level to be maintained without flooding it. Sometimes that was not appropriate. The Department agreed that beaver were an important wildlife species with many positive benefits for wetland management and habitats for other wildlife. The Department collaborated extensively with private landowners to maintain beaver flowages in many areas across the state and closed areas to beaver trapping upon request from landowners. However, most quality beaver habitat in the state was already occupied which resulted in many situations where beavers colonized areas with a high potential for damaging human property. Beaver trapping regulations and season dates were designed to maintain healthy beaver populations while allowing the sustainable harvest and use of beavers where appropriate. Regulated trapping seasons also gave trappers the opportunity to remove beavers that had colonized in inappropriate habitats that would otherwise need to be killed by an ADC agent at the landowners expense and at the time of the year when pelts had little value. Sometimes there was a suggestion that we should trap and transfer beaver somewhere else. There were instances where landowners were interested in having beaver on their property and we were able to do that. Normally, the issue was that there were problems elsewhere on a watershed and beaver would tend to migrate up and down the system and find areas where there were constrictions and use those to their advantage. That was typically a road where you were going to get a plugged culvert and another problem. In some instances we had landowners that had enough land to want beaver and we worked with them to but normally trapping and transferring beaver to another spot wasn't workable.

Mr. Connolly stated there were some comments that bobcat season was inappropriate and their numbers were still recovering from decline. Bobcats were widely distributed in Maine and across the northeast; they could be found in all 16 counties. There was no evidence that bobcat populations in Maine had undergone recent declines. Our monitoring program indicated that the population was slowly increasing. Comments that bobcats had slow reproductive rates and should not be hunted; bobcats typically bred at one year of age and produced litters of 2 to 4 kittens every year. Bobcat reproductive rates were similar to or higher than those of some larger rodents. We also received 57 comments in support of the rule saying they had seen an increase in bobcats or beaver, and lack of snow at the early part of the season in terms of bobcat hunting.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Commissioner Woodcock stated that normally at Step 3 there would not be a discussion but because the process closed the previous day, their opportunity to review and discuss had been minimal. The Council should have the opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Connolly.

Mr. Lewis asked if we had heard anything from the Feds on beaver and Atlantic salmon. In his area they were having a tremendous problem. He did not know how it would help save the endangered Atlantic salmon when everything was plugged up.

Mr. Connolly stated they had not expressed any concerns. In the past, with regards to brook trout, they were able to negotiate beaver dams and weren't hindered by the presence of beaver in the streams.

Mr. Fortier stated in Aroostook County when beaver became abundant it became costly to landowners and loggers. Parts of land where the beaver were they had never been there before. They were flooding homes and local businesses in the area. The beaver were removed, but to him that was an indicator that beaver were plentiful.

Mr. Wheaton stated they tried to set the laws for the good of the animal and the people. Mother nature had more control than they did. In southern Maine the brooks were low this year and not much water flowing and he noticed that beaver had left the brooks and were going to the lakes to build their beaver house on the side of the lake. As fall came, they may be falling trees into the lake from people's property and making a feed bed and living on the side of the lake and not the brook.

Mr. Dudley stated he contacted Irving which was the largest landowner in his area and for the last three years his cost for beaver control was $36,000 to $50,000 per year. They had replaced 50 to 75 culverts at a cost of $1250 each. That would be $62,000 to $93,000 depending on the amount. He couldn't give an estimate for damage to standing timber or planted areas. Each acre lost would be approximately $1,000 to $1250 per acre. APHIS in the last three years, in 2013 they had 588 sites they had to remove beaver; 2014, 380; 2015, 424. Each site averaged a cost of about $165. Someone, be it towns or individuals had to pay for the removal. The beaver were very plentiful in the north and were a problem in some areas.

Mr. Gundersen stated he was hearing complaints from people about bobcats being around. More people had chickens and ducks and the bobcats were around and getting into their domestic animals.

Mr. Farrington referred to the indices Mr. Connolly spoke about, obviously the number of furs tagged would be one of them. What were some other indices used.

Mr. Webb stated where appropriate, we used indices derived from fur harvest numbers but certainly for other species where we felt like more information was required (Canada lynx was a good example) we did extensive research studies like track counts and those types of surveys. For bobcat, the index we used was not the total number of bobcat harvested per year, it was a measure of success rate by bobcat trappers. That worked for bobcat and that approach was used by many other states because it corrected for trapper effort and the number of trappers out on the landscape. In the annual report they could see that there was fluctuation in the harvest of many species from year to year based on weather conditions, fur prices and a host of things that impacted trapper behavior. Where we could, and bobcat was a good example, we corrected for those changes in effort and looked at success rates.

Mr. Farrington stated the trappers he spoke with had said they were not going to waste their time and set a beaver trap for $3.50. If the cost of fur was down, obviously that would affect the number of beaver being trapped. You could not go down a dirt road in Piscataquis County and find a brook that did not have at least one beaver dam on it.

A motion was made by Mr. Lewis to adopt the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier.

Vote: Unanimous ? motion passed

2. Nonresident landowners/ME resident only day

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the proposal had not changed. There was a question if access by permission only was acceptable for keeping the land open to hunting and the answer was yes. There was only one public comment which was to expand it to all nonresidents. The landowner form was included in the packet and was available on the Department's website.

Mr. Farrington stated it was his understanding the landowner would fill out the form and carry it with them.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated that was correct. There was no transaction with the Department. That was a concern of the Legislature and the one public comment received was concerned with the paperwork.

Mr. Farrington stated at the last meeting he asked about trusts and corporations. With trusts, a lot of the land was owned by members of the trust, how did we know they weren't all doing the same thing.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated if you were the landowner of record, then you were eligible. It was discussed with the Legislature and it was one landowner. It did not include family members. If there was a question it would be asked by the person applying or an investigation by the warden service. It was not expected to be an issue.

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to adopt the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton.

Vote: Unanimous ? motion passed

3. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Fish Waters 2017

Mr. Brautigam stated we had proposed some changes to the original fishing regulations packet. The changes were in response to public comment, additional consultation with staff, as well as the Dept. of Marine Resources (DMR). The first category dealt with efforts to reformat the law book and change general law trout bag limits in Franklin and Oxford Counties from 2 trout to 5 trout. Public comments expressed concern with the process and whether or not we retained sufficient numbers of 2 trout bag limits on waters within those two counties. He asked staff that managed waters in those two counties to go back and review their lists of waters where we had decided to retain 2 trout bag limits and based on that initial review there were 4 waters that we proposed to add as additional 2 trout waters; Bald Mountain Pond, Alder Twp, Boundary Pond, Beattie Twp, Crowell Pond, New Sharon and Hailey Pond, Rangelely. In addition to those waters we also received comments regarding specific waters to determine whether or not 2 trout bag limits were appropriate. After staff review, there were 2 waters we proposed to change; Long Pond, TWP D & E and Rump Pond. We were proposing to go forward with a 2 trout bag limit.

Mr. Brautigam stated the second category of change reflected Department efforts to work with DMR to conserve adult Atlantic salmon. In the current fishing law book we adopted a regulation in Washington and Hancock counties that established a 25" maximum length limit on trout and salmon. This was to conserve any Atlantic salmon that might be caught. With the new law book format we eliminated all counties so as a result those waters afforded protection under S-33 regulation in Hancock and Washington County needed to be listed in the law book individually along with the S-33 regulation. Public comment expressed concern we might have missed some waters when developing the list, there was a request to add Beddington Pond in Beddington to the 2017 law book with an S-33 and we were proposing to do that. We asked DMR to review the list also and they responded that the list was acceptable.

Mr. Brautigam stated that additional public comment was received requesting that the Department also consider other waters outside Washington and Hancock County to add additional S-33 regulations. Because that was not part of the original regulation packet we could not entertain those additional waters outside Washington and Hancock County. We had identified waters and would add those during the next rulemaking process.

Mr. Wheaton stated on East Grand they had many salmon over 25", there was no way Atlantic salmon could get up there. Was it going to be illegal to take a salmon over 25"?

Mr. Brautigam stated we did have some waters that were exceptions to the listing. He was not sure if East Grand was one of them. If it was open that was how it would remain, we did not create a new exception there.

Mrs. Oldham stated she wanted to add thanks for the further review of recommendations in Region D. Going forward, the same process by which waters were evaluated from region to region would help the Council deal with some of the changes proposed in the future.

Mr. Lewis stated a lot of the calls he received was regarding the law book, and people were happy from what he'd seen. It was a great start.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to adopt the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mr. Lewis.

Vote: Unanimous ? motion passed

B. Step 2

1. Shooting Ranges

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we held two public hearings, one in Brownfield and one in Hallowell. Prior to the hearing we had an informational session on the rebuilding of our Department owned ranges. There was a lot of interest, especially in Brownfield where we had over 60 people attend the informational session and most stayed for the public hearing. Fryeburg Fish and Game had been operating the range on our property and they were very excited to see it expanded with the new construction. Some of the comments made, they were commenting on temporary rules that were in place there. Some of the items they commented on were not in the proposed rules. In summary, those that spoke in favor of the project had some qualifiers to it. One was speaking to automatic weapons, it was split with those that wanted automatic weapons and those that did not want them to be used at the new range or as part of the new rule. There were some comments on rapid fire, but you could rapid fire with a semi-automatic weapon. Noise of rapid fire was an issue. The new construction of the range would be state of the art. The noise reduction related to the new construction he thought would be significant.

Mr. Webb stated we had a range architect we were working with and the NRA and he was saying we could see reductions from the property line from 130-140 decibels down to 60-70 decibels, the sound of human speech.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated peoples comments on use of automatic weapons may not be such a concern if the noise level was that significantly reduced. Steel core ammunition was a prohibition in the proposed rule and there were a number of comments about wanting to allow steel core ammunition. Steel core ammunition was an actual steel petition core to the projectile itself, although there was steel jacketed ammunition. A lot was related to cost and shooting. Steel core ammunition did a lot of damage to the range, it was prohibited at a lot of ranges. Alot of firearms dealers in Maine did not sell steel core ammunition, but they did sell steel jacketed ammunition. The Department was still sorting the information out.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated at the Hallowell public hearing we only had 6 people in attendance. This was regarding the Summerhaven Range and an informational program was held prior to the hearing. Comments made were that they wanted steel core ammunition, they didn't want exploding targets and they asked for perhaps a limitation on steel targets. Noise was also a concern. The presentation prior to the hearing did a lot to alleviate their concerns about noise.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston stated what he noticed at the other ranges was just a lack of structure was the issue. Now with fixing them up it would create that structure and would be a win win for everybody.

Mrs. Oldham discussed the grant program that had allowed for improvement of the shooting ranges. In terms of the Rangeley Region Guides and the Rangeley Skeet and Trap Association, their membership had doubled to 967 members. Rangeley Skeet and Trap was going to close before they developed a reciprocal relationship with Rangeley Region Guides. They had minimal equipment and a rustic sporting clays course and now they had handicap accessible skeet and trap range, sporting clay range had a remotely operated thrower and a venue to teach. In addition, they shot biodegradable targets and next year they would be a lead free shotgun range.

Mr. Gundersen stated at the club in his area there were 430 members and they were voting in 2 to 5 members every month. The main reason they wanted to join was that it was getting harder and harder to find a safe place to shoot. He did try to discourage rapid fire at the range due to safety issues with guns jamming, etc.

Mr. Fortier stated they had done a lot with the NRA and getting grants from them. It had enhanced their ranges. There was an increase in women using the range, they were using it as a sport. When the grant program first began with IFW it was very cumbersome. With the new process it was better and there were three areas they were going to concentrate on, noise, lead remediation and keep consolidated to one area. There was not a lot in the area for ranges.

There were no further questions or comments.

C. Step 1

1. Eastport Deer Reduction Special Hunt

Commissioner Woodcock stated we were involved in the process with the City of Eastport. This started in the formation of the deer committee. The committee worked with the regional biologist Tom Schaeffer to be able to accommodate the needs of both sides. The City of Eastport was concerned about certain factors such as residential property damage, vehicle collisions, deer behavior (becoming tame) and Lyme disease. Lyme disease had been increasing in the Eastern part of the state but hasn't really surfaced in Eastport. Eastport had a no discharge of firearms ordinance in place for a long time due to safety consideration in the area. As a result archery hunting was the only means available. For the last 11 years Eastport had been bucks only which resulted in an increase in the population. The Committee examined different types of control mechanisms and discussed sharp shooters, trap and transfer, neutering, contraception, etc. Eastport did not have the funds available to be able to utilize a sharp shooter so was coming to the Department for consideration. They were proposing a hunt for antlerless deer. Land available for hunting was less than 50% of the total acreage due to the concentration of residents. The special hunt was being proposed for 2 consecutive weeks during December over a 3-year period of time. Hunting would be archery only from a fixed ground blind or elevated stand. The locations had to be preapproved; everything was controlled. They were requesting 30 permits with 22 permits for residents/property owners. Property owners that had sufficient land would be entitled to 1 of the 22 permits per household. In addition, all other property owners, residents would be in a lottery. Eight permits, would be issued to non-Eastport residents. Department regulations would apply during the special hunt. A tagging station would be established in Eastport and staff would be trained on tooth extraction for our purposes and research. The assessment of the hunt, the overall objective was to reduce the deer related damage in Eastport, track the number and age, track the vehicle accidents, track complaints of damage, assess landowner satisfaction and general public perception. The proposal was created in response to the voters of the Eastport area. The Eastport City Council encouraged the Department to move forward with the proposal.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier asked how many deer had to be taken from the Eastport area to be effective. Would 30 permits per year do the job and put them at their goal?

Commissioner Woodcock stated probably not.

Chris Bartlett stated they had discussed that point and it was a compromise between the concerns of the citizens that did not want to see the deer disappear and the limitations of hunting land that was available. They didn't think they would be able to disperse as many hunters the first year as they would like to. They had 3.6 square miles and very limited hunting area. Their hope was to run a very smooth hunt this first year and gain public and landowner acceptance so they could have more land available that was not posted in subsequent years. They probably would not come back with a drastically different plan in years two and three, but they would hope that given their assessment metrics that they might be able to adjust the number of permits and number of hunters up if needed.

Mrs. Oldham stated the land that was proposed for the special hunt, how much of that was available during the regular archery season for deer. Was there municipal land that was closed to regular archery hunting which would be open during the special hunt?

Chris Bartlett stated currently there had been around the airport. The FAA had said that they would consider allowing them to open it for the special hunt.

Mrs. Oldham stated that was her objection to special hunts. There were a lot of situations locally that could be changed to enable the problem to be taken care of during a regular archery season. She also thought that the special hunts for residents only to try to deal with an overpopulation was not right. If there were season extensions and special hunts it should be open to everyone. There were things they were doing in Eastport that contributed to the deer problem. 30 deer per year was not going to take care of the problem. She felt they should exhaust all normal hunting activity ways to deal with the deer problem before asking for a special hunt.

Mr. Lewis stated the difference was it was bucks only.

Mrs. Oldham asked if there was a way or should there be a legislative way to take them out and let them hunt doe rather than the special hunt. She did not think it was a good way to take care of a nuisance deer problem.

Mr. Lewis stated he was a game warden there for years and it wasn't an issue, but there were doe permits then. He agreed that it should be included in the archery hunt that used to be all the coastal islands. It should be part of the expanded and have antlerless only.

Mr. Thurston stated he agreed. To try to get one of the 8 permits they would be issuing to non-Eastport residents he would do better in an expanded area and have more opportunity.

Mr. Wheaton stated he was contacted by Tom Schaeffer to go to Eastport and have a look. He did go there and met with Mr. Bartlett and toured the island. It was different than anything he had seen. Eastport did not have the space for the deer and they could not get out. If you moved too many people in to hunt they would be dressing out deer on people's lawns. Lyme was not the problem, they had too many deer. No one had been able to hunt in and around the community. The town had gone far to get pieces of land so people could set up and hunt. There was no food for the deer, the deer were skinny. He thought it was time for the Council to be humane and get the deer population under control. This was a different situation.

Mrs. Oldham asked if the municipality, because of its restrictions, aggravated the problem.

Mr. Wheaton stated if they brought in the main public, they had a situation last year where a deer was shot near where the houses were and they dragged it onto someone's lawn and started dressing it right in the middle of town. This kind of thought generated no hunting. If they could put hunters in the right places they could get by and get the population down. The deer were in bad shape and were a problem.

Mr. Fortier asked if they moved forward with the special hunt, how many residents were proficient with bow hunting that would hunt deer.

Chris Bartlett stated in 2014-2015 they had 17 bow licenses issued. The 22 permits for property owners/residents they were trying to enable the property owners. They needed their property to hunt on so they may not be bow hunters but they may have immediate family that were that they could issue the permit to. Many property owners were not residents. The nonresident percentage was likely going to be higher than 27%.

Mr. Thurston stated the idea of getting it into an antlerless expanded zone with consistency and they would have good hunters there. He thought that was the root for this as opposed to something that would create a precedent.

Mrs. Oldham stated it was the resident only thing that really bugged her. If they had a problem, they were not Eastport's deer they were the State of Maine's deer and she questioned whether Eastport residents could take care of it. The history with special hunts stunk, they never achieved their objectives.

Mr. Lewis stated they had asked the question before, what did it take to get the islands back into the expanded zone.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there would need to be a change is statute to move that around. We had some possibilities of management in WMD 27 and other options were being discussed.

Mr. Gundersen stated if they factored in success rate, they would not take 30 deer if they gave out 30 permits.

Commissioner Woodcock stated his impression of the success rate would be a little different for this particular hunt than it would be for the standard success rate that we calculate. They would be hunting in an area with a high concentration.

Mr. Wheaton asked Mr. Schaeffer to describe the history and what he had seen at Eastport regarding the deer population.

Tom Schaeffer stated he was the regional wildlife biologist in Jonesboro and had been working the Downeast region since 1988. He worked with Eastport off and on because islands tended to be cyclic. Even though Eastport was a bridged island it didn't meet the definition of an off shore island. Periodically the population tended to ebb and flow. When populations went up we heard about it because of property damage, vehicle accidents and other related problems. It didn't take much of a weather event and the population would crash and things would go quiet for 4 or 5 years until the deer reproduced and increased into the problem. In the year 2000 he worked with 3 off shore island communities to restore deer hunting as a management tool. They had been legislatively closed to deer hunting. We worked very successfully with those islands in addressing social carrying capacity. We dealt with them as a social issue, the public perception was that the deer population exceeded what the human population was able to tolerate. They had a high rate of vehicle accidents, the native flora was gone, so we worked with those towns over 4 years. We did not have any population estimates; we were dealing with a social issue on a social level using management techniques to reduce those populations. We were successful after all 3 of those island communities had hunting restored as a management tool to go forward after we did 1 to 4 years of deer reduction efforts. We used recreational tools to address a social nuisance issue with the number of deer.

Tom Schaeffer stated what he heard so far the issues involving what was different, the one thing he could agree with was that in fact the municipal property not being available to hunting was an issue. There were some reasons for that, primarily FAA requirements for allowing hunting in close proximity to a runway. The only reason they were willing to allow the use for the special hunt was because it was a very controlled effort where we preidentified stand locations and determine direction of shooting a bow. They did not have the target numbers but based on population estimates they could come up with some figures for what the target goal should be. Eastport's problem was clearly the result of 11 years of bucks only hunting. There was no meaningful way to control the population without removing antlerless deer. The preference would be not to use archery but because of safety considerations and the residential core of Eastport, it was the only tool that was reasonably available.

Tom Schaeffer stated as to the reason for 11 years of bucks only, it was becoming a problem Downeast. He now had 4 different areas in WMD 27 that had local populations that were beginning to increase and cause these kinds of problems. In a district that had been over 25 years of bucks only where there were certain protections provided, whether its because they live in close proximity to houses like in Eastport. As the Commissioner mentioned, we were looking closely at WMD 27 and the management recommendations moving forward. WMD 27 still remained below the target objective so we were still being conservative under the management system. He was hopeful given a mild to moderate winter that maybe we could start to introduce permits into WMD 27 with the hope that archery hunters would go where the deer were and provide some local relief. Eastport would like to get started because waiting yet another year with bucks only harvest was not going to help with the situation. The proposal was to start conservatively this year and in the next two years advance or increase the number of antlerless permits if all went well. Archery had never been shown, that he was aware of, to be able to effectively reduce a population within a local area just because of the challenges associated with archery. However, if we allowed the full archery season in the future to be able to take does there and add the special number of permits to go forward hopefully between the two they could affect a change.

Mr. Farrington stated they couldn't change the zone and didn't have the authority to put an expanded archery season in this year, what other option was there to assist the area with the problem right now.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there were not many right now. They were talking about some solutions in the future.

Mrs. Oldham stated it seemed the more reasonable solution was at least a year away, and if one were to grant a special hunt it should be for one year until we really addressed what needed to be done there. She would not go with the 3 year route under the current proposal.

There were no further comments or questions.

V. Other Business

There were no items under Other Business.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Katie Hansberry stated she was the Maine State Director for the Humane Society of the United States. She wished to comment on the proposal for extending the bobcat and beaver seasons. She was participating on the bear subcommittee so she did see the work that went into things and she appreciated the comments that were provided by Mr. Mosby at the public hearing and by Mr. Connolly at the Council meeting. However, she did find that things were concerning because even though the statements that were provided at the public hearing on behalf of the Deapartment and what was presented by Mr. Connolly they were getting general statements about the information on which the proposed rule was made. Throughout the process there was no actual data provided about number of nuisance complaints with either species. Was there actually in increase? There were no actual figures provided about the number of those species that were addressed through animal damage control services. There were no actual figures provided about population estimates for either species. At the last Council meeting she believed one of the Council members asked whether or not the most recent seasons harvest information was available and it was not. That information also was not used in developing the proposed rule. With all of those unknowns and also the Department's acknowledgement that more information about the species needed to be gathered she found it very concerning that the rule was passed.

Gary Corson stated he couldn't remember seeing a fishing regulations packet that large that was dealt with the way this one had been. The public had input, the Department looked at that input and revisited some of the proposals. It was done in a great way and he hoped to see more of that in the future.

Karen Coker stated she was coleader of a new organization of wildlife advocates. She was at the public hearing but since the hearing she had spoken with several highly respected wildlife ecologists including one with many decades of research experience whose council the Department had sought. He and the other experts confirmed that hunting or trapping season extensions should not be proposed or endorsed when there was no comprehensive monitoring or management plan in place. The Department did not have current plans for either bobcats or beavers. The management plans for the species were 30 years old. The methods we were using included pelt counting, trapper success rates and anecdotal and observational evidence. Those alone were not by themselves considered adequate to determine the number of the animals or their future prospects. Wildlife management decisions should rest on strong reliable data that was derived from a rigorous study process otherwise it was impossible to know what additional hunting or trapping pressure might have on a species. Anecdotal and observational evidence was especially unreliable. In the Department's 2002 assessment of snowshoe hare the author stated, "the use of general impressions to estimate population size led to large errors and should not be attempted in the future." They were pleased to learn the Department was now working with the University of Maine to pursue monitoring methods that relied on living animals. She stated the Department admitted in our recent research report that it was needed to better form management decisions. Providing more opportunity for hunters and trappers was the justification we used in the rule change proposal. She held to the view it was not a responsible justification for season extension proposals. She would also like to challenge the Department's claim that bobcats in Maine were reproducing successfully. To know whether that was the case we must not only know how many kittens were being born, we must also have kitten mortality and survival data. We did not have that. The hunting season extension that was passed would occur during the deep winter months when the natural mortality was at its highest level especially for kittens. The Department passing a hunting season extension at that time was not responsible or scientifically defensible.

Elaine Selekas stated she was coleader along with Karen Coker of WildWatch ME. She was very deeply disappointed in the passing of the rule extensions for bobcat and beaver. She agreed with colleagues that IFW failed to provide one centile of justification to extend the already long seasons that employed sadistic and unnatural methods. She was pleased to hear some of the Council members talk about humane concerns about deer and clean kills, an ethical and high mark for hunters to attain. She was not talking about trophy hunting, which was what bobcat killing was or trapping beavers. The Department was giving a bad name to sustenance hunters who ascribed to clean kill. She believed, based on her experience of IFW professionals, that there were many who did strive to honor the statutory obligation to ensure our wildlife's best interests did come first. She felt the Department had aver gated its responsibility and as a system was fundamentally flawed. Like other agencies that more Americans are increasingly challenging in our government, IFW blunted democratic values by serving special interests, in this case, trophy hunters and trappers instead of our wildlife, ecosystem and the majority of Maine citizens who absolutely abhored these methods. Many of IFW's experts often promoted colonialist anti-nature thinking and disregard sentient animals as nuisances or resources to be harvested like corn. She felt it was time that new experts come about; there were people who were growing in a movement to challenge this. They wanted new experts to listen to and respect Maine citizens, professionals with broader visions and new tools that affirmed life instead of death. Maybe some IFW staff who did not feel they were heard would now have the guts to turn away from the dated wholesale killing of wildlife. We had made a mess of our planet; we had killed off in Maine all the predators, the wolves, the cougars who would be taking care of these deer and eliminate the deer problem and take care of a lot of the Lyme disease. She hoped IFW paid increasing attention, respected and recognized the growing movement of Maine voices who demanded change. They wanted a modern approach of compassionate conservation, innovation and coexistence with nature who was the best manager of wildlife in cooperation with habitat preservation. In conclusion, we needed inclusive practices and more humane management to bring about a new economy and entrepreneurship with nonlethal wildlife management that aligned with the values of most Mainers. She challenged IFW to invest funding to add to mental health studies of individuals who committed sadistic acts against animals such as filming trapped, suffering animals before they died; laughing while beating or strangling a trapped animal, or going into an emotional frenzy while hounding small animals. As long as IFW remained infiltrated by trophy hunters and trappers who dictated the self-serving wildlife policy as an oligarchy the roar of Maine voices would continue to grow louder.

Richard Hessline stated he had long advocated and worked with some members of the Department in the work of trying to mitigate beaver conflict issues. He had worked and studied with the premiere beaver conflict resolution experts in the region from MA and VT and studied a lot of information about the values of beaver. He heard some things at the meeting about the concerns about beaver with salmon and trout. His understanding was the most up to date information was they benefitted both. Part of the greatest value from beaver also relied on the habitat they created. The habitat was valuable to a wide array of species and plants. Part of the value was that beaver needed to migrate and create new cycles of water management levels. The problems that were coming about due to conflict issues couldn't be avoided unless we planned for them and tried to engineer structures and infrastructure so they could withstand them. There were structures and water level control devices that could be employed to eliminate and efficiently deal with some of those problems. The claim that the beaver habitat was saturated and therefore the increased trapping removals, he did agree with some of the other statements that there had not been any documentation that was scientifically valid to establish either the amount of the available habitat that was out there or that the ecological and species help of beaver were occurring within those habitats; nor, whether the actual distribution of beaver throughout those habitats was being realized. There was no data indicating whether trapping pressure was actually pushing beaver into potential conflict areas. He would like to see better data and more responsible outlook on the values of beaver and trying to accommodate that better in the future.

Don Kleiner stated he wanted to thank everyone for the important role they played in the North American conservation model. There was a time when beavers were nearly endangered, we were now to the point through the success of that model, we were sort of overrun with them. Unlike the preceding speakers, he did talk to land managers and he did not hear anyone saying we needed more beavers. The current system of wildlife conservation was working, it was very successful, there were a number of species that had benefitted over the long term including cottontail rabbit and other endangered species. He thought we were doing a fabulous job.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

Council members would be notified at a later date of the next meeting.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
August 17, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Tom Schaeffer, Regional Wildlife Biologist - Jonesboro
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries Division Director
Chris Cloutier, Major, Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Don Dudley (Chair)
Jeff Lewis (Vice-Chair)
Dick Fortier
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Jerry Scribner
Lance Wheaton
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Fern & Sylvia Bosse, Norway
James Cote, MTA
Jim Fleming, Kennebec Valley Fur Takers
John Glowa, South China
Jeff Reardon, TU
Elaine Abbot, City of Eastport
Karen Coker, Cape Elizabeth
Carleen Cote, Vassalboro
Liam Hughes, Director of Animal Welfare, ACF
Katie Hansberry, HSUS
Amy Mercer, York's Wild Kingdom
Gail Mercer, York's Wild Kingdom
Scott Macreavy, Kennebec Valley Fur Takers
Tim Lesage, Aviation Engineer, MDOT
Kristina Snyder, New Hampshire
Victor Shenard, New Hampshire
Reb Brann, Maine Citizens Against Puppy Mills
Mac Maginley, TU
Gena Gary, HSUS

I. Call to Order

Council Chair Don Dudley called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Dudley.

Vote: unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Wildlife in Captivity

Mr. Connolly stated a summary of the comments received was distributed along with the recommended changes to the proposed rule to address concerns. There were a lot of good comments that were incorporated. The rule going forward, there would be a technical committee put in place afterwards to assign species to the different categories.

Mrs. Oldham stated she was pleased with the presentation to the Council of the changes made between Steps 2 and 3. The educational requirements for rehabilitators and others, she thought the language was much better. In terms of the grandfather clause, she thought there should be no grandfather clause but understood these kinds of changes frequently had them. She wanted to be sure she understood it, "grandfathered until the death of the animal?" She felt sale or transfer of the animal would make that a more complete and effective grandfather clause.

Mr. Fortier stated the only question he had was on the grandfather clause and how to approach that to benefit the animals and the people doing rehabilitating. He felt Mrs. Oldham's suggestion was a good one. Sometimes things that were grandfathered in weren't consistent going forward where you could end up.

Mrs. Oldham asked if an amendment could be made to what was presented.

Commissioner Woodcock stated it was an up or down vote on what was presented.

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to adopt the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen.

Vote: 8 in favor; 1 opposed (Mrs. Oldham) ? motion passed

2. Scientific Collection Permits

Mr. Connolly stated this was the proposal that was shared originally with the Council; we did not receive any comments during the comment period.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to adopt the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

3. Any-deer Permits 2016

Ms. Camuso stated the proposal was the same as what was originally presented with the exception of WMD 7. We changed the expansion factor from 4 to 3 on that so there was a reduction of 130 permits for WMD 7.

Mrs. Oldham asked what an expansion factor was.

Ms. Camuso stated we had expansion factors for each WMD based on the success rate in that zone. We knew in WMD 7 that the past two times we had similar levels of permits the expansion factor was 4.5 and 3.8 so we needed to issue 4.5 permits before 1 doe was harvested. Some of the zones and a 3 expansion factor, some up to 8 or 12.

Mr. Farrington asked what the reason was for the decrease in WMD 7.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had some comments with concern for the fact that zone had gone between some permits and no permits for some time. The comments were they thought it was too much of an increase at one time. The Commissioner and Ms. Camuso had a discussion about expansion factors and lowered it based on that discussion.

A motion was made by Mr. Lewis to adopt the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

B. Step 2

1. Furbearer Seasons/Beaver Closures 2016/17

Mr. Connolly stated this was the annual adjustments to beaver closures and some adjustments in the trapping season. We added a week for bobcat hunting. We met with the Maine Trappers Association last spring and talked about proposed changes and interest to see any harvest of furbearers and one of the suggestions was opportunity to increase bobcat hunting and we agreed we could do that without any impacts to the population. There was also a change in the starting date for beaver in an area where we had traditionally had a lot of beaver problems and that would give us an opportunity to address that as well. In the past there had been several discussions about the impacts of harvest at particular times on otter and other species and an interest in better understanding what portion of the population it was impacting. There was some tooth submission we would be looking at to get age information as well as sex information on harvested furbearers to better understand what the impact was on the population to have that in future years to summarize and consider as part of the rulemaking process.

Council Member Comments and Questions Mr. Dudley stated they would not need to turn in the lower jaw, the tooth would suffice?

Mr. Connolly stated either/or.

Mrs. Oldham stated at the last Council meeting it was thought the harvest was down, but we did not have final numbers. Did we have final numbers on the furbearer season?

Ms. Camuso stated we did not have them. There were no further comments or questions.

2. Nonresident Landowners/ME Resident Only Day

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there was one public comment received which was provided to the Council. Essentially the concern was for any burden for the Department or hunter to process paperwork. The Legislature was also concerned about that when passing the bill. We anticipated having a one page paper the landowner would fill out and carry with them. We did need some verification for wardens to be able to do some kind of enforcement. The landowner would fill the form out and attest to the information by signing. Most landowners had their tax map and lot number and acreage so should not be much of a burden. We would not be processing anything through the office to allow for them to hunt.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated the rulemaking was in response to legislation that was passed, so we had to have rules.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the Legislature wanted nonresident landowners with a certain number of acres to have the ability. They gave us regulatory power to set up the rules.

Mr. Lewis stated there was a sunset provision.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated it would be reviewed in 2018.

Mr. Fortier stated 25 acres in some areas was a lot of land and in some it was not. Could ordinances override anything, for instance compact zones with landowners with 25 or 30 acres being able to hunt on their own land.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the compact zones were discharge ordinances. There shouldn't be a conflict here.

Mr. Farrington asked if there was any clarification on landowners. A lot of people bought land and put it in trust and there may be 6 people that owned the land. Would all 6 of them be able to fill out the form and carry it?

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated it was the landowner of record. There was some discussion in the Legislature about family members. The landowner's son couldn't hunt on that day, it was just the landowner. He did not think multiple owners or corporations qualified here.

Mr. Scribner stated that was an excellent question and would like some follow up on that.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated they were pretty direct with it being one person; multiple owners would be questionable. The law stated "nonresident" specifically and he would have to check the definition to see if that was a person or corporation.

Commissioner Woodcock stated his understanding was the Legislature did not want multiple landowners to hunt, they wanted one designated person.

There were no further questions or comments.

3. Kimball Pond Horsepower Restriction Petition

Commissioner Woodcock stated the petition for a horsepower restriction on Kimball Pond, which was a 55 acre pond in Vienna, was to restrict the horsepower to 10hp and under. We held a public hearing which was well attended. This was a re-visitation of a former petition that was for 25 horsepower and under and was rejected. The residents of the area and those that were from the area that testified expressed some very strong opinions about the use of one particular boat on the pond which had quite a large engine and was used by the individual for waterskiing, etc. for the grandchildren. He testified about the times of the year that he used the boat and said he was very cautious of other people's use of the pond. The Commissioner's authority to regulate horsepower was to examine the issue of safety concerns, size of the body of water, impact on the environment; all of those were considered. Warden Service weighed in that the boat had an engine that was bigger than you would normally expect, but there had been no documentation of any safety violations issued or complaints investigated that turned out to be a safety concern. The Commissioner was interested to hear what the Council's thoughts were. This was the usual practical social discussion about horsepower limitation.

Mr. Farrington stated in Title 12 there were over 30 ponds already in Maine that the motor size was controlled including no internal combustion engines. Did the Department have a standard for size of the pond or standard formula that was used?

Commissioner Woodcock stated there was not and he would not be comfortable in promoting that type of approach. For instance, if you had a pond that had no residences on it at all but it was a small pond of 55 acres and somebody was using it and bringing in a boat you would restrict them. There was such a variety of circumstances.

Mr. Farrington asked if someone could give the history on the existing list of horsepower restrictions.

Commissioner Woodcock stated when he was a Senator back in the 2000's they had a subcommittee of the Fish and Wildlife Committee and he was on the subcommittee. The requirement was that each town that had a piece of property on that body of water hold a public meeting and present to Fish and Wildlife its concern with horsepower restriction of whatever was presented. It was the case that if you had, for instance, Sebago Lake and all the towns except two were in agreement on a horsepower restriction then you wouldn't be able to bring it forth because all of the towns were not in agreement. The committee went back and forth to include specifics of watercraft, ie: jetskis, horsepower restrictions, but it became quite laborious. This was a discussion that would continue as long as we had residents and usage of engines on bodies of water.

Mr. Lewis stated with the water safety zone that curtailed a lot of it, you couldn't be over wake speed within 200 feet of shore. On a body of water that size they were pretty much stuck in one area.

Commissioner Woodcock stated they were quite restricted there with the 200 ft. wake zone around it. The person testified that he was very careful, he documented 12 hours usage during the year and made a statement if other people were recreating on the pond he didn't take his boat out. No one at the hearing objected to that.

Mrs. Oldham stated in terms of the Advisory Council where safety concerns were to play a major role in judgement, there was no documentation. Twelve hours of taking the grandchildren waterskiing didn't seem to be sufficient justification to award the petition in her opinion.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he was careful to review the warden's comments. The warden's comments were that it could present a problem; it hadn't presented a problem specifically by incident.

Mr. Farrington stated several of the public comments mentioned erosion that was caused in the pond. Commissioner Woodcock stated he was not aware of any evidence of that. There were complaints and photographs; the pond had a rocky shore in many places. It was shallow so when taking off you could create sediment. There was one camp owner that testified that had a well in the body of water and he'd never had a problem with sediment. In this case it was one boat with one motor that was causing the residents around the pond to write in.

Mr. Thurston stated it seemed to be responsible on both sides from what he read. Had the person been skiing there a long time?

Commissioner Woodcock stated the family had been there for 30-40 years.

Mr. Thurston stated so they had always had a greater than 10 horsepower motor on that pond.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he had a bigger horsepower engine for awhile. The other gentleman that had the 25 horsepower motor also resided there and just used it to troll.

Mr. Thurston stated it did not seem that it would be the kind of place that if you had a big boat with a big motor you would trailer it to Kimball Pond to recreate. This was a person that was recreating in his back yard the way he had for a long time.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the question was asked what impact it would have on future use of Kimball Pond's water resources. There wasn't much evidence of people trailering boats in to waterski on Kimball Pond or cruise around with a big horsepower engine. It was a small rural fishing pond with some residents on it who utilized it.

Mr. Fortier stated his thoughts were to leave it alone unless some violations were coming up. He felt they were looking to the Council or IFW to be the deciding person or the bad person. Right now he wasn't hearing anything safety related or any big problems. We may be creating a problem if we stepped in and made it 10hp or less. If there were a lot of people going to Kimball Pond with big boats it might bring another factor into it, but he was not hearing that.

Mr. Farrington asked if the body of water had a public boat launch.

Commissioner Woodcock stated it did. Fishermen used it during the season. He had not heard the residents saying people were trailering boats in there.

There were no further questions or comments.

4. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Fish Waters 2017

Mr. Brautigam stated we attended 5 public hearings to present the new 2017 proposed fishing law book. The focus was restructure of the law book to create an easy to use book by the general public. Most of the changes proposed reflected that effort. Overall there was strong support from the people that attended for the restructuring effort. There were a few comments filed relating to some of the components related to those changes. One of the areas of concern related to northern Oxford County and Franklin County where bag limits were changing from 2 to 5 trout. There were some concerns with regard to how staff determined when appropriate to retain 2 trout bag limits in those areas. We were working with staff to make sure we used consistent methodology in making those decisions. We had also received public input with regards to specific waters where there had been some suggestions made that we entertain 2 trout bag limits. When we presented the package in Millinocket there was very strong support for the Department moving in the direction of more liberalized trout bag limits in small lakes and ponds. They had been finding an overall decrease in angler use and those populations of brook trout were becoming more abundant and size quality was declining. Some conversations were centered around the component to establish maximum length limits for salmon and trout on rivers and streams, a 25" maximum. That was an effort to provide protections to state listed adult Atlantic salmon. Those recommendations were generally well received. There were some concerns that maybe we had not identified all the lakes and ponds that might have adult sea run Atlantic salmon that might also warrant the same kinds of protection so we would be taking another look at that.

Mr. Brautigam stated overall there was very strong support for the Department proposing to list 3 new waters on the heritage waters list. There were comments that folks hoped and thought there would be more waters nominated for that listing. We were planning to look at what we currently had as potential nominations for heritage waters. They may not be advanced during this rulemaking effort, but we may undertake a separate process if warranted.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated at the Farmington hearing, regarding the list of ponds going from 2 to 5 brook trout limit, the concern was raised that a number of these were state heritage waters already. The question Mrs. Oldham asked at the hearing was what qualitative data was there to support that recommendation in the state heritage waters. The response given was that historically they were 5 or 10 trout bag limits and the ponds did fine. Her response to that was it was an anecdote, which was not data. She knew it was not legislated that special care be given to these ponds other than they couldn't be stocked and there was no ice fishing. However, she thought because we had 97% of the Eastern brook trout in the country we had a special obligation to do what was reasonable to protect those ponds. She was looking for data, maybe the habitat had changed and they couldn't support that bag limit, that was the information she was looking for to be able to support the package. Some of the comments received, there were a number of waters that apparently had been surveyed and justified to be on the state heritage list and she did not understand the delay.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had a lot of surveyed waters and the charge was for our biological staff to also survey them to make sure they qualified. There were some that had been surveyed by staff and were in the mix. They were not listed during this process. They did qualify, so we were discussing having a separate process.

Mr. Brautigam stated the list was in the process of being reviewed when Dave Boucher passed away and Mike Brown left as Division Director. There was some transition that took place and waters may have been left off the list unintentionally.

Mrs. Oldham stated there was a fairly lengthy list of proposed new waters, she hoped the process would be expedited. We also wanted to make sure that just because the waters weren't listed yet that they didn't get stocked.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we were monitoring that.

Mr. Farrington stated he had received calls, one from a gentleman in Millinocket who said there were several ponds in that area that were brook trout producing factories. He wanted to know why the second brook trout they caught had to be over 12". It was stunting the growth of the pond, it was overrun with fish.

Mr. Brautigam stated that regulation was intended to create size quality, but it could be use had declined and was not getting sufficient harvest. He would encourage the individual to speak with the regional biologist.

Mr. Farrington stated the other call he received was questioning why we changed the Kennebec River in Skowhegan to ALO only, it had been general law for years and was full of bass and yellow perch. Was it just to make the entire river consistent?

Mr. Brautigam stated we had a long listing of regulations for the Kennebec, there was a lengthy table and there was an effort to simplify that listing. One of the things that was not retained in that process were some of those existing use opportunities. What was lost in terms of use opportunities to maybe fish with bait vs. artificial lures was compensated for by an easier table to navigate. The change was not biologically related.

There were no further questions or comments.

C. Step 1

1. Shooting Areas

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the proposal pertained to two Department owned sites, one at the Brownfield Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and one at Summerhaven in Augusta. The Department had opportunity for federal funds to expand the ranges and essentially build state of the art ranges at both of the sites. They had been operational for years as public shooting areas but really not under any direction for the Department to oversee activities there. Some problems had resulted from that. There were 2 public hearings scheduled, September 7 in Brownfield and September 8 in Augusta. At both of the hearings there would be a presentation prior to the hearing regarding the new range itself. We had a representative of the engineering firm working with the Department that would go over the plans for the ranges. Following the presentation would be a public hearing on the rules.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Gundersen asked if there would be a lead management program for the ranges.

Mr. Connolly stated when the range was redesigned it would incorporate measures to deal with the lead issue. There would be two things, lanes and berms to direct the shooting into the berm and baffles to deal with the noise as well and a plan to collect lead from the berms periodically.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the guidelines would allow us to address any activity that was inappropriate on the sites.

Mr. Scribner asked about the prohibited activities. Inappropriate ATV use was not included as a prohibited activity but bicycles, fireworks, drones, etc. were listed. He would think that ATV usage in those areas would also be prohibited.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the ranges were both on WMAs which did not allow ATVs.

There were no further questions or comments.

V. Other Business

1. Eastport Deer Reduction Special Hunt

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had other considerations from other communities for deer reduction programs. The City of Eastport, the community had a concern for the deer population density and also support for working with the Department. They had been working with wildlife biologist Tom Schaeffer and they had specifically outlined what their plan was for the deer reduction program. It did have some unique qualities not discussed in prior deer reduction programs.

Elaine Abbot, City Manager of Eastport presented their proposal. They had 78% of the voters in Eastport speak up and say that deer were a definite issue. Eastport was about 3 square miles, they had about 1,300 residents and at least that many deer. The deer were tame, she had deer put their head in her vehicle when stopped. The deer would come to her back door and stare in while the dogs would bark at them. Because Eastport was 3 square miles they were looking to have an anterless deer special hunt 2-weeks after the regular hunt. About 25% of the 3 square miles was open land. About 300 acres of the 480 acres of open land was closed to hunting due to the municipal airport and state park. It left about 180 acres for people to hunt on. They were looking to first restrict the special hunt to 25 permit holders, that would be 1 hunter per 7 acres. They would like to be cautious. The deer committee had been working with Tom Schaeffer trying to come up with something that would be able to show some viable results after the first year and they were looking for a 3 year program to carefully manage the deer population. Their social carrying capacity had reached its limit. There were two deer/car collisions as she was leaving the island that day. During some parts of the season along Rt. 190 it was not unusual to have deer/car collisions on a daily basis. They were not aware of any Lyme disease issues thus far. People were unable to garden or use their yards in normal ways. They would respectfully ask the Council to review their proposal and give any feedback that might assist them in moving forward to control the number of deer. The city council would be holding a public meeting for input on the proposal. The city council had not approved the proposal yet but were hoping for any input that could be brought back to them so that any amendments could be made in time.

Tim Lesiege from MDOT stated deer at airports were a problem. We had issues all over Maine and if the FAA had their way we would put a wildlife fence around every airport in the state at the cost of millions. They had DOT fence half the airport in back in 2007. In inspecting the airport he could watch the deer walk across the airport, get to the fence and turn around and go back so they were twice the problem they were before. Landowners feeding deer were also a problem for airports. He would rather not spend what little money they got ($150,000 per airport) on fencing. That would get them about 100 feet of fence in one year and they would not be able to maintain their runways with FAA monies. Just having seen the number of deer on the island with the airport he saw as an issue. He would support the process to hopefully support the airport and not have such an impact of wildlife on the airport.

Tom Schaeffer stated back when we had 30 WMDs Eastport was part of WMD 29 where we did allow harvest of does. We were not able to sustain that harvest and population trends were down overall in the district. We reverted to 29 WMDs eleven years ago and Eastport became part of WMD 27. In WMD 27 we had been for 25 years of bucks only harvest trying to recover the Downeast deer herd. In doing that, we had been conservative on deer harvest but over the years started to develop some local residential areas with problems and Eastport was one of those. We did look closely the last couple of years at introducing some doe permits in WMD 27 which would have enabled archers to take doe deer. We weren't able to do that staying true to the management system for deer because of the 2014-2015 winter. We would only know after this coming winter what the management system would be going forward. Eastport had been bucks only for the last 11 years since those changes and that was not a way to control the population of deer.

Mr. Farrington stated under the doe permit system, was it legal for them to authorize a certain section of a WMD for does to be taken?

Commissioner Woodcock stated it was managed by the entire district, but micro managing districts had been discussed.

Tom Schaeffer stated Eastport had another complicating factor, because of safety constraints they had a very restrictive discharge ordinance. It was archery only and when trying to manage deer problems archery presented an issue. Hunting there was not only bucks only, but archery only. The approach was very conservative, but Eastport was trying to build consensus among their population. There was consensus there was a problem and they wanted to work with the Department to solve it, but on the other hand they felt it was necessary to move slowly and make sure we were doing things right before being more liberal with the number of participants or permits being awarded.

Commissioner Woodcock stated this was a social concern as well as a biological one.

Mr. Lewis asked if there was a way to include Eastport in the expanded archery season.

Tom Schaeffer stated that currently a WMD that was bucks only, there was no application of the expanded archery season. He met with Eastport and mentioned expanded archery and it was told to him that the public did not want to become a magnet. If they were the only place in WMD 27 where archers could go to take deer under a regular season they were concerned about people coming there that didn't know Eastport. They had enough problems during the regular archery season.

Elaine Abbot stated she had already been receiving phone calls if the rule had passed yet. It was frightening to them, they were only 3 square miles. 25 permits may seem conservative but that was 7 acres per hunter and a lot of it being open ground and not wooded. While it may seem conservative it was a safe number.

Mr. Fortier stated having that many deer in a 3 mile square area he would be willing to bet they had a Lyme problem and didn't know it. He could understand in that small area why they would not want use of long guns, but a shotgun might wend itself. They would have to look at bringing down that deer population or they would not be gaining any ground.

Mr. Thurston stated out of the 25 permits, 3 would be given to nonresidents. Did they have that number of locals that wanted the opportunity?

Mrs. Oldham stated they only sold 17 archery licenses last year.

Elaine Abbott stated it was not necessarily residents it was property owners. They had property owners in neighboring Perry that would be considered for the resident type permits because they were property owners.

Mrs. Oldham stated her concerns were that they had no science based studies. In order to judge effectiveness of any kind of change in hunting regulation you needed to do that. There was a biological way to do that and it did cost money and if the town was interested in pursuing that they needed to get it done to be able to show success or failure of a hunt. It was annoying that there were circumstances where municipalities were requesting special hunts when they did everything they could to discourage management by regular hunting methods. They had residents that were feeding deer. She suggested they enact a local ordinance to have them stop feeding deer. There were a number of non-special hunt initiatives they could do to try to decrease the perceived deer problem. A deer density study may confirm that there were too many deer in Eastport, but they had no data and she could not approve a special hunt if there was not that scientific data. The thing that bothered her most about the initial proposal was the use of bait. That was not hunting, that was an ambush and she felt that was a horrible precedent to set. There were many other ways through normal hunting methods that they could address the problem. She felt a special hunt with landowners only, using bait would not pass. The proposal would not get her vote.

Commissioner Woodcock stated Eastport was trying to reach a reasonable solution to a clearly defined problem.

Mr. Farrington asked if we had any facts on bow hunter success rates. If they gave out 25 permits and probably only 1 out of 4 got a deer it wasn't going to help the problem.

There were no further questions or comments.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Jeff Reardon stated TU was generally supportive of the proposal. They liked the simplification proposals. They had concerns about the 2 trout, 5 trout bag limits. Not in general, but they felt like there was a fairly thoughtful approach to that in Penobscot County in terms of where the 2 trout limits were retained. They had more concerns in Franklin/Oxford. They were supportive of the proposal for Penobscot County, not supportive for Franklin and they hoped to see a change before the rule was finalized. He hoped there would be a rulemaking going forward dealing with just heritage waters. There was a back log of approximately 35 waters. He thought some of those were clearly appropriate and should go on the list. Some of them there were some issues to resolve. He was more familiar with rulemaking at DEP, and IFW process was somewhat different. He had some process concerns. The Council was at Step 2 discussing the rules and they may still get written comments from people after the meeting. He thought they saw during the Wildlife in Captivity at Step 3 there was a constructive proposal to improve it but because we were at Step 3 it was too late for that to be made. He would just question whether the process could be more open to things that would improve the proposal that were relatively minor changes late in the process. Having public comment earlier prior to Step 2 would allow more flexibility to incorporate changes.

Carleen Cote stated she was a wildlife rehabilitator so that was what she would speak about. If the rules were implemented, as of December 2017 the program would end. The wildlife community addressed between 20,000 and 30,000 incidences that the Department did not have to deal with. She asked a question at the public hearing, if no one applied for the special permit for deer what were the wardens going to do with the fawns? If you shot one fawn doe you were also killing any possibility of offspring. No one would be able to meet the credentials, 100 hours and somebody with a bachelor of science rehabilitating squirrels, she didn't think that would happen. Dependency on humans, you had to have an apprentice and there would be a lot of people handling the wildlife. At her facility the policy was if you did not have the pre-exposure rabies vaccination there was absolutely no contact with the wildlife. Public viewing, the Commissioner allowing she thought was a violation of USDA regulations. If you were open to the public you had to be licensed as a zoo. This would end the rehab program as of next December. No one was going to meet the requirements.

Jim Fleming stated on the proposal for a jaw or tooth submission it said it would be required. What if someone did not comply?

Ms. Camuso stated technically if they did not comply we could refuse trapping license renewal the following year. We would not be taking that approach. Our approach similar to mandatory jaw submissions with bear, we did not have 100% compliance but we found we had voluntary compliance. There would be a learning process the first couple of years and then after that there should be less of a lack of submission.

Jim Fleming stated they had a lot of people nationally that had come to their association. They realized that Maine was under tremendous pressure for trapping. They were concerned about the state of trapping and rabies, etc. He had submitted a proposal to the Council and Department at the June meeting and sent a copy to Cory Mosby. He had heard nothing regarding their proposal. Last year we held hearings in Portland and Bangor and his phone lit up from people up north because it was hard for them to get to Bangor. They felt they were not underserved, but not served. Mr. Fleming stated the KVFT would like to be included in future discussions with the Department and MTA.

Katie Hansberry stated she had some comments regarding the wildlife in captivity proposal. She hoped the Department would continue to look at or reassess the inclusion of an exception for capuchin monkeys as helper animals. They were no longer recognized federally as service animals. There were significant concerns about animal welfare, threats to public safety and health. It was a serious issue and should continue to be looked at. Looking at the changes that were made between Steps 2 and 3, she was disappointed to see under the committee composition where it described the types of degrees or experience that the individuals on the committee would be required to have that. Previously on the list there was an inclusion of animal welfare and that had been removed. She wanted to ask why that was done.

Ms. Camuso stated it was on the list twice, it was duplicitave.

Gena Gary stated she was from Portland and she was a member of the Maine State Council for the Humane Society of the U.S. She wanted to go back to Mr. Reardon's observation about constructive comments and the openness of the process, maybe going forward revisiting and perhaps allowing for some constructive improvements prior to a Step 3 process. She also wanted to support Ms. Hansberry's comments. With regards to the trapping issue and extending the season, since steps were taken to protect endangered species and the trapping program in Maine why would we consider extending the season to create perhaps a bigger problem relative to that. Where we represented balancing public interest with the interests of wildlife, why wouldn't we consider the inherent cruelty in the trapping process and the inadvertent trapping of companion animals and endangered species. We might consider using other types of methods to collect biological data such as they did in Portland with have-a-heart traps rather than trapping animals for fur that cannot legally be used in the United States. There was no market for it.

Christina Snyder stated she was an animal welfare advocate from New Hampshire. She hoped the facilities and people the wildlife in captivity rule would effect would be watched very carefully for adherence to the rules. She felt in the past that did not always seem to be the case. The public would continue to watch and make sure the facilities would abide by the rules and file complaints if they did not.

Victor Shenard stated he was also from New Hampshire and an animal advocate. There was a big exotic wildlife in captivity and trade crisis in the country right now, and he felt the rules would help stop some of the outflow from Maine that had been contributing to that.

Gary Corson stated he was from New Sharon and had sent in comments on the fishing regulations packet. He thought he had heard Mr. Brautigam say the Franklin and Oxford County proposals we were looking at making some changes.

Mr. Brautigam stated we were going to review the specific water changes that had been submitted as comments and also look at the methodology that Region D used in identifying 2 trout exemptions special regulations that were part of the packet.

Gary Corson stated one region should not be a whole lot different from another region when we were talking about specific rules on a specific type of fishery. He had some real concerns about the 2" harvest slots. He had been very supportive of the packet, and supported the changes that were done in Region F to go to only one over vs. the 2" slot. Each region was different. With a species specialist, you would be able to go to somebody that you could discuss how the regulations and fisheries were supposed to be managed. Modifications were being made differently from one region to another. The public, as much as anybody, needed the species specialists. If he had questions about northern Maine he had to go to northern Maine for a hearing, whereas in wildlife you went to a hearing and the species specialist was there that explained how management took place in the state. As far as the packet went, he felt the Department had done a good job, simplification was tough.

Reb Brann stated she liked what Mrs. Oldham has said about having the science behind it, what concerned her about the furbearer issue was she heard someone say at the last meeting that the numbers were down, now the numbers were up. What was the reason to extend it by a week? That told her we did not have the science yet. If there was no science why were we making a change? She liked what Mr. Reardon said about the rulemaking process. The process didn't allow for a logical change that could have been made but wasn't able to because of a rulemaking process. That probably wasn't in the best interest of the citizenry.

Karen Coker stated she was there to let everyone know that many wildlife advocates were quite concerned about the rulemaking proposal to extend the season for bobcat and beaver trapping and hunting. She was new to the proposal, but wanted to let us know there were enough concerns by enough people to suggest that a public hearing was in order and the Department would soon be receiving letters requesting a public hearing. One of her issues was access to the information the rulemaking was based on. The APA required at least 3 information sources the rulemaking was based on to be included with the form, but she had not seen those. John Glowa had wanted to attend the entire meeting, but was not able to stay so asked her to convey his concerns and questions. He said that many eagles were dying from eating wildlife killed by lead bullets. There were also concerns about the impact on children of eating venison contaminated by lead. Was the Department planning to investigate and respond? He asked how the recent change in IFW's mission statement would be interpreted and implemented. He also requested the wildlife action plan be amended to include the gray wolf, but he had not received a response. He also requested but had not received scientific evidence the Department may have regarding the impact of Maine's coyote control program on the deer herd. Ms. Coker stated it appeared there was a lot of interest in background information and it would be great to hear whether the Department was willing to be more open and share those scientific data and substantiating evidence for decision making.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he was aware of the items she had brought forward.

There were no further comments or questions.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for September 22, 2016 at Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta beginning at 9:30 a.m.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen and that was seconded by Mr. Thurston to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
June 11, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.
Kittery Trading Post
301 US Route 1, Kittery, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Bonnie Holding, Director of Information and Education
Adam Gormely, Game Warden Lieutenant
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Don Dudley (Chair)
Dick Fortier
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Jerry Scribner
Lance Wheaton
Jenny Starbird
Sheri Oldham

Guests:

Katie Hansberry, HSUS
Julie Miner, DEW Animal Kingdom
Gail Mercer, York's Wild Kingdom
Michael Ralbovsky, Rainforest Reptile Shows, Boston
Jim Fleming, Kennebec Valley Fur Takers
Gary Corson, New Sharon
Scott Macreavy, Kennebec Valley Fur Takers
Brian Cogill, President, MTA
Kristina Snyder
Blaine Holding, Stratton
Kurt Schatzl, President, New England Herpetological Society

I. Call to Order

Council Chair Don Dudley called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton.

Vote: unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Wildlife in Captivity

Mr. Connolly stated we were in the middle of the public comment period. The proposed rule was advertised and so we could make them aware of some of the comments received, but could not provide a reaction as far as the rulemaking. It was the time for the public to provide comments, not engage in a discussion about changing the proposal. A public hearing was held with good attendance at the Civic Center. We received input from all sides of the issue. After the comment period was closed, all that would be taken into consideration. Everyone was civil at the hearing and it was a very diverse group.

Mrs. Oldham asked if the proposal would come back to them for discussion.

Mr. Connolly stated the comment deadline was June 17th so we couldn't consider doing anything with the proposal until after that.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the options for him were to move it forward with revisions, move it forward as it was or pull it out of the process entirely. It was the Commissioner's provision to do something with the proposal between Steps 2 and 3.

Mr. Connolly stated there was one piece that was clarified at the hearing that had posed some confusion. We announced, and it was our intention, that we would take the actual populating of the species list, the prohibited, category 1and 2 restricted through rulemaking as a separate process. There was a provision in the proposal to establish a technical advisory committee to the Commissioner. It was our intent to create that committee and populate it, review the species and make suggestions that we would take through rulemaking to actually finalize the three lists. The unrestricted list was not going to live in rule because it was a list of species that did not require a permit. The Attorney General's office advice was to keep the unrestricted list outside of rulemaking, but the three lists that were creating restrictions on what people could have should go through rulemaking to give people a chance to comment.

Mr. Thurston asked how the technical committee would be comprised. Who would choose the members?

Mr. Connolly stated it would be established by the Commissioner. Within the proposed rule there were categories of people that would participate. It would be advisory to the Commissioner; the Commissioner was the one who would have to defend the decisions and had the authority.

Mrs. Oldham stated the public comments had been helpful in helping her understand the issue. Personally, she thought the education piece in the proposal was weak. When she was the chairman of the board of medicine it came to their attention that they had licensees that were in need of remedial education and training. So they wrote a policy and staff did a great job in writing the policy. Then they tried to compile a list of resources where those licensees could get that training. The only one in the country they could find was in Colorado and was prohibitively expensive. She was concerned about the education piece. It looked great on paper, she just didn't see where that training and experience could come from. She thought that part needed to be strengthened.

Ms. Camuso asked if Mrs. Oldham meant the education for the people possessing the permit or some other requirement that they do public education.

Mrs. Oldham stated both parts. We talked about getting the training, but she was not sure where the training was available. The intent was fine but could it actually be accomplished. The other part of the proposal was the grandfather clause. She thought that should be eliminated, a lot of times grandfather clauses were put in but if it was the right thing to do changes had to be made then everybody had to make them. She thought that was important and fair. There were no grandfather clauses for trappers when having to use the exclusion devices. It was the right thing to do, everybody had to do it. There were also some public comments on added responsibility and burden on our wildlife rehabilitators. She thought those concerns needed to be taken into consideration; the release of animals within 10 miles of where they were found. As far as she knew these folks were doing it on donations and the goodness of their heart she thought we depended on them to do that service for us. She was concerned about undue burden on them the way the proposal was written. Inspections, in terms of time frame there was a host of peer reviewed literature that if you need to do inspections for compliance it needed to be random and unannounced. She was also concerned that her hunting and fishing license money may be going to this effort. She thought in terms of the enforcement of the rule needed to be a line item in the general fund. She thought her hunting and fishing license money that funded the Department could not do this as well. If we were going to do this right it was going to require general fund money.

Mr. Connolly stated many of the points raised by Mrs. Oldham had been made to us through the comment period. The way the proposal was laid out it was a complete repeal and replace. There were parts that were direct copies from the original rule to the proposed rule without any change that some individuals were just becoming aware of. They had actually been under the rule for years and had a way to work through that that's been acceptable and now they've looked at the proposal and think they are being put upon by a new burden when in fact that was the burden they'd been operating under all along. There were some things that had been raised that we were certainly going to look at. The education piece was certainly something that was raised. The fees did go up and those would be put into place when the rule was completed. The reason for the inspection process to be changed was to shift the burden from the people that were getting the benefit receiving the animals to actually pay for the inspections rather than taking staff and sending them around doing inspections for wildlife in captivity. That was set up to do an independent process, non-Department employees where the user pays for the inspection for their opportunity. There would be mandatory inspections but still be spot inspections by Department staff to deal with issues in facilities where we had concerns about compliance or if we had complaints. The other part we kept hearing was the reason there wasn't compliance was because there was a lack of knowledge for a couple reasons. People coming in from out of state don't know what the rules are so we were hoping to increase our web presence and clarify the list of what was eligible. The other discussion was the opportunity for people to be educated about animals and their needs before they went and got them. It was a burden, but from the standpoint of a wildlife agency having these out on the landscape, even if they only survived for part of a year was problematic. To run the risk of things being out there long term and create an impact for wildlife either in bringing disease in; there's a current problem in Europe with reptiles and amphibians and if that came to the U.S. it would be devastating. We have a strong interest in protecting native wildlife and in order to do that we had to be involved in regulating exotic wildlife.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there were some exceptional professionals in this arena outside of the Department and we had been listening to them. It would be important that people appreciate that those professionals within the categories of the proposal had been, would be and would continue to be involved in the process. This was not his or most people's area of expertise. There were people that had that expertise and we were listening carefully.

There were no further comments or questions.

2. Scientific Collection Permits

Mr. Connolly stated we had not received any comments. The proposal was more in trying to address the wildlife in captivity, the scientific collection permits were in a couple different chapters and we consolidated all that information in one spot in one chapter.

There were no comments or questions.

3. Any-deer Permits 2016

Mr. Connolly stated the allocations had been advertised. The northern districts still continued to be an issue. There had been some changes in sightings of deer in response to the winter changes. WMD 15 we were cutting permits by about 52% but in WMDs 17 and 23 we were doubling the permits. The permit system was set up to continue to be able to respond to deer populations within sections of the state and it continued to do that. Long term in some parts of the state we would have to look at ways to continue to be creative about creating additional pressure from hunting to impact deer populations. In some areas of the state deer populations continued to grow and we needed to be creative about finding ways to address that.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier asked if in WMD 7, were the biologists comfortable with that number.

Mrs. Oldham stated she has also gotten a lot of communication about us going from zero to 505 permits in WMD 7. We had a mild winter and were seeing more deer, but people in the Eustis, Stratton, Aziscohos area she received multiple emails and phone calls expressing concern. What they would like to see, rather than all or nothing, maybe a small number of permits every year if justifiable so that the archery and youth hunters had an opportunity to harvest a doe rather than what was seen as a very big increase.

Mr. Thurston stated he had three calls as well. He knew people from WMD 8 that wondered why they got 505 permits in WMD 7. 59% increase was dramatic.

Mr. Connolly stated he would read from an email from Kyle Ravana answering the question. "One of the main drivers affecting the deer in WMD 7 is winter weather. On average it can account for up to 70% of the variance in population abundance for the inhabiting deer from year to year. Given the ease of this past winter, IFW felt there was room to provide the increase for opportunity through a relatively limited doe harvest. In addition based on the patterns of birth and death and recruitment of fawns into older age classes the Department estimates that the state can harvest approximately 4% of the adult does in that WMD before the effects are experienced by the deer population. For the next season our goal is to harvest approximately 130 does. Given historical patterns in doe harvests in relation to the issuance of any-deer permits we need to issue approximately 4x as many permits as there are does we wish to harvest. Given that mortality is down, survival and recruitment are up and the Department has historical data to use to project harvest trends we expect that the prescribed harvest and subsequent permit allocation should have a minimal impact on the deer population within that WMD." That was looked at and discussed with Chuck Hulsey and Bob Cordes and those that covered that area. It was not a 1 for 1 on permits, it was several permits for each doe. In terms of the goal and the fluctuation we were revising the deer management system and one of the things that could come out of that if we got the feedback was the interest in maybe having a more continual harvest rather than going back to zero. One of the things we struggled with was as soon as there were any permits, then youth and archers got permits and that was one of the implications when we had low harvest, we could have low harvest and keep a harvest going but youth permits which aren't regulated came into play on youth day and also archery of which we had no control over the numbers.

Mr. Scribner stated as a continuation to comments he made at the last meeting in terms of some of his personal concerns regarding the 505 any-deer permits in WMD 7, given that he did not represent WMD 7 like Mrs. Oldham he still had a vested interest in that he had a hunting camp in that area and hunted there for years. It had been decades since they had any any-deer permits like this 505. What he did to see if he was alone in this concern was do a small survey of other serious deer hunters that hunted in WMD 7. The consensus was almost unanimous that going to 505 any-deer permits after one mild winter was way too much too soon. After the two very severe winters that we had prior to this last one, there was a lot of concern about jumping to the 500. He hunted the townships of Eustis, Coplin, Tim Pond, Lang and Redington last year and in 10 days of hunting he saw 2 deer. At the Pines Market the harvest figures were down significantly, this was one of the major tagging facilities in that region. Given the input he received he would recommend the Department seriously look at the 500 figure and reduce it if not eliminate it. During the winter time you could go off on the Kennebago Road where they were feeding deer or go to the Rangeley area and see all kinds of deer but anyone with their feet on the ground in November up there knew those pockets of deer during the fall were widespread and you could walk miles without seeing a deer track.

Commissioner Woodcock stated pockets of deer, there probably wasn't a zone in the state that didn't have pockets of deer. It made it challenging in the management practices because the general public would see deer and say we had plenty of deer in the zone. Another side of the river, someone would say they hadn't seen a deer in 2 years there are no deer in this zone. The pocket principal applied to pretty much the north portion of the state. The management for those pockets of deer had been discussed and one of the ways to manage would be smaller management districts. That could be more complicated. We were aware of the pockets of deer discussion. Another interesting thing was the number of deer permits proposed vs. the number of deer harvested. The reality of the 500 permits would be 100-150 does in the entire district. Those were taken into consideration.

Mr. Scribner stated regarding the 130 does, they were any-deer permits so a certain segment of those were going to be young male fawns. We needed to keep that in consideration. He thought we had at least one public comment from a guide in WMD 7 that also raised some serious concerns about going to 505 permits. If a deer guide in that area was concerned about the 500 figure then maybe they needed to think more about future years. If one or two years delay and seeing how that mild winter, seeing how the population bounced back he thought that would be a safer approach than going to the 505.

Mr. Fortier stated in the numbers, were deer/car accidents taken into account. He knew that had a lot to do with it in the northern area because people were feeding deer. They were trying to educate people on feeding of deer.

Mr. Connolly stated the deer management system was meant to take all of that into account. It was looking at losses for illegal kill, the car/deer accidents, etc. were all taken into account. The population they were looking at as a result of that, they're looking at the male/female sex ratio so if the males were getting hit harder they understood how to manipulate the permits that impacted the male harvest as well. They're looking to keep that in balance and monitoring that in the harvest. The other thing to keep in mind was a fawn could breed the following winter as yearlings and adult does as well. There was opportunity with mild winters where you would get super production of deer. Also the fact that bucks would breed with more than one doe. In those more severe winters in each part of the state you can't stockpile deer there's a certain mortality that's going to occur and it's the recognition that hunting is an opportunity to look at that, analyze the mortality and to harvest that surplus that's available.

Mr. Scribner stated if there was more biological data that Kyle could provide, hopefully they could have that prior to Step 3. It would definitely have an impact on his vote in terms of the proposal.

Mr. Connolly stated Kyle Ravana would be at the next meeting. The comment period ended June 3rd.

Mr. Thurston stated he thought it was important to remember when you had a high population of any species you were going to have disease. He gave an example of the disease affecting turkeys. Things had a way of self-adjusting.

Mr. Wheaton stated there were pockets and if he was the hunter he was going to find the pockets because he was going to kill a deer. His WMD was 11. This year he had seen 6 different does. That was good, but 60 years ago in the middle of the day he could show you 40 deer. If you brought the permits up to 505, he would be wild. It could be 505 does taken. Probably not, but it could be. 505 does when you had nothing was a lot of reproduction and areas where there were no deer, let them breed a little bit and get out there. There was lots of food for them. To take them all in one year, he disagreed.

There were no further comments or questions.

C. Step 1

1. Furbearer Seasons/Beaver Closures 2016/17

Mr. Connolly stated we were analyzing data and compiling information for the proposal. Cory Mosby met with MTA and we were working with them to address their concerns.

Mr. Dudley asked when the proposal would be available to view.

Ms. Camuso stated the data was in the database so it would be available soon.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Nonresident Landowners/ME Resident Only Day

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated this was for nonresident landowners with 25 acres or more to hunt on residents only day of deer season. This was passed in the Legislature this past session and we were going through rulemaking for the guidelines for what a person would have to show as proof of ownership of 25 acres or more. It would just be the individual landowner of record and they would carry a document with them. We would be providing a form online once it was developed that they could use saying they were the rightful owner of a parcel of land that was 25 acres or more. It must be open to hunting. It was important to the fish and wildlife committee to not create a burden for the Augusta office licensing division, town offices, the hunters themselves or wardens. If there were any questions we would follow up and investigate if necessary.

Mr. Thurston asked why the necessity of not posting your 25 acres from out of state.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated it was a landowner relations issue. People that had property and left it open to hunting was how the fish and wildlife committee looked at it.

Mr. Dudley asked if posted with permission would qualify.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated it was written open to hunting, so access by permission would count.

There were no further questions or comments.

3. Chapter 8 ? Endangered Species ? Broad Activity Exemption

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated during the 2015 session there were 3 bats listed on the Maine endangered species list, the Northern long-ear, Eastern small-footed and the Little brown. There was concern amongst the forest products industry and others as to what the listing of these bats would do to forestry practices around the state and the wind energy people weighed in also. The Department worked very closely with these groups and under LD 1636 and amended the Maine endangered species act which may create an allowance for broad activity exemption. A broad activity exemption was, "it addresses specific activity that is widespread in its occurrence but may have a reasonably identified group of participants." In other words, forestry people cutting trees. Part B of that, "poses little or no risk on the taking of an endangered or threatened species" and C, "will not individually or cumulatively impair the recovery of any endangered or threatened species." The Commissioner may hold at least one public hearing and adopt rules which are routine technical to identify these activities that are widespread and can be exempted from take under the Maine endangered species act. Essentially activities that there would be negligible or little take at all. Forest products industry was one, homeowners, etc. and also looking for an exemption for the Norther long-eared on the wind power industry. We were exploring methods for the rulemaking process to engage those groups up front such as public informational meetings or considering consensus based rulemaking.

Mrs. Oldham stated that should be interesting, probably the wind power hadn't been around long enough to have any really good scientific data.

Ms. Camuso stated the wind industry had been collecting data on species occurrences in proximity to their facilities and as part of their permit requirements they had to do preimposed construction surveys of the facilities. Northern long-eared bats had not to date been documented being taken at a wind turbine. Last summer the USFWS recognized this on a national basis that the wind industry had posed less than 1/10th of 1% of all mortalities of bats or Northern long-eared bats. The wind industry, they gave them a pass under the 4d rule.

Mrs. Oldham asked if USFWS relied on that data. It was kind of like a drug company doing new research on its own medicine.

Ms. Camuso stated part of our concern was that technology to date hadn't been able to identify the species of bats it just told us there were myotis bats present. As we moved forward we would be looking to improve that, the technology was improving and now you could tell the difference between species so we would be looking for that in the preconstruction surveys.

Mr. Wheaton asked if they would let the Department go in under the turbines and look around.

Ms. Camuso stated we had been at them many times, staff did do site visits.

Mr. Wheaton stated they were losing population on woodcock and he wondered where the migrations happened at night and the turbines moving fast in the wind if there would be a lot of them on the ground. No one ever went to look.

Ms. Camuso stated we did surveys and they documented all the species they had mortality events with. We could look at what we had records of, but she did not remember woodcock being of particular concern.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the process would also include protection guidelines for the bats. There were 4 hibernacular in Maine so the protection guidelines were within a proximity of those hibernaculum and also roosts or maternity trees.

Mr. Thurston asked how you would identify a roost and maternity tree if you were in there cutting wood.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated if they had been previously identified and none had died.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had constructive talks with the groups connected to the issue.

There were no further comments or questions.

4. Kimball Pond Horsepower Restriction Petition

Commissioner Woodcock stated the Department had been petitioned with a valid petition to restrict the horsepower rating on Kimball Pond which was a 55 acre pond in Vienna with a maximum depth of 19 feet. It had 3 camps on it and could be a pretty nice trout pond. It was reclaimed and trout put back into it. Other fish had since come into the pond, particularly bait fish. From reading the reports and fishing there himself, boat traffic there was minimal at times and there may be a boat or 2 that had larger horsepower. They were not seeing a lot of that happening. The petition was valid and we were going to hold a public hearing on July 12th as we were required to do. We would assess the issue of whether or not the proposal of 10 horsepower or less was valid.

Mrs. Oldham asked if this was the first time they had done this; had they been turned down before?

Ms. Orff stated she thought it was in 2005 when we went through the process before.

There were no further questions or comments.

5. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Fish Waters 2017

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated this was going to be somewhat different, we would be doing a full repeal and replace and reorganize the law book. We would present major substantive changes to the rule in the same format people were used to. They would see the old rule and the new rule for a specific body of water. We did not know exactly how many, possibly 30 to 60 substantive changes. Of the substantive changes some of those were actually changes that were streamlining how the regulation was presented in the law book. There may be no major change of fisheries management but there was a major change to the rule itself based on the language that was currently presented. There would be a packet of those that were available for comment and review by the Council. There would be another document which contained the definitions section. The definitions section was generally in the front of the law book and some of those were statutory and some were rule. We would be highlighting the areas of rule change that they would be able to comment on. There would be another document with a summary of formatting and housekeeping issues, ie: see general law addition to those bodies of water. We would have another document that summarized all the changes we made to streamline and reorganize the law book itself, most of those would not be open for comment just directing on what the actual changes were to reorganize the law book, and then there would be the complete book. It would be open to comment, we were hoping for yes its really nice you did a great job, but not part of the rulemaking process for the public.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the Governor had been very interested in simplifying the law book. Jim Pellerin in Region A had put in countless hours on the project. The additional part of the proposal would be the heritage fish law which required that we put forth proposals for the protective heritage fish water listing. There would be proposals this year, a combination of some suggestions from regional biologists as well as the results of the remote trout pond survey from Trout Unlimited, National Audubon and the Department. The new law book would have a distinct and dramatic different look to it. He believed it was going to be an incredible improvement. There was also going to be an electronic access for devices that were hand held.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there would be five public hearings held.

Ms. Orff stated they would be held in the same locations as last year, Presque Isle, Millinocket, Ellsworth, Farmington and Brunswick.

Mr. Fortier stated anything that could be done to cut down on "gray areas" or things left to interpretation to figure out would be helpful.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the ATV/snowmobile book, hunting book and the fishing book would have a very similar format.

There were no further questions or comments.

V. Other Business

1. Shooting Areas

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had rounds of proposals come in for the shooting areas and the Pitman Robinson funding and some significant improvements around the state. Nate Webb had spearheaded the process. At the beginning of the process we did not take on the state's shooting areas in Fryeburg and Augusta because it was his feeling that government should not spend the money first before the public had an opportunity. We waited, and had designs in for reconstruction of our two shooting areas in Fryeburg and Augusta and would be significant examples of shooting areas for the public to be able to use. He encouraged people to check the website or call for opportunities still available.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

Mr. Scribner stated he had received a request from a constituent, John Glowa of the Maine Wolf Coalition. He believed the same request had been sent to the Department saying he would be unable to attend the meeting, but would appreciate if Mr. Scribner raised three questions/concerns that he had. He stated they were still awaiting a response from the Department regarding the exclusion of grey wolves from the 2015 Wildlife Action Plan. The Maine Wolf Coalition had submitted the request to the USFWS that the plan not be approved until the grey wolf was included. Where were we with that?

Mr. Connolly stated we had provided some information on the wolf study that we were engaged in, the actions that we'd taken over the years with regards to wolves in the Advisory Council packet. The action plan was meant to be actions for things that existed. It was meant to be those species that were in the state and that coordinated activity that it took to help make them flourish or increase or manage. Looking at wolves, we had documented them as extirpated, not present. There had been some occurrences that we looked at and investigated and using the modern DNA available now, discovered those animals had actually been in captivity at some point. While they were not included in the plan we were not ignoring them or doing anything to discourage them from reestablishing themselves naturally.

Ms. Camuso stated when we were updating the statewide wildlife action plan as required by the USFWS to access state wildlife grant monies, the USFWS was very clear that they wanted us to prioritize the species that were listed as well as the actions associated with either the species or species habitat. That money was appropriated every year by Congress. It was not a guarantee we would get that money. They wanted actions they could bring to Congress to say this was the amount of money we spent, these were the actions and this was the result. The whole premise of the action plan was to keep common things common. The goal was to prevent listing. From the Department's perspective dedicating a portion of the plan to a species that's extirpated did not make sense. We did get Pitman Robinson money in a separate grant authority that allowed us to investigate any kind of wolf occurrence or sighting so we still did those.

Mr. Scribner stated the second question posed by Mr. Glowa was they would like an update regarding what IFW was doing about the issue of poisoning of eagles and elevated blood lead levels in humans resulting from the use of lead ammunition.

Mr. Connolly stated we were looking at what other states were doing in terms of alternative ammunitions. Other states had a great program in making hunters aware of that and had seen changes in the way hunters bought ammunition as a result. We were looking at that; it would be voluntary and educational. Looking at eagles, a few years ago we could count the number of eagles nests on two hands and now we were talking about over 800 pairs. We had to put it into perspective, it was something we were concerned about and monitoring.

Mr. Scriber stated the last question was the status of IFW's implementation of LD 1593.

Mr. Connolly stated LD 1593 was an effort by folks in the sporting community to emphasize the importance of hunting, fishing and trapping to the people of Maine in regards to IFW conducting its business. That had always been an avenue that we used to manage our fish and wildlife populations in Maine. Those tools were fundamental wildlife tools used when populations warranted it and helped us attain the population levels we would like. It was a part of the tradition of the people of Maine. The bill would not change anything that we did. We were still going to look to incorporate those tools when appropriate, we always had and would continue to do that as long as they were legal and available to the Department. We used the framework the Legislature gave us.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Jim Fleming distributed the Kennebec Valley Furtakers request for general trapping season and beaver trapping season. It also included a brief discussion concerning the low beaver harvest and economic threshold that had hit and bottomed out. They were concerned that beaver would be delisted at some point. Last year with the lateness coupled with the equipment changes there was a lot of consternation among trappers and trying to accommodate that.

Julie Miner stated she was from DEW Haven and was going to give a brief history. She read from a prepared statement her comments on the newest proposed rules ? "My history is I have always worked with one kind of animal or another ? as a child I was the one who brought home all the stray and injured animals, as a teen I volunteered at a zoo in CT, cared for domestic, farm animals, and parrot type birds, as an adult. I am now Co-Founder of DEW Haven, which was established in early 1980 by Bob Miner, my husband. We are a USDA licensed zoo, not a roadside zoo (which is an option on USDA licensing) I have 21 years of practical hands on experience working with domestic, exotic and wild animals, just at DEW. It's been and continues to be a growing and learning experience ? working not only with the animals and the public but also with rules and laws that are also evolving.

I study on my own all of the time, relying on educational resources of books, individuals from other facilities, such as York Wild Kingdom (here in Maine) and Franklin Park Zoo (in Boston) and a variety of Veterinarians. I would like to thank everyone who has worked on these proposed rules ? I know how time consuming and challenging it must have been. Some of our concerns at our facility in the new proposed rules are 7.06 1-3 with the understanding that lists will be compiled - these sections concern us as we have no idea which animals will end up on which list ? for example if tigers end up on the restricted list that would have an impact on our future revenue as they are one of the types of animals that attract visitors to facilities such as ours. 3 a (1) b one of the criteria to place an animal on the restricted list is, if it is on the state or federal endangered species list ? does this mean that exhibitors will not be able to exhibit &/or breed endangered species such as; lemurs, tigers and leopards? That is a big concern. Not only for the attracting of patrons (which would affect our revenue) but we have also bred and donated endangered species to other facilities, for display and for bloodlines. 7.07 Permit types 2. Exhibitor: USDA ? like the state ? has propagator, breeder, exhibitor licensing = which ever you make the most income at is what you need to be licensed at = our facility started out with a breeder license moved on to propagator then exhibitor. Thus the exhibitor license covers all three activities ? We would like to see the state licensing to work the same way if possible, which at this time it does not, so if we are an exhibitor in order to sell, transfer or deal with any other facility in state or out of state we would have to also have a propagation license ? this interrupts the flow of revenue. We are already required to keep all records of any transportation of any kind ? the USDA provides forms for these transactions and exhibitors could use these forms to show to the state as well. Thus, you would not have to come up with a form of your own. The language could be added here to include breeding, propagation, transfer, loan &/or donated. Thus the definition of Exhibitor would need to have the added activities.

Rehabilitation: This is a pure opinion on my part on this section. We feel that if a native Maine wildlife is injured or orphaned due to human error, ex: a car hitting an animal, tree cut down with babies in it, etc. euthanizing the animal if it cannot fully recover seems a shame, as long as it is not suffering, when it could be used for educating the public. 7.09 b & c, this covers inspection. I added a comment here that our inspections, we are not called before inspecting they just show up. We are confused by this wording? "completed inspection reports must be submitted to the department" Doesn't the inspector give his reports to the office and a copy to the licensed individual ? Ex: USDA does its inspection - within the next 24 to 48 hours it is emailed to the facility ? the facility responds that they received the inspection and that works as our signature. Less paperwork and it is the system. Could that work for the state? We are inspected yearly by USDA without fail and then if there is a complaint put in, I believe they have 14 days to come out and follow up on that complaint.

7.10 (1) Setting special conditions for handlers concerns us ? not allowing us to work directly with a specific animal is a downward slope. Any trained handler knows the risks involved when working with a wild animal ? thus that ensuing risk is up to the individual handler. Any licensing department would not be responsible if injury occurred to a handler. The second part that concerns us is regulating which animals we can or cannot breed ? this would be effecting not only our revenue, but possibly our ability to work with other facilities with blood lines &/or exhibit. Also the ability to replace our own exhibit animals as others get old &/or pass. 3 b General possession ? We would like to see added here that any animal housed outdoors will have a sturdy protective barrier to prevent persons from approaching the animals main enclosure. Thus keeping the animal and the public safe. Most general possession owners aren't home all the time and do not require an 8 foot perimeter fence around their animals as exhibitors do.

In closing we look forward to continuing to work with all departments that license us. We want the rules to protect the animals and the public yet still allow us to be able to earn revenue, that will only help us to continue to care for the animals, to provide jobs for our employees, to keep our internship & volunteer program alive and thriving and to be able to educate the public. We also feel that listening to radical animal activists ? who are pushing for no breeding, no zoos that aren't accredited, etc. is a dangerous downward spiral ? the fact is their only agenda is to have no animals in captivity. There is still a place for exhibitors, researchers, rehabilitators and educated general possession owners. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our needs and concerns."

Gary Corson stated he had a question regarding the fishing regulations. He understood the rule book issue and he understood the heritage waters would be separate. Could they expect there wouldn't be regulations on individual waters with the packet. If we were doing something for the law book, it probably wasn't going to encompass a number of waters and would be more wording than anything else. Would they see the regulations proposed like they normally did?

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had been working with the Attorney General's office on how to present the changes. Most of the changes came under the simplification process. They would see a packet as they had in the past.

Gary Corson stated he understood, but it seemed like a lot of things got lost in the shuffle it had happened in the past. We put 150 regulation changes in and some of them got comments, some of them didn't and it was because of the weight that they carried as far as the public goes, or they had to comment on every single one. He just hoped the process wasn't set up so we lost the regulations that were actually trying to change.

Katie Hansberry stated she wanted to thank the Department and Advisory Council and IFW staff for all the work that had been put into the proposed rules on wildlife in captivity. They had submitted comments on the draft version and then again at the public hearing. They would be supplementing that because of the 3 minute time limit at the hearing.

Kurt Schatzl, New England Herpetological Society stated on the wildlife in captivity rules, categories, education, liability insurance he thought Mrs. Oldham touched on education. 100 hours, he was not sure where anyone would get the education or what qualified for reptiles and amphibians. A tortoise that's readily available in pet shops all across New England, it seemed voluminous, expensive and time consuming. There were better ways of doing it. His society worked with New England states and promulgated regulations. If you looked at your most dangerous type of animal and set up the system for that dangerous type of animal, if you looked at other animals that were not dangerous and ignored them you couldn't extrapolate climate wise what happened in Florida to what happened in Maine, it didn't make any sense to do that. At any point and time if we wanted to reach out to him and his society they would be happy to show us things that had already been written up that made life easier regarding reptiles and amphibians.

Mike Ralbovsky stated he had been an exhibitor in Maine for 15 or 20 years and did not want to lose their rights to do that. He would submit written comments; they were in attendance at the public hearing.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for August 17, 2016 at Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta beginning at 9:30 a.m.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
May 4, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending: 

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Jason Seiders, Region B Fisheries Biologist
Frank Frost, Region G Fisheries Biologist
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Jeff Lewis (Chair)
Don Dudley (Vice Chair)
Dick Fortier
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Larry Farrington
Jerry Scribner
Lance Wheaton
Jenny Starbird
Sheri Oldham

Guests:

Don Kleiner, MPGA
Katie Hansberry, HSUS
Julie Miner, DEW Animal Kingdom
John Glowa, ME Wolf Coalition
Gail Mercer, York's Wild Kingdom
Michael Ralbovsky, Rainforest Reptile Shows, Boston
Ian Bricknell, UME
Bob Abbott, Kennebec Valley Fur Takers
Jim Fleming, Kennebec Valley Fur Takers
Deidre Fleming, Portland Press Herald
Jason Prillo
Rob Christian, ME Herp Society

I.  Call to Order

Council Chair Jeff Lewis called the meeting to order.

II.  Introductions

Introductions were made.

III.  Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton.

Vote:  unanimous ? minutes approved.

III-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

Council Chair

A motion was made by Mr. Wheaton to nominate Mr. Dudley for Council Chair, and that was seconded by Mrs. Oldham. There were no further nominations.

Vote: unanimous ? Don Dudley elected Council Chair

Council Vice-Chair

A motion was made by Mr. Wheaton to nominate Mr. Lewis for Vice-Chair, and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner. There were no further nominations.

Vote: unanimous ? Jeff Lewis elected Council Vice-Chair

IV.  Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. 2016 Moose Permit Allocations/Nov. season to Oct.

Mr. Connolly stated there were no changes in the proposal from what was presented originally. There was a comment received regarding moving the September season. At this time we were not proposing to change the proposal from what was advertised originally.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we did have a request to change the September week to a week earlier so it might spread out the wealth of September hunting to some of the outfitters and guides. It did create a conflict with bear baiting and other activities. There was a condensed time from August to the middle of December where everything had to apply and we were trying to spread that out as much as possible so we were leaving the proposal as it was. Just a reminder that the November week of moose hunting was moving into October.

Mr. Fortier asked about the collared moose study and if there were changes from last year in WMD 8.

Mr. Connolly stated he had not received any recent updates. It was part of a 3 to 4 year study and we were noticing some differences. We were glad we added the second zone, but we were not prepared to make any changes in the permit allocations at this time.

A motion was made by Mr. Lewis to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

2. Youth Bear Hunt

Mr. Connolly stated the proposal was the same as what was presented and we had not received any public comments.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

B.  Step 2

There were no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. Wildlife in Captivity

Mr. Connolly stated we had received many comments although we had not yet published the proposed rule.  A timeline for rulemaking was provided in the Council packet.  We did meet with interested parties about the proposed rule and made some substantial modifications from the earlier draft.  We narrowed down the prohibited list to look at things that were injurious to the species in Maine.  We broadened the scope of the exhibitors permits to include things that were threatened and endangered, substantial risk to native wildlife, were capable of inflicting serious bodily injury, or had specialized care requirements or were capable of surviving in the wild in Maine's climate.  That would be a very tight category.  We would also have a category 2 which was more specialized needs for the animal or the person that was caring for it.  In the end we hoped to have a much broader unrestricted list that would allow those animals to be traded in pet stores and freely available.  It would be a smaller category 2 which was either the animal had very specialized needs or the person caring for it did.  Those animals would be allowed to have contact and the majority of the animals of concern were going to be in the category 1 which was going to be for exhibitors, laboratories and research facilities.  The category 2 would be general possession by qualified individuals.  It was a different focus and in response to many of the concerns that we got.  We were going to assemble a technical group and use that group to advise the Commissioner to create a list of species.  The Attorney General's office had advised us to take the technical committee findings through the rulemaking process.  The unrestricted list would still reside outside rulemaking because it was not something that was going to be regulated.  It would be published and available on the website and that would be the reference for the pet shops.  The species that would have some statutory limitations would go through the rulemaking process and developed through the use of the technical committee.  The framework for the system was what was being proposed.  While that was working its way through the process, we would begin to look at the species and how those should be placed.  The proposal was not going to address fish, they were not included. 

Comments and Questions

Ian Bricknell asked about the unrestricted list and how large it would be.  Currently it was around 66,000 owls and would they all be listed or would it be much smaller than that.

Mr. Connolly stated we hadn't assembled the technical committee so he could not give a definitive answer.  Mr. Bricknell would have an opportunity to contact the group and offer his opinions.

Ian Bricknell asked how the technical committee would be selected.

Mr. Connolly stated the outline for the group would be in the proposed rule.

2. Scientific Collection Permits

Mr. Connolly stated the proposal would be published at the same time as the wildlife in captivity rule and was to make clarifications that were specifically oriented towards mammals and birds for scientific research and collection and we had always administered it in relation to native wildlife. We were going to make that clear; it was science and educational projects going on in Maine that were focused on taking native wildlife either into captivity or collecting research specimens for analysis. The other thing we might do down the road, it was not clear dealing with amphibians and reptiles for scientific collection permits. That would require a change in law and we would have to go back to the Legislature for that.

3. Shooting Areas

Mr. Connolly stated this was in relation to the ranges the Department had at Brownfield and Summerhaven. We were waiting for confirmation from the Governor's office that we could move forward. Before any rule was proposed we prepared a summary and notified the Governor's office for approval. The rule would provide some regulation, the ranges had been open unsupervised and this would create some structure in order to make sure they were used safely. The rules would be consistent with what was currently used at most clubs.

4.  Any-deer Permits 2016

Mr. Connolly stated there was a 59% increase in any-deer permits associated with some districts in the southern part of the state. 

Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham asked just for clarification, when permits were allowed doe could be harvested during the archery season?

Mr. Connolly stated yes and by youth as well.

Mr. Scribner stated he had a question regarding the WMD 7 permit increase.  Even though he did not represent that district that was where he did his deer hunting.  He wanted to make sure from a biological perspective that the Department was feeling that the herd up in the western mountains had recovered sufficiently to support the 500 permits. 

Mr. Connolly stated the proposal was based on the meeting that the biologists had.  It was the recommendation that came out of the meeting between the deer biologist and the regional biologists. 

Mrs. Oldham stated from a non-scientific perspective from observers the deer didn't even yard up that winter it was so mild.  They were seeing lots of deer.

Mr. Scribner stated given that we'd had one mild winter and two very severe ones prior to that he just wanted to make sure that we were confident the herd had bounced back sufficiently to support the permits.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the process we undertook to recommend permits for both deer and moose was a very scientific process.  In general we were rather enthused about most parts of the state in terms of last winter, they were showing good recovery around the state for deer.  It was reflected in the significant increase in permits. 

Mr. Farrington stated he still was asked the question, the Moosehead area was still at zero, and the hunters were telling him that they were seeing does and not bucks.  What were the figures they had to meet before they would be allowed to shoot them; particularly the youth.

Mr. Connolly stated we could have Kyle Ravana come down and talk about that.  The other piece was that we hadn't developed new goals because we had not gone through the working group process.  The allocations could be in relation to the previous goals which could be trying to build the herd.  As we moved through the new species planning process we would be looking at those goals and trying to balance them with where we were at now with the population.

V. Other Business

1. Trapping Regulations

Mr. Connolly stated we were moving forward with analyzing the furbearer harvest. There were some preliminary numbers that were shared with the trapper group. Every spring at the Augusta Sportsman's Show we met with the trappers to give them an idea where the numbers were at, and get some feedback from the trappers. There was a decrease in the fisher and marten harvest. There were some conflicting stories; some people that did use the exclusion devices did well. Some trappers didn't and others moved forward and were successful. Some of the trappers that used the exclusion devices had a better effort to catch ratio than they had in the past. If they were going to set the device they were more selective about where they put it and could do more in a limited period of time. There was some interest in extending the marten and fisher season into January so we were looking into that. There was also an interest in looking into the age structure. If we knew what the age and sex structure was of the harvest we might look at things differently. If it was surplus males that were being taken maybe we could be more liberal in our seasons. There would be a proposal to go for a mandatory submission of jaws to be able to tell the age of the animals harvested for 4 species. That was something the trappers put forward, they didn't mind doing it, but they wanted to know why. The furbearer regulations normally moved forward later in the summer for beaver closures.

Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated she was not surprised the take was down.  She thought perhaps some of the senior trappers weren't willing to invest in what they considered an unproved device.  As word got out that people that did make the investment and tried to harvest in that manner hopefully some of them would come back.  We may have lost a large group of people who were actively engaged in trapping.

Mr. Connolly stated it did seem that those that took the time making the devices and worked with them did very well.  They did focus more on the areas that would be more productive.

Commissioner Woodcock stated in addition to that, the price of fur was also a portion of it.  Those who were considering probably were tipped in a direction because the fur prices were down.

Mr. Dudley stated the devices were a little complicated to build.  A trapper would not run as many traps using the devices as he would if he didn't have to use them.  Did we have any information on how many people caught their limit?

Mr. Connolly stated he didn't think anybody caught their limit.  We could have a presentation later on.

Mr. Lewis stated they were going to have a major problem with beaver down his way.  Nobody trapped with the fur prices. 

Ms. Camuso stated she knew folks were suggesting that perhaps the Commissioner would consider extending the season.

Mr. Farrington stated they had people around the lake that checked the brooks and they had twice as many reports of beaver plugging up the brooks as they had last year.

Mr. Dudley stated the prices were significantly lower.  He had been doing this a long time and it was probably the lowest prices quoted that he had ever seen.  He was not surprised the catch was off.  There were a lot of beaver.  He personally took care of all the nuisance beaver that he could in his area for landowners.  When they dispersed in the spring the young beaver would end up in other places.  It would probably be a problem year.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Deirdre Fleming stated the reason she got her deer last year was because of the Major Sanborn firing range. She went there and the people were very helpful and respectful and it was a good experience.

Michael Ralbovsky stated he sat on advisory boards for MA and CT for rule changes and if someone from out of state could sit on the expert technical committee he would like to be considered for that. He had extensive experience in alligators, crocodiles, and amphibians and reptiles. He spent 20 years at the St. Augustine alligator farm as a herp and operations manager. They also had a huge collection of venomous and nonvenomous animals (approx. 438) they took care of that were from seizures and confiscations. They came to the state quite often. He had also trained wardens and conservation officers in 17 states, including Maine at the Criminal Justice Academy.

Rob Christian stated he would also like to put in a word for Mr. Ralbovsky. When he was about 5 years old, Mr. Ralbovsky did a presentation at his birthday party which was his first experience with reptiles. He was a real good person.

Jim Fleming stated he was there with Bob Abbott to introduce themselves, they were the representatives of the newly formed Kennebec Valley Furtakers. They were affiliated with furtakers of America, the other trapping association in Maine. They looked forward to having a seat at the table along with the MTA and working with the Commissioner, Advisory Council and Commissioner. Their members had taken a different path than other associations which they felt was necessary.

Ian Bricknell stated with regards to the expert group he would also like to put his name in the arena for that. He was in with the University of Maine and would like to represent the research community on lower vertebrates.

John Glowa stated he had three issues. The first, he was representing the Maine Wolf Coalition and in 2005 IFW developed a wildlife action plan which included gray wolves and the 2015 action plan excluded gray wolves. The only thing that occurred differently in the 10 year period was in fact more wolves were killed in the NE U.S. He had asked the Advisory Council to recommend to the Department that the Department amend the proposed wildlife action plan to include gray wolves and he was wondering if the Advisory Council had taken action in that regard and if not, did they intend to. The question was to both the Advisory Council and the Commissioner.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the Department hadn't taken any action yet, he did not know what the Council's intent was.

Mr. Lewis and Mr. Dudley both stated the Council had not taken any action.

Mr. Glowa asked if they intended to.

Ms. Camuso stated the action plan had been submitted to the USFWS so until they commented on it we could not make any additional changes. We did not anticipate hearing back from them until late summer.

Mr. Glowa asked if the Advisory Council intended to recommend that the gray wolf be included in the action plan.

Mr. Lewis stated he did not believe the Advisory Council had spoken; it would be on an individual basis if they wanted. Mr. Lewis stated he had no intention of doing it.

Mr. Glowa asked if they intended to discuss it. He had made a request and was asking for some consideration. His second issue, the last couple of meetings he had raised the issue of lead ammunition causing lead poisoning and deaths of eagles in Maine and also concern about effects on other aging scavengers and potential effects of lead ammunition ingestion by humans. Had IFW taken any action since they last spoke and did we intend to.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had discussed it and focused on the national discussion which was taking place.

Mr. Glowa asked if we intended to continue those discussions.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he was sure that discussion would continue nationally.

Mr. Glowa stated recently the Legislature passed LD 1593, An Act to Make Hunting, Fishing and Trapping the basis of managing inland fisheries and wildlife resources. The statute contained no definition of the word feasible and made hunting, fishing and trapping the basis of fish and wildlife management. How did the Department intend to interpret this new mission change and how did the Department intend to implement it.

Commissioner Woodcock asked if that was emergency legislation. It was not and had not become law as of yet. When the new laws came out, we would discuss the new portion of the laws that pertained to us.

Jason Prillo stated he would like to put his name in the ring for being on the technical committee for wildlife in captivity. He just came back from the AZA (American Zoolocial and Aquarium Association) herp tags meeting where all the curators in America came together to discuss how they were going to manage their reptile and amphibian collections. Surprisingly he got a different perspective from them that he did not anticipate. Mainly, they needed the public's help in managing some of the lower level species that were CITES 1 or ESA listed. With that, also caging requirements; next year they would be giving a lecture on caging reptiles and amphibians in captivity with the AZA so he would like to include that in addition to what we had been talking about.

VIII.  Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for June 11th at Kittery Trading Post beginning at 10:00 a.m.

IX.  Adjournment

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
April 1, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau Resource Management
Nate Webb, Special Projects Coordinator
Tim Place, Lieutenant, Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Jeff Lewis (Chair)
Don Dudley (Vice-Chair)
Dick Fortier
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thursto
Larry Farrington
Jerry Scribner
Lance Wheaton

Guests:

Georgie Wheaton
Don Kleiner, MPGA
Katie Hansberry, HSUS
Julie Miner, DEW Animal Kingdom
Jason Prillo
Danny Beret, Unity
Robert Dubeau, ME Herp Society
Jeremy Bullock, ME Herp Society
Rob Christian, ME Herp Society
Liam Hughes, Director of Animal Welfare, ACF
Jason Olmstead, Easy Aquariums, Gorham
John Glowa, ME Wolf Coalition
Derek Small, Wildlife Encounters

I. Call to Order

Council Vice-Chair Don Dudley called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen.

Vote: unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Leashed Dog Tracking

Lt. Place stated there were two changes made to the proposal from the original version. The first one was the permit entitled a person to use a leashed tracking dog from December 31 of the second complete year following the year of issue. The second was the permittee must submit a written request for permit renewal.

Mr. Fortier asked about the change to a 2-year permit.

Mrs. Theriault stated it was to make it more consistent with other permits we were issuing.

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

2. Taxidermy Rules

Lt. Place stated there were no changes to the rule from the original proposal.

Mr. Fortier stated most of the rule appeared to be housekeeping.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there was some discussion that the taxidermists wouldn’t be grandfathered for their license so they would have to move forward in the appropriate fashion for whichever class they wanted. Some concern was expressed for those people who were only involved in the skull mounts. They didn’t have to do a written test for that, just a presentation. The current regime was to come to Augusta and the concern was that meant everybody around the State would have to come to Augusta just for one skull. What we were going to attempt to do was accommodate that in the regions. There were very few people that needed this particular classification.

Mr. Farrington stated another part of the rule was for more quality assurance.

Commissioner Woodcock stated yes. The taxidermy board and others wanted to elevate the standards of taxidermy in Maine and make sure that was verifiable.

Mr. Fortier stated one of the comments he heard from people involved with taxidermy was that you had to wait a long time for the finished product. He thought the new rule would help address that.

Commissioner Woodcock stated quality taxidermy did take awhile. For some that ended up in a scenario where they were paying money and it had been 2 or 3 years or the person went out of business, this would make certain the taxidermist had records of the transactions so the person would not lose track of their mount.

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Thurston.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

3. 2016-17 Migratory Bird Seasons

Mr. Connolly stated the only change to the proposal was regarding the brant season. Winter surveys that were done indicated the brant were doing better than they thought and recommended increased opportunity.

Mr. Farrington asked about what comments were received at the public hearing.

Mr. Dudley stated there was one in opposition and everything else was either in favor or neither for nor against.

Commissioner Woodcock stated generally speaking the waterfowl community was very accepting of the proposal.

A motion was made by Mr. Thurston to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

4. 2016 Spring/Fall Turkey Seasons

Mr. Connolly stated there were no changes to the proposal from what was originally presented.

Mr. Scribner stated he would like to address a couple of statements that were made at the last meeting. As recorded in the minutes it was stated that on our surveys that had come back from Mark Duda, pretty much everybody would like to see fewer turkeys. It was also stated it was pretty uniform across the state if you were a hunter, farmer or bird watcher, you would like to see fewer turkeys. To put it in the proper context, he was an avid turkey hunter and a member of the National Wild Turkey Federation, thus a strong proponent of a robust turkey population. He had not read the 500 page survey report so before responding he wanted to make sure that at the Council meeting he was representing the residents of his counties accurately. His interpretation of the survey report was that it actually said that the majority of all groups surveyed would like to see the turkey populations stay the same. Only 27% of the general population, 29% of landowners and 31% of hunters wanted to see the population decreased. The survey report did site the fact that more respondents wanted to see a decrease in turkeys than they did with deer moose or bear, but if we focused on that comparison we failed to recognize the clear majority of our residents were satisfied with the turkey population numbers.

Mr. Scribner stated he also had been monitoring the turkey discussion forum set up in support of the big game management plan and found that the input registered there also were far from one sided in nature. He thought the Department should be applauded for providing the various public input avenues in the big game planning process and that after making this significant investment, he thought it would be a serious mistake if the findings were ignored or misinterpreted. He definitely was in favor of adopting the rulemaking proposal. He was somewhat skeptical of the November season, but he understood where that came from. He was afraid that we may see some reports of turkeys being shot at 100 ? 150 yards with .06’s and .270’s or by blaze orange hunters in tree stands. He wanted to make those comments in the context of moving forward. We had done a lot of liberalizing of the turkey season and he thought we should look at the biological data as we proposed future seasons.

Mr. Fortier stated turkeys were not a problem in his area right now. He understood why they were not brought from southern Maine up into northern Maine. The season was not a problem and looked like they were going to have an early spring so getting on the land would be easier. If the hunt stayed as good this year, maybe next year they could look at doing the hunt a little differently. There was no opposition at any of their local meetings; Mr. Fortier concurred with the proposal.

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

B. Step 2

1. 2016 Moose permit allocations/Nov. season to Oct.

Mr. Fortier stated they had received the emails that people wanted to see the moose numbers increase. He would concur with the biologists. He thought the numbers were right in being cautious. He would like to be cautious now where we had finally gotten some collaring done on the moose and we were going to get accurate data on where they were traveling.

Mr. Dudley stated he thought some of the questions from the emails that he read were perhaps questions of what percentage of the moose did we want to harvest. He thought at some point and time the 4% figure was out there.

Mr. Wheaton stated in WMD 11, last year they saw a lot of tick increase and dead moose on the ground. With the warm winter we just had he would like to see some data on tick populations and what it had done to our moose herd before we bypassed the biologist’s request. He would like to stay with the biologists request because he knew from on the ground in WMD 11 the moose population was down.

Mr. Thurston stated he had received calls as well very adamant that didn’t like the permit allocations and the reduction in permit allocations. One of the former members of the Council sent an email about the economics, and he didn’t think it was about that, he thought it was about a healthy herd and he had concerns as well. The ticks in southern Maine were ferocious and he we would feel more impact. He would like more opportunity to hunt moose also, but he wanted to hunt moose and he felt they should be cautious. He did get out in the woods and walked and did back country snowmobiling and had friends that were horn hunters and they weren’t finding the amount that they usually did.

Mr. Farrington asked Mr. Connolly if they had any idea what the population was.

Mr. Connolly stated he could not give a moose population number.

Mr. Dudley asked if he could give any information regarding the collared moose.

Mr. Connolly stated there were some updates they were following through. He would suggest an update on the study at the next meeting would be most appropriate.

Mr. Farrington asked if 4% was a figure they used for harvest.

Mr. Webb stated that was about the rate that we had been harvesting in most WMDs. It was pretty straightforward based on reproductive rates and other causes of mortality and that left a surplus that was available for harvest. The indications were if we had exceeded 4 or 5 percent of our harvest rate that could lead to a population decline in WMDs where we didn’t want that to occur. That had been roughly the figure used in most WMDs and it varied a little depending on what the reproductive rates were.

Mr. Connolly stated the study was intended to firm up the numbers. It was all relative to where you were. He thought this was probably a perfect text book wildlife issue about how polarized people became because they took a number and applied a formula. There were a lot of nuances; we wanted to have the study and use that information. Some of the discussion needed to take place as we went forward into the future. They were good thoughts, but there was some information behind it that needed to be firmed up before we could start looking at it in those respects. It was not as simple as giving them a number and then they could go to a WMD and expect a certain number of permits. He was not sure how the figure of 4% went out to the public and what context it was used. It was all premised on what was there to begin with, how the 4% would be applied.

Mr. Scribner stated in the past, back when we thought we had 20,000 ? 30,000 moose at one point in time we were harvesting close to 10%. At that point in time it was stated that was a sustainable rate. He had seen the 4% figure that Lee Kantar had mentioned. In Vermont they were putting out 160 permits on a population of 2,050 moose, about 8% rate; something to consider with how we compared to other states. He believed being in a conservative spot at this point in time while we were doing our collaring studies and improving our population census with the aerial surveys was the right place to be, but also needed to keep in context with what the history had been in terms of a sustainable percentage but also what other regional biologists in other states were recommending. In the survey results it was stated the most important aspect for residents was that the health of the typical moose and the herd was the most important consideration in managing the moose herd. He felt moose hunters and moose watchers weren’t that far apart in their end goal. They both wanted a robust healthy good population of moose. The 24% reduction in moose permits that the media had been talking about, he thought there may be some work that needed to be done regarding what that reduction in permits was based on. The media releases continually focused on the statement that state biologists said that permits should be cut by 24% to meet public demand to view the animals in the wild. If in fact the reduction in permits was based on the public’s demand to view animals and not biologically based they had a different discussion. If that was in error he thought we should correct it.

Mr. Dudley stated he thought it was erroneously reported. A reporter was at the last meeting and that was not what he took from the meeting, but that was the way she printed it. Another thing we had to keep in mind was that we were in the process of the new 15 year management plan.

Mr. Scribner stated Judy Camuso’s presentation at the last meeting seemed to be very biologically sound based on bull/cow ratio’s, etc. He did not hear any talk about the Department doing this to satisfy those that simply wanted to view moose. If that was the case why would we be reducing permits in WMDs 1-4?

Mr. Fortier stated that he hunted WMDs 1-4 and there were more people viewing moose in Mr. Farrington’s area than in Aroostook County.

Mr. Wheaton stated we should slide by this spring and wait to see what the warm winter did in association with ticks and tick load on the moose before we crashed the population by raising the permit numbers.

Mr. Thurston stated more data gave better decision making ability. He asked if we were still doing the ovary harvest this year and what was the success rate of collection.

Mr. Webb stated the percentage of the cows that were harvested that we actually got ovaries from was not as high as we would like.

Mr. Thurston asked how we could facilitate and stress the importance.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we were continuing to work on messaging.

Mr. Webb stated it was a challenge in finding the ovaries if it was something you hadn’t done before. One thing we had talked about was doing more direct outreach to the permit holders that drew cow permits.

Mr. Fortier stated another part of the proposal was changing the season from November to October. In talking with other people and clubs, the majority were in favor of moving the hunt out of the deer season.

Mr. Gundersen stated the numbers were down in his area. He used to see moose running together, droppings and tracks all over and antler rubs. Car/moose accidents were common on Rt. 1 and side streets and that had not happened for awhile. They were just not seeing the moose, there had to be less there quite a bit from what it was.

2. Youth bear hunt

Mr. Connolly stated there was a legislative directive to create a youth bear hunt and we were positioning the day appropriately.

Mr. Dudley stated this would be moving it to the Saturday prior to the season like the other youth seasons.

C. Step 1

1. Shooting Ranges

Mr. Connolly stated the Department had two shooting ranges on its Wildlife Management Areas (Summerhaven and Brownfield). The one in Brownfield /Fryeburg area was done with the assistance of the local club. We were moving forward with some grants to improve both properties and address some safety issues and make them more efficient and effective in offering an opportunity for people to use them. In order to do that, we needed to establish some structure. The ranges had been open, they had not been restricted in terms of the folks that had access to them. As a result they were advertised as open ranges regionally so we had people using them in any way they felt was appropriate. In some cases that had been counterproductive towards the safety of the individuals that might be in the area or the structure as well. In looking at ranges and range operation we recognized the fact that we needed to structure them better and put infrastructure in place that would help guide people on their use of the ranges that it was consistently used in a safe manner. We would be looking at limiting some of the ammunition in terms of exploding ammo; looking at establishing firing lines and target stands. It would be pretty much what you would see in any range you would currently use if you were part of a club. We were looking at the Rangeley ranges as a model. They would not be completely open, there would be hours of operation, some guidance on what could be done there but the goal was to allow people to use the range whether they were hunters or just shooting sports enthusiasts.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington asked who had the liability issue if someone got hurt there, was it the club, the people running the range or the state.

Mr. Connolly stated we were not charging a fee, and currently the state was protected. The individual who acted inappropriately would be the one responsible. What we hoped to do was provide more guidance.

Mr. Thurston stated he thought the rules were a good thing, especially in a firearm venue and he applauded the state in keeping those open.

Mr. Fortier asked if we had solicited any clubs. There were 3 ranges in his area and they had a host of rules.

Mr. Connolly stated we had been involved with the NRA and also the USFWS federal aid program looking at what had been done elsewhere. We had been offering grants to clubs to improve their ranges. We were aware of what the rules were. The majority of people using the ranges had been using them safely but there were some things in terms of the structure and the protocols in place that helped ensure that was more consistent if someone was less knowledgeable.

Mr. Gundersen stated he was in the Lincoln County rifle club and there were 410 members and everybody had the combination to the gate. In order to become a member you had to take their safety orientation. There was not someone there watching all the time so he relied upon the signage.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had Pitman Roberston funding to put into the grants for clubs around the state. Shooting sports were expanding around the country and women were the largest portion of that expansion. We had a couple of ranges and he made it clear he did not want to take the grant money first to change our ranges before the public had an opportunity. We were going to use some of the grant money to improve the two ranges in Fryeburg and Summerhaven to make them better facilities. We had unsupervised ranges, we just had to make sure they were adequately signed and have some supervision from people who were certified. He was excited about the possibilities.

V. Other Business

1. Endangered & Threatened Species, new language LD 1636

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated this was a preview of things to come. LD 1636 was a substantial rewrite of a portion of the Maine Endangered Species Act. It was prompted with the listing of 3 myotis bats in Maine. The bill created the opportunity for the Department to enter into a broad activity incidental take plan where we could identify groups of people that were involved in an activity and be able to communicate with them and create an incidental take plan essentially for any endangered species. An example was the Barrows goldeneye, we currently had an incidental take plan for waterfowl hunters. Basically if you incidentally took a Barrows goldeneye it had to be reported to the Department. Going through statutory language we tried to strengthen our ability to do that for other groups. We could identify someone as a group and create an incidental take plan with guidelines for best practices for not taking an endangered species. Homeowners for example on bats, essentially it’s illegal to take one of the listed bats if it was in your home. Under this new process we would be reaching out to homeowners under incidental take. The other piece was rulemaking for a broad exemption for not taking an endangered species. This resulted from concern from the forest products industry on primarily the northern long eared bat because they roosted in tree cavities. Essentially we would be setting up protective guidelines in rule that said if you stayed away from the cave dwellings of the bats and the roosts and maternity trees that the cutting of trees in general was not a real issue with the recovery of northern long eared bats. We would be working with the industry to create the draft rule, the legislative piece had an emergency preamble so would be effective immediately when signed.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington stated the legislation if signed, it would go into effect immediately, but we didn’t have the rules for the forestry people that were out cutting trees.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we could not adopt the rules until the bill was signed. Once the bill was enacted into law then it was in effect and we would have to go through rulemaking.

Mr. Wheaton stated in a lot of northern towns there were a lot of old buildings and years ago those were full of brown nosed bats. If a person bought one of the old houses and wanted to tear it down and build a new home, what kind of problems would they have.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated for any dwelling type situations there were going to be best practices for dealing with all bats essentially.

2. Wildlife in Captivity

Mr. Connolly stated we had managed to engage public debate in a way that was probably unprecedented except for a few issues in the time he had been with the Department. He distributed some comments that had been received. In wildlife in captivity the Department, when Andrea Erskine was the Deputy Commissioner, was being asked to make some judgements on animals and possession permits and she felt that we really should get direction from the Legislature. The Commissioner’s authority in rulemaking derived from statute. The Legislature also gave us some direction in terms of what they expected, they didn’t want things everywhere but they did want some accommodation to some folks that presented themselves at the hearings in terms of their ability to have animals as well. We needed to be concerned about native wildlife, public safety and also looking at what was reasonable for people to have while addressing all of those issues.

Mr. Connolly stated we had developed a proposal. We had received an avalanche of emails related to a particular exhibited facility that was properly licensed and was in compliance with the regulations. He had received over 400 emails from folks that wanted that particular place shut down. The emails had come from all over the country and in addition we had received phone calls. At the same time we were developing the rulemaking proposal in accordance with the legislative direction. The rulemaking process was meant to engage the public and give them a chance for review. As part of that we submitted some proposals for review and that had engaged a whole response from people. We had received some good feedback from the public. When we looked at all of that we were really not in a place to present a rule to the Council. There was a draft proposal in the packet that was what was floated out to receive feedback.

Mr. Connolly stated we were going to be looking at the feedback we received and see how we could incorporate that. Part of the concern was that we did not establish lists. In the rule we stated we would use a technical committee to evaluate and put forward lists. The only list in the rule was a small list of the proposed prohibited species. New animals coming into the state that weren’t in accordance with that list wouldn’t be allowed. If certain species were already present in the state and the person was legally licensed they would be allowed to keep those. We currently had an unrestricted species list on our website and there was no proposal to eliminate that. We had received concern from the public by not having the category 2 and 3 list available that there was something going on and they would like to see that.

Mr. Connolly stated there were two extreme positions we were dealing with. Some felt nothing should be allowed, and some felt they had a constitutional right to have any animal as long as they could control it in their home and if it got out it would die and not persist in the wild. There were also people in between that were advocating for a more balanced approach. We had a tentative agenda in terms of the proposal for rulemaking. We were committed to holding a public hearing which the Department was not required to do given the interest in the topic.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there had been some pretty intense discussion and he thanked staff for their work on the proposal. He pulled the proposal back from Step 1 because he was not comfortable with the definitions and the listings and discussions. It was a very complicated topic and we were hoping for something reasonable. He was hopeful it did not become a statutory provision. In closing he would state that he spent 3 years in the Army and a year in Vietnam and he knew vulgar. He had received some really vulgar comments about the issue, so vulgar he would not show them but to a very limited audience. He was not appreciative of that and wanted everyone to appreciate that. Civil discussion was what he was about and that was how you ended up with a good product. He had saved one in particular to show the Governor so he could appreciate the tenor of the discussion. We would be holding a public hearing and he was looking forward to what everyone had to say, but he promised it would not be vulgar very long if someone tried that.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Don Kleiner discussed the upcoming Maine Professional Guides Banquet.

Jason Prillo stated he and the Herpetology Society had some questions on the Wildlife in Captivity rulemaking proposal. He apologized to the Commissioner if any of their members had sent any horrific emails. They did have a lot of people that were exceptionally concerned with how the rule could go. He was also included as he supplied a lot of zoos with caging and the rule would directly affect how he could operate his business. The first thing listed was venomous animals, which was pretty much what he did, venomous caging. Also, 90% of the reptiles that most of them kept or preferred to keep they technically could not have. There were things on the unrestricted list currently that were extraordinarily rare, but they could not have sister species that came from the exact same environment. There were other things to take into account such as environmental factors. Maine was a difficult environment for most people to survive and most of the population of the U.S. did not want to live here because it was so cold during the winter. They had concerns that temperatures during the winter actually negated some of the concerns with animals getting loose. Those that could potentially get loose such as European snakes and lizards, they had approached IFW stating that those should be regulated because they could exist here. They were concerned that what was currently on the Category 1 list, most of that was stuff they agreed should be on a permit basis. They adopted the idea from Florida and New Hampshire that it needed to be heavily regulated and what training should be received. Florida had some of the most restrictive laws because they had an open environment and most things could survive in Florida. In relation to species 2 through 6, those were already on a non-transport list. That was a federal fine and jail time. Same for 8 and 11, so if you were not sponsored by a zoo there was no way you could get it. Moving down to red-eared sliders, look at where they were naturally from, they could survive in Maine and nobody should own them, they were terrible pets. Moving down to crocodilians, again, you needed to be federally regulated to own those for most species. They agreed they should be heavily regulated, but they also disagreed with the fact they were going to be regulated to the point that only zoological institutions could have them or universities or research facilities. Part of their concern was looking at Category 1 we were pretty much moving everyone into a very specific group that they were just not capable. In some cases that was applicable, but in most cases it was not because most people did not want those species listed. Rat snakes from South America would never survive here, but they were a readily available snake in every other state, but with Maine’s current system and this proposed system it would be heavily regulated here but you could own it in every other state in the U.S.

Jason Prillo stated going to Category 2, it seemed it would be easier to buy a firearm in Maine. One concern was you’d have to have more education to be able to own most of the species that could fit that category than you would to work in a zoo or laboratory that worked with non-human primates. Putting things in such broad sections, it pretty much puts the concern that if the board decided it was allowed to in those categories how was the public supposed to respond. Most of the stuff in the hobby didn’t fit. The other concern was the insurance policies. He didn’t have that high a policy on his business. As it stood, Category 2 and 3 were so broad and open that it negated the whole idea of having dialogue. 90% of the reptiles that most people wanted to have in captivity didn’t fit the lists. He would like to see these become an open ended 2 or 3 tier system instead of having it as 4. You had the ones that were outright ESA, Lacey Act or CITES 1 listed. The ones that needed a definitive permit system and then the ones that were pretty much open ended. It would take a lot of the burden off of IFW and the game wardens to be able to identify everything.

Jason Olmstead ? In the ornamental aquatic industry Maine had a limited list of aquatic fish in the fresh water world that they were allowed to have. He felt that before we made changes to make it more restrictive on certain things that we should reevaluate the list that was already in place and develop some sort of committee that could look at the environmental impacts that animals could do to the state. There were certain fish that were allowed that you could buy in PetCo that would get 5 feet long that would winter over in Sebago Lake and decimate the landlocked salmon population there. He was an advocate of looking at the list and taking animals that were currently allowed and taking them off the list. Things that did not make any sense that people did not need to have. By taking an animal like an African cichlid (a very popular fish) they were only allowed to have 25% to 30% of the African cichlid that were out there. As discoveries were made and names changed, fish that they used to be allowed to have had become illegal because they were not on the unrestricted list. He had customers that wanted a certain animal and they were going to find it and get it. Without the proper education people ended up bringing the animals here and they get 3-4 feet long and they need a place to get rid of it. They were stewards of these animals, they came from the wild most of the time and it was their responsibility to keep them and let them live the life they should have had. By not having an open discussion with the public about why certain species weren’t allowed in Maine, it confused them. He just wanted the public to be educated as to why they could not have a certain animal. There were a lot of people that took risks to get, for example, little fish that had no chance of surviving come October in Maine. He thought there needed to be more discussion on the unrestricted species list and see what made sense.

Jason Prillo stated they had a member, Phil Roy, who took animals from the Department that were unwanted or confiscated. About a year ago, he applied for a permit for a lizard species that we denied because the proper scientific name was not used. There were 6 species that were all identical, same environment, etc. just different species names from the island chains, all of them could be interchanged and very few people would be able to identify them. Why would 3 of those species be illegal, but 3 of them were legal? Those were some of the things they wanted to try and resolve.

Robert Dubeau stated he had provided comment already. He had been keeping reptiles for about 12 years. He had been the President of the Maine Hepetological Society for about 8 years. In 2009 he was presenting the unrestricted list to the Commissioner. When they were working then they were asked about permits for different species, it was too expensive. He asked Mark Stadler how much it would cost and he seemed confused and didn’t know. Eventually they came up with an answer of $20. After the list was submitted and reviewed it was bumped up to $50 making it a little more difficult to submit more animals. My comments specifically were Class 1, it really scared him when regulations said once something was in place it could never be reviewed again. Once the animal was listed as Class 1 it could not be reviewed again no matter what changed with the system. The Class 2 and Class 3, with the experience he had he could not get an animal that was Class 2 listed. He did not have the qualifications and the connections to zoos or other research organizations as an individual. Depending what was put on that, he couldn’t have it even though he had animals in his care that were more difficult to care for than those. Class 3 he would still have trouble getting the two organizations because he did not work with zoos. The Society had been working with IFW since 2008, some of the members worked in the mid-90’s on the original unrestricted list. The list that was Class 1 animals they supplied the commission and said those animals should not be kept by the general public, should be allowed to have a permit for and what happened they got put in Class 1 where no one could ever get a permit for them and if you had them you could not get more. He felt they had kind of been ignored and gotten some push back. For at least 6 months he hadn’t heard anything from the commission or had anybody he knew be questioned about the rulemaking. He would talk to anybody anytime about the lists so long as they were truly being heard. When there were animals they submitted and said they should be permitted and get put on a list that say no one will ever be allowed to own them, it showed noncooperation.

Jeremy Bullock stated Jim mentioned they would be willing to work within any capacity they could and that was true, he would like to encourage that; have discussion so that they could mitigate or put to rest the very valid concerns about public safety and Maine’s flora and fauna being put at risk. He thought with some open dialogue they could get very close.

Rob Christian stated the reason the task force was put together was to try and make the laws more clear for the Warden Service and IFW and the public as well. The way it was set up currently in unrestricted list and those were allowed to be owned. Then everything that was not included on that list was illegal, you couldn’t own it but you could apply for a permit and it was up to IFW to issue a permit. The reason the task force was brought together was to streamline and make it easier for game wardens to enforce and easier for the public to understand. Looking at this system, there was a white list of species that were allowed and everything else was illegal. Going to a 3-tiered system where warden service and IFW would be expected to identify species in tier 1, 2 and 3 and the unrestricted. He saw that as counterproductive. Looking at surrounding states like NH and MA they had a list of species that were considered dangerous or could be considered dangerous or invasive and that was easy. He felt that was easier to work with, you could have a color print out of the species that were considered dangerous or invasive and keep it with you so warden service could view and know you weren’t supposed to have that as opposed to going to a tiered system. One of the members of the Maine Herp Society got calls fairly regularly to identify species. What he personally would like to see, it made more sense to work with a restricted list than an unrestricted list. Sister species, there was a bunch of stuff that was closely related, same general care and with the current unrestricted list you could have one species but another just as commonly kept and bred in the U.S. you could not have. Recently there was a situation involving someone that had an illegal animal and they also had several other legal animals; 3 animals which were of legal species were euthanized because they weren’t specifically identified on the unrestricted list. With some of the changes in classification of species a lot of species that were commonly kept were technically illegal because of the genus change. No big cats or bears were listed on the tier 1list. One of the things that came up in the moose and bear regulations was that they relied heavily upon biologist information. He would urge that we look into having the biologists look into the possibility of invasiveness for the animals. 99% of the reptiles that were kept and bred in the trade were not a threat to Maine wildlife. He could understand venomous snakes being a threat to the public. He did not think there should be a completely open system, there should be some sort of regulations for the animals that were more difficult to take care of than the average person could do. He would like to work with the Department on the lists. The Herp Society offered to give training.

Derek Small with Wildlife Encounters stated he was from Rochester, NH and Wildlife Encounters was an educational firm. He thought in the room he was the number one importer of wildlife, 138 times in 2015 he crossed the border for educational programs in Maine schools and communities, probably totaling about 1,000 animals and educating about 35,000 people advocating for supporting local Maine economy by visiting state parks, becoming active outdoors, and supporting local food and farmers markets. They were basically a science based organization and worked not only with native species that were non-releasable but with non-native species. They were seeing on a global basis a massive decline in wildlife populations. Everything we did impacted beyond the borders of Maine. As an educator he felt it was important to let people know the consequences of their actions. His preferred method was to work with non-releasable wildlife. In the proposal there was still a discrepancy when it came to the agency supporting education. He would like to call attention to the fact that when considering what had been done by the dedicated team at IFW that it was an area that may need focus beyond just the Category 1, 2, and 3 lists. Did they require accreditations and were there special exceptions for people like himself who crossed the border on a regular basis, the animals left within 24 hours, nothing ever released, and the methods they did made a lasting impact on the youth of Maine and the community and hopefully have a greater appreciation for wildlife, flora and fauna locally and globally.

Liam Hughes stated he was the Director of Animal Welfare. He was on the opposite side of the coin, he didn’t feel owning of wild or exotic animals should be permitted. He understood their passion and there were only a handful of people in Maine that could possibly do what they did and they were sitting in the room. He represented the animal shelters and the animal control officers and they were not prepared for dealing with the majority of the animals. They had Derek come every couple of years to do training and it was still not enough. If the animals were exposed to the public, first responders had to deal with them and they were not properly trained to deal with them. He thought some of the proposals were a good step but they needed tweaking. He was Jim Connolly’s counterpart at Dept. of Agriculture and he had the same amount of angry phone calls and emails. Going forward, he thought the technical committee was an excellent idea and maybe it should be broadened to include reviewing of the restricted species or unrestricted list on a regular basis. He thought there should be more added for safety protocols for first responders for certain animals if they were to be permitted that there be a written safety protocol. Work with first responders, animal control, police and fire departments and make sure they’re well trained. The other thing that might concern the committee was about exceptions and conditions for therapy animals. He was on the task force for the integrity of service animals and they would point to federal laws mentioning anything about primates or anything else, it was basically dogs and specially trained miniature horses. Adding the language confused an already confused system when it came to service animals. It was a bad idea and we would get push back on it. Removing anything having to do with help or therapy monkeys would save a lot of headaches in the future. We would be working against federal guidelines with certain aspects we would be asking someone to prove their disability which was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. When it came to people claiming their service iguana or their service tiger was a service animal then we’d be allowed to permit it. The Maine Human Rights Commission would back up the fact that they were not service animals, they were not defined in federal law. The Maine Human Rights can ask certain questions that we could not. If someone claimed an animal was a service animal we could only ask two questions; 1) Is this animal required because of a disability? Yes or no. 2) What function has this animal been trained to do.
It would be hard to determine what the animal was really used for. There were so many claiming dogs and cats and birds as service animals when really they were not. It was already a confusing topic and the proposal would only confuse it further.

John Glowa stated he founded Maine Wolf Coalition in 1994. The organization was the only organization in Maine dedicated to wolf recovery in Maine and they supported recovery through research, education and protection. He wanted to comment on the 2015 Wildlife Action Plan. He was speaking as president of the Wolf Coalition. They were concerned that the plan completely ignored the Gray Wolf. In July of 2015 they submitted a detailed email to the Department and they received no response to the email. There were over 100 groups included in the process and as the only wolf organization in Maine they weren’t invited to participate. In the report it stated, “IF&W concluded that there is no current evidence of a population of wolves in Maine and that the establishment of a viable wolf population is unlikely.” Mr. Glowa stated that absence of evidence was not evidence of absence. The fact was they knew of at least 8 wolves that had been documented south of the St. Lawrence River since 1993. Data was everything was one of the comments heard during the Council meeting and the statement from IFW was not based on science it was based on politics. He asked that the email given to Mr. Scribner be made part of the official record of the meeting and also asked the Advisory Council to consider including the Gray wolf in the Wildlife Action Plan. He would also ask the Council to review the public record. Another issue was the statement that 142 coyotes had been shot in Aroostook County. He would note that all coyotes in Maine were in fact wolf/coyote hybrids. He would also question whether or not any of those 142 animals were in fact wolves. There was no evidence that coyotes in Maine negatively impacted the deer herd. There was mounting evidence that killing coyotes actually promoted the population by upsetting coyote families and upsetting coyote territories and made them reproduce in greater numbers.

John Glowa stated now as a private citizen, at the last meeting he mentioned the issue of the use of lead ammunition in Maine and eagles getting sick and dying. He visited Avian Haven a few weeks ago and observed 3 sick eagles that were suspected of being ill from lead poisoning. Not only were eagles getting sick and dying from the lead ammunition but humans were being poisoned by lead as well. This was an issue that would soon be leaving the realm of IFW and going to the CDC and DHHS because it was a growing public health concern. What would happen if the public knew they were being poisoned by lead ammunition? He felt it would be a public relations disaster if the public was in fact being poisoned by consuming lead from animals that were provided to them through the Hunters for the Hungry program. He read a statement from a recent article, Health Risks from Lead-Based Ammunition in the Environment, A consensus statement of scientists, March 22, 2013 from the University of California, Sante Cruz ? “We the undersigned with scientific expertise in lead and environmental health, endorse the overwhelming scientific evidence on the toxic effects of lead on human and wildlife health. In light of this evidence, we support the reduction and eventual elimination of lead released to the environment through the discharge of lead-based ammunition, in order to protect human and environmental health. 1) Lead is one of the most well-studied of all anthropogenic toxins and there is overwhelming scientific evidence that demonstrates: a) Lead is toxic to multiple physiological systems in vertebrate organisms?there is no level of lead exposure to children known to be without deleterious effects. Exposure in childhood even slightly elevated levels of lead produce lasting neurological deficits in intelligence and behavior. Lead is also known to be toxic across different vertebrate organisms, including mammalian and avian species. 2) Lead-based ammunition is likely the greatest, largely unregulated source of lead knowingly discharged into the environment in the United States. 3) The discharge of lead-based ammunition and accumulation of spent lead-based ammunition in the environment poses significant health risks to humans and wildlife. Lead based ammunition is a significant source of lead exposure in humans that ingest wild game and hunters consuming meat shot with lead-based ammunition have been shown to have lead pellets/fragments in their gastrointestinal tract.
Based on overwhelming evidence for the toxic effects of lead in humans and wildlife, even at very low exposure levels, convincing data that the discharge of lead-based ammunition into the environment poses significant risks of lead exposure to humans and wildlife, and the availability of non-lead alternative products for hunting we support reducing and eventually eliminating the introduction of lead into the environment from lead-based ammunition.”
Mr. Glowa stated he wanted to bring this to the Department’s attention and to the Council’s attention.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for May 4, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW, 284 State Street, Augusta. The June meeting was scheduled for June 11, 2016 to coincide with the Moose Lottery Drawing and would be held at Kittery Trading Post.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Farrington and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
February 24, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Bonnie Holding, Director of Information and Education
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Nate Webb, Special Projects Coordinator
Chris Cloutier, Major, Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Jeff Lewis (Chair) ? by phone
Don Dudley (Vice-Chair)
Dick Fortier
Sheridam Oldham
Gunnar Gundersen ? by phone
Matt Thurston
Larry Farrington
Jerry Scribner
Jenny Starbird ? by phone

Guests:

John Glowa, China
Deidre Fleming ? Portland Press Herald

I. Call to Order

Council Vice -Chair Don Dudley called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier.

Vote: unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Leashed Dog Tracking Rule

Mrs. Theriault stated since the last meeting we had a couple of thoughts from staff that administered the program. Under paragraph 11 we were removing the 30 day period at the end of the license for them to renew. At Step 1 the Department proposed to require the permittee to take the test if they didn’t renew before the permit expired and there was really no reason for that. The person could renew when and if they chose to do so. On page 2, we changed the license expiration date to be more consistent with other licenses and have the license expire at the end of the calendar year as opposed to them purchasing a license in July and then it only being valid for 2 ? years.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington asked why it was being called a permit instead of a license.

Mrs. Theriault stated it was in addition to either having a guide license or a hunting license. A permit was generally something that was additional to your main license.

Mr. Farrington stated it was his understanding the guides would not need a permit anyway.

Major Cloutier stated the guides were separate from this. The guides could do it without having a separate permit as long as they contacted Warden Service. If they had a good relationship with their local warden they probably wouldn’t have to contact us right at dusk. Some outfitters had issues with cell service, etc. so instead of calling us every time they had a wounded bear they would contact the warden prior to and get the go ahead. The issue we had initially with the bill that came forward in statute last year was at that time all the guides were required to get the permit and they only wanted to do the leashed tracking portion for their own clients, they didn’t want phone calls from everybody else to track a deer or moose, they just wanted to take care of their own clients. As part of the permitting/licensing process their name was added to the list so they would get those calls. The statute that came forward last year took them out of the requirement so they could do it as part of their guide license without an additional permit.

Mr. Farrington asked if the criteria to get the permit was the same as somebody wanting to become a guide?

Major Cloutier stated it was a simple written exam, totally separate and nowhere near as extensive as a guide license.

Mr. Farrington stated another question that was asked of him, why was a hunting guide able to use a dog that required a license for everybody else. How did we know they knew anything about dogs, there was nothing on the guides test about dogs.

Major Cloutier stated to his knowledge it was 99.9% the bear guides that were doing it who already had hounds as part of their business. Those were the ones that came forward, not deer, moose and turkey hunting guides.

Mr. Farrington asked if there were any certification requirements for the dogs saying they had been trained to track wounded animals.

Major Cloutier stated no, the only thing we certified in Maine as far as dogs were search and rescue dogs.

Mr. Thurston asked about a private citizen doing their own bear hunt, but had a friend that was a guide that had hounds and they wanted to use him to track a wounded bear?

Major Cloutier stated he believed the person would have to be his client. If he wanted to do it for someone other than a client technically he would need the permit.

Mr. Farrington asked how the dog would differentiate between the deer he was supposed to be following and the one that crossed their path and he decided to follow that one.

Major Cloutier stated the handler was controlling the dogs; there was a human factor as well. It’s a single dog on a leash and they should be in control of that.

Mr. Farrington asked about the language, and night hunting and Sunday hunting could be allowed if they got permission.

Major Cloutier stated yes, but they had to contact Warden Service first. They did not receive many requests.

Mr. Lewis stated he did not feel it was a problem and we didn’t need a lot of restrictions to allow someone to try to find a wounded deer.

2. Taxidermy Rules

Major Cloutier stated there were no changes from Step 1. We were making language consistent between statute and rule. A new addition, if we had a taxidermist whose work became “less than stellar” we hadn’t had a way to address that in the past and there had been complaints that came to the taxidermy board.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the taxidermy board endorsed the changes in the proposal. We were trying to add to the accountability for the taxidermy profession and elevate the standards a bit.

3. 2016-17 Migratory Bird Seasons

Mr. Connolly stated the proposal was based on the same framework as last year. There was a slight change in the brant season from the original proposal, an expansion of opportunity. They just did the winter surveys and there were more brant available so we had a little bit longer season suggested.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated there was a public comment regarding the goose season.

Mr. Thurston stated he believed it was that we were interrupting the local goose population and the young may not come back and make that home.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the Waterfowl Council discussed the comment and the conclusion they drew was the season itself, the weather, also had an impact on the zone. They were in agreement that the zones ought not to change in terms of time because if you took a 10-year average you would be close. The feds had asked for a shorter sea duck season because of the surveys that had been conducted up and down the eastern seaboard and maritime Canada. When sea duck hunting was instigated there really weren’t many bag limits because there were not many people hunting sea ducks at that time. That had changed and we had more people participating. The eiders in particular were a population concern. The feds had shortened the season from 107 to 60 days, and we couldn’t debate the number of days we just set the season.

4. 2016 Spring/Fall Turkey Seasons

Mr. Connolly stated the turkey season followed the same guidelines except the fall season had changed to add the first week of November. On our surveys that had come back from Mark Duda pretty much everybody would like to see fewer wild turkeys.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston asked about the disease in turkeys that had been mentioned.

Mr. Connolly stated there had been a decline in the population, but it was not enough of a decline for people it appeared. It was pretty uniform across the state, if you were a hunter, farmer or a bird watcher you would like to see fewer turkeys and the opportunity for someone to take one.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the National Wild Turkey Federation would like to see more turkeys because they have put them in a different class from other groups. The vast majority of people that had been contacting us had uniformly stated they would like to see fewer turkeys. We liberalized the availability last year and it continued to be the case.

Mr. Scribner stated last spring there was a dramatic decrease in the number of birds. He was an avid turkey hunter and had emailed Brad Allen and he was seeing the same thing that the turkey population after the last couple of winters was down significantly but the thought was at that point in time that it would only take one or two good breeding seasons for it to bounce back.

Mr. Fortier stated he had not heard any complaints up north about there being too many turkeys or not enough. Had Mr. Connolly heard anything?

Mr. Connolly stated we hadn’t heard anything specifically that would cause us to change what we were proposing for northern Maine.

C. Step 1

1. Wildlife in Captivity

Mr. Connolly stated this had become a very timely topic. The show “Yankee Jungle” had aired and had raised a lot of interest in the issue. The Department was in charge of importation, possession and exhibition of all animals native and non-native. We were permitting those animals and had for a number of years. There was some cross jurisdiction with Agriculture on cervids. You could not raise whitetails but you could other cervids and would be licensed through Agriculture. Agriculture regulated farming of animals so water buffalos, bison and other cervids that could be farmed were regulated through Agriculture. If you had just a couple of them and weren’t farming them, ie. red deer, they would be regulated through IF&W.

Mr. Connolly stated IF&W had this responsibility, permit fees had been very low. We entered a study as a result of interest by the Legislature to have us examine the topic and come back with regulations. In 2013 we assembled a group and studied the issues. It was found the fees were low and people wanted more clarity in terms of what they could and couldn’t have. There were a large number of people that actually lobbied to have additional animals available to them.

Mr. Connolly stated we went to the Legislature in 2014 with a bill and proposed raising fees putting in “after the fact” permit fees because there was no provision for that. The Legislature was concerned about the time and effort the Department was putting into it but also the risk that the animals pose to the native population as well as the people of Maine. There were some high profile events back then involving snakes, the aftermath from Ohio of someone releasing wild animals into the public, so they were very concerned and that anything we did be more restrictive. The Legislature asked us to go back and engage in rulemaking to address the issue and they raised permit fees for the importation, possession and exhibition of the animals. They also clarified that the Department could confiscate animals that were here illegally and that the individual that was responsible for them could be charged with the cost of taking care of resolving the presence of those animals in Maine.

Mr. Connolly stated when the rule was developed we would hold a public hearing. Some of the things we wanted to cover were reformatting the chapter to be more in line with the guidelines that the state had for the language, and we were going to have restricted, unrestricted and prohibited species lists. Currently, we had an unrestricted list that was on our website. If the animal was on that list it could be sold in pet shops and owned by anybody in the state. Pet shops were regulated by Agriculture, but the animals that they sold in relation to exotic animals had to be on our list. We wanted to continue with that list, we would have an unrestricted list that would provide clear guidance to the public about what they could have.

Mr. Connolly stated we also wanted to establish a prohibited list. There were certain species we felt were inappropriate because of their potential to spread throughout the state and pose a risk to native wildlife or they were just dangerous. On any of these changes when we had people that had things already they were usually grandfathered when a rule was implemented and when that animal passed away they would no longer be able to have one if it was no longer legal to possess that. We would create a framework from this point forward that we would not permit new animals to come into possession if they were on the prohibited list. On the restricted list we wanted to clarify for the public the categories that were acceptable in terms of danger for different types of permits. A possession permit was usually held by an individual and those were animals we deemed safe but did not want to lose control of it. They could not treat them the same as cats and dogs so you could not take them out to public places. We would have two categories of animals that would be for exhibitors.

Mr. Connolly stated for exhibitors we were going to enact a definition that created a higher standard for someone to become an exhibitor that would relate to their showing animals and having more established background in terms of the education and training they had in order to possess those animals. There would be two classifications of animals, we had some animals that were fairly easy to care for and then ones that were more difficult, for example Bengal tigers or big cats that posed a high risk if they got out. The other thing was elephants; they needed to be examined carefully in terms of the environment provided for them. Apes and monkeys could go in that same category because they required special situations. The actual animals on the restricted list would not be done in rule, but the categories would be established in rule. We wanted the Commissioner to be able to add animals to that list and make adjustments. We would have a provision for him to consult with experts but the decision would lie with the Commissioner. The IF&W legislative committee was very clear when they discussed the perspective for the Commissioner in making all of these decisions and the Department entering into rulemaking was the safety and welfare of the people of Maine and the native wildlife. The focus was not on providing pets to the public or any other kind of need that the public might put forth.

Mr. Connolly stated the biggest thing going forward was to have communication with people about what they could have and not have. Also to establish clearer standards in terms of the qualifications for people when they had things as well. We continued to limit monkeys to trained service animals so that they were not available as general pets to the public. There was one organization that was meeting that need and we were going to clarify in statute that was the focus. There was an organization called “Helping Hands” that trained capuchin monkeys for paraplegics and quadriplegics to help them access things. We were looking to clarify in our actions the difference between companionship and service animals. Service animals currently were limited to dogs and miniature horses, and that would be a use that would allow an individual to have one as long as it was provided for by an organization such as “Helping Hands.”

Mr. Connolly stated there were some strong feelings and were being lobbied about a particular local organization and he suspected they would push to have more animals prohibited. There were others that had pet snakes that were experts in their area. Many had worked in facilities that would like to have access to more animals, even some of the more dangerous snakes such as vipers because they felt their skills were up to that. That would all come out during the rulemaking process and public hearing and then would be up to Council to sort out with the proposed rule.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated Mr. Connolly mentioned we were going to raise the bar for training, what training was available for someone who wanted to engage in that kind of activity.

Mr. Connolly stated some of it was going to be apprenticeship. We were not offering any training but there were places where you could work and become familiar with things. Avian Haven had a program when you were working with birds in the rehab field, they didn’t exhibit at all but they allowed people to intern there. Unity College had an animal care program and people worked to become vets or vet assistants and if they didn’t make it in that field quite often they became people that were interested in possessing animals. Some people worked at zoos or other facilities. Maine Reptiles and Amphibians Association had offered to provide some education and outreach through their website to folks that wanted to have them so they would be more aware. The other thing that we advocated for was trying to clean up the inspection responsibility. Currently, we took biologists and wardens out of the field to do inspections for the animals that were being kept. That was a disservice to the public as well as staff; we had limited time and were taking them to go inspect for a private individual to possess an exotic animal. We were authorized in statute to set up a private inspection program where we would authorize inspectors and ensure they met standards, but they would be able to perform the inspection. The individual having the animal would hire that person to fill out the form, much the same way if you had an elevator in your office the inspectors were not state employees they were private companies. We would be able to have inspections done on a regular basis and get away from having a warden or biologist go out. That would allow us to then just respond to complaints of abuse or neglect. We would probably reserve the right on the highest classification animals that we would interact and probably call in experts when we were going to license a facility for those extremely high risk or special need animals. We would also identify some animals that did not need inspection, ie. hedge hogs.

Mr. Thurston asked about health certificates.

Mr. Connolly stated one of the requirements now for an importation permit was that they had to present a current health certificate, and we worked with the state veterinarian. In rulemaking we delegated that to the state vet. They spent a lot of time at national conferences talking about the current threats to domestic as well as wild animals. For certain species such as poultry, there were some higher standards in terms of avian influenza, others for hoof stock, etc. The state vet informed the Department of what tests they would like to see. When elephants were coming in for circuses we import them to come into the state, but they’re actually able to participate in a circus without any kind of permit from the Department. State law exempted circuses and fairs from permits from IFW. They had to get an import permit to get them into the state, but they could be at the fair just on invite. For elephants tuberculosis was a concern because that could be transferred to people. Maine was a leader in the country in asking to implement the regulations the USDA developed but then backed away from. In 2010 they put regulations in place for tuberculosis but they never put them in place to become effective; when we were dealing with Hope Elephants the State of Maine insisted that those higher standards be applied even when USDA wasn’t asking for those. That became the impetus for the USDA to implement their own guidelines. There was currently an epidemic of a virus in Europe for salamanders so we would be very concerned about something coming from Europe to the United States. That was how they assumed white nose syndrome got here, that it came to this country from people that were caving in Europe where it was present and then contaminated the caves and bats here when the equipment wasn’t sterilized.

Mr. Fortier asked if it would affect rehabbers in any way.

Mr. Connolly stated rehabilitators were a separate permitting process. We had strict guidelines for those. They were only allowed to keep animals for 6 months without coming back to the Department for additional permission. There was a movement from rehabbers; they would like to go to stronger guidelines to sort out people that were presently involved that may not have much training or be as focused on rehabbing and releasing as they should be.

Mr. Farrington asked if Agriculture was involved with circus animals at all.

Mr. Connolly stated they were getting an importation permit from the Department if it was a restricted species. If they were bringing horses and domestic stock, they did have to deal with Agriculture but that was a separate process.

Mr. Thurston asked how long the health certificate was good for.

Mr. Connolly stated he thought the domestic one varied and the state vet would have to explain. For the Department’s, we looked at it within 30 days of when they wanted to bring the animal into the state. It was called a certificate of veterinary inspection (CVI).

Mrs. Oldham stated they were not going to see any written language until Step 2. They could only discuss it at Step 2, they had been given a great broad overview but she did not consider it to be at Step 1.

Commissioner Woodcock stated they would get it to them as quickly as they could, and if they had to have a Step 3 discussion he felt there would be quite a bit of input at Step 2 in the public process.

Mr. Farrington asked about species on the restricted list such as a snake. If someone was given a permit, was there any limitation on the numbers they could possess. If someone had a male and female of something and then a lot of little ones around.

Mr. Connolly stated that was a good topic to discuss. Currently if someone had a possession permit for animals, there was no restriction on having males and females and ending up with more. That had been a part of the Department rules all along for possession permits that you could have an increase in the number of animals you had without coming back to the Department. If you went to buy it and bring it home, you would have to get a permit from the Department but if you had a male and female and they were compatible and you had young you were all set. You could not sell them. Propagation was restricted, that was a separate permit and process. Historically, the Department had not limited someone from having animals that were capable of reproducing and had a reporting form that accounted for births, deaths and transfers. We did not get a clear direction from the Legislature that every animal that was in exhibit should be kept in single sex cage or spade or neutered. We did not have export permits, some states had export permits where you couldn’t get the animal out of the state without getting their permission. There were zoos that were engaged in breeding programs, and there were some zoos that engaged in breeding to secure a species and kept logs and tracked the breeding history of the animal (pandas).

Mr. Farrington stated he thought the other big hurdle would be the service animals, the doctors writing prescriptions for snakes or other animals to “relieve stress or tension.”

Mr. Connolly stated currently those would not be recognized as service animals and we were clarifying in the rules that we would not issue them for those purposes, other than the monkeys. Technically, they did not meet the legal definition of what a service animal was. Warden Service had investigated that, animal welfare, etc. It was dogs and miniature horses that were covered under service animals and nothing else. We were going to make it clear in our rules that we were not giving permits out to people to have exotic animals as companion animals and the only service function that we would take into account was for those primates that were trained specifically to perform those functions like the “Helping Hands” situation.

2. 2016 Moose Permit Allocations

Ms. Camuso stated there were a number of factors that went into our recommendations for permit allocations. A lot of things were included such as the harvest, biological data we collect at the time of harvest, the teeth that we analyzed, as well as the aerial surveys that were done by staff. The data was not always in agreement so we made our decisions based on the best data that we had available. We were managing the moose population based on the goals and objectives that were set at the last planning process. We were now in the middle of updating our planning process. Next year we would very likely have different goals and objectives, although they may not change.

Ms. Camuso stated the season framework was mostly the same as last year, the permit recommendations were pretty much the same with a few reductions. Overall the moose population was at objective in most places. Once we reached objective was when we started to pull back on permits. Ms. Camuso referred to the handout in the Council packet and discussed recommendations by WMD. The first chunk of recommendations were all in the recreational management zones and they were managed differently than the compromise zones. WMD 1 was at objective so we were maintaining the bull permits and since we were at objective, reducing the cow permits because we wanted to maintain populations at current levels. WMD 4 was the only WMD where we had more of a change. This was based on recent aerial surveys where the bull/cow ratio seemed to be lower than the bulls so we were recommending reducing the bull and the cow permits. The population seemed to be below objective based on aerial surveys. The goal for many of the WMDs was to have about 60 bulls for every 100 cows. WMD 4 was currently below that threshold so we would recommend to pull back on both the bull and cow permits.

Ms. Camuso stated the next chunk of WMDs were pretty much at objective so we were recommending really no change for WMDs 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 to 14 and 18. We had some information that the population in WMD 19 was declining a little bit so we were recommending a decrease in the bull only and the antlerless only permits. WMDs 27 and 28 we were recommending no change. That was it for the recreational zones. In the compromise management areas we purposely managed at a little bit lower moose population because of concerns with roads and the number of vehicle collisions. In WMD 2 we were recommending a decrease in antlerless permits and in WMD 3 we were recommending a decrease in both the bull and the antlerless only permits. Most of these decreases were relatively small in scale. WMD 6 right through the end of the category the recommendation was the same as it was last year. The road safety management areas were really what we considered southern Maine moose hunt which was mostly to minimize vehicle collisions it wasn’t what most would consider prime moose habitat. We had very low success rates in those WMDs. For WMD 22 we were recommending no permits; WMDs 23 and 25 was still a small number of permits and the same in WMD 26. The total permits being proposed were 600 less than last year for a total of 2,140.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier asked about the study that was done in WMD 8, or the problem that was happening on the NH border with disease of moose. Had any finalization come to that.

Ms. Camuso stated the survivorship study was a 5-year study and we were in year 3. This year we also initiated an additional study area in WMD 2. With the NH study we now had 3 distinct study areas looking at what was going on. There were a lot of variables we were looking at, underlying disease potential, ticks, climate, low reproduction, not enough food, etc. The winter tick was consistently appearing to be problematic for moose.

Mr. Fortier stated in WMD 2, had we had any deaths.

Ms. Camuso said we had 2 mortalities so far in WMD 2, one cow and one calf. The calf had a compound fracture in the leg. Although we had 2 mortalities neither of them had a heavy tick load. The cow was a crippling loss from the hunting season. She did not think we had any mortalities in WMD 8 as of yet. April was the most vulnerable month for animals and in the past we’d had the majority of the mortality losses in April.

Mrs. Oldham stated we had 105 permits in the November season and the majority were in the road safety management areas and the harvest rate was low. Was there any departmental thought of getting rid of the November season and putting everything into October.

Ms. Camuso stated the southern Maine moose hunt was a significant challenge for them to figure out the best way to manage that. It seemed to be a source of frustration for some of the folks that applied for a permit. We would like to be able to address that and through the species planning process we were hopeful the committee would look at that and make recommendations for how can we best minimize moose road vehicle collisions in the part of the state where there were so many people traveling but make sure that people participating in the hunt didn’t come away frustrated and dissatisfied.

Mr. Thurston asked what was the estimated moose population? The permits were a small percentage of the overall body of moose, less than 3% of the population?

Ms. Camuso stated yes, but to keep in mind that because we were at objective for a WMD it didn’t mean that people were not seeing fewer moose. People could be seeing fewer moose and we were still at the objectives that were given to the Department to manage for. The two could both be accurate that people were seeing fewer moose for a number of reasons and one of them may be that there were fewer moose on the landscape, the other may be that after 35 years of hunting moose were now staying further off the road and much less visible. Forest harvest regimes had changed so there were fewer big clear cuts which made them more visible. People were seeing fewer moose, but that didn’t mean we weren’t still at the objectives. The objectives might just be less than what people wanted. Through the species planning process we needed to figure out what the public wanted.

Commissioner Woodcock stated two years ago he couldn’t go many places without somebody saying something about the ticks on moose. He did not remember a discussion this year where anybody mentioned the ticks were bad. He was asking at the tagging stations also and the reports were the moose were very healthy this year. We had very cold February last year, the snow load was heavy for a couple winters but not much this year so there were a lot of variables. He was confident we had a healthy moose herd and we were very conservative about the numbers we gave the public.

Mr. Farrington stated looking at WMD 8 it said that the population was at objective and that the mature bulls might be slightly below objective, but then through the big game species planning process they wanted to put in a September hunt which to him meant they would get more bulls.

Ms. Camuso stated they would split them.

Mr. Farrington stated the ability to call them in September was better than it was the end of October generally speaking. It was easier to call them in that time of year which meant an increase in the harvest of bulls and if we were at objective or a little bit below why would you want to increase the harvest.

Mr. Connolly stated that would be determined by the permits. We would adjust the number of permits to get the kill we wanted and if we wanted fewer bulls taken we would issue fewer bull permits. The success was built into the allocation of the permits.

Mr. Farrington stated the recommendation on permits was no change.

Ms. Camuso stated if we were to open a September season we could very likely, if we calculated that the September season would have a slightly higher success rate then we could recommend fewer total permits.

Ms. Camuso stated we were in the midst of updating our big game species planning process and we had completed our survey of the general public, landowners and hunters. There had been some surprising results that we did not anticipate and we had a series of public meetings coming up that they were encouraged to attend. Fisheries would have concurrent meetings happening around March 14-18 in Portland, Orono and Presque Isle. There would be a separate series of public meetings for bear, moose, deer and turkey. We would also be conducting focus groups at the same time. At the focus groups we would delve in deeper on some of the issues that we had questions on. On the initial pass it appeared most people would like to see fewer turkeys so we would probably ask the focus group why, and what were the issues behind the response.

Mr. Connolly stated the biology in terms of setting the permits was separate from the management system. The management system, the public input that we got was to help up drive goals and objectives in terms of what we were going to manage for. How many moose were going to occur would still be a biological decision and the working group and the input that we got we’ll make that aware to what measures we need to use and how we come up with those numbers. That process is going to be a separate process and biologically driven. Whatever changes that required rulemaking would still have to go through that process.

Ms. Camuso stated the other component was that we recognized there were some that wanted to view moose and they might not want to have people hunting in that area. Some of the zones we were looking at, should we be managing these just for viewing and not for hunting opportunities. In addition to all of the public meetings and surveys, we would be reaching out to those communities and trying to meet with the town managers and folks in that area to hear from them directly. Before we would make any major changes to the framework in those Greenville, Rangeley areas we would be reaching out to the towns directly.

3. Moving of November moose season to October, WMDs 1-4 & 19

Commissioner Woodcock stated the November season was instituted in part because the outfitters wanted to be able to spread the wealth of October into November so they could book people for that part of the year. Biologically it did not make much difference, we were proposing to change it to the Monday preceding the resident only day for deer. We were criticized for moving the November week to the second week of November, which happened to be because November 7th was a Monday and it was a leap year. It was a calendar function, so we had talked about the November season being the week ending with the resident deer hunting day. We were proposing to move it to that last week of October from November. He had checked with interested parties and no one seemed to have any concerns. This would separate the October seasons by a week.

Council Member Questions and Comments

Mr. Fortier stated he would welcome that change. In his area, when you had the moose hunt and the deer hunting and bird hunting he always thought there was too much to try to manage all the pressure in the woods at that time of year.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there were only 5 zones affected, 1-4 and 19.

4. Youth bear hunt

Mr. Connolly stated this was in response to a change that occurred in the Legislature, but we were going to enact it in rule. We would like to be consistent and have all the youth hunting days in rule. We spoke with the sponsor of the bill and he was agreeable. It was going to be the Saturday preceding the opening day of bear hunting season.

V. Other Business

There were no items under Other Business.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

John Glowa stated for those that did not know him, he had been a wildlife advocator in Maine for several decades. He had just retired from state service and could now attend as many Council meetings as he could make. He had three issues of concern that he would like to bring up. The first involved lead poisoning of bald eagles in Maine. He had a portion of a copy of a special project report put together by USFWS and quoted “In greater frequency wildlife rehabilitators have been finding elevated lead levels in bald eagles brought in for treatment. Lead ammunition and bullet fragments in hunter killed but unrecovered game animals and bullets in carcasses of wildlife or other animals used as bait by trappers are suspected lead sources of scavenging eagles.” For their study they looked at 127 New England bald eagle livers and most of those were collected in Maine; of those 14% had lead concentrations indicative of poisoning. He understood last spring there was a stakeholders group in Maine and he was wondering what the outcome of that stakeholders group was and what, if anything, IFW intended to do to resolve the issue of lead poisoning from ammunition in bald eagles.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he was not aware of the stakeholder group conclusions, but he would get them to Mr. Glowa. They had discussed the bald eagle, lead situation internally and were aware of it.

John Glowa stated the big game working group steering committee, he wanted to express his concerns with regard to how the members were selected. To his knowledge there were no policies or procedures that defined who was chosen for the group. He would note that based on the information he had, at least 75% of the members hunted, and just over 10% of Mainers hunted. He thought the representation of consumptive users in that group was totally skewed towards the consumptive user. The non-consumptive users were not adequately represented. He wanted to point out there was no representation of the $800 million wildlife watching industry and no representative of a wildlife advocacy organization on the group. It seemed to have been a closed process and there was no explanation how or why these individuals were chosen.

John Glowa stated his last issue involved wolves. He founded the Maine Wolf Coalition in 1994. This past year IFW put together its 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) and in that plan IFW proposed to exclude wolves from the plan. They were included in the previous plan. His organization submitted lengthy comments during the public comment period. Those comments included the growing evidence that wolves were present in the northeast U.S. based on dead wolves that had been killed from MA to NY and northeast through New Brunswick. They received no response to their comments. They did not know if the plan was finalized, they did not find a final plan on the website. They were wondering what happened and if any consideration was given to their comments.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he would get an answer for Mr. Glowa.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for April 1, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW, 284 State Street, Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Dudley and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
January 20, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Bonnie Holding, Director of Information and Education
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Mike Brown, Fisheries Division Director
Tim Place, Game Warden Lieutenant
Rick Lathe, Information Management Supervisor
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Jeff Lewis (Chair)
Don Dudley (Vice-Chair)
Dick Fortier
Sheridan Oldham
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Larry Farrington
Jerry Scribner
Jenny Starbird

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Don Kleiner, MPGA
James Cote, MTA

I. Call to Order

Council Chair Jeff Lewis called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Dudley.

Vote: unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Kennebec River striped bass regulations

Mr. Brown stated when Edwards Dam came out of the Kennebec River, it allowed striped bass to go from below head of tide to above head of tide. Marine Resources had a rule that required anglers to release striped bass between May 1 ? June 30 and that was because there was a small spawning population of striped bass there and they wanted to make sure those were protected. When Edwards went out, the fish could go all the way to Lockwood in Waterville. What they would like to see us do is put that same regulation on those inland waters. We already had the same gear restriction (single hook, ALO, no bait) the only thing they were asking us to do was not allow anglers to keep striped bass during the closed period that they had in tidal waters.

Ms. Orff stated no public comments were received during comment period.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier asked what would happen if the rule was not implemented.

Mr. Brown stated the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission was a compact among states along the east coast and oversaw management of migratory fish species that went up and down the borders of the east coast. They managed 22 species, striped bass was one, and they would probably come back to us and ask that we seriously consider the rule. If we did not, there may be some further discussions about how the state was managing that resource because we belonged to the compact and how that was affecting other state’s management.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

B. Step 2

There were no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. Leashed Dog Tracking rule

Lt. Place stated the purpose for updating the rule was a law change in 2015 which was supported by the Maine Professional Guides Association. The section of law that listed the “leashed dog tracking license” as a license was supposed to be repealed and was now in a new section of law which appropriately listed it as a “permit” instead. The reference to license had been changed throughout the rule chapter to a permit to be consistent with law. The rule was formatted to meet current Secretary of State formatting standards. The beginning of the rule spoke to the exceptions to having to purchase the permit. Within Title 12, Section 12862 a hunting guide could use one leashed dog to assist a client to track and dispatch a wounded moose, deer or bear. Within Section 11251 dogs could be legally used in an active hunt for bear.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the Maine Professional Guides Association (MPGA) and the Department had worked together on this to try and come up with a reasonable solution. One of the important exceptions was the first one, the guide being able to use one (1) dog to help a client track and dispatch the animal instead of having to go through the permit process.

Mr. Lewis asked what the permit requirements were.

Mrs. Theriault stated if you were to apply for the regular permit which the hunting guide wouldn’t need to, it would come to the Department and you would have to take an exam to get the permit.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there were very few people that did it, but we did have some that wanted the permit so they could be called in a commercial sense to go and find someone’s deer. An exception was created for guides so that they would be able to help clients “on-the-spot.”

Mr. Fortier asked if there were training sessions that had to be documented with the use of the dog, or the dog being certified.

Mrs. Theriault stated she could research that, she did not administer the testing process.

Mr. Farrington asked if there was any criteria of what would constitute a wounded deer to allow them to go and look for it with the dog.

Mrs. Theriault stated we did not define what wounded meant. This was something that had been in place for some time in rules. What we proposed to change was the guiding aspect.

Commissioner Woodcock stated it would be part of the guides responsibility, it wasn’t just an average citizen doing this unless they got the permit or became a guide.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated he wrote the original leashed dog tracking license rules back in 2000. It was reacting to the Legislature to write major substantive rule and it was amazing to him it really hadn’t been touched for that many years. It had never really taken off and there weren’t a lot of people that did it and not a lot of concern about it.

Don Kleiner stated the process went along and the Department looked at the rules and didn’t feel comfortable that they could be giving the permits to guides. The enabling statute was not clear enough, that was why the MPGA got the clarification in law that then caused a change in the rule. From the MPGAs perspective, the client had wounded an animal and they wanted that animal dispatched as quickly and humanely as possible. This was an effort to enable people who had a license that the Department could take back if there was a problem. The other piece was that the Department knew who was doing this and where it was happening.

Mr. Farrington stated his only concern was the dog couldn’t differentiate between a wounded deer and a healthy deer, if he got on a deer scent he was going to track it.

Mr. Lewis stated total blood was how they did it from what he had seen. He did not see it as a huge problem that people were going to start hunting deer with dogs.

Mr. Gundersen stated he and his wife had a pet care business and he walked hundreds of dogs and most dogs if they went by where a deer had crossed, they just ignored it.

Mr. Thurston stated an individual had contacted him because he was going to utilize the process to recover his son’s deer. He thought it also provided a component of landowner relations.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we would be monitoring it closely.

Mrs. Theriault stated in the rule they would have to notify a game warden before they tracked a wounded animal. We were insuring there was a relationship between the local game warden and the guide who was tracking a wounded animal.

2. Taxidermy Rules

Lt. Place stated the primary purpose for updating the rule chapter was due to a law change in 2015 which was supported by the taxidermy licensing board. It was proposed as a 3-year permit rather than a 1-year permit and to require an unsuccessful taxidermy license applicant to wait a minimum of 30 days before reapplying. Both of these initiatives were to make these rules consistent with other permits we administer. Any rule language that was redundant with current statute was removed to prevent having 2 locations (laws and rules) for the same law language. Current rules required an applicant to pass an exam by proving they meet a list of competency standards. Language was added to require current license holders to adhere to the same competency standards as applicants when work was performed for customers or to be held incompetent or negligent in the practice of taxidermy. This was never addressed before. Language was also added to require taxidermists to complete work in a timely manner and in a time period agreed upon between the taxidermist and customer.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Commissioner Woodcock stated a great deal of time and effort had gone into the proposed rule changes and was in reaction to an incident where clients weren’t receiving their agreed upon taxidermy mounts. The taxidermy board was supportive of the changes.

Mr. Thurston stated “timely” was determined by the customer and the taxidermist and that was it?

Mrs. Theriault stated part of the standard was completing work in a timely manner based upon a written agreement between the license holder and customer.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the taxidermy group was supportive of the changes; they wanted to have the public perceive there was some type of standard being set.

3. 2016-17 Migratory Bird Seasons

Ms. Camuso stated the proposal had a number of changes. The majority of the changes were strictly updates to the calendar. In the past session the Legislature removed the age limit for youth hunters so as we went through rulemaking we were updating the language for youth days. Another part of the proposal was the change in the federal framework for our sea duck season. Based on some long term trends and decline in our sea birds the USFWS was looking to reduce the harvest by 25%. In order to accomplish that they reduced the number of allowable days from 107 down to 60 and the bag limit down from 7 to 5. One other small change, up until this year there was no daily limit for long-tail duck and now there was a 4 bird limit per day. One other thing of mention with the youth day, in the past where we had articulated the age we had some struggles with youth that had turned 16 and felt they were not eligible to hunt on the youth day even though they had a youth hunting license. We proposed to change that if you bought a youth hunting license and then turned 16 during the year, you were eligible for any species that had a youth hunting day. The only confusing factor was that the USFWS required anybody that was 16 years of age or older have a federal duck stamp. That requirement stayed in place, anybody 16 years of age or older would be required to have the federal duck stamp to participate on youth day. The youth day bag limit was also confusing, youths could have 6 ducks in the aggregate, you couldn’t exceed any of the normal possession limits for species.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham asked what the challenge was facing the sea ducks.

Ms. Camuso stated there could be a whole host of issues. Some of the eiders in particular, very low productivity, predation from black back gulls, not enough access to food, etc. There was no simple answer but they had over time declined considerably.

Mr. Lewis stated hunting pressure on sea ducks had increased. Now when he went to places he hunted for years, it was difficult to find a place that an outfitter was not already there. They hunted 6 days a week and the amount of pressure was incredible, not like it used to be.

Mr. Fortier stated if the increase in duck hunting was because the outfitters were bringing the sport to more people?

Mr. Lewis stated there was a very dedicated group and a lot of them that when the numbers were high it was a fun shoot. There were also people that were getting their species of ducks from around the world. They would base a hunt for the year on getting one nice male and female eider to have mounted for their collection. Typically you would get good shooting to go sea duck hunting so it was pretty popular that way.

4. 2016 Spring/Fall Turkey Seasons

Ms. Camuso stated the spring dates were just updates for the calendar year. We put in rule the actual dates for the A, B seasons which would change every year so we were putting in the definition and left the dates empty so we would not have to go through rulemaking every year. That was just for the northern zones. During the last legislative session the Legislature directed us to have an addition turkey season in November that lasted at least a week. We opted to have the season run from October 1 to November 7th so there would always be a full week of opportunity in November. The bag limit would not change, it was still 2 birds in the fall.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Starbird asked about when deer hunting started, and that turkey hunters did not have to wear orange, did that create an issue that first week of November?

Ms. Camuso stated that those hunting turkey in November would have to wear blaze orange. The weapons would not change so they could not use their deer rifle to hunt wild turkey.

Mr. Gundersen stated everybody was using ground blinds now, you couldn’t see them all dressed in camo in the ground blinds. In teaching hunter safety they taught about their target and beyond to make sure they knew what was in the background.

Mr. Fortier stated we had moved the date on the turkey hunt up north and it made 4 landowners that he knew very well very happy. It was a great concern with them leaving their land open and the turkey hunt had gone very well.

V. Other Business

1. Wildlife in Captivity/Scientific Collection Permits

Mr. Connolly stated during the last legislative session the Department had a bill in to increase the fees associated with wildlife in captivity. We issued importation permits to bring exotic wildlife into the state, possession permits to possess it and exhibitor permits if you were going to exhibit it. Exhibiting did not include fairs or circuses, they were not regulated by the Department there was an exemption in statute for those. There was a direction also for us to engage in rulemaking. We were currently looking at the rules involving wildlife in captivity and looking at the models for some of the other states to try and make things clearer. Not to open the door so that anything could be brought in, but communicate better to the public about what issues we had, what the qualifications should be for people that had them and make sure our concern about the safety of the people and the animals of Maine were met.

Mr. Connolly stated we were going through that process, we had a group of interested parties that helped frame the legislation and offered advice. Probably in February we would be coming to the Council with rules regarding wildlife in captivity. In terms of the scientific collection permits, we added in statute a clarification that those permits could also be issued for educational purposes. We had a lot of classrooms that were interested in having things like an aquarium. They were not allowed to take wildlife, either fish or animals, from the wild into captivity without going through the Department and getting a permit. We wanted to have a provision that permits could be issued to classroom teachers or build in an exemption so they could have an aquarium or something in the classroom to help educate kids.

Mr. Connolly discussed exotics and the large Burmese python that warden service collected in southern Maine. The woman that was complaining about the list did not realize that what we published was an unrestricted list. The list on the website was a list of the animals that you could have that pet shops could sell freely and people could possess without getting a permit. The news made that sound like it was a restricted list, but it was an unrestricted list and the animal that she had was not on it. The woman that was advocating for her 13 foot Burmese python failed to mention to the public that it had eaten her cat.

Mr. Connolly stated that was a concern that people had these and we wanted to have regulations that were transparent so people would know what they could or couldn’t have and be able to track what was here. It was an issue for warden service. They were called upon to deal with these, most animal shelters did not want to deal with exotic wildlife. We have worked with animal damage control officers to provide information on how to deal with the issues. There was a provision in statute that we could charge people for the euthanization of the animals if they have them and we have to take them. That was not an activity that could be covered with federal funding, it was something that hunting and fishing license holders were paying for.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington asked if the pet owner had an opportunity to appeal.

Mr. Connolly stated there was always an opportunity in terms of either us denying a permit, there was an appeal process within the Department and then they could go to court, but also in terms of taking possession he thought that was a warden service process and there was a hearing process as well and the ability to go to court. Warden service would contact the Resource Management Division if they were aware that someone had a restricted species and we would work with the pet owner to address it in the least confrontational manner possible. If it was something we would permit, we would assess them the after the fact permit fee and move forward. According to law, they could surrender the animal rather than pay the after the fact permit fee.

Lt. Place stated they were in contact with the District Attorney’s office on a lot of these because they had to figure out if they did seize an animal what were they going to do with it.

Ms. Camuso stated we did have the authority to euthanize the animal.

Mr. Connolly stated our goal in the new process was to have clearer lists of what we would approve and what we wouldn’t. The after the fact permit and euthanization costs were the Departments response to the fact that there were people that didn’t care and they would prefer to bring something here and have it and take the chance they would get caught.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the message we had been trying to send was that people not bring in exotic animals to the state. His concern as Commissioner was that some of them were dangerous and Warden Service or biologists having to deal with them. On a more practical basis because the media had expanded on the exotic animal thing with TV shows, etc. it was a challenge for the Department. The Governor did not like to increase fees, but he was supportive of this particular fee increase. He felt the burden should be born by the person that had the animal.

Mr. Fortier asked if there was a show on the Animal Planet channel about a place in Maine where people were bringing the exotics and they were taking them in.

Mr. Connolly stated there was a show on Animal Planet called Yankee Jungle and it was the story of the DEW zoo out in Mt. Vernon. Mother Jones magazine was doing an investigative report by the people that were opposed to that operation that would like to shut it down. There was a difference of opinion about what people should have and what they should be allowed and there was a difference between states. The issue of companion animals was becoming more of a problem. We were working with the Human Rights Commission to make sure that we did not inadvertently enable someone to create further problems down the road.

2. Fisheries Division Projects update

Mr. Brown stated there was a communication study being conducted that fisheries division and wildlife and information and education were involved in. They had hired Mark Duda from Responsive Management who facilitated communication programs with state agencies. Mr. Duda would reach out to the Departments and determine how they could be most useful to the public. One of the things that he did was set up a focus groups of folks who did outdoor activities and focus groups of those that did not do any of those activities. The feedback we received was very interesting in terms of Department recognition and what the public thought the Departments functions were. Once the communication study was completed Mr. Duda would send us a report and we would develop a marketing plan to see how we could provide the public with the services they would like to see.

Mr. Brown stated they were also involved in a fisheries planning process. They went through this process every 15 years or so to update fisheries management plans. This time was different than in the past where they were species specific, there would still be an element of that, but we were going to make a better effort to explain what we did and how we did it and why we did it. There was a steering committee to help guide them through the process and both Mrs. Oldham and Mr. Dudley from the Advisory Council were on the committee. One of the things they were trying to do to help inform what the fishing public would like to see was also holding focus groups with anglers. There would also be a survey going out. The last comprehensive survey the Department did back in 1994 should be revisited, we would be asking some of the same questions to see how attitudes and perceptions had changed and how we could provide some better fisheries products. The results from the focus groups would go to the steering committee.

Mr. Brown stated law book simplification was probably one of the things they got the most questions about. People often didn’t understand what the regulation was, or couldn’t find the regulation, etc. We held a focus group with Resource Management in Portland and invited 10 people. Not all 10 showed up, but we brought them in to talk about their angling experience. To participate you had to have a fishing license and at least fished a couple of new places that particular year. We wanted folks that had a need to use the fishing law book that year. One of the questions asked of the group was, “when you go to a new place, how do you find out what the rules are?” No one responded that they used the law book. Some stated they practiced catch and release so thought they would be all set, or fly fished, or found out the rules from a friend. Some bodies of water had the rules posted there. There were similar results in all the focus groups. They were not happy with advertising being in the fishing law book, they wanted just the rules in plainer language.

Mrs. Holding stated in the 2017 law book they should see some major changes.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the 2017 and 2018 book would show major changes. It would take a couple of years to go through the entire process of regulation change and structural change. He did not feel we should do both at the same time. This project was a transition project because the electronic part of it we were also addressing. An “app” was being worked on, but the transition was how long would we need 200,000 copies of a physical law book if the electronic world had the “app” in the palm of their hand.

Mr. Brown stated they were doing some interesting biological projects as well. There was an environmental DNA (EDNA) project they were working on with the university. It was cutting edge technology that was more developed out west on work with Asian carp. Essentially it entailed collecting water samples and being able to know what was there for fish resources. We were looking at it to focus on problematic species. We had asked the University to come up with markers for identifying pickerel, muskie, pike, red fin pickerel to do a number of things. We were starting to see these populations move to places we didn’t know or to identify some rare and threatened species. The University had developed those markers for those particular species and so far we had been able to go through the Penobscot watershed, collect water samples and we would hopefully by the end of October be able to tell whether or not there were pike above the barrier at West Enfield. We did not think there were, but we often heard reports of them being caught. One of the drawbacks was there could be some cross contamination. If there were birds that ate a small pike in one of the adjacent watersheds and flew into another, we could pick that up in the fecal material they put in the lake. We were fortunate that we had ice cover and could collect water samples during the winter and would help eliminate that.

Mr. Brown stated we had a sea run brook trout project, we did not know a lot about sea run brook trout. There was a dedicated angler group that fished for sea run brook trout and they knew where the hot spots were. We were seeing a migration up the coast of streams that were know devoid of what we believe were once sea run brook trout populations. Most of them were downeast, east of Belfast. One of the problems we had was the anadramous brook trout populations did not show anadramous tendencies all the time. In order to identify those populations we had to catch and kill those fish and take the otolith out and use a laser and analyze the smoke from that. Based on the elements we would read from that smoke we could tell whether or not they were more indicative of a marine environment or fresh water. We did not want to kill those fish, we were developing a technique where we could use fin clips and do the same kind of analysis.

Mr. Brown stated they were also working on a wild brook trout project which was also a genetic project. The objective was to look at the genetic material of up to 60 ponds and see what we had for brook trout. It was developed as part of the heritage brook trout legislation, as we were going through those waters there were waters we had stocked once or twice with brook trout from the hatchery and we didn’t know what sort of effect that had on those waters. Did that hatchery signal persist, was there some sort of depredation of the wild genetic stock that we had. We also didn’t know if we stocked hatchery fish at a lake above a series of waterbodies whether or not those fish would migrate down and have the ability to spawn and effect native brook trout, and waters adjacent to stocked waters. This information would help us get a better handle on exactly what stocking did and any impacts on native fish resources, and determine exactly what we did have for native fish resources out of these 60 ponds. It would answer some of the questions we had about the private hatcheries that operated back in the early 1900’s and them taking brook trout from one small pond, raising them, and putting them in another small pond. We would know because the material would have similar genetic signatures. It would tell us whether or not the brook trout that we had at our hatchery or any of the brook trout in the national database was in our lakes and how much it was impacting wild fish if at all. We were looking at 60 different ponds, 20 of those were in the Dead River drainage, 20 in the Fish River Chain.

Mrs. Oldham asked what was the ultimate goal of obtaining the data.

Mr. Brown stated it would help protect some of the heritage trout waters. If we had a stocking program that flowed into a heritage trout water somewhere downstream, or some connectivity, we may consider altering what we used for brook trout brood stock there. If we were finding the genetic material was flowing from one place to another, it would alter our management.

Mrs. Oldham stated potentially there could be more native waters identified, not necessarily less or we didn’t know?

Mr. Brown stated we did not know.

Commissioner Woodcock stated determinations also had to be made based on other studies that had taken place outside the state about the baseline for the genetics. Sometimes you did want to have some genetic change or else the population would make itself defunct.

Mr. Brown stated there was also a sucker project, and we had a graduate student that was helping with that. We didn’t know a lot about white suckers in Maine. We did have a pretty extensive commercial fishery for them. They were important to the ecology, brook trout fed on their eggs, but we weren’t sure of the entire role they played in our ecosystem. We also had some questions about the numbers of fish that were harvested and how that was affecting those sucker populations in areas that were heavily fished. We selected 6 ponds and paired them up in terms of size, location, fished or not fished and had done a lot of work on age, growth of the fish. Preliminary results were interesting, but not unexpected. The ponds not fished tended to have bigger fish, those fish tended to be considerably older. Cold Stream Pond in the Enfield area had fish that were over 20” and some of the fish ponds we were lucky if they reached 7” or 8”. The study had another year to go.

Mr. Brown stated the smelt project was just finishing up. There would be a final report from the University of Maine. We were using a grad student to take a look at the possibility of using hatchery reared smelts as a way of restoring smelt runs in lakes and ponds where sport fish relied on smelts for forage. One if the things we felt was important to know was raising smelt in a hatchery to at least the fry stage and then putting them into a lake or pond would be cost effect. We wouldn’t really know how well those fish survived and that was another part of the project. The final report would be available later that week.

3. Moose update

Ms. Camuso stated the Department initiated a second moose survival study. We collared an additional 70 animals in WMD 2, 35 cows and 35 calves. We collared an additional 36 calves in WMD 8. Now we had about 150 moose with GPS satellite receivers on them so we got 2 pings per day with their location. When that was combined with what was going on in NH, arguably a 3rd study area for us, it was by far the largest research project of its kind in the country that was currently happening for large ungulates.

Ms. Camuso stated we had had a pretty good moose hunt but not all the data was in yet. When the remaining tagging books came in we would start our analysis and Lee Kantar would meet with regional staff to come up with recommendations for the season. We did anticipate having very similar framework and number of permits as the 2015 hunting season. Similar to fisheries, wildlife was also in the process of updating big game species plans. They had also contracted with Mark Duda who was in the process of conducting a public survey of 2,900 people across the state on their opinions on moose, bear, turkey and deer. Don Dudley and Don Kleiner were on the steering committee for that and the process was well under way. Similar to fisheries they would also have focus groups and public meetings across the state to try and get more in depth information. We were also going to have a town hall online opportunity for people to participate so that anyone that wanted to engage and provide feedback would have that opportunity. We did not anticipate any changes in the upcoming moose season. Once we had completed the species planning process and had all the information from public surveys and focus groups and regional meetings, it was possible that next year at this time we would be looking at some changes.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we were not just talking about numbers, we were also talking about the districts that were involved and all the examination of the moose hunt in its totality as far as management. Also connected to that was the lottery, it was not what drove the decision making process. It was not the money, it was the resource. We were running the lottery with the assumption that there was not going to be much difference from the recommendations from last year.

Mr. Farrington stated in WMD 8 they did the collared moose study there last year, was there any information available yet about what they found.

Ms. Camuso stated it was a 5-year study, and typically you would want multiple years of data before you could make any assessments. The first year we had a high level of mortality, last year mortality was more normalized.

Mr. Fortier asked if any of the collared moose were harvested during the hunt.

Ms. Camuso stated that she did not believe any of the collared moose were harvested.

Mr. Scribner stated given that this was a multi-state study, how closely were we working with the biologists in NH? A year or two ago one of those states were attributing mortality to moose density numbers. How closely were we going to be working with those folks in terms of coming to conclusions based on what we found?

Ms. Camuso stated we were working with NH, we also worked with VT on a couple of other tests that would allow us to determine if an animal was carrying brain worm. As the biologist, Lee and the moose biologist from the northeast and Canada all got together annually and talked about research projects and harvest. Also annually there was a North American moose conference that our biologist participated in. As the Directors, Ms. Camuso and Mr. Connolly worked with other state directors and moose came up frequently. Whenever they could they would collaborate. The state of VT did make a decision because they felt they were having repressed productivity which indicated to them the moose were overpopulated. In one of their zones they very actively reduced the moose population down to significantly lower levels. It had been 5 or 6 years and they were now starting to see some increase in production. People were concerned that they had brought the moose population down and it had been awhile and they still had not seen tremendous increase in productivity, but it took awhile for the habitat to grow to support additional animals.

Mr. Fortier discussed the spruce budworm epidemic. It was now in Canada and getting close.

Ms. Camuso stated the state had a spruce budworm task force and we had several staff members that participated and made recommendations.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

There were no public comments or questions.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for February 24th at 9:30 a.m. at IFW, 284 State Street, Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
September 16, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Augusta, ME

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Andrea Erskine, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Bonnie Holding, Director of Information and Education
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Mike Brown, Fisheries Division Director
Shon Theriault, Game Warden Captain
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:
Jeff Lewis (Chair)
Don Dudley (Vice-Chair) ? by phone
Lance Wheaton
Dick Fortier ? by phone
Sheri Oldham
Cathy DeMerchant
Gunnar Gundersen

Guests:

Dick & Judy Thurston, Scarborough
Steve Philbrick, Oquossoc
Fern Bosse, Norway
Gary Corson, New Sharon
Ken Smith, Islesboro
Becky Wilcox, Islesboro (local paper)

I. Call to Order

Council Chair Jeff Lewis called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen.

Vote: unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Beaver Season & Closures 2015/16

Ms. Camuso stated the Council had been forwarded the proposal with a few changes based on feedback from the Council, trappers, landowners and staff. We proposed to have WMDs 1,2,3 and 4 open October 19th. The reasoning was those were the WMDs that we had the hardest time getting people to go to because they were so far north. There was not a lot of access and there were a lot of beaver issues there. We opened the season there earlier specifically to try to assist landowners in the northern zones to alleviate some of their beaver issues during the regulated trapping season. The only other change was to try and consolidate. There was somewhat better access to WMD 5, and we put WMD 5 with 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11; we also moved WMDs 15 and 16 down to the November 15th opening date which was consistent with what it was last year.

Ms. Camuso stated it was a balance with the beaver season and was highly variable. For a lot of trappers weather was an issue along with pelt prices. We struggled with trying to provide some time during the trapping season at the beginning or end that had some open water. The thing we struggled with in the spring was that we couldn’t keep it open too far into spring or the beaver would have young.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham asked if Don Dudley thought the changes were reasonable. They kind of went along with his comments from the previous meeting.

Mr. Dudley stated yes, he felt it was an improvement. He hoped we could get the population down where we could improve it more, but it was a step in the right direction.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to accept the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

2. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Fish waters 2016

Mr. Brown stated after the comments at Step 2 we had some changes to the package. Three of those under heritage waters we proposed to change; Dixon Pond, Helen Pond and High Pond. Dixon Pond, the Department proposed closed to ice fishing, S-6 and S-4 for kids only. We would drop the S-4 for children only and proceed with the change from FFO, ALO. The final rule would be closed to ice fishing, S-6 and general law in terms of bag limits. Helen Pond the Department proposed closed to ice fishing S-6 and S-4 for children only. We would drop the S-4 for children only and proceed with the change from S-5 to S-6. The final rule would be closed to ice fishing, S-6 and general law for brook trout. For High Pond the Department proposed closed to ice fishing S-6 and S-4 for children. We would drop the S-4 for children and proceed with the change from S-4, no live fish as bait to ALO. The final rule would be ALO, closed to ice fishing and general law.

Mr. Brown stated the fourth change, we were proposing to pull the Upper Dam regulation where we defined motor boats to use of motors. That prohibition was put in as a result of a petition and we would not be able to change that unless there was another public petition process. We proposed to pull that proposal from the package.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Lewis stated some of the items discussed at the last meeting, they were asking for more information from the biologists and why we were going with some of the proposals.

Mr. Brown stated he could discuss the proposals that were changed. In talking with Bobby VanRiper and others they were concerned there were too many fish there and not reaching growth potential and they felt going to artificial lures would provide more opportunities. We felt that kids would still have added opportunities even though we weren’t going to put that S-4 regulation for kids, they would still be able to use artificial lures. The goal for all those ponds was to remove some of those wild brook trout and see if we could achieve some optimum growth.

Mr. Lewis stated it would be nice to have that information prior to Step 3. It was difficult receiving the information the night before the meeting and he had received comments from Council members regarding that.

Mr. Fortier stated he had some concerns in the Eagle Lake area about not having a bag limit but if that was a one year deal and if the biologists saw that it was getting out of hand and the plug could be pulled because they were taking too many fish, trying to convince the people up there that the more fish you took out the bigger they would get was hard for them to swallow. He could go along with that if he knew the biologists were going to keep a close eye on it.

Mr. Brown stated Mr. Fortier was speaking about the Eagle Lake proposal up north to go to no bag limit on salmon, only 1 over 14”. It was a new, innovative regulation. At that particular lake we were seeing a lot of small salmon and we couldn’t seem to get out of that hole. We were starting to see the same thing at Chesuncook. We would be keeping a close eye on it.

Mr. Dudley stated he was not at home the previous night so did not receive the changes. He did pick up on some of the changes, but was not able to review.

Commissioner Woodcock repeated the amendments to the proposal. There were a couple of the changes that had much discussion and resulted in the lateness of the information getting to the Council. He would take the responsibility for the information not getting to the Council in a timely fashion, there were not a lot of proposals we were proposing to change.

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to accept the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant.

Vote: 6 in favor; 1 opposed (Mr. Wheaton) ? motion passed.

3. Islesboro Special Hunt

Commissioner Woodcock stated this was a proposal for a continued 3 year hunt for Islesboro. It had been his inclination to offer the Council consistently that he was not sure we were approaching it in the right fashion. He did think there needed to be another approach taken. That was up to the citizens of Islesboro and that had been a very contentious process on the island. Many meetings and many different votes and none of those resulted in a methodology, in his personal opinion, that would be as successful as it should be. He was moving the proposal forward for a vote, it was the 3 year additional period that was being requested so they could have some opportunity to change the deer population on Islesboro.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated she moved the Council reject the Islesboro Deer Reduction Committee (DRC) request for a special hunt because of the following: failure to achieve prior special hunt harvest objectives, current biologic data indicating deer density at 48.5 deer per sq. mi. and that the current Islesboro DRC proposal harvest objectives even if achieved would not reduce deer density to the 10 deer per sq. mi. necessary to reduce the ongoing public health risk of tick borne disease to Islesboro residents and unsuspecting visitors to the island.

Mrs. DeMerchant stated she would second that motion.

Mr. Fortier stated he agreed with Mrs. Oldham. He had studied and looked at their numbers. He knew the people of Islesboro had worked very hard, but he just didn’t see it meeting their objectives and his vote would be with Mrs. Oldham’s. He had seen people with Lyme disease and felt a more aggressive means had to be taken.

Mr. Dudley stated he agreed with Mrs. Oldham. In reading all the literature, he hated to see nothing happen and that appeared to be the way it was going if they rejected the proposal. In the same token he didn’t think this was the way to do it and he was kind of against it.

Mr. Wheaton stated he hated to go this route also without taking measures to at least help them in finding a solution to their problem, but he agreed with the Council.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to reject the proposal based on failure to achieve biologic data and harvest objectives, and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant.

Vote: 6 in favor; 1 opposed (Mr. Gundersen) ? motion passed, proposal rejected.

B. Step 2

There were no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. Kennebec River striped bass regulations

Mr. Brown stated the Department was approached by DMR to change some of the regulations we had on the lower Kennebec River that was under our jurisdiction, essentially from above head of tide up to the dam in Winslow/Waterville. There was a small but fairly consistent spawning population of striped bass in the river, something they wanted to preserve and they monitored each year. They were not sure where the fish spawned or how many there were so it was a pretty grave concern for them to be able to protect those fish. They promulgated a rule below head of tide that did not allow the taking of striped bass from May 1 ? June 30. The gear was restricted to single hook artificials during that period and they could not use any sort of marine bait dead or alive. They asked us to also release any striped bass that were caught during that time. Now you could keep striped bass above head of tide, but below you couldn’t so they asked us to change our regulations to require the fish be released if they were caught under our jurisdiction. The area below the dam in Waterville was already ALO so that would not be a change, it was open year round to fishing, the only thing that would be required of us was that we ask folks to release those striped bass from May 1 ? June 30.

There were no further questions or comments.

V. Other Business

1. Wildlife Division projects update

Ms. Camuso updated the Council on the following projects?

Ms. Camuso, Mr. Connolly and Mr. Jakubas attended an event with the USFWS where they announced the NE Cottontail were not warranted as a candidate species for protection under the endangered species act. NE Cottontail were state listed but the additional layer of Federal listing would have made recovery probably more challenging. More landowners were not as inclined to manage a property when there was a federally threatened or endangered species on it. We were hopeful this decision to not list would continue to allow us to recover the species.

Trapping regulations had gone into place. After the August Advisory Council meeting, and once the rule was adopted by the Secretary of State’s office, we applied for a minor amendment to our ITP to include the proposed changes that we adopted. We should hear back from the USFWS and to date they indicated they were supportive of the proposed changes.

We had 2 weeks left until we were required to submit our State Wildlife Action Plan in its final form to the USFWS. This was the strategic plan for primarily nongame species for the next 10 years. All states were required to have this plan to be eligible to access the state wildlife grant monies. We had been working on it for about 18 months with over 102 conservation partners across the state that had participated. It was a very thorough process and including the partners and developing a plan that was for everybody in the state, not just what the Department was going to do in the next 10 years, but there were actions and programs for all of our partners to embrace and take on on their own. She felt it was a good product, compared to the last action plan which was about 2400 pages. An enormous resource for people and lots of people used sections of it. This time around we wanted the product to be more manageable in size and more usable for a local land trust, boy scout group, etc. It was all online and had a searchable database. Last minute edits and corrections were being made and the final edit would be presented to the USFWS. Staff was looking forward to being able to finally implement some of the projects.

This was more of a Department project but tied in with species planning, but we were in the middle of developing a strategic communication plan for the Department. We had contracted with Mark Duda of Responsive Management to develop that. Bonnie Holding was heading up the project. They looked at the first draft of the survey questions that would go out to people in the state and we were trying to figure out what people did in Maine for outdoor recreation, how they interacted with the Department, how did they hear about us, where did they go to look for information and if it was not the Department where did they go? This would help direct us if we were going to spend money to advertise or talk about our programs, where were the best places to focus on? She expected the survey would be completed and implemented by the end of October.

We were in the very beginning phase of our species planning process, not to be confused with the action plan which was primarily nongame species. The current plan was for our four big game species; bear, deer, moose and turkey. Once we finished that we would likely do a follow update for our fur bearers and potentially game bird species. We did a major update every 15 years. We did minor updates every 5 years and also annual updates. We would mirror this based on the action plan set up which worked very well. We would have a steering committee that would work on all 4 species and would do all 4 species at the same time. We would have subcommittees for each of the specific species. The subcommittees would report back to the steering committee. It would be a little different than the last time in that we were going to broaden the public participation and we would be doing public surveys by the same company doing the communications survey (Responsive Management). We would survey approximately 900 residents, 900 hunters (80% in state, 20% nonresidents), the rest would be landowners. We would also do some focus groups to go around the state and speak. There were a number of issues with wildlife where we felt we couldn’t really get a good sense of what the public wanted without delving deeper into some of the questions.

The focus groups, Responsive Management would invite random people. They would get an invitation but would not know what the focus group was about. It would be professionally facilitated; IFW staff would not be in the room so they would not know. We would also be doing regional public meetings around the state so people would have an opportunity to come and speak with species specialists and regional staff. We were also going to try an online town hall forum for folks that didn’t receive a survey in the mail or couldn’t get to a regional meeting; they could have an opportunity to participate in an online forum.

We would get the information back from what the public wanted and staff would be responsible for coming up with the goals and objectives to bring back to the steering committee for guidance. We were using the Vermont big game species planning process as a model and they had a document online if anyone wanted to review. We hoped to have the process completed for the 4 big game species by June 2016.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Fern Bosse shared a story in lieu of the Department’s recent trash pickup efforts of some trash he had recovered and then mailed back to its rightful owner. Remember the woods have eyes.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The date and location of the next meeting would be announced at a later time.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mrs. DeMerchant and that was seconded by Mrs. Oldham to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
August 6, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
Maine Youth Fish & Game Association
Pickerel Pond, T32 MD

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director of Bureau of Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Cory Mosby, Furbearer Biologist
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Mike Brown, Fisheries Division Director
Keel Kemper, Regional Wildlife Biologist
Kevin Adam, Lieutenant, Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Jeff Lewis (Chair)
Don Dudley (Vice-Chair)
Lance Wheaton
Dick Fortier
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham
Cathy DeMerchant
Gunnar Gundersen

Guests:

Travis Roy, Vice-President, MYFG
Mike Reagan, President, MYFG
Adam Reagan, Youth Board President, MYFG
Nancy Ash, Treasurer, Penobscot County Conservation Assoc.
Will Higgins, Vice-President, Penobscot County Conservation Assoc.
James Cote, MTA
Gary Corson, New Sharon
Ken Smith, Islesboro

I. Call to Order

Council Chair Jeff Lewis called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant.

Vote: 7 in favor; 1 abstained (Mrs. DeMerchant) ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

1. Step 3

1. Any-deer permits 2015

Ms. Camuso stated this was an overall decline from last year?s permit numbers. It had been a difficult winter for deer so the total permit allocations were 28,770. We had very little in the way of public comments and there were no changes from the original numbers that were presented.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

2. Migratory Bird Seasons 2015/16

Ms. Camuso stated that the Waterfowl Council had met and then we held a public hearing. The Waterfowl Council then met again after the hearing and voted on the proposal. There were some minor changes to what was originally presented. The changes were outlined in red in the Advisory Council packets.

Mr. Sullivan stated the bag limit for canvasback, based on population data received post proposal, allowed for a canvasback bag limit to go to 2 birds instead of 1. The second change was for regular goose season. We were allowed a 70 day season, and had proposed the full 70 days in the original proposal but after discussion, we modified for more opportunity in October and to take out 2 weeks in the beginning of November. The only change was in the south zone and coastal zone. The third change was the brant bag limit from 2 to 1 based on population data from the USFWS.

Commissioner Woodcock stated this process was unlike others in the Department in that it was very condensed. The Waterfowl Council met prior to the public hearing process to have the presentation from Mr. Sullivan regarding proposed changes, the alterations in red in the packet. The public hearing was held, about 20 in attendance. They were familiar with the arena and very few comments were made. After the hearing the Waterfowl Council met again and approved the changes that were being presented. Next year the process may be different. The USFWS was considering some changes in proposals and shortening the season for sea ducks.

Mr. Connolly stated there was going to be a change in the way the waterfowl seasons were set for 2016. There had been issues with the USFWS being able to do their portion in a timely fashion so they were going to implement a different regulatory framework. The technical committees for the Atlantic flyway council meet and interact with the Service and develop recommendations and a framework was published. That was going to happen in October 2015. They were going to start setting the 2016/2017 season before the 2015/2016 season took place. In October they would begin talking about the framework for the following year and the Atlantic flyway council would meet to vote on that and then the framework would be published in the Federal register. The State of Maine would begin rulemaking in February 2016 instead of in July and create the season by April. The USFWS had difficulty getting all the data analyzed and when they looked at the differences between the 2 year trends and a single year trend there was no real impact so they were going to go ahead and advance it. They would still have the ability if something happened in the winter surveys that they could go ahead and do something through the Flyway council meeting in July and do a special regulation afterwards to change things.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to accept the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

3. Trapping Season

Ms. Camuso stated the proposed changes were steps that the Department had taken to be sure there was no additional take of lynx during the upcoming trapping season. We had been working with the Maine Trappers Association through the process and we had 2 public hearings, one in Portland and one in Bangor. We had a fair amount of public comment and most were positive. Some suggested we could do a little bit more. We had initial conversations with the USFWS and they were favorable of the proposal. There were some minor changes from what was originally proposed. The majority of the changes were very minor such as typos and a couple of sentences were clarified. We clarified the language around the foothold traps. There were 3 main changes in the trapping proposal. One was any killer type trap set on land using bait had to be set in an exclusion device and that change was statewide. We still allowed for killer type traps which would typically be used for muskrat as long as they were set completely underwater, or had a jaw spread not to exceed 5? and set partially underwater or under overhanging stream banks or when used as blind sets. Other than that, all killer type traps statewide would have to be in an exclusion device.

Ms. Camuso stated the second main change was in the lynx zones we no longer allowed drags and would require foothold traps be staked. We did that to be extra cautious, we did not have any additional data suggesting they were an additional threat to lynx, but the 2 lynx in the past 8 years that were injured were caught in drag sets. The third change was statewide and that was requiring all foothold traps to have 3 swiveling points. One toward the base of the trap, one midway and one further down so that allowed good flexibility and movement. We changed the language so that the chain had to be adhered to the central portion of the foothold trap. There was some concern from an enforcement perspective the center would be difficult to determine and enforce so we changed the language. We wanted it to not be on one of the sides of the base of the trap but towards the middle. That change was from feedback from the MTA.

Ms. Camuso stated we clarified the dimensions and the structure of the exclusion device. There were basically 3 types of traps being used. One would be for marten, and the marten trap could have an opening 4? x 4? and the marten trap opening could be set either on the face or the side or the top because that size was small enough so the lynx physically couldn?t get in. This was true of all the exclusion device designs, the leading edge of the trap from the opening had to be at least 18? from where the trap itself was so that a lynx could not reach his paw in and get caught. If you were trying to trap for fisher you would have a bigger opening and had to have a baffle. The baffle had to be 6? back and offset so there was no clear shot for the lynx to get back to the trap. A couple of other adjustments that were made based on discussions with the trappers, the material that the device could be made of could be 1 ?? x 1 ?? gauge wire or 1? x 2?. The trouble with the smaller gauge, it was more difficult to acquire and was more expensive.

Ms. Camuso stated following the meeting and adoption of the rule we would proceed with the ITP amendment with the USFWS and USFWS was obligated to have a response to us within 30 days of us notifying them.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier stated the trappers would have to build their own exclusion devices, other than the video would they be able to get diagrams or specs on how they were to be built?

Ms. Camuso stated we would provide in the trappers handbook drawings and photos of the exclusion devices. As long as they met the criteria (gauge of wire, opening size, etc.) trappers could be creative.

Mr. Fortier stated he assumed the trappers had a lot of input on how it was going to be designed.

Ms. Camuso stated yes. So far there was not a lot of concern with marten traps, the marten trap was small enough the marten could go straight in. The feedback they had so far was not around marten sets but there was some concern with fisher sets and if the fisher would refuse to go in the trap. That was something we would be looking at and monitoring.

Mr. Fortier asked about the concerns with drags.

Ms. Camuso stated in the lynx zones where the traps were required to be staked, the catch circle around the trap was required to be free of debris. The trapper would have to clear the catch circle to prevent entanglement. The reality was the exclusion devices we felt pretty confident there was no risk the lynx could get in those traps. Our highest risks for an additional mortality or take was that we would injure a lynx in a foothold trap that was not able to be released into the wild. We did everything we could to ensure that third take would not happen due to foothold trapping. That was why we had additional requirements of the clear catch circle, the 3 swiveling points that were center mount based and in the lynx zones we eliminated the use of drags. In our experience the 2 lynx that were injured were from being entangled in a drag. The animal walked off and got tangled in a bush and was injured. We were doing everything we could do to minimize any exposure to a third take.

Mr. Dudley stated basically the sets Ms. Camuso was referring to were fox and coyote sets. In the phone calls he had received probably there would be many more foothold traps this year than past years because of the exclusion devices, the complexity of them, and the fact that it may be a temporary use. Footholds set for fisher, you normally would not use a drag with anyway. The basic sets that the drags were used in were fox and coyote sets.

Mrs. Oldham stated the phone calls she had and sit downs with trappers, they were not going to the expense of trying the fisher exclusion device. Nobody knew if it was going to work. The same thing with no drags for coyote traps, there may be fewer coyotes harvested. She guessed the approach we?d taken was to throw everything at the problem, but she thought we needed to acknowledge that there may be some very bad unintended consequences from this. Fisher were predators of lynx and there may be more lynx lost due to the increase in fisher population. Ms. Camuso had stated at the last meeting that making the trapping regulations statewide may increase the risk of rabies in some areas. If there was less coyote trapping that could injure our deer herd. The biggest complaint she heard personally was the no drags. To try to say that we were having trapping and we were going to eliminate risk to lynx was not true. If we wanted trapping there was a risk. We could not mitigate all risk and allow trapping and we wanted trapping to continue. The lynx were injured in the drags but returned to the wild. She thought there may be unintended consequences from the proposal.

Ms. Camuso stated we did have that discussion with the USFWS and talked about both the species for rabies in southern Maine and the fisher issue and that decreased fisher harvest could have some negative impacts on the lynx population. We met with our attorney and her understanding was that should the Department decide that we were going to eliminate the use of the exclusion devices in say York and Cumberland counties, we wouldn?t need to go back to the USFWS for an additional amendment. That was a change we could make on our own and just advise them with the rationale. It wouldn?t require an amendment to the ITP. The fisher issue was troublesome in that everyone acknowledged that fisher preyed on lynx, but the USFWS currently did not have, or we did not have data to support that trapping of fisher happened on a level that would cause a population impact on lynx. We needed to collect additional data on fisher populations and their potential impact to lynx so we could address those.

Mr. Farrington stated the comments he heard were that IF&W was really less likely to hear from any trapper that caught a lynx now. They were scared that if a lynx was caught everything would stop.

Ms. Camuso stated we had advocated all along that we had a good relationship with the trappers and that we needed them to tell us and we needed the USFWS to understand that the trappers were going to report for the ITP to work. We assured the USFWS that the trappers were talking to us and reporting when we had the incidental capture of lynx and we certainly hoped that would continue. We still had game wardens doing compliance checks and they would be doing that as part of our ITP requirement.

Mr. Wheaton stated if we were going to impose something like that with the 4? hole and weren?t sure and we did catch one, was it the trappers fault or was it our fault for going along with it. He hated to think it would be our fault for making the law and yet one more and it was all over. Who took the hit, us or the trapper?

Ms. Camuso stated in the past, exclusion device design was based on behavior. We did not believe lynx would climb in. We got beyond that and now we designed the exclusion devices so that they physically could not get in. We did tests with the lynx kittens at the Wildlife Park to see if they would get in. The devices now were not based on the behavioral avoidance, but that they physically couldn?t get in them. If they were designed properly and the holes were the right size the lynx could not get in.

Mr. Wheaton stated in nature there were always exceptions to the rule. We only needed one exception and it was over. Would we blame the trapper for that or the Department?

Ms. Camuso stated if the trap was legal and designed according to the specifications that we put forward we would bear that responsibility.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the proposal had been diagnosed adnauseam and a lot of communication with the trappers and public in general and USFWS. It was our responsibility to be cautious and protect the species and the rights of the trapper. We were all worried about trapping. He was comfortable saying we were not 100% comfortable with the proposal. The trappers thought all of the proposals should be statewide. We were being cautious and would be hopeful.

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to accept the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mrs. Oldham.

Vote: 7 members present, 6 in favor; 1 opposed (Mrs. DeMerchant); Mr. Gundersen absent ? motion passed.

B. Step 2

1. Beaver Season & Closures 2015/16

Ms. Camuso stated there had been a couple of adjustments from last year. The areas that were open or closed were based on landowner requests and there were a couple of WMDs where we expanded the season a little bit sooner so they would start November 1 instead of 15 to allow for a couple of additional weeks of beaver trapping in the northern districts.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Dudley stated he understood we stretched the season to increase harvest, but it was not working. The harvest was maybe a little better than 50% of what it should be. Part of the problem with the price was the fact that we were sending fur to market that was not first grade. Fur was not prime October 19th , it wasn?t prime last year October 19th and it wouldn?t be this year. We kept setting the seasons forward and on the front end of the season the fur was just not prime. We were compounding the problem by opening the seasons so early. In WMDs 1, 2, 4 and 5, 1 and 2 were very remote who would go there when 5 was open at the same time? WMD 5 had infrastructure, you could get gas, etc. which you couldn?t do in 1 and 2.

Commissioner Woodcock asked what would be a better date?

Mr. Dudley stated it used to be December, January and February. Prior to that it was January and February. When it went to December he remembered fur buyers saying they would be checking the furs pretty close. Now we were into November and October. If WMDs 1, 2, 4 and 5 were open at the same time everybody would stop in 4 and 5. If WMDs 1 and 2 opened the 19th and 4 and 5 opened at a later date in November, he thought we might get some people up there to harvest beaver.
Mr. Fortier stated in WMDs 1 and 2 there was a snow line, and not only was the infrastructure not there like in 4 and 5, in 1 and 2 there were not a lot of full time trappers we were dealing with weekend trappers. If someone was going to travel there it would be 90 miles one way to do some trapping. In the snow season there were not a lot of roads open, and ATVs were not allowed in most areas. If it was open earlier it would allow them to go up in. He agreed with Mr. Dudley.

Commissioner Woodcock asked Mr. Dudley with the price of beaver pelts where it was right now if we were to go back to only prime time trapping, January, February, would it be impacted enough with the price of pelts where they were.

Mr. Dudley stated in WMDs 1 and 2, if they were going to be trapped probably now was not a bad time to be trapping them. That was the furthest north and they probably primed a little earlier. Were they prime in October, no. His suggestion was to split them up, 1 and 2 could be open earlier; 4 and 5 if they were opened later people might go to 1 and 2. With the price of beaver today how many people would go there regardless? We stretch the season a lot and we were not increasing the take much. If we kept dumping unprimed fur on the market it did not help. We had beaver coming out our ears and it was all because of the price. We were stretching the seasons and managing as a nuisance not as a resource.

Mrs. Oldham asked if Mr. Dudley was suggesting in WMDs 1 and 2, start early and then put it on to try to address that specific zone where the nuisance was.

Mr. Lewis asked if there was a way to relax some of the laws on the methods to make it easier.

Mr. Dudley stated they were pretty well relaxed in the northern part of the start.

There were no further comments or questions.

2. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Fish waters 2016

Mr. Brown stated we had a successful round of public hearings, public turnout was typical. We had a lot of positive comments. Moose River proposals where we proposed fly fishing only vs. the fly casting received a lot of positive comments. There was support for the addition of 4 new heritage fish waters to the list. Our Beech Hill Pond proposal, after a number of years we?ve been able to get the smelt population back there and starting to see tremendous growth on our salmon. We expected to see some really nice salmon coming out of that water in the next couple years. There was a lot of support for a number of togue proposals that were in the packet among many different regions. We did receive some comments on the boundary waters. All of those were in favor although they were relatively few and they included some bass tournament rulemaking proposal changes and changes to the waters that we shared with New Hampshire. The New Brunswick proposals we didn?t hear any negative comments although there would likely be changes prior to going to Step 3. In talking with the folks from New Brunswick, they would likely not be allowed to approve 2 of their proposals that they thought they would be able to and those were going to 2 bass only 1 over 14? and the second proposal would be to remove bass from the aggregate bag limit. That had to do with how complicated their rulemaking process was. The Provinces were allowed some exemptions that they could do in house, but these two were required to go to Ottawa to be changed, and that process could take up to 3 years. It was very likely we?d see those two proposals come out of the boundary water section for New Brunswick.

We did have some comments that held some concern. Those fell mostly into two categories. One was allowing an S-4 regulation and kids to fish with worms on ponds in the Pierce Pond area. The other was the proposal at Upper Dam Pool to allow boats with motors and for clarification, what they could do now was go into the pool and not use their motor and that was how we enforced it. Technically, when we looked into the definition of a motorboat, that was a boat with a motor on it whether you were using it or not. There seemed to be some confusion from those that commented. We wanted to make sure that people that did have a motor on their boat, they were not using it and would still be allowed to go into the pool. People could motor up there, they could stop their motor, tilt it up and go into the pool and fish and still abide by the same restrictions on the use of motorboats that the pool has as always had.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated the problem with motor boats in Upper Dam and why people were so vigorous in their objection to the proposal was oil or gas spilling from a watercraft with a motor on it. They were very concerned about that. The pool wasn?t that big and for a motorboat to access it coming from the south end, paddle down the right side of the pool where everybody would be lined up fly fishing. Someone had emailed her the 512 page FERC application and in the recreation plan on page 29 it said, ?specifically discourage uses or increases in level of uses that would disrupt the existing character and use of the area.? Mrs. Oldham stated she could provide photos of the Upper Dam Pool and there were no motorboats there.

Mr. Brown stated we did not propose to change what was always done.

Mrs. Oldham stated we did not want to encourage motorboats, even with the motors up in that pool. That was what the people were objecting to. It changed the character of a very historic fly fishing place. They did not want motor boats in there period. The dam was being reconstructed, but what they weren?t doing for access to the pool because Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust owned a lot of property there and they were going to develop nice walkways and access to the pool. From the Mooselookmeguntic side they could come in, and from the South Arm side they could go upstream on Richardson near where the Cary Stevens historic place was, exit that way and walk to the pool. The camp owners had rowboats that they rowed out into the pool. She thought in terms of recreational uses, because the State Planning Office, the Dept. of Conservation and IFW were among multiple parties that signed the licensing agreement which was Brookfield. It said no motorcraft and she felt it should stay that way.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he had fished the pool a lot. He had fished there in a 20ft. canoe with a 3hp engine with the motor tilted up. You did not see many people there with boats. We were trying to make sure we had the enforcement part lined up. We may have to find another way. The access to the pool was different now. In the past they had to walk a long way. The face of the dam had changed and we would see how the flow went. We had been told it would be kept in character.

Mrs. Oldham stated she thought we should look at the licensing agreement because she didn?t think we could do it based on the agreement.
Commissioner Woodcock stated he had made a note about the comments that were being made by the people that owned property in the area. He did not read one with regard to oil in it. They were concerned that the boats were going to have motors motoring up to the pool. That was his sense of the comments.

Mr. Farrington asked what necessitated the change.

Mr. Brown stated there had been folks that went there with motors on their boats, they didn?t use them there, but there was some concern from folks. When you looked at the technical definition of motorboat, that was a boat with a motor whether it was running or not and we just wanted to clarify for folks that we didn?t see an issue with necessarily boats that had a motor on it. What we saw was the issue would be anybody using a motor in that pool area.

Mrs. Oldham stated the current regulation was no motorboats allowed and that was the way she and others would like it to stay.

Mr. Farrington stated he didn?t see the need to change it, it seemed to work well as it was for a long time.

Commissioner Woodcock stated it was not accessible to get there with a motor. There had been very few people there fishing with a tilted motor. The law said no motorboats allowed, so was the warden service going to site somebody? We had an interesting discussion about how to clarify the regulation. We would either say, no motorboats meaning no motors on the boat. Most people accessed the area by walking or they lived there.

Mr. Wheaton stated if the Department had already agreed and put its proposal there for no outboards, then the Department should clarify with FERC.

Mr. Lewis stated he had received and seen comments regarding the Pierce Pond area. The reason he was hearing for changing some of the fly fishing waters to allow kids to use worms, and some of them were hiking in. He had the same belief as when they took doe permits away from Aroostook County even on youth day that it was a bad precedent. He did not see that we should be doing it. There were other places where kids could fish. There were some good comments. He wondered how that was going to make it align with some of the other proposals.

Mr. Brown gave some brief history. Forrest Bonney was the fisheries biologist back then and was looking at a number of these waters, fairly remote waters that provided some unique fishing opportunities for anglers and he felt that making a lot of those waters fly fishing only would be protective of populations that weren?t as robust as they were now and for a long time there was some excellent fishing there. What folks had seen, there certainly had been a decrease in the size of the fish. There were still a lot of fish there in a lot of instances but a lot of the region D folks felt that those ponds really weren?t doing what they could do and it was time for a change. They wanted to see some of those fish taken out. There was a request from Cobbs camp to allow folks to bring their children up there. A lot of it was families coming up to fish with kids, not just sports anymore. They would like to see an opportunity for kids to go up there and not have to use fly fishing gear and give them the opportunity to catch some fish. It was not that kids could not learn to fly fish and enjoy fly fishing but unless you were fishing from a boat fly fishing could certainly be more difficult for a kid if you were trying to fly fish from shore. It was our thought that with a limited number of kids that would go up there, mostly would be those staying at the camp, that we wouldn?t see a tremendous impact by the use of worms which those under 16 would be able to use. Going from FFO to artificial lures would allow for folks to take out more of those fish and try to achieve some growth. We would continue to monitor and could change the regulation if necessary.

Mrs. Oldham stated to present it as a kids fishing opportunity quite frankly was deceptive. Three of those ponds had very difficult access. Also to have different rules for kids than adults on ponds, she felt from a law enforcement standpoint, could be problematic. We should state what it was we were trying to do.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had some bodies of water that had separate regulations for kids and adults. It wasn?t common, but it wasn?t uncommon. We were talking about opportunity. The argument that it was just as easy for kids to fly fish as spin fish, he did not agree if you were on shore.

Mr. Fortier stated on Eagle Lake the no bag limit for salmon, where it was a pretty populated area, easy access, they?d like to see some type of bag limit. He had heard the biological reasoning. Would a bag limit of 10 fish be an unreasonable proposal? There were some people that would go there and fill a whole boat if they could.

Mr. Brown stated that was one that staff was excited about because we were seeing a number of waters where we had small salmon. The reason they were small at Eagle was a little bit different than Chesuncook and others, it was hard to catch fish that averaged much more than 13? or so. The biologists were excited about trying something new and innovative that would reduce the population. Historically we?d had a hard time, and especially in this era of catch and release, to make folks realize its ok to take fish home and eat some. The fish at Eagle had a parasite that stunted growth. We wanted to see what would happen once we removed a number of those fish. Because we had a rulemaking process that was annual we could keep a close eye on it.

Mrs. Oldham stated on page 7 of 104, Pleasant Lake in Otisfield, the holding of any live baitfish in Pleasant Lake is prohibited. The modification was to delete that wording and say the holding of any live fish not taken in Pleasant Lake was prohibited. How were we going to enforce that?

Mr. Brown stated this was one of the waters, ordinarily when we had our source of water for our hatcheries, and Cold Stream Pond was the first one of these, no holding of live bait. If there was a camp owner there who trapped right there they could hold it for fishing in the pond. They were going out and buying bait from somebody else, possibly species of fish not native to the pond, bringing it back to the pond and using it there. Their question to us was that more reasonable than allowing them to catch fish there in a minnow trap and use them there. We felt it was less risk to do that.

Mrs. Oldham stated the holding of any live bait was prohibited. They shouldn?t buy live bait elsewhere.

Mr. Brown stated it didn?t mean they couldn?t use it. It didn?t mean they couldn?t go ice fishing and buy bait someplace else and use it ice fishing. So the people there were saying it didn?t make sense that they couldn?t trap bait in their own pond and use it there or hold it there, but it was ok to go outside the pond and buy it from somebody. Warden Service felt, at least at Cold Stream Pond, that they wouldn?t have an issue enforcing it. It was a way to accommodate folks that wanted to trap bait there and use it on the pond. He felt if we could have that type of regulation on all of our waters it would minimize the number of bait moving from one pond to another.

Commissioner Woodcock stated this had been discussed many times. The focus was where were you keeping the bait. If you could hold your own bait right in front of your camp, but if you couldn?t hold bait and brought it in a bucket from away a lot of times those buckets were dumped in the pond. We were trying to influence keeping the local bait in the local area not going outside.

Mr. Farrington stated it was more stuff in the rulebook. Everybody was frustrated with the complicated rulebook. It would be much easier to say no live bait at all. To say that you could only keep bait that you caught in the pond wasn?t enforceable. It was a useless rule. The 10-fish thing on Eagle Lake comment, he had experienced the unlimited catch thing on Moosehead Lake. You got a certain length in the fish after letting them take anything they wanted for a number of years, then you had a hole. He thought letting them keep 10 or 20 would be plenty.

Mrs. Oldham stated she wanted to ask about Reed Pond, the increase in the harvest of brook trout. It was a reclaimed pond that was reclaimed at considerable expense that was supposed to be managed for development of Arctic char and brook trout weren?t supposed to be in there until the char population had been established. She assumed a mistake had been made, had there been an investigation as to why the mistake occurred and steps taken so it would not occur again?

Mr. Brown stated it was a management decision that was made at the time. We reclaimed the pond because we were concerned about the size of the brook trout and char that were there. We had an illegal introduction of smelts that competed with both those species so we felt it was best to reclaim it. It was a pretty big pond, 98 acres, at the limit of what we could restore. We removed the char and native population of brook trout, we didn?t want to lose either one of those populations of fish and we put them in Picard?s hatchery and raised the char and was successful in getting some of the fry into Big Reed. The objective was try to delay as much as we could the introduction of the brook trout until after the char introductions. But, because of costs associated and the amount of difficulty we were having in terms of funding at the time, we felt if we took fry and put those in the feeder streams that would delay the onset of the brook trout populations to a point where we would see the char fry. We have seen some fairly large char up to 15? or so. We still had not documented any hatchery production there so we would do more work to find spawning shoals this fall.

Mrs. Oldham stated that was in the initial plan, the Arctic char must be given precedence to become well established prior to putting trout in there.

Mr. Brown stated that was part of the initial plan. When we looked back on it and the amount of funding we had to keep the brook trout, the brook trout would still have to be at Gary Picard?s if we didn?t stock them and we just couldn?t afford that. We tried to do what we could to balance what we felt would be successful with the char introductions and making sure we maintained that native population of brook trout. Both of those fish species were native and taken out when we reclaimed it and we wanted to make sure both species made it back in. If we were to go to the full implementation of the plan we would still be holding the brook trout at about $3,500/month. We made the best decision we could at the time and it looks like there are some nice brook trout there now and he didn?t know that there were any negative impacts on the char thus far.

Mr. Gundersen stated he thought trying to increase access for the youth and disabled people was the right way to go. Maybe not every pond in every place was the right place to do it, but he thought doing it was commendable and the right way to go.

Mrs. Oldham stated the fish regulations packet, she had read very carefully all the public comments and public hearing minutes. There had been some outstanding public comments that were informative and helpful. As she was reading them, she wondered why she was finding out some things that should have been coming from the Department. There was new information that the people making the comments had that she didn?t have. Looking at the packet and the reasons for the regulation change, it was obviously by region, and it was uninterpretable for her about why the regulation needed to be done. She did not believe all the regulation changes were necessary. Her recommendation was that there be 50 regulation changes per year, ranked in order of biologic importance. They would get real peer review, not the biologists putting in all their wants and getting a packet of 106 pages. She did not feel that was necessary every year. A lot of the proposals seemed whimsical. Togue grew slowly yet there were different togue regulations on lakes every year how did we know what was working? 50 proposals and if a biologist felt very strongly that theirs should have been included by biologic significance, appeal to the Advisory Council and make their case. They needed a lot more information than what was currently in the packet. She considered it very unsatisfactory and had for a while.

Mr. Brown stated limiting the numbers of rule proposals there would be concern that we would miss something that would be important.

Mrs. Oldham stated if they were ranked in biologic importance that would be more helpful to her and probably better for the resource.

Mr. Farrington stated if you looked at the Department?s regulatory changes for the past 8 years, there had to be over 1,000. He?d never seen any follow up. If we were going to keep going with these enormous numbers of proposals somewhere along the line someone had to do some follow up to say it did or didn?t work. People were overwhelmed. They heard we were trying to simplify but the large packet looked pretty complicated to them.

Mr. Brown stated he wanted to remind them that as a fisheries agency we really had to be responsive not only to the biological aspects but the social aspects as well. Whatever we had for a rulemaking package, he thought tried to acknowledge the fact that we needed to be responsive to some of the changes to manage the waters for either what they could best produce for fish or invasive species issues. The S-13 waters where there were new bass introductions, if we were limited to a number of proposals there would be some places that we wouldn?t be able to respond in our law book by putting on an S-13 regulation.

Mrs. Oldham stated she would like to see more what?s best for the resource and less of the social pressure. Deal with the biologic issues first and foremost and then maybe respond to the social pressure.

Mr. Gundersen stated we went to general rules from special rules on some places and that would simplify. When he went through the packet he saw examples of that and it would simplify things.

Mr. Wheaton stated it did bother him when we passed or did not pass a rule and it went to the Legislature and got turned around.

Commissioner Woodcock stated sometimes it had zero to do with data in the Legislature and all to do with social. We all had to appreciate that no matter what we did for a rulemaking process they had the ability to take a shot at it anyway. That was part of the system. The part about the packet that had always bothered him, but he had become convinced it was somewhat necessary, was one proposal per page. If you looked at it from the perspective of how many actual changes there were a change might affect 20 bodies of water, each one of those bodies of water got listed and the packet would become elongated. We were going to take a close look at the law book for the publication after this one and see what we could do for its organization. What our responsibility was, was that we maintain the best biological process that we could. Other than the Pierce pond proposals he was not aware of other social proposals in the packet.

Mr. Farrington asked about sunset provisions on the regulatory changes. They should have to be reviewed at some point down the road to see if they worked or not. Big Reed was a perfect example, they reclaimed the pond to get the smelts out and now they were back.

Mr. Brown stated the smelts were not back there.

Mr. Farrington stated smelts were at Big Reed. There were too many S-codes and it was too complicated. He understood the concept between S-9 and the complimentary people, but it should be the same thing. If a 16 year old kid could go in and fish, why couldn?t the guy who was blind or lost a leg in the service. One S-code should be plenty. Put it all back to general law and then tell him why it had to be changed. The Moose River was a good example, it was a good biological change because we didn?t want people fishing there with rapalas and feathers glued on them casting into the river saying they were fly fishing.

Mr. Lewis noted Mrs. Oldham?s point, some waters had a change every year. Beech Hill Pond, the last 4 years we had been saying we needed time for the change. He ran with the Sebago Lake one for togue, he worked with Greg on that and now 2 years later, a fish that supposedly takes 15 years, had worked. He was having a hard time with that. The people at the hearing were the same that were there before and the same people Greg dealt with. Some of the stuff was too fast, year to year and he was having a hard time seeing how that could work. That was the frustration some were having. The first year he was on the Council Greg met with him and Mr. Wheaton and went through all the proposals in Hancock and Washington County. It was very helpful. They had tried since but it had never happened. There had to be more information and why and more follow up down the road.

Mr. Farrington stated on page 15, Kenduskeag Stream, he thought something was left off the last sentence of the proposal.

There were no further comments or questions.

3. Islesboro Special Hunt

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had representatives there from the deer reduction committee and some local discussion had taken place at a town meeting.

Mr. Smith stated the voters on the island had stated they would like to have another special hunt and they would like to use the same time period ending right after the expanded archery season and go to the end of February. The last two Februarys had been the worst on record so that adversely affected their count. The other part was by increasing the number of hunters on the island they felt they would be able to meet their goal. The first time around the weather was a factor and the number of people that actually participated was fewer than they thought it would be. At the town meeting they gave the voters two options, they discussed hunting in November because a third of all the deer that were taken on Islesboro were taken during the month of November. If they added that plus the earlier hunt in the warmer weather they would increase the take, but the vote was approximately 36-35 they didn?t want to do that. They did support what they had done and the data showed the number of deer that had been harvested on the island the population had gone down 47% from its high point. The number of deer tick issues that they?d had went down last year, but he understood that was the cycle and it was pretty hard to say with a couple of years what that would do. They still had too many deer and they believed by doing this they would fulfill their goal.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there were a couple of issues, the biological issue of how many animals were there, how many were taken, were we reaching the goal? The other issue was social. Islesboro had the need as an island to vote on plans that were being presented and whether they accepted or rejected them. The initiation of the process three years ago he made a statement to the committee which he would make again, he did not think the method was the right method but because the island would not accept the method that he was in favor of we had a quandary. He felt they should hire someone to go there and kill the deer and lower the population. They rejected that in their vote. An extension of the process for another cycle was being asked for to see if the goals and objectives could be reached. He was disappointed they had not been able to arrive at what he felt was the most viable method to lower the deer population.

Mr. Gundersen stated he had gone to Islesboro and met with some people. What he saw on the island was that there were some pretty big areas that weren?t good deer habitat so he did not believe there were any deer there. There were areas where there were fields and that was where the deer had been concentrating. Everyone he talked to said there were less deer on the island than there used to be. No one he talked to thought that the number that they came up with on the pellet count was right, they felt it was high. He talked to people that were for getting a sharp shooter out there, and some that were against it. It was complicated and a difficult situation. After seeing the island he was not sure that even if sharp shooters went out there you couldn?t find all the deer, it was 14 square miles.

Mr. Fortier stated they needed to get that deer population down because of the ticks. The season could be extended but in light of the people on the island holding back on that he didn?t know if it would work. Had the island looked at trying to do any campaigning or advertising to draw hunters to the area and hunt? Maybe if there was some advertising they would increase the hunting population and more than reach their goal. He thought they would need to triple their goal to really bring the population down.

Mr. Smith stated 95% of the deer that were killed on Islesboro were killed by off island people. That was the expanded archery season. It used to be he could get 4 or 5 deer no problem, last year he saw 1 in expanded archery season. During the season they were discussing for afterwards, there were fewer deer moving around. They didn?t have apples on trees that had apples historically because the bee population had been down throughout the state. This year they were starting to see more apples come back. The deer reduction committee looked at how many deer were killed, when they were killed, they made proposals that they needed to bring in more hunters and he believed people were the way to reduce the deer not a sharp shooter. In their 3-year plan at the end of the first year they were going to analyze everything they had done and if their numbers were not where they thought they should be or if the instance of Lyme disease had increased they would look at the options to address both those problems and alter the way they did it. They wouldn?t change the plan, but take it back and say they would like to try something additional. He thought that would include bringing in more hunters. The first year, they had a new plan, they were going to double their hunters, hopefully the weather would be better and he thought they would be successful. They did have that contingency to go back and do what was suggested.

Mr. Kemper stated he felt it was important to point out that the proposal that was on the table did not allow non-citizens it was structured to allow only residents and landowners on Islesboro to hunt.

Mr. Farrington stated it looked pretty simple to him, the Town of Islesboro was going to have the final say, it was only the question if we were going to give them the extra 3 years to do it.

Mrs. Oldham asked what would happen if the Council rejected the proposal.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the proposal was for the authorization from the Department to set the special season. If they didn?t have the Department?s permit to do so, they would be restricted.

Mrs. Oldham stated she had expressed her objections at the last meeting. The math didn?t work, past performance didn?t work and she was not going to vote for a proposal that could not meet its objective. This was the third time she had been on the Council where there had been an Islesboro proposal. She voted for the previous two with reservations, but she would not vote in favor of the proposal that statistically had no chance of achieving its objective.

Mr. Fortier asked if there was any chance the island would accept people to come in with shotguns and be able to hunt on the island with residents and landowners.

Mr. Smith stated he believed they would do what they had to to address the problem. They believed they could solve the problem with the proposal, but that would mean getting expanded to include more people if they were not successful. They would do it after the first year.

 

C. Step 1

There were no items under Step 1.

V. Other Business

Mr. Lewis stated he would like to discuss trying to find funding for the Youth Fish and Game Association. He would like to find a way to help them like the other conservation camps. He asked Travis Roy to give some background on the facility.

Mr. Roy stated in 2000 there were about 15 people that decided they wanted to have a fish and game camp and that evolved into a youth fish and game camp. In 2001 they got the land lease worked out with International Paper with IF&W education division being the lease holder and the lease specified that Maine Youth Fish and Game could run a youth outdoor education program. That predated the buildings, there was nothing there but a campsite. In 2001 they organized as Chapter 1 of the Maine Youth Fish and Game Association and started working on programs, hunter safety, etc. A log home was donated and labor was volunteered and that was how they got started with the building. In 2006 International Paper through specialized forest practices deeded the land to IFW education division and asked that it be restricted to the use of the original commercial lease. That spurred more interest from vendors and business people. Old Town canoe and others had donated to the programs. In 2006 they also started having summer camp there. The first summer camps they had 2, 1 week camps with 40 kids each week and they were pretty much filled with 80 kids and no waiting list. It was ages 8-15 and they were split out by age groups with different councilors for a day camp. The program had continued to grow and they now had an overnight camp for 12-15 year olds. They had 6, 10? x 12? Adirondack shelters and also had over a dozen tents that were set up in the grassy area and the kids could choose where they felt more comfortable. This would be their 4th summer with the overnight group.

Mr. Roy stated their camper ratio was typically 1 to 10 with their councilors and every councilor had a counselor in training. The kids would come up through the ranks and pass that on. This year marked the 10th anniversary of the camp, and they had had 1660 campers come through. They offered two hunters safety courses per year, two fishing days during the winter and local taxidermists would mount fish for the kids. They were one of the finalists for a range grant to improve the shooting areas. Garage and storage building plans were being worked on all from funds they raised, no endowments. The camp had charged $75 per week, that was now $100 and they were competing with $300 - $400 camps.

Mr. Roy stated they were looking at ways to increase access for someone with limited mobility. Looking forward, they were also discussing an addition for the residents building (bunkhouse). In their 5-year plan they would also like to get to a place where they had some kind of annual funding that wasn?t tied to how many people showed up at the fundraising dinner. They would like to have annual funding that would allow them to have a 6 or 8 week program that would utilize the facility. They would like to thank IFW for all they had done and ask that they could be part of a conversation about some potential funding.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the moose auction monies that were realized had some statutory provisions of what could or could not be done with them. If they could meet certain requirements of the Department including an outdoor educational curriculum for the camp, an overnight camp with a certain number of campers, etc. If they could meet the standards monies would be available. There were a couple of camps that met the criteria now. The monies from the moose auction were fairly substantial each year.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Gary Corson stated he had been waiting for years for somebody to start to realize that what we were doing in fisheries was a lot different than what we were doing in wildlife. We did not have fisheries species specialists. Management in fisheries stopped at the region. There really wasn?t a lot of oversight or direction from leadership in the Department and he guessed that went all the way to the Commissioner?s office. What Mrs. Oldham mentioned about the misinformation, he had been dealing with these things for a long time. He guided hunters and anglers for 30 years. The only way we could make good judgements was to have the data. We didn?t have any. He spent hours going through the packets each year and had sent 18 pages of comments this year. Most of the time he spent on it was getting data. They had talked about Pierce Pond and every meeting he had gone to he heard about the camp request. He had a slide that was presented at the regulations committee meeting that showed the camps request. The ALO proposals from fly fishing to ALO, not one of those came from the camp they all came from the region. Yet, every time he heard someone from the Department talk about the proposals, it was a camp request or a compromise from a camp request. It was not only getting the data it was the misinformation. He was very familiar with Reed Pond; he was the person in 1991 that alerted the Department that there were smelts in the pond. He had fished Reed Pond that year and there were all kinds of brook trout. He read the transcripts from the Presque Isle public hearing and the biologist comments talked about how we had a very high quality fishery in Reed Pond. There had not been one blueback trout caught in Reed Pond using legal methods since the reclamation. How could that be called a quality fishery? It was not just the data; there were waters being stocked that had regulations on them to kill the fish we were stocking in large numbers. Why did we do that? Scraggly Lake was one of them and Sandy and Eagle Lake. There were things in the structure of fisheries that were not the same as wildlife and he couldn?t figure out why. In his opinion if you went through the fishing regulations packet and took out everything in there that didn?t have data to back it up, it would be cut in half. He hoped they would see some big changes coming as far as the structure of the fisheries division.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The date and location of the next meeting would be Wednesday, September 16th at 9:30 a.m. at IFW, 284 State Street, Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Wheaton and that was seconded by Mr. Farrington to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
June 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
Bethel Fire Station
9 Mill Hill Road, Bethel, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director of Bureau of Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Mike Brown, Fisheries Division Director
Keel Kemper, Regional Wildlife Biologist
Chris Cloutier, Major, Warden Service
Bonnie Holding, Director Information and Education
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Jeff Lewis (Chair)
Lance Wheaton
Dick Fortier
Don Dudley
Jenny Starbird
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham
Matt Thurston

Guests:

Dave Crensen, Rangeley
James Cote, MTA
Ken Smith, Islesboro
Dick Cole, Winthrop
Rick Douglas, Gray
Don Kleiner, MPGA
Gary Corson, New Sharon
Brian Cogill, MTA

I. Call to Order

Council Chair Jeff Lewis called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Dudley to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier.

Vote: unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Any-deer permits 2015

Ms. Camuso stated this was the annual any-deer permit allotment. No public comments had been received. There was an overall reduction in permits based on the severe winter.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Lewis asked if there was a statewide number for winter kill.

Ms. Camuso stated that was done by WMD, some were between 9-10% and others were upwards of 17%.

Mr. Lewis asked about Washington and Hancock counties.

Ms. Camuso stated she was not sure about those specific counties. Because the severe part of the winter was later it wasn?t as bad as we originally anticipated it might be. For a lot of the WMDs, even when we had a lot of snow it didn?t prevent movement, the deer had no trouble going through it and it was so cold it remained powdery and didn?t really impede their ability to get around.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Trapping Season

Ms. Camuso stated we had a pretty firm proposal, but we were still working out some testing with the exclusion device. The specifics on that would be brought forward at Step 3. We were proposing some broad changes to the trapping season. The biggest change would be all conibear or killer type traps set on land statewide would be required to be in an exclusion device. There were some exceptions for blind sets, muskrat traps, unbaited sets that were in a bank, those did not have to be in an exclusion device, but by and large all the traps that we would consider to be land traps/killer type traps, statewide, would need to be in an exclusion device. There were a couple different designs that we were looking at for the exclusion devices. This was part of our lynx ITP to prevent the additional take of any lynx in the state. We had two, we were allowed 3 under our ITP so we were only allowed one more take. That could be either through the fatal take or an injury that the animal was non-releasable. We had to look at conibear traps as well as leghold traps that could potentially injure a lynx.

Ms. Camuso stated the exclusion device design, initially we had them and believed behaviorally lynx would not go into them, but now we?ve had two mortalities and the exclusion device requirements would be physically prohibitive of a lynx to get in. There were a couple different designs. One for smaller conibears, for marten trapping, the opening could be 4? x 4? and it could be either on the front of the exclusion device or on the side. The trap had to be at least 18? back from the furthest opening so that lynx could not reach in. We had been testing the devices with lynx kittens at the Maine Wildlife Park and some of the original designs we were surprised that the kittens were able to climb right in. The 4? x 4? opening they physically could not get in. We had to also make sure that an adult lynx could not reach in and get it?s foot stuck. The 18? back would give us that protection.

Ms. Camuso stated for the larger type exclusion devices with the bigger opening, 6? x 7? or 6? x 8? the lynx could conceivably get in that. If you were going to have an opening that size it would have to have a baffle, no more than 6? back and the two openings had to be offset so that the lynx could not have a straight shot back to the trap. The fisher or marten could wiggle through, but the lynx physically couldn?t get through. We were going to try a couple other designs to see if we could give trappers another option.

Ms. Camuso stated the other big change statewide was all foothold traps would be required to have three swivels. One swivel had to be at the center of the base of the trap and then two other swivels. The third change was just restricted to the lynx zones. We were not going to allow the use of drags in the lynx zones. We made that change because according to our data the use of drags was where we had seen the majority of injuries to legs. The animal would get caught and entangled and put additional pressure on the paw. We felt to really protect trappers, we needed to take that step. The other change also in lynx zones was any foothold trap would have to have a clear catch circle to prevent that entanglement of the trap train. We didn?t limit the length of the chain but the circumference around from where the stake was to where the trap was, that area had to be clear of rooted woody vegetation. Trappers could still use stones or rocks to guide where the animal would step, but the catch circle needed to be clear of any vegetation that could cause an injury.

Ms. Caumso stated the last change in the lynx zones, currently only ADC agents were allowed to use the Hancock or suitcase type traps that we would use for live trapping beaver. That currently had to be done under the direction of a game warden or regional biologist. One additional requirement would be that those traps would be required to be set so the suitcase closed, basically so the lynx would have to approach the trap from the water which was not likely to happen. That would prevent the off chance if it were set on a bank that a lynx could walk in and get caught. If it were set toward the water the lynx wouldn?t swim out and approach that way.

Ms. Camuso stated we had discussed this at length with the trappers and internally, especially in southern Maine with our ability to effectively trap raccoons. Those were a likely species for rabies and in southern Maine where we had our highest population of people and the highest incidence of rabies; we had to note the fact that we would most likely reduce the raccoon capture. We would be trying to collect data from trappers so we would know how many raccoons we were trapping. We were also concerned that fisher may refuse the exclusion devices. Most people were comfortable the marten would go in, the opening was smaller and it was a straight shot to go in. The potential for fisher refusal was real. Fisher were also the number one predator of lynx. If we were not able to trap fisher, we were virtually going to be increasing the number of predators for lynx and being counterproductive of what we wanted to do.

Ms. Camuso stated we had given these ideas to the USFWS and they were aware of our concerns. After receiving more data in a couple of years we may want to make further changes in the future so that we could ensure we could effectively trap both raccoon and fisher. The rules, if passed, would affect all ADC agents, IFW staff, USFWS staff and recreational trappers.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he would like to acknowledge Mr. Connolly, Ms. Camuso and staff on the issue. He particularly wanted to acknowledge the Maine Trappers Association, Brian and James, it had been a good working relationship. It had been a practical hands-on discussion and we were very concerned about the fisher and raccoon scenario. It would be an ongoing discussion to look for modifications once we had more information.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated since the final type of exclusion device would not be known until Step 3, would discussion be allowed?

Commissioner Woodcock stated yes.

Mrs. Oldham stated it would be helpful for the final if a picture or real life exhibit could be shared.

Ms. Camuso stated when the designs were finalized they would have pictures and drawings and some kind of educational video.

Mr. Lewis asked what the furthest south was for lynx. A lot of the regulations were moving statewide.

Ms. Camuso stated it was a challenge. When they looked at the map and tried to figure out where to draw the line, they had credible reports in Bangor, Ellsworth, Bethel, Lovell, could they slip down to Fryeburg, if there was a hungry lynx in Fryeburg could it jump down to Bridgton? In a poor food year lynx could travel a long distance. We had a lot of lynx on the landscape and if we had a hard winter and food resources were tough they would move to try and find food. We felt we had to be as cautious as we could be and get through another year or two of successful trapping and make modifications as soon as we could.

Mr. Farrington asked if the restriction devices were going to be available; were they commercially made or were the trappers going to make their own?

Ms. Camuso stated the trappers would make their own.

Mr. Farrington asked Mr. Cogill if that was going to be a problem for the trappers.

Mr. Cogill stated it depended on what they were allowed to make it out of. At one point they were allowed to use 1? x 2? wire. Now he understood it would be down to 1? x 1? wire like lobster wire. It would depend where they would have to go to buy the wire.

Ms. Camuso stated we had two devices that would be acceptable and the dimensions were in the packet. We may, if we could come up with another design that was effective, add more.

Mr. Dudley asked about foothold traps with swivels, the proposal stated, ?the chain is center mounted to the base of the trap must have 3 swivels, one swivel at the base? a lot of the traps had a ? ring in the bottom which was on the base, he assumed the swivel could go on that ? ring.

Ms. Camuso stated yes.

Mr. Fortier asked about education so the trappers would know the new restrictions and how to build the devices and make modifications.

Ms. Camuso stated we would send out a letter and mail the trappers handbook which we didn?t normally do to include the dimensions and directions. We would also have video online to walk people through it and also have staff at trapper rendezvous this fall and give demonstrations.

Mr. Thurston asked about the lynx population growth, and when did we get to a point where we had not necessarily a sustainable population of lynx in the North Country, but when it would become equal.

Ms. Camuso stated lynx were listed by the USFWS which was sued to list lynx. They didn?t have the data to show it did not warrant listing, so they had to list it. This summer, they would be doing a species assessment and we had been told they were going to include the states in those discussions. During that assessment they would determine if the current listing status was warranted or if they should be upgraded to endangered or downgraded to not listed. Should they determine that they were no longer warranted for listing, they still had to go through a delisting process which took about 18 months. Best case scenario would be that in September/October if in their conversations with other states determine that the species would not biologically warrant listing then it would be another year to two years. The challenge was they weren?t listed based on necessarily a declining population, they were listed because out west they didn?t have a good land management agreement with federal lands so they were listed based more on a habitat protection then they were on species numbers. The threats they addressed were habitat management and climate change. We did not have a ton of federal lands in Maine and there was not much we could do in the short term to address climate change.

Mr. Connolly stated lynx were looked at as a population across the U.S. and the lower 48, so Maine could be doing just fine but the USFWS was looking at it across the country. The other piece was that there hadn?t been standardized surveys done across the range. Maine, as part of the ITP process, had started our own survey. We were doing track surveys over the winter and would be analyzing the data. Initial surveys were more presence/absence and not hard numbers but we hoped to move towards that. At the same time the other states needed to be doing that also and there had not been that kind of coordination across the country. The states were anxious to work with the USFWS. It would be interesting because climate change was pointed out as a factor when they designated lynx critical habitat so it was a challenge for those who thought about spruce, fir forests and climate change and how to react to that. Especially here in Maine where we had documentation that our lynx were moving back and forth across the border as if it didn?t exist.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the terminology, it was conceivable that Maine and the upper tier of New England may be a distinct population segment. That would separate us from being included with the rest of the country as we were now. We maintained that our population was higher than the USFWS thought it was.

Mr. Lewis asked if they did that with any other species as far as across the country with the threatened and endangered.

Ms. Camuso stated the northern long-eared bat was a good example of a species that was just recently listed federally. In portions of the range for northern long-eared bat the population had been decimated by white nose syndrome but in other parts of the range they hadn?t been. The USFWS generally listed on the range not state by state.

Mr. Lewis stated New Brunswick did not allow trapping now.

Mr. Connolly stated lynx were protected in the Maritime Provinces but there was trapping in Quebec. We did a 14 year study on lynx in the Clayton Lake area and had a number of lynx that were ear tagged that went to Quebec and were trapped. We also had a lynx that was injured, we had it rehabilitated, radio collared it and it wandered from the Greenville area to Topsfield up to Frederickton New Brunswick and then went back west of Millinocket in the span of two months. We had another animal that was released several years ago in the Clayton Lake area that was captured this past winter in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. The animals were moving around in the northeast. When they were originally listed in 2000 or 2001 the USFWS didn?t even know that we couldn?t show how many lynx we had in Maine. When they were listed Maine was considered a non-factor in terms of the population across the country. Since then we documented that we have a fairly substantial population. Colorado has reintroduced lynx and think they have a couple hundred lynx in Colorado. They had listed species before where climate change was a factor, when you looked at the Polar Bear there were issues. Most of those related to the melting ice cap. It was something the USFWS needed to consider moving forward, and they were proposing to amend the endangered species process to make someone looking to list something go through the states first to try and address some of the challenges they were having with some organizations petitioning to get things considered and listed. There were two or three bills at the federal level to take wolves out of the endangered species act and legislatively delist them and alternate the courts from reconsidering what the USFWS was doing.

There were no further questions or comments.

C. Step 1

1. Furbearer Seasons/Beaver Closures 2015/16

Ms. Camuso stated this was changing the dates for the calendar year and each year we had landowners that requested areas be closed to trapping.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Dudley asked when they would get a copy of the list.

Ms. Camuso stated at Step 2.

Mr. Lewis asked if the numbers were down for beaver.

Mr. Cogill stated they were way down. No one trapped beaver that spring. He normally caught over 100 and he knew another that normally caught over 100 and he got 22 and Mr. Cogill got 55. He had tagged maybe over 100 beaver since January 1. They were averaging $15-$18, plus all the snow we had, late spring, etc. He expected a lot more nuisance beaver complaints.

2. Migratory Bird Seasons 2015/16

Ms. Camuso this was a change to adjust for the calendar. The proposal would go to the Waterfowl Council, there would be a public hearing and to the Council in August.

Mr. Connolly stated the Atlantic Flyway Council had to approve the regulations and that meeting would occur the last week in July. There would be a hearing with the Waterfowl Advisory Council and then it would come to the Advisory Council in August.

Ms. Camuso stated the USFWS had indicated very clearly that after this season there were going to be major changes in the sea duck allowances. The sea duck populations were declining throughout the range. They had been working with the states and discussing for the last couple of years so people were aware. Next year we would be looking at probably a significant reduction in the number of days open for sea duck hunting and the daily bag limit.

3. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Fish waters 2016

Mr. Brown stated there were several sections to the rulemaking packet. There was a New Brunswick boundary water section, bass regulations with Maine general law, looking at line limits between New Brunswick and Maine and going to 2 lines on several of those waters; also trying to reduce largemouth bass populations that we saw on those border waters. The population seemed to keep growing and we wanted to do all we could by removing the weight and bag limits on those fish. There was a New Hampshire (NH) boundary waters section as well to align the rules between Maine and NH. Most of those had to do with bass spawning closures. NH?s seemed to be earlier than Maine and they asked that we acquiesce to some of those concerns. There was an effort to refine some of the waters around Umbagog Lake and there were some specific proposals there. There was a NH bass tournament section in the packet. It dealt mainly with how the Department addressed and regulated bass tournaments on those border waters. There were a couple of conservation things going back to the bass spawning closures. NH had a law where they had their bass tournament fishermen take the fish they caught after the weigh in and transport them at least 300 feet off shore, and they asked Maine to comply with that. There was a Heritage water section, we were proposing 4 new waters be added to the list. There was a general rule proposal section and that had to do mainly with gear type changes, bag limit changes to modify and increase in most instances the numbers of fish you could take. There were some proposals to add S-33, which established a maximum length on brown trout and salmon. Where we had brown trout and Atlantic salmon we did not want anglers catching the fish over 25? and thinking they were brown trout or landlocked salmon. There was also a section proposing changes to existing Heritage fish waters on the list having to do with harvest restrictions and gear type to maximize what we saw for catches. We wanted to make sure we didn?t have stunted populations and seeing adequate size and growth in these ponds. The dates and locations for the public hearings had been established; Presque Isle ? July 14, Millinocket ? July 15, Ellsworth ? July 16, Farmington ? July 21 and Brunswick ? July 23.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham asked about the definition for artificial lures.

Mr. Brown stated we had an artificial lure definition, but we needed to make the change legislatively.

Mrs. Oldham asked to see the definition.

Mr. Brown stated he could send that. It had been difficult in how to incorporate things that were man made and folks that use them during the bass season and we did have a concern for trout.

Mr. Fortier asked if there had been any discussion in dealing with the St. John River.

Mr. Brown stated those would be in some of the New Brunswick proposals. A lot of them had to do with opening those waters to muskie fishing. We heard a lot of concern when we held hearings there last year.

Mr. Dudley stated there was nothing on the East Branch to be changed.

Mr. Brown stated if there was nothing in the package then there were no proposals for it.

There were no further questions or comments.

4. Islesboro Special Hunt

Commissioner Woodcock stated there were some members from the Islesboro deer reduction committee there and would highlight some of the recent discussions they had had. The Commissioner stated he would like to have the discussion about the hunt, it had some controversy surrounding it not only with the Department but also the people of Islesboro.

Ken Smith stated he would try to give a synopsis of all the data and things they considered. This past year they had repeated reports from the hunters that came to the island. Most of the deer harvested on Islesboro were taken during the expanded hunt, 95% of the deer that were killed were killed by people from the mainland. Their special hunt occurred after that. They were into the months of the year that were difficult, particularly this past February they had the coldest record in the history of Maine. The year before that February was also a very cold month. They considered that the last couple of years were not normal, however, their goal was to try to get 100 deer per year. They did 36 and 50 deer. They felt the stormy weather had a lot to do with that. The other thing they felt strongly, they would like to increase the number of people that were actually hunting and increase them to the point where it was somewhat controlled because they still had to get landowner permission. Islesboro was 14 square miles and there were enforcement issues with that. They came up with two options; 1) include the month of November where 1/3 of all the deer that were killed on Islesboro were killed in November, that was current expanded archery and 2) include more hunters. That essentially brought in all landowners. Currently it was if you were a resident of the island. That would increase the number of hunters by approximately 60. They would then be increasing by roughly 50%, 20 more hunters over the 40 they had now. He had a gentleman with him that was an example of one of the new hunters, he owned land and was also an avid hunter. Also Dick Cole was in attendance. He was a frequent flyer to Islesboro and was all over the state with Brookfield and was aware of the movement of the deer population.

Ken Smith stated as evidence of why they felt they were making progress, there was a deer count done by Stantec in 2010 which said they had 62 deer per square mile. They excluded about 2 acres of land because of the shoreline and ponds. Stantec just completed another survey and it was 50.9 deer per sq. mile. That showed there was a reduction in the number of deer per square mile. It greatly reduced incidents of Lyme disease, that had gone down 46% from 2013. That was what they were trying to do was get rid of Lyme disease and ticks. They had planes that came and went everyday and had 3 planes that ran into deer. Those incidents had been greatly reduced and now pilots did not even report seeing deer coming into the airport. They were seeing far fewer deer and some of the studies showed that they still had a lot of deer but they had moved around on the island.

Ken Smith stated by adding landowners and having another hunt they had been able to reduce Lyme disease by 46%. The number of deer in 2009 was 232 taken during the expanded archery season. In 2013 it went to 133, that was a 42% decrease in the number of deer. If you took all of those things together they felt they were making progress. They had just held a town meeting on Thursday night and they didn?t want to have the November hunt. They were concerned about safety issues with shotguns and bow hunters and enforcement. They only defeated it by 1 vote. 62% of the island favored another special hunt and that was what they were requesting.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier asked how many of the residents they would include, how many were hunters.

Mr. Smith stated estimated on people they knew, that was why they were very conservative by saying they had another 20 hunters, they currently had 40 sign up and take the course. They were going to give them a 2 hour refresher course.

Mr. Farrington asked how many deer per square mile were they trying to get down to.

Mrs. Oldham stated 10 deer per square mile to reduce the incidence of Lyme disease.

Mr. Farrington asked out of the 14 miles on Islesboro, how many square miles were actually huntable?

Mr. Smith stated in the Stantec study they broke it up and they found very few deer in the southern part of the island. They were clumped in the middle eastern section and northern section. There were 12 square miles that were actually huntable.

Mrs. Oldham stated she reviewed the proposal and had a number of objections and read a prepared statement into the record?

1. Prior Islesboro DRC proposals have NEVER met objectives. In 2012, the Special Hunt objective was to harvest 100 deer/year for three years. The harvest data from 2012-2014 has been 50, 36, and 38. This harvest is less than half (41%) of objective.

2. Prior Islesboro DRC proposals have had a stated goal to reduce the deer population to 10 deer per square mile. This is the population necessary to reduce the incidence of tick-borne disease. The current DRC proposal states: ?Because islanders and hunters from the mainland are seeing fewer deer than in the past, we believe that the deer herd has seen a significant reduction over the past few years?(page 2 of the DRC proposal). Their own scientific data from the 2015 deer pellet counts show a very different story. The current data suggests a population density of 50.9 deer per square mile, a slight increase from the 2011 estimate of 48 deer per square mile. This data suggests that prior Special Hunt proposals have totally failed to come close to the stated goal of reducing the deer population to 10 deer per square mile.

The other thing about the pellet count they should all keep in mind, the pellet counts were done in April before the fawns were dropped. They needed to keep that in mind when talking about harvest objectives.

3. The current Islesboro DRC request would increase the total number of hunters by approximately 20 by expanding eligibility requirements. The anticipated level of harvest is 50. Using their numbers, at the end of three years, the deer population will still not be close to the stated goal of 10 deer per square mile.

4. Tick-borne disease from the over population of deer on Isleboro poses a serious public health problem for island residents and visitors to the island. The Islesboro Health Center?s tick-borne
disease prevention program is praiseworthy. However, the quoted 46% decrease in confirmed or
suspected cases of Lyme disease is misleading. There is no way to know the number of unsuspecting visitors to the island who may have contracted a tick-borne disease. These visitors would likely receive medical care off-island, so their data would not be included in this statistic.

After reading the minutes from the last meeting, she realized she did a very poor job of explaining in terms of disease incidents. She gave a hypothetical example of 100 people in a population. The incidents of their contracting the disease was 10% of the population per year. After you had year 1, 10 people had the disease; year 2, 90 people were the population and 10% of them would get the disease so that was 9 that year. At the end of 4 years, you had a little over 30 people who already had the disease, so the population you were talking about was 70. So, 7 people were going to get the disease. They went from 10 to 70, there was a 30% reduction in the incidents of Lyme disease, no. 10% of the population was getting infected each year. Once the population was saturated or everyone had been infected, you had a 0% chance. She felt the island?s tick prevention program had helped a lot, but to say this reduction in new cases of Lyme disease was any indication of the deer population was false.

5. Unfortunately, in 2014, Islesboro citizens rejected a professional sharpshooting program subsidized by $350,000 in private funds. A substantive reason for rejecting this opportunity has not been forthcoming.

My Opinion: If approved, the current Islesboro DRC proposal would end in 2018. The current scientific data suggests that the stated goal of 10 deer per square mile will not be achieved. The public health risk of tick-borne disease for island residents and unsuspecting visitors will continue unabated. With continued vegetation loss, the deer population may be starving.

The problem of deer overpopulation on Islesboro was recognized in 1997. After 18 years, it is time to formulate a plan that has reasonable chance to achieve deer density objectives and reduce the threat of tick borne disease for island residents and visitors. For these reasons I urge the Commissioner and the Advisory Council to reject this request.

After the last meeting the Commissioner referred to legislation that was special for Islesboro. We obviously could not tell them what to do, but it was a collaborative effort. We were under no obligation to support a plan that could not meet the objectives.

Mr. Dudley stated regarding Lyme disease, had they done any studies on the mice and how they were related to all this.

Mr. Smith stated they had looked at many recommended studies. They had been helpful but the data was confusing. There was an article in the Maine Sportsman that month that talked about the mice and it being the primary provider of the ticks. He felt the general feeling of most biologists was a lot of mixed data. If they removed all the deer the question was would they still have a tick problem. He did not know the answer.

Mr. Dudley stated the studies that had been done blamed the mice more for Lyme disease than the deer. The deer was merely a host.

Mr. Kemper stated what they were referring to was the daminex tubes which were small tubes that were taken back to the nest. It was looked at extensively when all this started. The problem was, to effectively put daminex tubes on Islesboro it would cost more than $1 million. That was why the daminex tube proposal was rejected.

Mr. Dudley stated that was not the study he read.

Mr. Kemper stated you could either tackle the problem by going after the mice on one end of the cycle or go after the deer on the other end of the cycle.

Mr. Dudley stated maybe there were ways to reduce the mice population.

Mr. Kemper stated it was probably more difficult to eliminate all the mice than it may be to eliminate all the deer. The mice were very prolific. This was all looked at even before the first special hunt by the town and at that time it was called the Tick Committee. The Tick Committee looked at all mechanisms that might be out there that were being tried all throughout New England. But at over $1 million to thoroughly saturate it, it was eliminated.

Ms. Camuso stated we had experience with eliminating the deer end of the cycle.

Mr. Kemper stated Monhegan was a good example. Deer were eliminated off Monhegan and eliminated tick born disease. There were still small mammals on Monhegan.

Mr. Fortier asked why it seemed like there was an objection to having more hunters with shotguns during the expanded bow season.

Mr. Smith stated it was the possibility that accidents may increase. That was a feeling that was expressed.

Mr. Fortier stated hunting with a shotgun, you were limited on distance. If they started in October they would have more hunters under better conditions than in February. He agreed with Mrs. Oldham. He had seen the nationwide numbers on ticks. He did not think they could accomplish their goals without an earlier hunt. When they did the eradication on Monhegan, until they reached a point, then they went in with a sharp shooter. He was a little upset with that because he thought they could do it with hunters and put the meat to much more use than what the DRC?s proposal was. As far as them reaching their objective, he thought 3 years from now they would still be in the same position.

Mr. Smith stated they were 3 miles from the mainland, quite different from Monhegan. If they did shoot all the deer it wouldn?t take long for them to come back.

Mr. Fortier asked how they took care of their waste on the island; disposal of garbage.

Mr. Smith stated they had a transfer station.

Rick Douglas stated he had been hunting on Islesboro for about 10 years. They had a big problem with deer back then, that was part of what drew him over there. He hunted every year from the beginning of the expanded hunt to the last day of the expanded hunt. He had 6 or 7 sites on the island and game cameras to check the areas. The deer in the area had been significantly reduced. He saw the report Mr. Smith was talking about showing 50 deer per square mile. The deer must be all down at the other end in one little herd, he just did not see it. He had been on the island 9 years and had a couple of ticks here and there but nothing significant. He had more ticks on him in Gray in his back yard. He was confused on the reports and the deer counts. To say the idea wouldn?t work as far as getting more hunters out there, if you increased the number of hunters you would take more deer. He didn?t see where it wouldn?t work. Not all the islanders wanted to go out there in January and February and want to hunt. Move it back to earlier and get the off islanders. He would go over there in January and February.

Mr. Wheaton asked if any other diseases besides Lyme had shown up with ticks.

Mrs. Oldham stated anaplasmosis. Not only could tick born disease make your life miserable, they could also kill you.

Mr. Kemper stated we had one mortality from a woman in Thomaston who died of Powassan virus a year ago.

Mr. Farrington stated it was his understanding there was opposition on the island to bringing in outside assistance to eliminate the deer herd.

Mr. Smith stated they had 3 different votes and was overwhelmingly rejected. Clearly it had to do with the history of the island.

Rick Douglas stated it wasn?t that they didn?t want to be told what to do, it was that they believed the reduction would work. It wasn?t just that they were being stubborn.

Commissioner Woodcock stated this was one of the unique situations in terms of the discussion. The statute allowed certain islands in the state to be the final stopping place for certain regulations. They had to approve whatever they propose, unlike other portions of the state regulated by IFW. Given the historical perspective of the votes on Islesboro it became even more compounded in its complexity. There had been many different forms of the committee over the course of the years as people had become more satisfied or dissatisfied in the political arena. The discussion would continue.

V. Other Business

1. Phippsburg expanded archery hunt petition

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had a petition to remove Phippsburg from the expanded archery hunt. Phippsburg was a unique situation because it had a firearms portion to the season as well as expanded archery. We would be addressing some of the unique situations in a different manner in the future to make them have a sense of equality amongst them. The petition was solely for Phippsburg. After staff review it was determined it might be a complex delineation of the line of Phippsburg that geographically for enforcement purposes. We brought in a portion of West Bath into the discussion to make the line more easily identified. We had a public hearing in the area and had a huge turnout, 100 people attend. Maybe 6 of them were in favor of the petition, the rest all opposed and wanted to keep expanded archery in place. They felt the process was going well and the deer herd was functioning appropriately. Because of that and because of the entire scope he did not move the proposal forward.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Dick Cole stated he hunted on Islesboro and supported Rick Douglas. He had hunted there since the late 1990?s. He did not believe there was 50% of the deer there used to be when he was there. He thought a lot of times their issue was getting access. That was the big thing as far as including the rest of the public. Having experience out of state with high tick areas, if ticks were their problem, when they had that equine encephalitis when they did night aerial spraying for mosquitoes they wiped out ticks for years. They did it for a number of years. If that was a help to the people of Islesboro, he would just throw that out there.

Brian Cogill stated the Maine trappers all voted to keep drags. He knew it was the feds that were pushing to do away with drags. He thought we would see a lot of lynx being shot because of doing away with drags. If there was an incidental lynx catch on a drag, he would go in the bushes and be hidden and out of sight but he thought we would find a lot of deer hunters and bird hunters that would shoot and not know what it was.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The date and location of the next meeting would be Thursday, August 6th at 10:00 a.m. at the Youth Fish & Game Association at Pickerel Pond in Hancock County.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Farrington and that was seconded by Mr. Dudley to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
May 6, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

 

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Andrea Erskine, Deputy Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director of Bureau of Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Mike Brown, Fisheries Division Director
Nate Webb, Special Projects Coordinator
Keel Kemper, Regional Wildlife Biologist
Kris Barboza, Game Warden Sergeant
Rick LaFlamme, Game Warden Corporal, Landowner Relations
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Jeff Lewis (Chair)
Lance Wheaton
Dick Fortier
Don Dudley
Jenny Starbird
Larry Farrington
Gunnar Gundersen
Sheri Oldham

Guests:

Fern & Sylvia Bosse
James Cote, MTA
Troy Wallace, Phippsburg
Ed Smith, Islesboro
Gilbert Rivera, Islesboro
Dick Cole, Winthrop
Don Kleiner, MPGA
Gary Corson, New Sharon

I. Call to Order

Council Chair Jeff Lewis called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Dudley.

Vote: unanimous ? minutes approved.

III-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

Chair

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to nominate Mr. Lewis to remain as Council Chair and that was seconded by Ms. Starbird.

There were no further nominations for Council Chair.

Vote: unanimous ? Mr. Lewis reelected as Council Chair

Vice-Chair

A motion was made by Mr. Dudley to nominate Mr. Wheaton to remain as Council Vice-Chair. Mr. Wheaton stated he did not think it was fair to the Council as he was away a few months during the winter. The motion was not seconded.

A motion was made by Mr. Wheaton to nominate Mr. Dudley as Council Vice-Chair and that was seconded by Mrs. Oldham.

There were no further nominations for Council Vice-Chair.

Vote: unanimous ? Mr. Dudley elected as Council Vice-Chair.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Moose Permits WMD 9

Commissioner Woodcock stated the Council approved all the WMD moose permit numbers except for WMD 9, which was held aside because there was considerable concern expressed in the Greenville area for our original proposal of an increase up to 150 permits including cows. A public hearing was held in Greenville that was well attended and many comments were received during the open comment period. It was overwhelmingly the opinion of those who contacted us and spoke at the public hearing that they would not be in favor of increasing the permits to 150, and particularly their concern for cows being harvested in that zone. He was very comfortable in making the recommendation that we move back to last year?s permit total of 75 bulls and no cows in WMD 9. In an ongoing fashion we would examine the issues surrounding the viewing areas that we had in the state; Rangeley, Greenville and take a look at possibilities for management of those areas. He felt it was important for the record to show that the biologists recommend a certain number. If the social process decided that the people want something a little different, he wanted the biologists to be able to reflect that there was a discussion about a different figure originally and that may meld eventually.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to accept the permit numbers for WMD 9 as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated she knew there was a playbook for wildlife management districts, but she thought what was apparent was that those management parameters were based on a healthy moose herd. She was not sure there was a plan B for when the herd may be not healthy. It was ironic we were doing this great moose research at a time when we may have an unhealthy moose population. Was there a plan B when the herd was not healthy?

Commissioner Woodcock stated he was not certain it was 100% true that the management was for a ?healthy herd? because he thought as part of the assessment, ie: the 5-year tick study we were undertaking was a determination of the health of the herd. The proposals became part of that process. He did not necessarily think there needed to be a plan B because we had a plan A influx and it stayed influx as we assessed the herd.

Ms. Camuso stated the management system allowed for a lot of different variables and rapid response and changes. Our plan would be if there was a significant change in the public goals for moose or in the health of the herd we had the mechanisms in place to adjust for those.

Mr. Fortier asked if the biologists would be doing more intense studies in WMD 9 for a more accurate number of the moose population. He could understand the viewing part. Greenville was not like the county, the moose were spread out and used to being hunted. Any wildlife that got used to being hunted became more cautious in being around the public. How was the Department going to look at WMDs 8 and 9, the Greenville area?

Commissioner Woodcock stated the process that we undertook was also examined closely. Not just the species but the process we used. One thing we found about some of the areas in the state was that there were concentrations of species more so than other areas. When talking about a viewing area there were dynamics to the understanding of viewing. We were undertaking as much of a complete examination as we could. We tried to be as conservative about numbers as we could. He heard time and again that we did this (moose lottery) for money. He had never made one decision in the Department that was based upon how much revenue we took in that had a direct correlation to a species. We managed the moose for the most viable herd we could have.

Mr. Farrington stated having attended the public hearing, one of the things that was obvious was that they didn?t understand how the moose population survey and process worked. He thought there should be some education explaining how the biologists did what they were doing.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the educational piece of any dilemma was important. The more education the more diminished the dilemma became. Sometimes that was challenging when it came to science. We were going to try to do a better job of that.

B. Step 2

1. Phippsburg Expanded Archery Hunt Petition

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had a public hearing that was well attended, there were about 100 people there. Comments were top heavy towards not changing what they had there now and not taking away their opportunity. It appeared that we would not be tinkering around with taking away their possibilities and leave it at the current status down there.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated she was on the Council when the area was expanded and one of the reasons to put that in the expanded archery was Lyme disease. If you looked at the Maine CDC reports that still was one of the high areas with reported Lyme disease cases. That had not changed so she saw no reason to take it out of expanded archery.

Mr. Fortier asked how many deer per square mile were in the area.

Mr. Kantar stated between 20-40. In the case of preventing tick borne diseases the literature indicated it should be around 10.

Mr. Gundersen stated he received comments from people that indicated they did not feel that area was supposed to be in that expanded zone from the start.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated back when it was put in place, the intent of the expanded archery from the very beginning with the Legislature was that it was to occur in areas where there was a firearms discharge ordinance that prevented a higher degree of hunting. That was not the case apparently in Phippsburg. There was no firearms discharge ordinance there. There had been a call for why did the archery groups get to go there and hunt when it didn?t really fit the mold. It may have been a concern, the Commissioner was authorized to do special deer hunts. Maybe this fit the bill enough for that special hunt that we put it in expanded archery.

Mrs. Oldham stated she had a clear recollection of that. She had gone to the Maine CDC and gotten all the Lyme disease data, that was the issue at that time and whether it should qualify for special hunts.

Mr. Dudley asked what was the goal in that area for deer per square mile.

Ms. Camuso stated probably between 15 and 18. When they went through the management review they would look at that. The goals were set quite awhile ago and we had more current literature to suggest that was probably a little high considering the vector borne diseases and the number of people that lived in that area.

Commissioner Woodcock stated that in the comments many people said the situation was fine, the deer were available, hunting was going great and then there were some that felt there weren?t many deer at all and there had been a significant decrease because of a certain group. The conclusion we were drawing was that we shouldn?t be changing it right now.

Troy Wallace stated he hunted the season when it opened up in 1997 and they were allowed 1 extra doe. They were still harvesting the same amount of deer in the town as they did looking at harvest numbers from 2000 on. The permits seemed to be the biggest issue with everybody, the unlimited permits. He did not know how to make Phippsburg happy with the permit system without limiting opportunity south of them. In his opinion he did not think there was a real deer problem in Phippsburg, it was very healthy. They were shooting some nice bucks there. South of them, Wells, etc. there were issues. There was an issue across the river from them in Georgetown in zone 25. He had not been without an any-deer permit in 20 years in zone 24. Bonuses were handed out. Should we look at that, he thought that was where the majority of deer were being shot in the town. He did not want to take anybody?s opportunity away, but he thought it was overlapping.

Ms. Camuso asked if he wanted us to reduce the number of antlerless permits allowed during expanded archery.

Troy Wallace stated he did not think anyone was opposed to that.

Ms. Camuso stated that people could exercise the right to not use those permits. We did look at the number of animals harvested by hunter and there were very few people that were harvesting more than 2 or 3 deer. On occasion there were people that harvested 4 deer.

Troy Wallace stated most people in town would be happy with reducing the permits somehow. He did not know how to go about that and not take opportunity away from areas that actually needed more permits.

Mr. Farrington asked if the Commissioner had the authority to limit the number of permits per person.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated the special season authority that we had gave the Commissioner the ability to set gear restrictions, bag limits, etc.

Troy Wallace stated regarding the firearms issue, he knew when it was started it was supposed to be in areas with firearms ordinances. He contacted 20 towns and 19 allowed firearms and expanded. That was an issue all through zone 24, there were still a lot of areas that allowed both.

Mr. Connolly stated WMD 24 was set up differently right from the start. There was recognition that there was some firearms hunting there, but the challenge was the access and the ability to apply pressure across it. There was a conscious decision when that zone was put into the expanded archery that it was different than the other areas of the state where expanded archery would be applied. There were plenty of deer there, there was no need to limit the number of expanded archery deer that were being taken. That was not the problem with WMD 24. It was more if you had permission to get on the property to take the deer or were the deer moving onto a property that had limited access during the season.

C. Step 1

1. Any-deer permits 2015

Ms. Camuso stated for this year we were recommending at total of 20,770 any-deer permits statewide. It was a decrease of 23% from last year. We had a pretty severe winter in most districts. We did not have all the winter severity data analyzed yet, but many of the WMDs had close to the 11th harshest winter season on record since 1950. We were still recommending a pretty significant doe harvest in WMDs 15-17, 20-26 and 29. Those were kind of the core deer habitat in the state. We were also recommending some moderate to light doe permits inWMDs 3, 6, 14 and 18. Those WMDs were at or exceeding social carrying capacity and we were having some nuisance issues with deer getting into gardens, etc. WMD 3 was a new district offering permits, but the biologists in the area felt pretty strongly that they were at or above social carrying capacity and the winter in WMD 3 was not nearly as severe as it was in other districts. Although there was a good amount of snow, it was so cold the snow was light and fluffy and deer walked through it without any real issues.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Commissioner Woodcock stated many variables went into this. The downeast/coastal zones in particular 27 & 28, we had some feedback that there were some people who were quite displeased that there weren?t some permits being issued because the deer were getting into some blueberry growers in some of those areas. On the other side of the town line we had some displeasure expressed because there weren?t any deer. There were zones in their entirety that had disparate populations. It was not unusual to have people in the same zone be commenting they had deer, and they didn?t have deer. That particular area, however, did have some commercial applications and depredation permits were available for those people who were having problems with creatures consuming commercial crops, farm crops, etc.

Mr. Lewis asked about the winter kill percentage in his area.

Ms. Camuso stated in WMD 27 it was estimated to be at 12.7%. On average she thought the winter mortality statewide was anticipated to be about 16%.

Mr. Lewis stated the coyote numbers were down. Where they had a problem was vehicle mortality. He had 6 trucks on the road, and 7 deer were killed in 2 nights.

Ms. Camuso stated during the past winter December and January were moderate which was why our overall estimate for winter mortality wasn?t as bad as it was in 2008 and 2009. It was cold but there wasn?t much snow until really February. That probably moderated some of the mortality issues associated with this past winter.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the DOT had been very generous in certain areas of the state when it came to traffic signage and deer crossings, particularly in the 95 corridor. Signage was psychologically pertinent for about 2 weeks. That was the study that historically had been appropriate. After 2 weeks you would revert back to what you would normally do in that area. From his personal experience, there hadn?t been a whole lot of success with signage diminishing in any great degree creatures getting hit on the road. The only control he felt we had was the new law that allowed us to put some pressure on people who were feeding deer that created a scenario where they had to cross the road to get to the feeding place.

Ms. Camuso stated it was important to remember that the amount of permits that we gave out was not what we actually anticipated to be harvested. In each WMD we applied an expansion factor so if we wanted 100 does to be harvested we would multiply that by 10 and give 1,000 permits. In some areas where we were decreasing the number of permits by 2,000 we were actually only anticipating a reduction in harvest by a much smaller percentage than that. Most of southern Maine had between a 7 and 10% expansion factor.

Mr. Farrington asked if there was a percentage of harvest on deer like we did moose for the number of permits given out.

Ms. Camuso stated we knew the total harvest, but some people bought a big game license and did not harvest deer. The approximate success rate was not as refined as for moose because of the permit system.

2. Trapping Season

Mr. Connolly stated we were working on changes in the trapping regulations to make some permanent adjustments in the regulations going forward to protect lynx. We received our incidental take permit from the USFWS and within a month we had two lynx that were taken in legally set conibear leaning pole sets in northern Maine. We immediately implemented an emergency rule enacted to protect lynx the way we were required to by the permit and we were successful in that. The 90-day emergency rule expired so we engaged in dialogue with the Maine Trappers Association and USFWS to come up with some recommendations going forward to implement some permanent changes in the rules that would protect lynx. The trappers were very concerned about the resource and asked questions regarding what their impact was. One of the things for review were exclusion devices. We had killer type traps we wanted to continue using. Prior to this the leaning pole set was felt to be an adequate way to have a killer type trap or body gripping trap and have it accessible to the animal but protected from access by lynx by the leaning pole set. Those were the kinds of sets that actually allowed a lynx to access the trap and be killed.

Mr. Connolly stated we were looking at expanding the use of exclusion devices to protect lynx from accessing traps and looking at exclusion devices statewide for traps that were 160?s, 220?s; body gripper traps. We would still allow some of the 110?s and 120?s when they were set in blind sets which was the exception that had always been in place in the lynx WMDs as long as they were blind sets or overhanging banks or set partially covered by water. There would be that exception for those body gripping or killer type traps. Everything else in an upland setting would have to be in an exclusion device and would be statewide.

Ms. Camuso stated she felt it was important to mention that it was the trappers that brought forward the statewide recommendation.

Mr. Connolly stated the trappers really looked at that and recognized from their perspective as trappers that was a sacrifice, but they felt that was the right thing to do to protect lynx and protect the ability to trap going forward. They did recommend going statewide on exclusion devices with that exception for the 110?s and 120?s, traps that had a jaw spread of 5? or less if they were blind sets, overhanging banks or partially covered by water they could continue to be set in those manners without exclusion devices. Beaver traps were larger but were allowed because they were underwater and protected from access to lynx. The other issue was foothold traps. The catch rate for lynx had increased the last couple of years. We were arguing with the USFWS on how best to show that it was an increase in lynx population. But, because we were catching more there was the higher probability that something could happen to those lynx. The injuries we had had been in foothold traps.

Mr. Connolly stated we talked to trappers about what could we do that was reasonable to help protect lynx if they were caught in a foothold trap. We agreed they would go to 3 swivels in the set and also that the trap chain be center mounted on the base of the trap so it created a better position for the trap to be on the foot of the animal and that it would then be able to move and provide that ability so as the animal moved in the catch circle it would have less of an impact on the animal itself. The other thing we looked at was a clear catch circle for a staked trap. The one injury we had in a staked trap for lynx had been when the chain fetched up on something in the circle and the animal continued to jerk on it. They talked about drag sets. When you had a drag set if the animal was near a road it could move away from the road and out of line of sight. We had a few lynx killed over the years by bird hunters. There was the possibility of injury to lynx on drags. That discussion was still ongoing with the trappers.

Mr. Connolly stated they were having discussions about the openings in the exclusion devices trying to find the best fit in terms of allowing access by fisher and marten, because the traps typically when they were land sets they were set to catch fisher and marten. We were trying to have as minimal an impact on fisher and marten trapping as we could. The use of Hancock traps (suitcase type) that we had for ADC agents, there was a ban on live trap use in the lynx WMDs and the focus around that was Hancock traps. We were going to be providing some guidance to ADC trappers. The MTA brought up that we were looking at them and trappers in the lynx zones, what about the ADC officers and predator management people and other trappers in another part of the state, what impact did they have on the lynx population and their ability to trap. We were going to be giving clear instructions to ADC trappers and if they were using a Hancock trap that it be set in a way that it?s not accessible to lynx. They should be set so they would face out into the water and a beaver would swim over the front of the trap and then get caught and held in the trap so it could be moved. They were not a trap that would typically be used by a beaver trapper, they would use a drowning set. We wanted to limit the use of the Hancock traps by ADC trappers under the authority of either a warden or a biologist and be set in such a way to not impact the lynx.

Mr. Connolly stated we had met with the USFWS and they were very interested in the recommendations we had brought forth. We had more work to do before finalizing the proposal.

3. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Fish waters 2016

Mr. Brown stated we had solicited recommendations from regional staff that would go into the 2016 rulemaking package for fisheries. We had received those and they were undergoing review. There would be some additions to the state heritage fish waters and some additional focus on some of the border waters to further consolidate or modify the rules to make them more consistent among the regulations. There would also be some new kids fishing waters added to the Midcoast area.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington asked if the heritage waters were what Dana DeGraaf had submitted to the Legislature in his report.

Mr. Brown stated we had a list of state heritage fish waters and as part of the rulemaking package anytime we had a new water go on or off the list it had to be part of the rulemaking package in a separate part.

Mr. Dudley asked when they would receive the packet.

Mr. Brown stated they were still doing some internal review. He was not sure if the packet would be available in the next month.

Mrs. Oldham stated she felt they would need to see the packet before it was presented at Step 2 because that was their last opportunity for discussion.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we would have our usual road show of hearings around the state to accommodate as many people as possible.

Mr. Wheaton stated when it came to tournaments, keep focused on the purse. In tournaments the idea was to win the money, not to save the fish.

There were no further questions or comments.

V. Other Business

Ed Smith from Islesboro stated Gil Rivera was with him and they had come to ask for another 3-year special hunt on Islesboro. He felt they had made some great progress and even though they tried to look to the Islesboro population and have them say what they would like to do to solve their problem instead of telling them what to do. They had been able to reduce the number of tick borne diseases rather dramatically from 2013 to 2014. They had a deer count done by Stantec and they hadn?t factored in the deer kill so they probably wouldn?t have that for another week or so. The preliminary count was not down, it was up slightly with a 4.6 deer per square mile variation in their level of confidence. Everybody that lived on the island had some experience with deer. Accidents were down, the number of deer that people saw either in the woods or by airplane were down. There was a perception that the deer count had gone down. They would like to finalize their plan because they thought they were making progress. They would like to have the 3 years and change it so they would increase their kill. Mr. Smith distributed a count of the November kill over the last 15 years. In summary, 1/3 of all the deer that were taken during expanded archery season were taken in November. They counted on that as part of their deer kill to reduce the population. The number of deer taken during expanded archery the last 4 years had gone down, which would indicate there were fewer deer.

Mr. Smith stated they had a couple of severe winters with this November being the worst snowfall on record. That did effect people in the woods trying to kill a deer. They would like to do 3 things. 1) Be able to increase the number of people participating in the hunt by including all of the landowners on Islesboro. That would be roughly 300 people. One hunter took 15 deer that year. 2) To increase kill start the hunt in November and go until the end of January. 3) Rejuvinate or increase the safety program. They had been highly successful in protecting people from getting hurt. They had a committee that worked hard just on that one topic. It was a refresher course that took 2 hours and they would qualify all of the hunters.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Commissioner Woodcock stated this was a preliminary presentation. More information would be forthcoming and an official Q and A.

Mrs. Oldham asked Mr. Smith if he still considered Lyme disease on the island the reason for the request for the special hunt.

Mr. Smith stated yes.

Mrs. Oldham stated looking at the literature Mr. Smith passed out, they anticipated a 50% increase in the number of hunters but they were really only talking about 20 hunters.

Mr. Smith said probably a 20% increase in hunters, yes.

Mrs. Oldham stated she had heard this request for special hunts for a long time. When you did the same thing over and over again and expected a different result, that was foolish. There was a cure for the problem on Islesboro and they rejected it. To think that another 3 years was going to take care of the problem, and in terms of Lyme disease incidents once the person was already infected it didn?t count as a new case of Lyme disease. It was a public health problem and doing the same thing over and over was not being successful. She felt it would be irresponsible for the Department to continue the public health risk that was going on there when there was a cure.

Mr. Smith asked if Mrs. Oldham had seen the reduction in the number of cases.

Mrs. Oldham stated once someone was already infected, it didn?t count anymore as a new case.

Mr. Fortier stated they were requesting to start the hunt in November, why would they not try to start sooner like in October when that was when the hunters were gearing up; starting the hunt earlier trying to get to that number faster of square deer per mile. Also the literature said they were going to do some subsidizing in the butchering of deer. How would that dressing out of deer and butchering take place? Were they looking to have the deer taken off the island to be butchered?

Mr. Smith stated they had a refrigerated truck that was set up in the early part of the season. They took the deer to Winthrop and they did all the processing. The hunters would pick their deer up.

Mr. Rivera stated the hunters would dress out the deer and then take it to the truck.

Mr. Fortier stated the tick problem was a serious problem. He had not seen the numbers being reduced fast enough to take care of the problem. The problem was going to exist until they got the level of deer down as fast as possible. If they were looking at increasing hunters by just those few people on the island and not bringing in experienced people and more active people the problem would continue to exist. He would hope a good plan would come forward to really address the problem.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there was a political scenario in the proposal also. What they were presenting was not necessarily what they would prefer as a reduction method. The Town had had 3 meetings so far in an attempt to accept methodology that was presented to them to reduce the deer herd on Islesboro. The Town had not accepted the methodology that some people would prefer. The committee was bringing forth what they were able to.

Mr. Connolly stated in statute there was a requirement that if we changed the seasons on the off-shore islands where hunting had been restricted the Town had to accept those changes before going forward. The Department could not impose them on the Town. There had to be an interaction where the citizens of the island educate their fellow townspeople and agree to accept a change that had to be initiated by the Department but seconded by them. It was a challenge in an island community with different perspectives on how many deer were enough and what the impacts were.

Mr. Farrington asked why there was opposition from the Town.

Mr. Smith stated it was a matter of historically 100 years ago where summer people who owned all the property told the island people what to do. That was part of it. It was the summer people saying they had the money to pay to have it done. That was unacceptable to people that lived on the island. It had more to do with history, not a lot to do with rationale.

Mr. Kemper responded to the suggestion that they start earlier in October. Islesboro had a very strong and robust expanded archery season that counted for the majority of the deer harvest. This year in expanded archery they harvested 123 deer and the special hunt harvested 39 or 40. Their hesitance to go to October was probably because of the existing expanded archery season.

Mr. Gundersen stated in spite of what they were up against out on the island they were working very hard to try to get through the problem. He thought the deer reduction committee on Islesboro had worked very hard and kept close track of everything they had done. He thought part of the problem that they?d had was that with extending the season they had gotten into some really bad weather on the far end of it which had restricted them being able to get deer. By backing it up they would be better off and might have more success.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he concurred. The committee, people had resigned from it because of the frustration in the voting process of the community. We were trying to do what we could under statute and it was ongoing. If the Town didn?t accept it there was not much we could do directly unless there was a change in statute.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

There were no public comments.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The date and location of the next meeting would be Saturday, June 13th at 10:00 a.m. at the Bethel Fire Station.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier and that was seconded by Mrs. Oldham to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
March 27, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director of Bureau of Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Jeff Lewis (Chair)
Dick Fortier
Don Dudley
Jenny Starbird
Larry Farrington
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Cathy DeMerchant

Guests:

Rick Denico, Vassalboro
John Short, Acton

I. Call to Order

Council Chair Jeff Lewis called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mrs. DeMerchant to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen.

Vote: 7 in favor; 1 abstained (Mrs. DeMerchant) ? minutes approved.

Mr. Denico stated he had come to say thank you for the quick action of Warden Will Shuman who assisted his son and daughter in-law in a recent snowmobile accident. If not for the warden?s actions, his son?s injuries could have been much worse.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Spring turkey hunting WMDs 1-6

Ms. Camuso stated this was a proposal to have an A/B season in WMDs 1-6. There were some concerns raised at the last meeting about issues with conditions of the farms and the land up there. Instead of doing additional evening programs, which we did 3 of last year, we opted to do some press releases and social media. We had also developed a 1 page fact sheet that would be available at the Presque Isle sportsman?s show. This should accomplish the goal more effectively of reaching out and making sure that people hunting in those areas understood the need to work with the landowners.

Mr. Fortier stated the turkey federation was coming to PI to do a 1 ? hour presentation.

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Dudley.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

2. Moose Permits 2015

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had received numerous comments regarding moose permit numbers and the bulk of those comments focused on WMD 9. Because of that, the Council would not be voting on WMD 9 permits numbers and we would be holding a public hearing in Greenville.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the moose situation in Maine had many facets to it. We used to have hearings/informational meetings around the state prior to moose permit numbers being discussed with the Advisory Council and did an informational piece for the public. We had not done that for awhile. It was stopped because it was very poorly attended. He thought the reason it was poorly attended was the permit numbers were going up and people just weren?t overly concerned. In the future, we probably would go back to some regional meetings before the rulemaking process so that people would have an opportunity to talk to us.

Commissioner Woodcock stated it had been mentioned a few times by the biologists the notion that the more moose you had in an area, the more ticks you had on those moose. The chance for a die off increased; it was sort of like a virus. He had told the biological staff he did not want them to manage socially. That was the Commissioner?s job in conversations with the public to determine whether or not it should be brought down for social reasons which was part of the assessment process. The notion that the more moose in an area and the moose dying off because there were more ticks in the area; some biologists felt the discussion had to be whether the hunters should have the opportunity to lower the number of moose, because the number would be lowered anyway by the ticks. There was a lot happening in the research arena. Looking at statistics of the season, we were holding our own in most of the areas.

Ms. Camuso stated without WMD 9, there were very minor changes to the proposed permits. The only real change was WMD 2 because the goal had changed in that particular WMD. We had reached the goal so we were backing off on the permit numbers in that area.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier stated he drove through WMD 9 and had since 1960. Seeing all the emails coming in, he was glad the biologists were not involved in the social and sticking with the biology. He felt that was important. Everybody wanted to take pictures of moose, but he used to see traffic jams there from the people wanting to take pictures. The spruce bud worm had a lot to do with building habitat for moose. The spruce bud worm was on its way back, coming down from Canada. The sessions he had gone to were dealing with data and things they could do in Canada that we couldn?t do here. When the last spruce bud worm outbreak came through in the late 70?s and 80?s it looked like fall year round. Would that be taken into consideration when calculating moose permit numbers?

Ms. Camuso stated available and usable habitat was always a component of our management system. It was a challenge to manage for species without the appropriate habitat. Our goals adjusted accordingly to usable habitat.

Mr. Fortier stated we wanted to deal with the data on moose, and a lot of the public comments would end up going to the economics of people coming in to take pictures of moose, etc. That was fine if they wanted to take pictures, but if you didn?t have that moose population and didn?t maintain it right you were not going to get to take many pictures.

Ms. Camuso stated we were about to redo our big game species planning for all four of our big game species. One of the things we would be looking to do would be to incorporate things like ways the Department could help communities better provide for wildlife viewing or moose viewing beyond just the number of animals on the landscape.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the economic comment, people made accusations about managing for money. He reiterated that at no time since he?d been Commissioner had he ever made a decision of a resource based on how much money it would make for the Department. That wasn?t the way it worked. We did make some money from moose, the economy did benefit from moose but that was not why we managed moose. We managed moose for the resource itself, the number that ought to be there. What came with it was the result of managing the resource correctly. We dropped 1,000 permits in 2014 that was how cognoscente he was about making money.

Mr. Thurston stated he needed help with the aerial studies and determining population. It seemed vague. He had a concern in WMD 8 and he was all about managing by science. But, statistically, how did that come together so he could explain it to his constituents. When he went out in the woods, he went off road and ?went out there.? When he looked at the success rate in WMD 8, 54%; 94 moose were killed out of 175 permits.

Ms. Camuso stated the aerial surveys that we did, not any one thing gave us the answer. It was all taken into consideration; all the pieces of the pie created a whole. In general what we were looking for when we ran the transect lines for population, we were looking at the most appropriate habitat for that management district. Then we ran the transect up and down for miles. That data was then compared; it was relative data. We would not say that we ran the transect and knew the number of moose on the landscape. What it told us was that there were more or less than last year, there were more or less than the WMD next to it, and we looked at that in combination when we did composition counts to look at the bull to cow ratio; we looked at that in conjunction with the harvest data; success rates; the feedback we got from deer hunters, etc. It was all used together. Moose were a challenge because they were difficult to see, the surveys had to be done in the winter, they were often in difficult terrain for us to access. This was not unique for moose country. Folks all across the country struggled with getting an accurate estimate for moose populations but it was the best available data we had. We were not alone in the way we were estimating moose populations and our biologists worked with bios throughout the region and across the country and she thought they would all agree the aerial surveys were an essential component to be able to give an accurate estimate for the moose on the landscape and as a predictor for whether we needed to increase or decrease the harvest.

Mr. Thurston stated he read the study and what alarmed him was the mortality rate that we found from the collared moose. That was a pretty aggressive number.

Ms. Camuso stated we had been monitoring the number of ticks on harvested moose since 2006. In the winter of 2013 on our harvested moose we had the highest number of tick counts that we?d seen. That could have predicted the mortality the following winter. What we were struggling with was that was too late to react to and prevent. Discussions were the way we could prevent that mortality from winter tick was possibly to kill more moose by hunting. The public did not really agree with that option. It felt counterintuitive. People often thought that hunting mortality in these situations was additive. It was possible we could use harvest in the fall to prevent mortality in the winter. The causes of mortality were not necessarily additive. For most wildlife species close to 70% of animals born in the spring did not live to the next year. A lot of this stuff had happened throughout time. Some of the things with technology made it easier for us to see now. We had evidence of a massive die off of moose back in the 1930?s when we had very few moose on the landscape. There were very few moose on the landscape yet we still had a major die off from ticks. We were not 100% sure that it was only density related. A wildlife veterinarian from Tufts spoke about almost never was it one thing, it was other things underlying that all worked together to cause mortality. Maybe the moose were a little under weight going into the winter, maybe they had lung parasites that couldn?t be seen, maybe there was a higher snow pack than an average winter and they had ticks. The tick was what appeared to be the catastrophic mortality event but most likely there was a whole host of things playing into that mortality. Vermont in the early 2000?s had a campaign to aggressively drop the moose population to deal with the ticks. However, they were not seeing the benefits they had expected. There were so many unknowns and things that could not be controlled. We were looking to start a second study area next winter to get a better handle on the mortality events statewide.

Mr. Thurston asked if the tick level might drop off on its own.

Ms. Camuso stated we did not know. It was possible that climatic conditions were impacting ticks. The winter ticks lived for just 1 year unlike most of the ticks which lived 3 years. The winter ticks went through their entire life cycle in 1 year on 1 animal. The other types of ticks would drop off in between cycles, but the winter tick would get their whole blood meal on the one moose. The fall seemed to be most important; hot dry falls were very productive for ticks. Biologists wanted to manage for healthy populations, they were not as concerned with the number of animals on the landscape. One of the benefits we could provide with a healthy wildlife population was hunting and viewing opportunities. What had happened in VT was they had dropped the moose population down to a point where on average hunters were seeing moose at a rate of 1 animal in 3 days. That was a low rate and she did not feel we would want that few moose on the landscape in Maine.

Mr. Thurston stated he felt we should err on the side of caution. We could control the number of permits we gave out.

Ms. Camuso stated we could control the permits but we could not control the winter mortality; the same number of animals would probably die in the end, but that was a hard message to communicate.

Commissioner Woodcock referred to a book he had been reading entitled ?White as a ghost? which provided good information regarding ticks and moose. With all the variables in the equation, what was the right number of permits and the notion of should hunters have them instead of them just dying off.

Mr. Fortier discussed deer ticks and the effects on humans.

Ms. Camuso stated tick counts were down this fall. This year we had 3 mortalities so far for collared moose; last year we had 11 at this time.

Mr. Dudley asked about the big game working group.

Ms. Camuso stated we were working on an RFP to have a survey firm help us to develop public surveys. Our plan was to have a big game steering committee made up of 8 or 9 people. From that group we would probably form subcommittees for people and bring in specialists that work on particular species. The goal would be to start the process this summer so the survey would be designed and ready for the public this fall. We would have regional meetings with the specialists and go into breakout sessions and have 10 or 20 minutes in each group (deer, bear, moose, turkey). We would probably also have some specific focus groups. Sometimes there may be additional questions we would want to ask as a follow up to the surveys. Then staff would make recommendations to the committee based on the feedback from the public. We would be doing surveys of the general public as well as targeted interest groups. The goal was to have it completed by the fall of 2016.

Mr. Dudley discussed the success rates and percentages. The final percentage was 65% overall. He was hearing that was not acceptable. What else did we hunt that had a 65% success rate?

Ms. Camuso stated our success rate compared to other states was fantastic. We had only been hunting moose since the 1980?s in Maine and animals did learn to avoid being hunted.

Mr. Farrington stated we had received a lot of comments about WMD 9, but a lot of those comments came from people that lived in WMD 8. At their request he went on a 200+ mile snowmobile ride because they wanted to prove to him that there were no moose left in the woods. They went 65 miles after a fresh snow and saw 2 sets of moose tracks crossing through an area that used to be inundated with moose. One of the moose they saw had a growth on its side. A snowmobile trail groomer took him to another place where moose used to be, there were just none there. He heard from people if the Department?s scientific data knew that ? the moose tagged last year died off, how come they didn?t reduce the number of moose permits by 50%? They did not understand the science part of it and felt the Department did not share the data. Lee Kantar gave a moose presentation in Jackman and said they were gathering the data. The moose were tagged a year ago and the public didn?t understand how come the analysis of that information on the moose that died was not available yet.

Ms. Camuso stated it was important to note that because of that we dropped the moose permits back last year because of the mortality by 25%. The numbers in front of the Council were consistent to significant and reduced permits as a result of the winter mortality last year. We had adjusted the numbers.

Mr. Farrington stated the devil?s advocate would say that was in WMD 8 and we hadn?t changed the numbers in WMD 8 for five years.

Ms. Camuso addressed the question about why the data wasn?t available. The blood work and that analysis was not a simple process. The markers or norms for moose had not been set. We did not know the normal levels of various blood components for moose. We were working with wildlife veterinarians to come up with those markers. The data didn?t mean anything until the markers were set.

Mr. Farrington asked if it was available from Michigan or other states that had been studying moose for a long time. With all the blood tests that had been done on moose through all the states, there had to be an average on what the levels should be.

Ms. Camuso stated we saw chronic mortality and sort of catastrophic mortality. Last year we had some catastrophic mortality. We knew that most of the moose we examined last year that died had a heavy tick load. Were there other factors contributing to the ultimate mortality; it was a major study and could take years to get results.

Commissioner Woodcock stated one of the problems we had in the moose arena was we started out with a 90% success rate. We were cautious about this and the biological staff was conservative with their permit numbers.

Mr. Farrington stated the people that took him for the snowmobile ride, they were all telling him there were no tracks and that told them there were no moose there. They looked at the permit numbers and told him they knew there would be a hearing on WMD 9 but they would also like WMD 8 cut in half. He did not feel they understood the science behind it, all they knew was what they saw in the woods.

Commissioner Woodcock stated two years ago we cut the bull numbers in WMD 8 because we had some complaints from people who thought the outfitters were going to lose money. They had been the same for a couple years now.

Ms. Camuso stated the Department may not have done the best job communicating with the public on a whole host of species. The bear referendum was a perfect example that people did not have a clear understanding what the agency did. As a result of that we were trying to hire a marketing firm to help us come up with a communications strategy for the Department. That would incorporate some television ads, social media, press releases, newspapers, etc. and try and take advantage of this electronic age and try and do a better job. She felt that in the next year or two people would see the Department stepping up our efforts to reach out to the public.

Mrs. DeMerchant asked if there was funding in place for that.

Ms. Camuso stated we were working on it.

Mr. Thurston stated he knew some of the hunting public would be open to closing down the moose season for a couple years if the species needed that lessened pressure. They were open to that and we needed to do a better job with education and explaining why we did what we did.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we managed for everybody. A person not affiliated with the outdoors at all and just wanted no one to do anything with the wildlife, we managed for them too. The referendum highlighted that significantly. The population we had to educate were not hunting and fishing people.

Ms. Camuso referred to the ?Hug a Hunter? program in Colorado. We were going to try to simulate a similar program in Maine.

A motion was made by Mrs. DeMerchant to accept the presentation of moose numbers for permits taking out WMD 9 for now and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier.

Vote: 7 in favor; 1 opposed (Mr. Farrington) ? motion passed.

B. Step 2

There were no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. Phippsburg Expanded Archery Hunt Petition

Commissioner Woodcock stated we received an official petition to change the geographic borders around the Phippsburg expanded archery zone and take Phippsburg out of the expanded archery zone. This issue had a history and would continue to do so. Firearms and expanded archery were both involved in this particular area. Normally we had special archery zones for opportunities where firearms weren?t involved. There were some that would comment that it should stay the way it was. There were some advantages to having an expanded archery zone.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. DeMerchant asked if we had received any feedback from the sportsman?s association there.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he did not think we had yet.

Ms. Orff stated the rulemaking notice had not been advertised yet.

Mr. Thurston asked what the group?s reason was to take it out of expanded archery.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there were people who would prefer that other people not have advantages in the hunting season because they could hunt in places other people couldn?t. It was a local process.

Mr. Connolly stated all of WMD 24 had areas where there was gun hunting and bow hunting as well. That was the one district that was different in terms of the philosophy that was behind it. It had more to do with accessibility and the ability to control the deer herd so it was a way to maximize opportunity. This was one particular community where the bow hunters and the gun hunters disagreed about what impact that?s had on their ability to pursue their sport. Even within the sportsman?s club there had been a great difference of opinion.

Mr. Fortier stated if that were to be taken out, what would that do to the deer population in that area.

Mr. Connolly stated we didn?t manage deer by town. Over time we may get anecdotal evidence about increases in car deer accidents within the community or more damage to shrubs if someone else didn?t pick up the slack. That was the difficult part, if the deer wasn?t taken by a bow hunter was it going to be there when the gun hunter went. Making an assertion about if there?s going to be a direct correlation from one to the other in terms of success was difficult.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he guessed it was not so much biological but purely opportunity.

2. Moose Permits WMD 9

Commissioner Woodcock stated there had been a lot of discussion, was there anything else the Council would like to hear about. We would be having a public hearing in Greenville on the 24th of April.

Ms. Orff stated the comment period ended May 4th, and the next time the Council saw this on the agenda it would be bumped up to Step 3 because of the timing.

Commissioner Woodcock stated it had been explained to one of the people involved in leading the charge in the Greenville area that this changed the process in terms of the permit process for that area in advertising and applications from people who came in. It did change a little bit for those people who wanted to apply in WMD 9, we would have to put it on the internet that there may be some changes in WMD 9 that could affect their permit application.

Mr. Farrington stated he had been asked to give the petition in writing to Ms. Orff. He had also been asked to request a copy of the Administrative Procedures Act. They wanted to see it in writing regards the requirements to have a public hearing. The individual stated he had called the Department a few times, and got a different answer each time.
Commissioner Woodcock stated part of the concern about what was going on was that we were in the middle of a comment period when the conversation was being had. If it came during the comment period the 5 official requests to have a public hearing, we would do that. If it happened after that deadline, it became a petition function.

Ms. Orff stated some of the confusion was about petitioning on a proposal. A petition typically was for an existing rule and what he wanted to petition us on was a proposal, we hadn?t completed the rulemaking process yet.

Mr. Farrington stated they had already given him the solution, cut it back to 50 bulls and throw everything else out and we didn?t have to come to Greenville.

Commissioner Woodcock stated they were looking for an opportunity to be heard officially before anyone voted on WMD 9, and that was what we were doing. He felt the process worked well. There was also some confusion about what people thought a petition was. To the Department, a petition was a legal document with 150 certified signatures. That meant the clerk of the town had to say they were a voter in the town.

V. Other Business

1. Any-deer Permits 2015

Ms. Camuso stated all the deer data had been entered. Kyle Ravana was in the process of reviewing the harvest data from 2014. He had done a pretty good analysis so far of the winter severity which was another of the major components to any-deer permits. We would be having a meeting with regional staff at the end of April and preliminary numbers for the Council at the May meeting.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Lewis asked if the severity index was bad or good.

Ms. Camuso stated right now it looked like the 11th worst winter that we had on record.

Commissioner Woodcock stated not to let that correlate with the number of deer that were lost. The severity index was there, but what did do for deer. He had heard a lot of reports from around the state that there were deer around and they were healthy.

Ms. Camuso stated the winter severity index went until the middle of April so we wouldn?t have that measure for a few more weeks.

Ms. Starbird commented on the NH deer feeding incident. Maybe the public should be educated on if they were going to feed, they should know what to feed.

Ms. Camuso stated 12 deer were found dead in NH as a result of improper food. We sent out a press release and posted an information sheet on our website about feeding of deer. The one component of it was the actual food. The other issue was when you had deer feeding in small areas it was much more likely to spread disease. It was also more likely to have deer crossing roads to get to feed stations and getting hit by cars. She personally did not like encouraging people to feed deer even if they were feeding the right food supplies because there were a whole other host of things that caused the demise of those deer.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there was a law that gave him the right to summons someone feeding deer if after the third warning they had not changed their feeding station.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

John Short stated he had brittneys, ran bird dogs, did a little bit of training, it was a hobby. He was the president of the Central Maine Brittney club, vice president of the Maine Bird Dog club and belonged to a bunch of sporting clubs. In the last several years bird dogs and rabbit dogs had been getting snapped in October. They were getting caught in the traps during early coyote trapping season. Alot of people were trapping now. Hides were up, but coyote hides that time of year weren?t that great talking with some of the people that trapped. The first year that early trapping season showed up was in the 1989-90 law book. Prior law books didn?t have it. He thought it was Skip Trask who at that time brought it to the Advisory Council and asked for a second week which he got a lot of opposition on from the bird hunters.

Mr. Short stated he held a trapping license, had one for years but didn?t trap anymore. He thought MaryAnn said when he called here last year there were 3,200 trapping licenses which was the most in a long time for the state. It was a growing issue; traps were being set on the side of some of the trails. A guy in West Newfield two years ago ended up shooting his dog. Several dogs from Caratunk up to the Greenville area, across the road in Lilly Bay and Number 4 Mountain, a dog was caught up in there. It had been an issue. Dirt sets, everybody liked them. Move it back to September, give them the month of September if we?re worried about coyote and fox over population. Other people, give them the month of January while it?s breeding season. Who cared, they were coyotes and if we want to get rid of a lot of them give them January to finish trapping. Give October for the bird dogs and rabbit dogs not to get caught.

Mr. Short stated he knew there was an issue with conibears. He talked with Ms. Camuso a couple of weeks ago and spoke two years ago with John DePue and more recently his boss. He had spoken with the Commissioner a couple times as well. When he talked with Mr. DePue he advised him to get 150 signatures and bring it to the Department. He got 150 signatures, brought it to the Department and met with Deputy Commissioner Erskine. He stuck with mainly people that were bird hunting or rabbit hunting and got signatures from York County up to the County and met with Deputy Commissioner Erskine, and then was told the signatures needed to be verified. Nobody had mentioned verifying them.

Mr. Short stated if the Advisory Council gave them a second week to either move it back into September or give them the month of September. He had an article about a guy with a rabbit dog that got caught and lost a paw, and one in York County down in Sanford that had a little rat dog walking along the path that got snapped. He had a friend in Buxton who was a pro-trainer and it took a couple hours to find his pointer laid out in the field. On Rt. 5 in Scarborough he had his dog get caught in the middle of a field and had to let him out of the trap. He had done some stuff with the different clubs on traps and releasing the dogs. Kezar Falls club was an old fish and game club with members in their 60?s, 70?s and 80?s. They had a trapper come in and give a demonstration and some of these people could not open a trap or didn?t know how to open a trap. Bird season went from October 1 to the end of December, he hunted October, very little in November and back in December. If he got caught then he didn?t care, he was running with them and that was their season. It had been an issue and something had to be done about it. Trapping, you could trap 7 days a week and shoot your animals on Sunday in the trap. He had October; let him run his bird dogs.

Mr. Short stated he had a dog training license and propagation license and met with Deputy Commissioner Erskine on these things. It was a 2-year license. He came this year to get it and the propagation license was 2 years, but the permit to shoot birds and train was only 1 year. Talking with the people downstairs why it was not 2 years, they said it never had been. He had old licenses, it was 2 years. Laws got changed, some with the stroke of a pen yet other ones had to be voted on? He had been trying a couple years on this, it seemed like the trappers had a good hold on the state. Get it out of October, give them September or January.

Mr. Short stated he had another issue. He was asked this by another guy that ran rabbit dogs up in the Caratunk area. People were coming in from out of state with Portuguese hunting dogs. He didn?t know the warden in that area but heard he was going to put in a bill to try to cut it back. They were putting 15-17 dogs on the ground, shooting rabbits and dogs ripped them up. At the end of the day they would start heading out and if only 10 dogs came back they would pull out and go home. One of the guides up there that he knew had a couple of the dogs, they had left them behind. He wasn?t sure of the warden?s name in that area but he believed that he was going to try to put a limit on how many dogs they could put on the ground. He did talk last year with Senator Davis about it.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The date and location of the next meeting would be Wednesday, May 6th at 9:30 a.m. at 284 State Street, Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mrs. DeMerchant and that was seconded by Ms. Starbird to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
February 25, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Andrea Erskine, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director of Bureau of Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Mike Brown, Fisheries Division Director
Bonnie Holding, Director of Information and Education
Lieutenant Adam Gormely, Maine Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Jeff Lewis (Chair) ? by phone
Dick Fortier
Sheri Oldham
Don Dudley
Jenny Starbird
Larry Farrington
Gunnar Gundersen

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Don Kleiner, MPGA

I. Call to Order

Council member Sheri Oldham called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Dudley.

Vote: unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Licensed Guide Rules

Mrs. Theriault stated we had added language in section 24.03 ?or equivalent course approved by the Department? in regards to having an EMT or paramedic course when applying for a guides license. That was the only comment that was received.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated the bulk of the initial proposal was the requirement for licensed guides for those guiding stand-up paddle boarders. That was the initial proposal; the amendment was an additional provision that we put in for first aid.

Council Member Comments

Mr. Fortier asked about the guides, was it their obligation to find a course or did the Department offer courses.

Lt. Gormely stated it was their obligation, the burden rested with the guide.

Mrs. Theriault stated the stand-up paddle boarders were now required to be licensed if they wanted to participate in that sport. Out on the ocean they had to have the sea kayaking classification, if they wanted to do it on inland waters they had to have their recreational classification.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated we received one written comment from the Guides Association in support.

A motion was made by Ms. Starbird to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Dudley.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed

2. Boating Regulations

Lt. Gormely stated we had received a substantive comment. Someone had gone through and made edits, most of which were formatting. Substantively there were no changes we accepted.

Mrs. Theriault stated some of the recommended changes were to define some of the terms that were used. That was not something we did as they were defined in statute. The bulk of the changes that were accepted were grammatical and formatting.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated what the Council saw at Step 2, and what was being presented at Step 3, the bulk of changes had no significant impact to the regulations themselves.

Mr. Kleiner asked about the omission of the guides piece, was that still there?

Lt. Gormely stated yes. The personal floatation for a commercial venture, was that language still there that allowed a licensed guide to be considered recreational for the exemption of carriage requirements for the Type I? It was omitted in the original proposal but had been added back in.

Mr. Dudly stated the language could be found on page 11, paragraph 4 of the handout.

Mr. Farrington stated on page 13 we talked about fire extinguishers. The minimum number of B1?s or better was discussed. If they had a multi-purpose extinguisher were they covered?

Lt. Gormely stated yes. The reason we kept the language was to try to make sure that our language was consistent with the Coast Guard. Anyone that had an extinguisher with an ABC rating was certainly better. ABC was what it actually extinguished; a B rating was designed to put out gasoline fires.

Mr. Farrington stated he thought people may try to find just a B1 extinguisher because it did not specify that was the minimum requirement. Most boat operators had multi-purpose extinguishers on their boats.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated that was the official regulation, but when we put the boating regulations summary together to hand out to the public we could modify the statement.

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Dudley.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

B. Step 2

1. Spring Turkey hunting WMDs 1-6

Ms. Camuso stated this was a proposal to have WMDs 1-6 have a split season. People with odd years of birth dates would hunt the first and third weeks and even birth dates would hunt the second and fourth and everybody would have the fifth week. This was an effort to try and reduce hunter congestion for the landowners. This was how we historically had opened WMDs for turkey hunting in the spring. There was a question about possibly shortening the turkey season up north or delaying it a week. She did talk with the turkey biologist and the regional biologist and everyone agreed from a hunting perspective that did not make sense. The phonology of the birds was such that the birds would start breeding very soon. Most of the feedback they received from people was they wanted the turkey season sooner, not later. If we delayed the season the hunting opportunities were going to be diminished. It was also consistent with the way turkeys were managed across the northeast and pretty much all the states had the same parameters for the spring season. They felt having the split season would address the congestion issue. No public comments had been received.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier asked about public comments. We weren?t getting any from landowners being upset about getting on their land early? His phone was ringing off the hook.

Ms. Orff stated the comment period had ended February 20th and she had not received any comments.

Mr. Fortier stated the areas were WMDs 1-6, it was not like it took a lot of landowners to shut down huge amounts of land. He understood the turkey hunters wanted to go, but they weren?t on their land they were on somebody else?s. The restrictions the farmers had to deal with regards crop contamination etc. Mud and ATVs were factors they had to deal with.

Ms. Camuso stated this issue had been raised consistently as we opened WMDs there?s a concern about landowner issues particularly in the spring. Depending on the year it was often mud season through most of the state. We had not experienced it to the extent Mr. Fortier was alluding to. We did not know how many people would go to Aroostook County to hunt turkey. Those traveling from the south were more likely to hunt in Central Maine. There were not that many turkeys up north.

Mr. Fortier stated he saw it that they would have new turkey hunters, people that had not hunted turkey before. He lived there and knew the farmers and they were very gracious. If people realized the agricultural restrictions they had to abide by it was huge. Some people thought because they had a hunting license it gave them the right to go on other people?s property.

Ms. Starbird stated that fell on the hunter with the landowner. They should be the ones to say they would like to hunt on the property, it shouldn?t change the turkey season itself. It fell on the hunter for landowner permission.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine asked Mr. Fortier if the landowners were aware of the proposal.

Mr. Fortier stated hopefully they were aware, but they were busy farming.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine asked about the phone calls Mr. Fortier stated he had been receiving.

Mr. Fortier stated three big landowners were calling. The Moore Farm land was a township that started behind Mr. Fortier?s house and none of it was posted.

Mrs. Oldham stated in addressing the landowner issue, they had talked about changing one week. Would that be acceptable?

Mr. Fortier stated he felt that would be much better having the week going later in the season.

Ms. Camuso asked if he felt one week would make a difference.

Mr. Fortier stated it did up north. When they started planting potatoes it was always Memorial weekend or the week before. The week before that you couldn?t get near the land.

Mrs. Oldham stated then the one week change wouldn?t affect that.

Mr. Fortier stated he thought they were talking about going to a 4 week season.

Mrs. Oldham stated that would start May 11th. Did Mr. Fortier think that one week difference would appease the big landowners?

Mr. Fortier stated it was the first turkey hunt up there. Last year the hunt was stopped because of the conditions and the snow conditions. Had that changed this year? He felt the birds had dispersed better.

Mrs. Oldham stated this was the very northern range for turkeys, and Ms. Camuso confirmed that. Did breeding behavior change from Cumberland County to Aroostook County?

Ms. Camuso stated typically things like sunrise and what time sunrise started was what triggered the photo period in many species, it?s what triggered the breeding response.

Mr. Fortier stated he worried about the landowners.

Ms. Camuso stated maybe we could have Rick LaFlamme work with the landowners and see if there was any way we could help.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated in years past we had held a turkey hunting workshop.

Ms. Camuso stated we held 3 last year. We could ask the Turkey Federation if they would be willing to do them again.

Mr. Fortier asked if the biologists had gone out to verify how the birds were dispersing.

Ms. Camuso stated they did counts in the late summer, early fall to get productivity and things like that. It was more anecdotally, none of the turkeys had receivers on them. Rich Hoppe and Amanda DeMusz had a good handle on the population that it was increasing or stable. Rich Hoppe expressed that the population appeared to be growing and spreading out more.

Mr. Farrington asked if we had funds for public education where this was a relatively new thing up there to get people to work with the farmers so they didn?t drive their 4-wheelers across a field that was just plowed.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated the classes we would hold, that would be part of that.

Mr. Fortier stated that was also stressed in their hunter safety classes.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine asked Mr. Fortier if he had a sense of what the interest in turkey hunting was going to be up there.

Mr. Fortier stated he had no idea. He thought it was going to be good.

Mr. Dudley asked if they set something up in the area with the Presque Isle club and had Rick LaFlamme come and speak, would he reach most of the people that would be turkey hunting?

Mr. Fortier stated if they knew ahead of time he thought that it would. Their club was 250 members now.

Ms. Camuso stated she could ask Rich and Rick to work with the Wild Turkey Federation on additional outreach.

Mr. Fortier stated where they were on the border they would get Canadians coming over to turkey hunt. He wanted the turkey hunt there and wanted it to be successful. It was how it started that first season that set the ground work on everything going forward.

Mrs. Oldham stated what she was hearing from the Deputy Commissioner was that the Department would commit to public outreach with an emphasis on landowner relations.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated we had held meetings there in the past. She gave the controlled moose hunt as an example. We could also provide information at the Presque Isle sportsman?s show.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Moose permits 2015

Ms. Camuso stated a total of 2,815 permits was being proposed. There were no major changes from last year except for a couple of minor tweaks. In WMD 2 we cut the permits by 300 because we were at target there. WMD 2 was changed to a compromise zone and we were directed to bring the population down.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated Ms. Camuso had asked them to submit questions.

Ms. Camuso stated one of the questions was, ?What were some of the unexpected preliminary results of the cow/calf mortality study.? It was hard to say right now because the study was still ongoing. Mr. Kantar was emphatic that the results would be evident when the study was over. He did indicate that it appeared that the annual survival rate for cows in WMD 8 was lower than we were experiencing in other parts of the state. When he had been doing surveys in other areas the population did not appear to have the same mortality rate that we experience in WMD 8. Another question asked was ?During the population assessment flights have any habitat issues been identified?? When they were doing population studies with aerial surveys they targeted an area that had appropriate habitat that was representative of good moose habitat. When they were doing the surveys in the helicopter they were really focusing on moose and not habitat.
Another question, ?What was the most important issue in need of further research?? Ms. Camuso stated it was consistent what we were looking to address was the parameters effecting reproduction. Reproductive rates and twinning rates was probably the most important thing for us to figure out. What was limiting reproduction could be a host of things, habitat, density, climate change, parasites, etc.
Another question, ?Do you anticipate any significant management changes in the near future?? Ms. Camuso stated that was a hard one to answer. We were about to embark on a species planning process for bear, deer and moose. As part of that we would do some broad public surveys, we would do some targeted public surveys and we would likely do some regional public meetings. We really would not be prepared to answer the question until we had gone through that process.

Mr. Farrington stated one of the questions that was posed to him by a gentleman from Jackman was if Mr. Kantar and his survey crew knew that they lost over 50% of the animals that they tagged how come there hadn?t been a permit reduction in WMD 8?

Ms. Camuso stated there were no cow permits being issued in WMD 8. To grow or decrease the population we would use the cow permits to adjust that, not bull permits. The ratio of cows to bulls was ok and the number of mature bulls in that WMD was within range so there was no need to adjust the permits.

Mr. Fortier stated for WMD 2 he saw an article from a guide in the area. The article stated too many moose had died from ticks, etc. Mr. Fortier did not disagree with the reduction in WMD 2.

Ms. Camuso stated there was a school of thought that moose density effected the rate at which moose got ticks. That was not consistent across the moose range so they still had moose in southern Maine with low moose densities that could have high tick loads. It was not just density, there were lots of other things that effected ticks and how they impacted moose. The ticks would affect moose differently depending on the age of the moose, sex, condition, etc. There were most often underlying circumstances that would cause the moose to be more vulnerable to ticks.

Mrs. Oldham asked how long an epizootic usually lasted.

Ms. Camuso stated it varied. The tick survey that we did in the fall on the harvested moose, one of the higher counts was in 2013. We were working with other states to try and come up with a predictive model of if we had this many ticks on the moose in the fall, we could expect x, y or z. It could be highly variable. This winter being so cold could do a good job of killing off many ticks. We did not have the answers yet as to what were the impacts of weather, temperature, snow depth, wind, etc. on the survival of the ticks.

Mr. Fortier asked if the snow depth helped protect the ticks.

Ms. Camuso stated the winter tick was different in that it stayed on the moose or host for its entire life cycle so we would highly expect that cold temperatures and more snow was problematic for winter ticks.

Mr. Farrington asked when the results of the tests done last year would be available. Some of the necropsies that were done must have some results back by now.

Ms. Camuso stated it was a 5-year study. It was not that simple to tell what the moose died from. A lot of the normal ranges for hormone levels for moose were not really set. We were working with the Maine Animal Health Lab to help establish the norms. We should have preliminary results this summer, but it would take a few years to get more conclusive results. We were also looking at a couple new projects to be able to test for brain worm. Brain worm had been very difficult to detect in moose.

Mr. Farrington asked if the tests Mr. Kantar was doing did not actually give the cause of death?

Ms. Camuso stated no. We knew the moose was dead; Mr. Kantar would take measurements, fecal samples, blood samples, tissue samples, etc.

C. Step 1

There were no items under Step 1.

V. Other Business

1. Controlled Moose Hunt

Ms. Camuso stated there were no rule changes there; we were proposing the same number of 25 permits to disabled veterans in the same towns open for hunting. There was only one change to expand it an additional week but that was within the Commissioner?s authority within the rule. The hunt had been very positive and successful.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

Mr. Farrington asked if there was any progress on the trapping, as far as protecting the lynx. He would like some information to share with the trappers in his area.

Mr. Connolly stated we had met with the trappers and representatives of the MTA. We met with the board directly and then at a meeting that they had in Bangor where membership was invited to attend and express their concerns about how things would proceed in the future. We had started a dialogue with representatives of the trappers to come up with some ideas long term to then meet with the USFWS to implement rulemaking for the fall of 2015. We did not have specific answers and part of it would be, we needed to work with the USFWS to gain acceptance of those ideas moving forward. The other piece was that the Friends of Animals had filed a lawsuit against the USFWS for issuing the ITP. That had been filed in the Boston court and there was movement in terms of who was going to be interveners in that and how that was going to proceed. That had implications for our rulemaking changes as well.

Ms. Camuso stated she thought the goal was to have something before the Council in June.

Mr. Connolly stated we had to get a permanent regulation in place for the upcoming trapping season and normally we would start rulemaking in June to do that so that it would be available to be published before the start of the early fox and coyote trapping season in October.

Mr. Dudley asked if this would affect the K-9 season? We were going into foot traps as well as killer type traps.

Ms. Camuso stated we would be irresponsible to not look at ways to minimize incidental capture of lynx in the early fox and coyote season. If we had an animal that was non-releasable that would count as our third take. Both making sure that we minimize the number of lynx we caught in footholds and making sure that any lynx we caught in a foothold we minimized any chance that animal could be injured to the point where it couldn?t be released. Also, we couldn?t go over the maximum number of animals that we?re allowed as incidental catch.

Mr. Dudley stated he felt this would not be limited to lynx only areas; would it be state wide sensitive?

Mr. Connolly stated trappers had raised that as a concern.

Ms. Camuso stated everybody recognized that it didn?t matter where you were in the state, if it was in the lynx zone or outside the lynx zone if there was an issue with a lynx it was going to affect everybody. All the regional staff was participating in the surveys and we were seeing a good number of lynx tracks. She thought the estimated population was 1500 animals, and that was probably conservative.

Mr. Dudley asked if this would really have any impact on the ITP? The number of lynx, if it was considerably higher than what they set the ITP, it didn?t change the fact that we were down to one.

Ms. Camuso stated the USFWS, it was not being handled in the eastern part of the country it was in their western office, was looking at a status review for lynx and they were committed to have that done by the summer. At that point, given all the information they had, their biologists could determine that the threatened status was adequate, or that they should be listed as endangered or that they should be taken off the list. If they determined lynx should remain as a threatened species then the USFWS was obligated to come up with a recovery plan that would be due in 2018. They were dealing with population across the range so we could have 3 to 4 times as many lynx as we had 10 years ago and that wouldn?t change the status on the continental scale.

Mr. Dudley stated it looked as though the only way we would ever get back to a normal trapping season was to somehow change, either we?re a distinct population segment or change the number somehow.

Ms. Camuso stated they had discussed with the trappers that the USFWS had to date determined that the lynx did not qualify as a distinct population segment. We could continue to work on that, but that would be a long term process. We were bound right now, they were listed across the range not eastern and western.
Ms. Camuso stated the trappers had asked that we do a major amendment to the ITP.

Mr. Connolly stated he had a discussion with Marty Miller, the head for endangered species for Region 5 in Hadley which was what we operated under. They discussed the DPS (distinct population segment) issue and one of the challenges was because the listing was done for the entire lower 48 when it considered the states where there were lynx, and it was considered one DPS they had to resolve it on that scale. They talked about, was there an advantage for Maine to being a DPS. They did not make a single state a DPS, it would have to be more than an area. They would not delist one state. When they looked at DPS?s they had to look at it in terms of a stable population they had two criteria. When they looked at the 5 or 6 areas of the country that had lynx populations, none of them met both the standards that were there. The other advantage to having a single DPS for the entire country was, they might want to think of it as having separate stable groups of lynx was actually better for lynx long term in terms of being persistent and resilient in case there were issues with the population. The USFWS had to look at all that and make that decision going forward and evaluate it. Western states were very interested in seeing lynx delisted entirely. There had been a big increase in information since they did the initial listing across the country. We were going to be looking at some issues in terms of the genetics and the movement of lynx between the northeast and Canada. From Quebec all the way over to the Maritimes and up to the gasbay there were lynx moving places. It was legal to take lynx in Quebec. There was a lot of movement of their lynx to us and who got to claim them complicated the issue.

When you talked about a major amendment to the ITP, you had to think of it as the ITP was kind of an insurance policy where insurance companies never insure anything where they?re pretty sure they won?t have to pay a claim, or if they pay a claim you?ve already probably paid them $2 for every dollar they?re going to give you. It?s always figured out in favor of the insurance company. The ITP, because of the endangered species act, was written that way. It was written very strictly, it was not a free pass to take things. There was a lot of criticism by the Friends of Animals that this was permission for Fish & Wildlife to just go kill and injure lynx. It was not. In the ITP we had to pretty much show that we were never going to make a claim, or that we?d done everything possible to prevent ourselves from making a claim, before they would give permission to have a policy that insured you if you did. There was a question about why we did not ask for more. With lethal traps, we had never shown that we had ever had an animal taken lethally. Part of our defense in having a trapping program was the measure we had shown was effective in avoiding lynx was a leaning pole set, we had hundreds of thousands of trap nights and we had never taken a lynx at all. The service asked what we needed lethal take for, because we just said this was a method that didn?t result in lethal take so we had avoided the take. We couldn?t ask for 6 animals to cover us on a method that we just said was the way we were preventing lethal take. The take that we thought would occur most likely, was the take from an animal couldn?t be released because just capturing a lynx was against federal law. When we did research we had to get a permit that would allow us to catch them to even put radio collars on them. We also had an exemption in our rules that would allow us to take them out of the traps from trappers and examine them and release them. The take that we anticipated and asked for was the unavoidable take doing all the things we suggested to avoid capturing lynx during the early fox and coyote season in regular land traps, the idea there was potential that we would capture a lynx that couldn?t be released. If it couldn?t be released that was the same in the Service?s eyes as killing it because it would be taking it permanently out of the wild. Our suspicion was that there was a potential that an animal could break a leg and we?ve had 2 animals have leg injuries. Both animals we?ve taken out of the wild, rushed to Tufts University, cured them and we?ve released them back into the wild.

Mr. Connolly stated when we looked at regulations we had to portion out the take by that method by the year over time. We assumed we would catch about 13 animals a year, there might be 9 animals with serious injury and the potential for three that would be caught and never released. We ended up taking two of the three lethal takes but we?ve still got to look at minimizing the number of animals that we just plain catch and release or the potential that we could catch more animals and have them suffer injuries that we would have to take to the vet.
Mr. Connolly stated if we were going to increase the permit from what we had, we had to look at the take we were experiencing and show the Service how you?re not going to make that claim. Trapper training, education, methods to deal with the lynx when they?re caught, examine them and make sure they?re not injured and if they were injured have provisions to take care of them. If we wanted to amend the permit we would have to show in the take we?re experiencing, what we?re going to do to reduce that because the law says that the take has to be reduced to the maximum extent practicable. The permit was to allow us to trap so we had to modify trapping in such a way to protect lynx. Mitigation for our lynx ITP was we had to set aside 27,000 acres as lynx habitat and identify about 6,200 acres of habitat that would be managed to be high quality hare habitat because high quality hare habitat equates to healthy lynx. We identified the Seboomock unit because IFW did not have 27,000 acres of land so we got Bureau of Public Lands to set aside the acres. If we wanted to amend the permit and ask for additional take we would have to come up with more mitigation that would offset whatever take we have had. We talked about the benefits of fisher trapping as being a way to reduce take and that was not accepted by the USFWS.

Mr. Dudley stated that was ironic because fisher was the major predator of lynx. Ironically they were going to make it very tough for the trappers to catch fisher.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated when you looked at the amount of time it took to get the ITP; to do a major amendment would probably be very difficult.

Mr. Connolly stated the way the regulations evolved, WMDs 1-6 and 8-11 were part of the consent decree. Those were the original lynx WMDs that in order to settle the lawsuit we entered into a consent decree and we established the restrictions within those areas. Afterwards, the Department, because we?ve always tried to manage things appropriately, added WMDs 7, 14, 18 and 19 to the lynx WMDs but they didn?t have the same restrictions as the consent decree and we got exclusion devices allowed in those four WMDs all along. Now, with the issues with the leaning pole set and not being able to rely upon that to avoid lynx captures we want to go back and get exclusion devices allowed in the 1-6 and 8-11 where they were never in place and add those in so we can get the fisher and martin trapping going this fall. In addition to that, we wanted to find a way to use some other methods that were less demanding on the trapper.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

There were no public comments or questions.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The date and location of the next meeting would be forwarded to the Council at a later time.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mr. Dudley to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
January 22, 2015 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Andrea Erskine, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director of Bureau of Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Nate Webb, Special Projects Biologist
Mike Brown, Fisheries Division Director
Lieutenant Adam Gormely, Maine Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Jeff Lewis (Chair)
Dick Fortier
Sheri Oldham
Cathy DeMerchant
Don Dudley
Jenny Starbird
Matt Thurston
Larry Farrington
Gunnar Gundersen

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Don Kleiner, MPGA
Deirdre Fleming, Portland Press Herald
Dave Cressey, Rangeley

I. Call to Order

Jeff Lewis, Council Chair called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mrs. DeMerchant to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mrs. Oldham.

Vote: unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Licensed Guide Rules

Mrs. Theriault stated there was one small piece of added language. It was brought about by the guides advisory board. There was discussion about allowing other types of first aid certification courses to folks who needed to become first aid certified before they applied for their guide license. Language was added to include equivalent courses approved by the Department.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated the statute allowed the Commissioner to approve other courses that met the criteria in rule and we had a request from a group and Mr. Corson reviewed their program and felt it surpassed what was currently being accepted. There may be other groups in the future to come in.

There were no further comments or questions.

2. Boating Regulations

Lt. Gormely stated he did some research regarding Mr. Farrington?s question on the fire extinguisher part of the rule. We had also received other public comment on the boating rules. The biggest change was a comment on old language that did not make it into the proposal; it was an omission when preparing the two drafts. One of them was the exception that if you were guiding on a commercial trip that the requirements would be the same when guiding on inland waters as you would for lifejacket requirements for a recreational boat. This was for inland waters, ocean would still be something different. Another change in keeping in line with Coast Guard code of federal regulations, they were going away from a Type I, II or III PFD. It was more of a label now.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Ms. Starbird stated she had received a public comment which she forwarded to the Department.

Mrs. Theriault stated it was answered and reinserting the omitted language should suffice for his concerns.

Lt. Gormely stated regarding the fire extinguisher question, currently you were required to have a B1 or B2 fire extinguisher, and the comment was that seemed to be antiquated and a B1 rating only put out an electrical fire. Lt. Gormely researched the question and the proposal would remain as presented regarding the fire extinguisher portion. It was consistent with federal regulation and their priority in the concern was to make sure you could at least put out a gasoline fire. A, B and C ratings put out different things. An A put out trash or wood, B put out gasoline and C put out electrical. Most general extinguishers had a B rating. Lt. Gormely stated he had called several marinas and asked if they could provide a B1 extinguisher, and they could. After speaking with the Coast Guard they recommended keeping the rule as proposed.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington stated the B1 or B2 was the minimum, if they wanted to have an A, B, C that was fine?

Lt. Gormely stated yes. At the bare minimum they would have to have a B1.

Mrs. Oldham asked if there should be language stating the minimum?

Lt. Gormely stated the B rating was what it put out and the numerical value was the square footage that the extinguisher would reasonably put out.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine asked if there was any liability on our part by stating they could have a B1 when it didn?t cover all types of fires.

Lt. Gormely stated he had asked the Coast Guard and primarily they were most concerned with the gasoline fires, the combustibles and that was why they were requiring at a minimum the B1 or B2. We may want to put a notation in the boaters guide regarding fire extinguishers and encourage boaters to purchase extinguishers above the minimum requirement.

Mr. Thurston asked if there was a cost difference in the 1?s and 2?s and the all in ones?

Lt. Gormely stated there didn?t seem to be.

Mr. Farrington asked about PFD requirements for regular water skiers and ?trick? skiers. Trick skiers did not have to have a life jacket?

Lt. Gormely stated we had recognized in a couple different venues that when we got to a specialized group that we made some concessions. We considered that to be a risk assessment. The risk assessment said the average boater/skier wasn?t probably expecting to go under, wasn?t expecting fall and didn?t really understand that and the operator of the boat probably wasn?t well equipped. The trick skier knew the risks and was trying to perform and accepted that risk inherent with his sport. They were professionals and understood the risks and could not perform wearing a bulky life jacket.

Gary Corson asked about the PFD exemption for Type I for guides, did that include the boundary waters?

Mrs. Theriault stated it should as long as it was on inland waters.

Mr. Kleiner stated he believed the language was from a long time ago and part of a memorandum of agreement that we had with the Coast Guard at that time exempted those boundary lakes, although he had not been able to find the language. Technically, East Grand Lake required a captain?s license because it was a boundary water. But, there was a memorandum of agreement somewhere that stated they didn?t need the Type I. That was the same agreement that stopped Coast Guard jurisdiction would run very far up our rivers because they were commercially navigable.

Lt. Gormely stated the federal government oversaw the state in a variety of ways. They could research the question and find the correct answer.

C. Step 1

1. Spring Turkey hunting WMDs 1-6

Ms. Camuso stated this was to have the spring turkey hunt in WMDs 1-6 be a split season and that was primarily to reduce the strain on landowners in that area. There was a small turkey population there in isolated areas. Up until 2007 the split season was used to open WMDs. We would try the season this way for two years to try to assist the landowners in that area.

Council member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier stated some parts of the proposal he really agreed with. He would like to see it closed another year, but only if the science indicated that. They hadn?t had anymore turkeys brought there because of the infection issues. One point of concern for him was the landowners. The May 4 ? 9 week of hunting, they were one month behind the rest of the state when it came to drying out (the season). When they went into planting their crops the 18th was kind of the minimum that the farmers started doing any crop planning. The 11th to the 16th was still early but might be more tolerable. That May 4th week was mud season and the vastness and size of the landowners up there, the ATV trails were closed but that didn?t stop those with 4 wheel drives from going onto the land and tearing it up. The farmers took a lot of pride in their land, he would hate to see repercussions. Whether the season was moved out of that week down into June or go with a 3-week season and then look at the numbers. There were a couple flocks of turkeys that were starting to spread out.

Mrs. Oldham stated Mr. Fortier was right about the mud season and landowner relations. Perhaps a simple solution was in Season A, eliminate week #1 in terms of those dates, add the June 5th to June 6th, make that just a Season A, Season B so each permit holder would get two instead of the five weeks.

Mr. Fortier stated that would be easier to shorten it to 4 weeks, they might have a year it dried out earlier and that would be that much better. The farmers were in the fields up there and out of the fields pretty much into June 1st. If we had some nuisance turkeys that weren?t infected and wanted to bring them north?

Ms. Camuso stated if there were nuisance turkeys within the County we could move them to help facilitate spreading them out. We would not be bringing up any turkeys from the South or knowingly transport the infection.

2. Moose permits 2015

Ms. Camuso went over the handouts in the packet. The quick overview was that the Department recommendations for 2015 were almost identical to last year?s recommendations. They were down about 280 and the vast majority of the decrease came from one district which was WMD 2. In 2010 the Legislature changed that WMD from a recreational zone to a compromise zone so we had a couple different management strategies for moose. Compromise zone had fewer moose so we were directed by the Legislature to bring the population down. We were now at objective so it was sort of a maintenance zone. The rest of the changes were minor tweaks. There was a strong desire to take the southern zones and separate them from the more traditional moose hunts. We did not give out many permits in southern Maine but there was a very low success rate. People were not always thrilled with that hunt so staff would like to see those areas, at least those that get issued a permit be able to maintain their bonus points and apply for the lottery the next year. They would not be penalized for participating in the southern Maine moose hunt. That change would have to be done legislatively.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Lewis stated regards the southern Maine hunt, wouldn?t everyone want to do that then?

Ms. Camuso stated this was not prime moose hunting area. Most people were not necessarily choosing those WMDs on purpose.

Mr. Lewis stated where he hunted out west a lot, that was the applicant?s responsibility and if they made that mistake it was their problem.

Mr. Thurston stated in these big game hunts across the U.S. there was a ton of information where you could narrow it down. Most of those people were pretty educated and savvy with respect to this because they loved to big game hunt. He didn?t know if that idea was such a good thing.

Mrs. Oldham stated if the success rate was low, did we need a hunt in that area?

Ms. Camuso stated those WMDs were in the road safety zone and they were designated to have a moose hunt to help minimize moose/car accidents.

Mrs. Oldham stated the hunter success rate, we weren?t meeting our objective.

Ms. Camuso stated they had talked about lumping them all into one and different ways to address the issue. We wanted to maintain the ability to harvest moose in those areas if we had a significant issue with mortality. One way to address that for this year, WMD 22 we were recommending no permits because they had no success the past few years. If the situation changed we could address it by adding permits to that WMD.
The other issue we had was with the collection of reproductive data for cows taken in November, and had pretty low compliance. We acknowledge that it is sometimes not that easy to find ovaries. We would like to work to educate the public and maybe somehow provide incentives so that we could increase the rate that we were receiving the ovaries. The reproductive data was very helpful to us in determining productivity. We were hoping to work with guides to increase our success rate with ovaries in November.

Mr. Farrington asked about the number of permits in the Greenville area. He felt they would look at the proposal and say ?175 permits, that?s the same number we had last year and they just told us that ? the moose we have up here died when they tagged them.?

Ms. Camuso reviewed the recommendations by WMD (see handout).

Mr. Fortier stated because of the two weeks (September and October) in his area there were just a lot of hunters in that area for that number of moose. It was a hard area to hunt. For the number of roads and ways to get into the area there were a lot of hunters for that area. Was that number too high for WMD 1 because of the way its designated. They thought there were a lot of smaller moose coming out of that area.

Commissioner Woodcock stated WMD 1 was an area he discussed quite often. It was wild country and the problem he thought existed was the road system and what habitat did the moose have. The road systems were where people hunted historically, but the moose were spread out through the entire zone. He heard from experienced guides that if you moved away from the areas that people traditionally ended up driving to there was good opportunity to shoot some good animals. How did we educate people to appreciate that there was some really good moose hunting in that part of the state.

Mr. Fortier stated he saw a lot of moose come out of the area last year that were quartered to be able to get them out. In that area you were not allowed to go in with ATVs.

Mrs. Oldham asked if there was harvest data percent success?

Ms. Camuso stated we just had just received the last 4 tagging books. We were at the mercy of the tagging stations and entered the data as soon as we received it. We had approximate numbers which indicated a 65% success rate which was down about 10%.

Mr. Thurston stated he had a lot of friends in WMD 8 that were shed hunters and those types of activities and he really believed the moose population in WMD 8 was significantly lower than what aerial surveillance suggested. He did get off the road, and their system was very accessible with road systems and cuttings. During their moose hunt they hunted really hard and did not see the numbers of moose there.

Ms. Camuso stated WMD 8 was the location of the research project that was ongoing for the next 5 years.

Mr. Farrington commented on the allocations for WMD 9 considering ? of them died off in the survey.

Ms. Camuso stated there were a lot of ways to look at that. There were quite a few people that believe the moose population was too high and the reason they were vulnerable to things like winter tick was because they were spreading it, there were too many too close together. Based on the available data, it indicated the population was over objective in that area. We hadn?t had a cow harvest in WMD 9 since 2002. The moose harvest did not impact the population when only harvesting bulls.
Mr. Thurston asked what part heavy snow and weather played into that.

Ms. Camuso stated weather really didn?t impact moose survivorship. It may impact some of the cows. In most wildlife populations the young of the year, 70% didn?t make it the first year. The number changed a little by species, but by and large 70% of wildlife that were born did not live to the next year. Calves were probably more vulnerable to deep snow, but we were at the southern edge of the range for moose. Moose were well equipped to handle heavy snow. What could impact survivorship were things like disease and parasites. We didn?t have the winter mortality associated with moose that we did deer. Overall we were recommending 2,815, a reduction of 280 permits from last year.

V. Other Business

1. Moose necropsies update

Ms. Camso stated we were conducting a survival study on moose. Last year we started a project working with New Hampshire, and we brought in an aerial capture crew from New Mexico to net gun moose and put radio collars on them. In the process we were taking biological data from the animals including blood samples, fecal samples, tick counts, etc. Last year we collared 30 adults and 30 calves and we had very high mortality last year. 22 calves and 12 cows died. The radio collars sent a mortality signal as soon as they stopped moving to Lee Kantar?s phone. As soon as they got a mortality signal, staff would move into the field and if possible, drag the moose out. If not, they would do a field necropsy (blood and tissue samples). We were working with the University of Maine Animal Health Lab to do the analysis. To date, all the field samples had been given to the lab. We would not have the results back until summer 2015.

Ms. Camuso stated the challenge would be, this was new data and we had to be careful when trying to figure out what the necropsy results would tell us. The crew was currently out collaring moose, 23 calves and 5 cows had been collared so far. The goal was 35 calves and 5 adults.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated it seemed like a long time to get any results. It had been almost a year for some of the laboratory work.

Ms. Camuso stated we just had a collared moose die in November. Part of the issue was that Ann was working with the Northeast Wildlife Cooperative to analyze the data. This was the timeframe we established with the health lab.

Mrs. Oldham asked if there were any generalities regarding the necropsies.

Ms. Camuso stated there were several of the calves that were skinny and had a heavy tick load. Many of the animals, like the one recovered in November looked perfectly healthy. The other thing we were looking at were two new projects to be able to test for brainworm in moose and one of them would be able to look at the blood and be able to detect if it had been exposed to brainworm or had brainworm. The other would actually look in the spinal fluid of the moose and would detect the brainworm DNA in the spinal cord. They did not have the DNA markers yet so would have to set that up. Brainworm was not easily identified in the field.

Mrs. Oldham stated she had a question from the Rangeley guides association. Was there any role for public participation in trying to study moose.

Ms. Camuso stated we did use citizen science to help us make assessments. We did collect moose data from deer hunters, but we did not collect it from the broad general public.

Mr. Lewis stated in Arizona when you hunted there you got a card from them and an email survey for requesting sighting data. If you did not fill it out you lost your bonus points.

Mr. Fortier asked about moose that were killed on the highways. Was any data collected from them?

Ms. Camuso stated no. Any law enforcement could handle those.

Mrs. Oldham asked if a warden responded could blood samples be obtained. Would that be helpful?

Ms. Camuso stated the reality was we knew that animal died because it hit a car. We could use it to look at set examples, but couldn?t incorporate it into the study. We looked at overall mortality but not specific to road kill.

Mr. Farrington asked if once the results of the necropsies came in, were there standards established by other states or regions for us to measure against?

Ms. Camuso stated not really. Minnesota did have some.

Mr. Fortier asked about doing a study in WMDs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Commissioner Woodcock stated they briefly discussed moving studies around geographically; cost was a factor. The dynamic of having a static study area was also important.

Ms. Camuso stated originally she thought the plan was to have a second study area and it was decided this year we needed to supplement WMD 8. If we could maintain the level of funding she expected they would have that discussion.

Mr. Fortier stated he could see the tick population moving further north.

Ms. Camuso stated we did have records of tick outbreaks back in the 1920?s. This was not new, it was cyclical. Moose tick and these outbreaks were not new, whether they were becoming more intense because of a number of factors was something we were trying to figure out.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

Mr. Thurston stated he had received a few questions on First Roach Pond and obviously it was closed, so they wanted to know if it would be closed the entire year. Where were we going with that?

Commissioner Woodcock stated he didn?t move forth with the proposal. The concern was fairly uniform that he heard from the Council and others, what was the biology saying about First Roach Pond and were we comfortably balanced in the population of togue in First Roach in relation to other species. There had been comments made about why we didn?t survey the first year of that. Surveying the first year may tell the size but didn?t tell the product of what happens by taking out a certain size group. Summer surveys were a little more challenging than winter. There was enough concern about the imbalance of togue, after going through the experience at Moosehead we were all alittle leary of the togue imbalance. We should wait and not have the ice fishing take place this winter, take a look at it and since we do the fishing regulation examination annually now, the proposal for Roach and others would come up in the next cycle. It would always be part of the discussion. Because the attention was focused it did draw a little more attention. There were other factors in Roach too including the drawdown of water.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

There were no public comments or questions.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The date and location of the next meeting would be forwarded to the Council at a later time.

Mrs. DeMerchant asked if the Council could be updated on the lynx situation at the next meeting.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
December 18, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Andrea Erskine, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director of Bureau of Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Nate Webb, Special Projects Biologist
Mike Brown, Fisheries Division Director
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Jeff Lewis (Chair)
Lance Wheaton (Vice-Chair)
Dick Fortier
Sheri Oldham ?by phone
Cathy DeMerchant
Don Dudley
Jenny Starbird
Matt Thurston
Larry Farrington

Guests:
Gary Corson, New Sharon
Don Kleiner, MPGA
Georgie Wheaton
James Cote, MTA and Maine Wildlife Conservation Council
Brian Cogill, MTA

I. Call to Order

Jeff Lewis, Council Chair called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mrs. DeMerchant to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton.

Vote: unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. First Roach pond petition

Commissioner Woodcock stated two years ago the Department approved ice fishing in February on First Roach with limited take. We had been measuring that very carefully and in addition to that the regulation had a sunset provision. At the end of two years there was an automatic sunset provision on the regulation. The sunset provision in this case was meant specifically so that we could review what had happened during the previous two years and the pressure put on the fishery. How were the fish surviving the two years of February only limited ice fishing.

Commissioner Woodcock stated that because of the automatic sunset and the ice fishing being taken away, someone decided to petition to reinstate ice fishing at First Roach Pond because they had a good experience. We accepted the valid petition and went through the process and held a public hearing in Greenville. There were 14 people in attendance. Both sides expressed their strong opinions either for or against the petition. There were some camp owners around the pond who would very much like to see fishing, and there were some who would not. The general consensus of concern when we go about opening up ice fishing is that there would be some type of vandalism to the camps because its such an isolated area. There was no evidence of that that he was aware of. There were some parking concerns because of snow plow limitations there. Traffic was fairly heavy, they did ice fish the pond.

Commissioner Woodcock stated one point that came out to him, indicated by many people was the biological staff should have some input in the decision making process. He had talked with staff and the concern remained not to put First Roach in the same position Moosehead was in for a little while and have too many small togue. The togue created an imbalance in the salmon and the smelt population. In some bodies of the state we were implementing what was referred to as the ?Sebago slot? on togue which meant there was a slot limit of 23? ? 33? and you had to put them all back. You could keep one fish over 33?. The reason for that slot was that studies showed those fish that were returned in the 23? ? 33? category were predators on smaller members of their own species and controlled the size of the fish in the fishery. It?s minimalized and they get bigger, there are very few really large fish because it takes so many years for a fish to grow to 33? and above in the togue. We have had that slot in place and we?re contemplating that for other waters. We?re measuring how Sebago lake and others are faring, but the staff?s concern for First Roach is that you get the imbalance of togue, too many small togue they?re pretty good predators. They?ll take care of the salmon and also have a problem with the smelt population. Staff felt the smelt population was pretty viable, the salmon were growing and biologists would like a full assessment after the two year ice fishing season had gone by which was what the sunset was for. At the end of this year, make his recommendation as to whether or not to go forth with some limited ice fishing or no ice fishing on First Roach.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he also wanted to remind them that there had been a de-watering of the dam between First and Second Roach and the body of water below it, the stream that flows, and because of that there was concern from Tim Obrey and staff about the two and three year salmon population for that three year period out. There was almost no water in that stream for awhile because there were problems with the dam. Given that scenario and he wanted to remind everybody that the Roach River, which was one of our premier salmon and trout fishing rivers, was below First Roach Pond. The impact of First Roach Pond on the river had been discussed for years. The vast majority of those fish came up from Moosehead. First Roach was a separate fishery but had historical significance.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the process after Step 2, it was his job to take all the comments and discussion and biologist input and decide whether it should go to Step 3 or not. It was the Commissioner?s right to halt the process with the petition or other proposals in between Steps 2 and 3 and the Council would not be addressing it if he chose not to move forward with it.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier stated what he was hearing was that the Commissioner would like to see no ice fishing in Roach Pond for one year to give the biologists time to come back with the data on how to move forward. If they had ice fishing could they still get accurate data doing an assessment of Roach Pond?

Commissioner Woodcock stated the reason why we had the sunset provision was to assess the body of water after two years. Some bodies of water when they had ongoing ice fishing or ongoing open water you assessed ongoing. This had not been ice fished for awhile and even though it was only a one month period ice fishing for togue inparticular was pretty targeted. They did catch some big fish out of there and we would like to be able to know exactly how the balance of the body of water was going. We did not advance the notion that we wanted to have ice fishing continue so we would like to be able to research.

Mrs. DeMerchant stated technically he (Tim Obrey) could have started that assessment on March 1, 2014 and that wasn?t done?

Commissioner Woodcock stated there had been an assessment but the question was did we have enough? Did we have enough to be able to tell specifically how it was affected?

Mrs. DeMerchant stated if the Commissioner decided not to move forward and everything was good and the staff felt it could support it, would a new petition have to go forward?

Commissioner Woodcock stated we would just propose it ourselves as part of the next regulatory packet.

Mr. Thurston asked how many acres was Roach Pond?

Mr. Farrington stated around 467 acres. The concern was the last summer survey was done in 2001. They did a winter survey last winter and they figured they took over 400 lbs. of togue out of the lake in a month. If you added that with the last summer survey they had that was almost a ? pound of fish per acre which was almost double what the standard was. He thought Mr. Obrey?s concern was if he could have this summer before they fished it out. Although he had results from last winter, the winter before that was much more substantial. They were taking several 10 lb. plus lake trout the first winter. Without the data it was a big risk. He saw what happened in Moosehead in the early 90?s and it was a long time fixing it.

Commissioner Woodcock stated it was a balance we were trying to achieve.

Mr. Dudley stated it was dewatered, was there a fishway in that particular dam?

Mr. Brown stated it was an issue that was still ongoing. The people that owned the site wanted to make some modifications to the dam and some of the specifications we would have liked to see and unfortunately they made it a little taller and wider and they weren?t able to provide the flows they thought they were going to be able to do over the dam. They had some malfunctions with the pumps so unfortunately it brought up a lot of habitat that was there. We?re very concerned about the effects that would have on the fish that had spawned there and what contributions those fish would make to First Roach. Mr. Obrey felt he would have expected about 100 salmon or so would have dropped out of there and contribute to the fishery. We did stock First Roach with salmon so we would be able to make up for some of that. The public probably would not see the impact for salmon. There was not a fishway there that he could remember.

Mr. Dudley stated the salmon dropped back to spawn, then there was no way for them to get back to First Roach?

Mr. Brown stated there was sort of a rock ramp.

Mr. Farrington stated most of the spawning that was done out of First Roach was done between First Roach and Second Roach. The little dam they put in this fall was a little wider and about a foot higher than it should have been. It dried up the area about 1 ? miles of the wetland where the sand and spawning beds were. The young of the year were still in there because they hadn?t gotten big enough to go into the lake.

Mr. Fortier asked if the water flow had improved.

Mr. Farrington stated it had, and they were still working on it.

Mr. Dudley asked if the salmon could freely travel back into First Roach Pond?

Mr. Farrington stated they went upstream to spawn, the dam was on the end of Second Roach so the spawning took place from the end of the north inlet up to Second Roach.

Mr. Lewis stated the part that everyone fished was from Moosehead up to First Roach. When the ice fishing regulation was passed they understood it would be monitored starting in 2013. It looked like that wasn?t the case and now we didn?t have any information other than basically hearsay what happened that first year.

Commissioner Woodcock stated for the first year of fishing there wasn?t an ice fishing survey done. There was an ice fishing survey done last year. He did not know the product of the first years evaluation and the fact that we did a winter survey at year two, he did not know what the population difference would be. What Mr. Obrey was concerned about was after the two years what did we have for a product right now. He thought that last years survey indicated we had quite a few big fish being taken out in terms of togue in First Roach.

Mrs. Oldham stated just one year of data compared to historic norms would probably not give enough information to make a decision. She thought the decision after two years was just that much more valuable. That was why the two year provision was put in. She thought until that information was gathered that they shouldn?t allow the petition to go forward, or if it did go forward to Step 3 she did not think she would be in favor of it until we had more biologic information.

Mr. Lewis stated he agreed, but in going forward to make sure that we could start it and not lose that first valuable year of data. Something that hadn?t been opened for such a long period of time, it?s a one month season you get a lot more people.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he did think one year of data was enough. Sometimes summer surveys did not tell the story the same way winter surveys did. The targeted fish were sometimes different also. There were a lot of people who enjoyed fishing for cusk on First Roach. There was some conversation internally about having just cusk fishing. He was leery about having one type of ice fishing and not allowing others because hooking mortality of ice fishing was a lot different than open water fishing.

Mr. Farrington stated they had a regulation on Moosehead, he didn?t want to be the mean guy and tell camp owners they couldn?t set a trap out front for their grandson to catch a cusk or a yellow perch, and the regulation would be if a game fish came to the hole it didn?t come out of the water. You could allow them to fish for cusk and perch because they could fish for those a long time before they drained them out.

Mr. Thurston stated he had a small sample of people that had contacted him that were camp owners that were in favor. Did we agree there were a lot of small togue and that issue needed to be addressed and did the open water season address that issue with take?

Commissioner Woodcock stated he was going to rely on the locals for their expertise, but he didn?t think they were getting a lot of small togue being taken in open water season. Historically, it was a hard time at Moosehead getting people to keep small togue. At this point it was not a concern.

Mr. Wheaton stated the releasing of the fish and 23?-33? was good, but what he couldn?t understand was the Moosehead limit of cutting the line and not taking the fish out of the water but yet we allowed stainless steel hooks and brass hooks and painted hooks, etc. If we allowed a mild steel hook for ice fishing the stomach acids would dissolve the hook and the fish would live. If you put a big stainless steel, brass or anything you can release the fish all day and they would go down and die.

Commissioner Woodcock stated that discussion of the type of hook and other parts of the discussion involved with plastic lures, etc. was a legislative discussion in the last session and he was sure it would be again. There was concern for the ability of hooks to disintegrate and some of them doing it better than others.

C. Step 1

1. Licensed Guide Rules Mrs. Theriault stated the rule was held at Step 1 again because we wanted to have the watercraft and guiding rules go hand in hand through the Step process. In the proposal we added a couple of definitions and put the definitions section in alphabetical order. One of the important definitions that was added was paddle sports because we were addressing paddle sports and the need to have a guide license if they were going to take someone out and receive remuneration. The way we chose to have guides licensed was if they were planning to take somebody on a paddleboard out on the ocean and guide them they would need a sea kayak classification so it was geared to the location they were taking them in. If they were going to take them on inland waters on a paddle board they would have to be licensed as a recreational guide. Title 12 references were also updated.

Council member comments and questions

Mr. Fortier asked how one got certified as a paddle sport guide? Who did the certification to decide if they were good enough?

Mrs. Theriault stated it was the same guiding application process that we had currently, but there were specific questions on the test.

Commissioner Woodcock stated all guide testing had an oral and written component to it. We were going to have a practical part of the oral portion upcoming.

Mr. Wheaton stated if we were going to classify it as a watercraft, were we going to make them wear a lifejacket?

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated the same as a canoe; it had to be on the board. They didn?t have to wear it, but it needed to be available.

Mr. Farrington asked if we had some paddle sport experts to help with the proposal.

Scott Shea stated he ran Sea Spray Kayaking in the mid-coast area. He was attending the meeting for a number of groups. A lot of surf clubs had voiced their opinions to him as well as fitness centers, specifically yoga instructors. The proposal was a step in the right direction. We had been lucky the past few years because anyone could say they were a paddleboard expert and take people out in tidal waters or any waters in Maine. He thought the big question was, is this the right direction? If you talked to rock climbing guides there was no guide license requirement. Paddleboards, he would argue and he thought a lot of surf shops would argue, the surf shops were more knowledgeable about the paddleboard and the skills than most of the recreational sea kayak guides. However, when you got off shore a little bit it was different, but around shore and in the surf it was interesting. We were running into crossovers with paddle sports because you could take them fishing, over night trips to islands, etc. The boards were much more stable than people thought.

Mr. Shea stated the two pieces he thought they may still need to discuss was the whitewater. To be a whitewater guide you had to have a certain number of trips down the Kennebec. If somebody wanted to take somebody down the Kennebec with a paddleboard and guide a group would the recreational guides license address that? The other piece was the surf piece, there was a different set of rules in the surf. You didn?t wear a life jacket, you didn?t put a life jacket on your board it was dangerous because you needed to duck under the surf. If you were up near the surface and the board hit you, you were in trouble. The regulation/enforcement part he thought Marine Patrol and other officers would need some education. A lot of the surfers were using paddles and paddleboards. He thought the surf instructors wanted to make sure they were not going to be harassed throughout the summer because they didn?t have guide licenses. They had paying customers but they were in the surf zone and they were teaching surf with paddles and they didn?t have life jackets.

Mrs. Theriault asked Mr. Shea if he could explain the yoga piece briefly.

Mr. Shea stated they started about 5 years ago doing yoga on the paddleboards and this year they had a regular schedule and it was full. They paddled out to a cove inside one of the little islands and they would paddle out with the yoga instructors and go through the routine and paddle back in. He knew there were several other yoga and fitness centers that people had their own boards and asked the instructor to take them out. He did not think any fitness instructors had any connection with guide regulations but they were out there with paying customers.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine asked if he thought we should consider having a specialized paddle sport classification.

Mr. Shea stated it was very close to that. The ACA had a much better educational system classification in order to get certification. You had to go through a certain number of hours in order to get an instructors certification and they had a specific SUP (standup paddleboard) certification. He thought coming out of that you?d demonstrate a lot more knowledge and skill not only on safety but also regulations.

Mr. Farrington asked if the certification Mr. Shea spoke of was for fresh and salt water?

Mr. Shea stated the ACA had different classifications whether they wanted moving water or flat water.

Mr. Kleiner stated that guiding without a license was a rampant problem in Maine and it had gotten to the place where law enforcement couldn?t deal with it. He had asked the Commissioner to put a working group together to discuss the issues. They needed to discuss under current statute if some of the groups ie: yoga were in or out. Under current statute they were very clearly in. So, they didn?t know but part of him said, I?ve been in business 30 years if I don?t know I don?t get exempt from the law because I didn?t know. Shame on them for not knowing what the law was about their business, it was kind of their job if they?re in the business. A working group was being formed to discuss the issues and this was part of the ongoing conversation, where were the lines and where did it stop.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there were boundaries to this, some of them being very clear. One was head of tide. The Marine Patrol had jurisdiction in the tidal portion and we were inland waters. We had been working with them closely in the discussion. Our responsibility in this arena was when somebody was paid to take a person or a group of people on an activity as a guide they had a responsibility; they were being hired for their professional knowledge and skills. That?s where we entered; we had a responsibility to make sure that person was legit.

Mr. Kleiner stated the whitewater piece, the rapidly flowing rivers were defined and who could do what on the rivers was legislated.

Gary Corson stated he sat on the Guides Advisory Board and they had talked about the issue. Some of it had been addressed. If you looked in the boating laws surfing and surf areas were not required to have a life jacket. More importantly, he felt the Council should understand they tested guides for overall knowledge. That was why they had the classifications hunting, fishing and recreation. If someone came in and said they had done the Kennebec in a canoe, they had no way to know if they had done that or not. The responsibility was up to them, they tested them to the best of their ability with questions. Standup paddle boarding would have questions on the test. Would there be enough questions so if they didn?t get them all right that they still might get the license, that was a possibility. But, whoever go the license they would have some responsibilities. When they talked about the certification process from some of the groups, the Canoe Association, there was nothing to prevent any potential guide from getting that certification. When they came to the Department for their guides license point that out and they should be able to pass the test. He did not feel they had enough time to spend with each candidate unless they started taking them out on the waters and in the woods to find out how proficient they were in all the activities. When thinking about how to address the issue of standup paddleboards that was one activity out of many. If we were going to require certification in each one then it would change the guide testing process a lot.

Commissioner Woodcock stated it would also slow the process down. We had a number of people put through the process, oral and written exams and we were engaging in a more practical sense the oral test. We had a fairly generic process right now and what happened to you after you received that license, there was a lot of burden with that.

Mr. Wheaton stated was a watercraft just a paddleboard or was a watercraft a jetski, the classifications, where did it stop? He had seen trips done on inner tubes. He hated to see the fun taken out of it.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we didn?t want to take away the fun, but at the same time there had to be some application because technically an inner tube was a watercraft. The paddleboard issue was new and we were addressing it. There had to be some type of certification.

2. Boating Regulations

Mrs. Theriault stated there was a summary in the packet. Basically we were proposing a full repeal and replace because there were so many changes within the set of rules. It had been over 30 years since there were any major modifications made to the rule. The reasoning behind it was to bring it up to speed with the code of federal regulations which was the national standard for watercraft regulations that we had to be somewhat consistent with. There were some occasions where a state could change their rules and modify them to their specific needs. In that case we had a difference in our PFD requirements for children. We were more restrictive, but that had always been the case it was not new to the proposal. One of the changes proposed under the registrations was when somebody got a temporary registration the Department had 90 days to turn that around and make a permanent one. Now we would have to abide by a 60 day permanent registration so a boat owner would receive their registration quicker. Also if someone was involved in a property damage only watercraft accident the minimum damage required to report would be $2,000 vs. $1,000, that had increased by federal standards. We were also moving away from classifications of motorboats. We used to have Class A, 1, 2 and 3 and now we would be going by the length of the boats. Another change was the reference to points on a compass when talking about lighting requirements and we were proposing to use degrees of a compass now.

Council member comments and questions

Mr. Wheaton asked about the length for the boats.

Mrs. Theriault stated the classifications, if you looked at the graph it was by length to see what the requirements were.

Commissioner Woodcock asked if it was any different than what was currently required in terms of the lighting. His understanding was we were making it easier for people who move boats from state to state to make the regulations uniform.

Mrs. Theriault stated we were trying to simplify the language in many cases to make it easier to understand.

3. Spring turkey hunting WMDs 1-6 

Ms. Camuso stated we were scheduled to open WMDs 1-6 last spring for the first time for a turkey hunt and due to extreme winter weather conditions the Commissioner closed that. Right now it was scheduled to be open for the first time and this proposal would split the 5 week season into two groups. If you were born in an even year you would hunt the first and third week and if you were born in an odd year you would hunt the second and fourth week and then everyone could hunt the fifth week. The next year those would switch so everybody would have access to the first week. The reason behind it was primarily a landowner issue and there were still limited huntable populations of turkeys in Aroostook County. Prior to the season opening last year staff along with the National Turkey Federation did some workshops to talk to people about turkeys and how to hunt turkeys. There was still significant concern about limited resource and access to the turkeys would be problematic for some of the landowners primarily. There was worry that there would be too many hunters in limited areas at a time of year when the road conditions were still pretty poor. The other contributing factor was the disease that turkeys had, the LPV disease and avian pox had hit the turkey population statewide and we had not done any trap and transfer as we did not want to spread that disease. Right now it was not in Aroostook County and we had not done any trap and transfer in Aroostook County for 3 years. When we originally proposed opening Aroostook County it was with the idea that we were going to continue to do trap and transfer. She did not foresee that we would be trapping and transferring turkeys into Aroostook County at least for the next couple of years. This rule was primarily designed to alleviate some landowner concerns for too many hunters in a limited area. Historically, this was how we always opened WMDs up until 2007. When we opened a new WMD for turkey hunting in the spring we opened it with an A/B season.

Council member comments and questions

Mr. Fortier stated last year after bringing up the issue of the landowners and having a lot of people up there never having hunted turkeys before and it became a concern there was quite a concentration of these turkeys basically on 4 or 5 landowners property and hunters going on their land at a time when it was still wet. Property damage became a real concern. This year it seemed those turkeys that were there had disbursed much better.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the start of this process with the landowners really was an important point for everybody to consider. They were big landowners and had large properties and we used them for other activities and we wanted to make sure they were content.

V. Other Business

Mr. Lewis discussed the annual report that he would present to the IF&W Committee and asked Council members to get their reports in to him.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there was an error in the new fishing law book. The regulations were correct, but page 23 and 24 were misplaced in the book. The color code was correct for the region so the pages would be easier to detect. This would not require a reprint and the books had already been distributed. We would put out notification. The number of books affected was minimal and there was no regulatory impact.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions 

There were no public comments or questions.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting 

The date and location of the next meeting would be forwarded to the Council at a later time.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mrs. DeMerchant and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
September 24, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner

Andrea Erskine, Deputy Commissioner

Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner

Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director

Mike Brown, Fisheries Division Director

Merry Gallagher, Fisheries Biologist

Adam Gormely, Game Warden Lieutenant

Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

 

Council members:

Jeff Lewis (Chair) - by phone

Dick Fortier

Lance Wheaton (Vice-Chair)

Sheri Oldham

Cathy DeMerchant

Dick Thurston ? by phone

Gunnar Gundersen

 

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon

Jeff Reardon, TU

Fern & Sylvia Bosse

Butch Tripp ? Vice-President, MTA

 

I. Call to Order Lance Wheaton, Council Vice -Chair called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting A motion was made by Mrs. DeMerchant to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier.

Vote: 6 in favor; 1 abstained (Mrs. DeMerchant) ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. 2014-2015 Furbearer Seasons/Regulations/Beaver Closures

Ms. Camuso stated we were correcting a typographical error for the early season for muskrat. WMD 9 would be open and not WMD 8.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the wording for Porter in WMD 15 had been modified. Tributaries had been removed; there was a person who was blocking off the pond.

Mrs. Oldham made a motion to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

2. Fishing Regulations 2015 

Commissioner Woodcock stated there were many individual proposals in the packet. At Step 2 there was concern expressed about one or two of the proposals. The Council could not amend proposals at this step of the voting process because the public would not have opportunity to comment. He was putting forth the packet as originally presented with the exception of the removal of Mountain Catcher Pond. Mountain Catcher Pond was a Maine Indian Tribal State Commission (MITSC) water and was managed with input by the commission. Due to the timing of the packet they had not had a chance to review the proposal and comment. Due to some of the specific proposals that had concerns at Step 2, the Council would be allowed to have discussion about particular proposals.

Commissioner Woodcock stated they would need to have a motion to bring particular bodies of water out of the packet to discuss individually and then the packet remaining, the ones not brought out for discussion, could have a motion to pass those as presented and go back to the ones brought out and have an individual motion on those.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to take Telos Cut (Webster Stream) proposal out of the packet for discussion and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant.

Vote: unanimous ? Telos Cut removed for discussion

Mrs. Oldham stated after the meeting last month it still wasn?t clear to her why it was presented to be changed. There was no biological data; there was a general ?conserve the resource? but it still was not clear to her that there was new biologic data that the rule should be changed and she still had concerns about that.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the reason the proposal was put forth for 1 fish was that the biologists felt, and this was an unusual body of water because it had a couple of biologists that oversaw it and it was also a Baxter State Park water (part of it). The biologists felt that the opportunity for people to keep 1 fish would not be impacting to the body of water. Also, they felt that if it stayed the way it was now it without being able to take a fish that it didn?t have a significant impact on the body of water. The Commissioner?s conclusion was that this body of water did not have a significant amount of pressure; ice fishing perhaps more than any other, not much during the open water season. He decided to let it go through because he thought the 1 fish was more a philosophical statement than a biological statement. They were talking about wild brook trout, not stocked fish. The cut was a manmade body of water. It was made as a sluice way for logs. Fish did come up there and bumped against the obstruction at the dam. Was there a significant usage and threat to the fish at that location? He did not think so. The 1 fish he felt did not threaten anything, and no fish didn?t alter much either. It was a philosophical, social statement.

Mr. Fortier stated he had been there numerous times although not in the last few years. He had never seen a lot of people there. He would agree with the biologists. Years ago he thought there were more people going in than there were now. A lot of catch and release and he didn?t know how much damage was done just from catching and releasing. Being able to go there and take 1 fish he didn?t think there was a huge amount of pressure.

Mrs. Oldham stated it was easier to make decisions when they had creel surveys or biologic data than on philosophic questions. She would hope in the future that when changes were being made on a body of water that there was some data to go with it.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there were some winter creel surveys. Not a lot because it was a fairly remote body of water. It didn?t indicate a lot of pressure on the body of water. The biologists weren?t bothered by 1 fish. The biologists also weren?t bothered by no fish. He didn?t think there was an impact there by the amount of fish that were taken. He had asked the biologists and the wardens whether they had seen anecdotally any change in the size of the fish or the quantity of the fish and the biologists were very specific when stating no, the fish were in the 12? ? 14? range.

Mrs. DeMerchant stated provided the pressure stayed the same.

Commissioner Woodcock stated that could be assessed with fly overs in the summer and the winter creel count. It was over a mile to walk in and those that used to fish there were getting older and couldn?t walk in as easily. The pressure had diminished because the young people did not go in there. Some people did fly in with their clients and that was usually a catch and release crowd.

It was artificial lures only, 1 fish was the proposal. He had heard discussion regarding treble hooks and the damage they might cause. This was an opportunity for someone to have one fish and it wouldn?t impact the fishery.

Mr. Thurston stated the time of the year and the preservation of brook trout, were we setting a precedent if we changed the rule and opened it up to one fish. Would we be presented with, I only want to take one fish, native brook trout, again in the same timing, you did it for this one so why can?t you do all of them? Mr. Thurston stated he thought he would prefer to not change the rule and keep them protected.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he thought more work needed to be done on the entirety of regulations for fishing in the fall.

Mr. Thurston stated the rule should be left alone, the research should be done and then collectively create rules for the future with picking certain waters where someone had a certain favorite spot.

Mr. Lewis stated he agreed with Mr. Thurston. The rule was changed 3 years ago and he had talked with the biologist and John Boland. Mr. Boland had stated there was a lot of data to suggest that it should be closed the way they did it. Other waters up that way such as Allagash, was closed by Allagash Falls and he did not believe we had the data to change it back. There were several people he had talked to that said the pressure had increased. It seemed with all the work done with brook trout it was time to protect them. There were plenty of places people could get a fish up there and he was not sure they should change it back yet again. He felt we should protect it and get the data we needed in order to make a better decision.

Mr. Wheaton stated when you had a catch and release fishery nothing said the fisherman was going to catch 2 trout, let them go and not catch anymore. If someone is looking for a fish to mount and he fishes all day catch and releasing, he has done a lot of damage. Maybe there was not a lot of pressure but we would still get a lot of damage. With a 1-fish limit if you fished all day for the 1 fish that you?re looking for you?ve hurt a lot of fish. He thought we should protect them.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the process of this parliamentary procedure was they would need a motion to consent to move it forward as it was and a second on that. If they did not agree and wanted to pull it out, they would vote against that motion. They could not have a negative motion. They needed a motion to consent to move it forward with the rest of the packet.

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to consent to move the proposal on Webster Stream forward and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant.

Commissioner Woodcock stated a yes vote would support Mr. Gundersen?s motion and meant they would want to leave it in the packet. A no vote would mean they wanted to take it out and not move it forward.

Vote: 1 in favor (Mr. Fortier);6 opposed ? motion failed Webster Stream proposal not to move forward.

Commissioner Woodcock asked if there were others to bring out for discussion. If there were no others they could vote on the entire packet. They would need the same motion, consent to move it forward and that would send the whole packet forward minus the vote on Telos.

Mr. Lewis stated he had a question on the whitefish proposal and would like to bring it out for discussion.

A motion was made by Mr. Lewis to take the St. Froid Lake proposal out of the packet for discussion and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton.

Vote: unanimous ? St. Froid Lake removed for discussion.

Mr. Lewis stated if whitefish were a species we were trying to protect, why were we now increasing the number. Anything else that was protected that way wasn?t allowed to be killed at all.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he spoke with biologist Frank Frost about St. Froid. It was a population we were trying to bolster with some introductions of whitefish stocking. His assessment from the work he did there was that it wasn?t working at St. Froid. They were not reproducing, they were not growing to any great extent. For this one body of water, we were talking about a species of greatest conservation need, was it appropriate to allow people to take a species of greatest conservation need. They were just not growing or reproducing at St. Froid Lake, it was one body of water, one opportunity.

Mr. Brown stated it was a water we chose to restore and thought there were some opportunities there. We hadn?t seen the results of that based on our sampling and we had no plans to move forward with additional stocking on that particular lake. What we had there now that wasn?t growing we wanted to make sure people had the opportunity to catch some of those fish.

Mr. Fortier stated he was familiar with the body of water. What was the main reason the whitefish weren?t taking off in that body of water?

Mr. Brown stated from his conversations with Mr. Frost it was the competition they were having with smelts there.

Mr. Lewis stated he was still concerned. What did this do if the non-sporting public looked at this. Did we have enough data to back up the fact that we were wanting to kill more of these fish even though they were on the greatest concern list.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he thought the data was there currently to support the proposal. They were discussing whether or not it was appropriate to have the proposal in the eyes of those who weren?t as keenly aware. It was again, a philosophical discussion.

Mr. Fortier stated Mr. Frost knew the area as well as anybody and he would make a motion to leave it in as is.

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to leave the St. Froid Lake proposal in the packet and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton.

Vote: 4 in favor; 3 opposed ? St. Froid Lake proposal remains in packet

Mr. Lewis stated he had another proposal he would like to discuss. He had a question regarding the youth fishing proposal like for Pickerel Pond. Had there been any more outcome on that, whether or not with the information we had on the deed on that land, could we take that out and have it just for youth?

Commissioner Woodcock stated Pickerel Pond had not been fully discussed yet because the deed to his knowledge had not been completely examined.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated we were waiting to hear back from the Board of Directors. They believed all along that was state owned property and she questioned that. They were going to look at the deed. She thought at some point it was intended to come to the state for ownership. If that was the case, it was a private pond and they could regulate it as they saw fit. They could make it youth only. Our statewide S-9 regulation proposal probably wouldn?t be applied to that pond. She felt they would come back with information to suggest it was privately owned.

Mr. Wheaton stated he had a question. The 2 bass limit taken off the beds, we were proposing to change the law to 2 fish off the beds statewide. How come every other fish was protected when it was spawning? When the male was removed from the bed after it was fertilized, the bed would die. The young would not hatch. He had watched lakes die because there were no little ones growing.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he did not think we would be presenting it if we were of the opinion it was going to significantly impact the bass fishery statewide.

Mr. Wheaton stated if it was effected in any way it was hurting future fisheries. There wouldn?t be any big fish if we killed all the small ones.

Commissioner Woodcock stated most people that fished for bass were catch and release fisherman. Regarding the packet, the Commissioner was the one who recommended the proposals. They could not modify it at Step 3. Such as Telos and St. Froid, they could not make changes to it but pulling out an individual body of water from the packet was a separate notion entirely from modifying a proposal for bass. That wasn?t an individual body of water, it was a proposal for statewide.

Mr. Brown stated this was going to be general law, 2 fish in the spring time. It didn?t mean we couldn?t apply other regulations to waters of concern.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we were asking for the ability to have that in place statewide. If they wanted to apply different regulations to a particular body of water or region, they could do that. The basis would be to leave all the others as proposed. The Downeast waters for smallmouth, he didn?t think they were putting in the same category.

Mr. Wheaton stated he knew the Department had opened up live bait fishing for them on the beds, live bait as well as rubber. They took the bait and were hooked deep and there was a good chance the fish would die. Now we were allowing 2 fish off the beds to be taken and a lot of them would die with the mortality of fishing with live bait. Years ago they fished with artificials and lip hooked them.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the ponds Downeast that Mr. Wheaton was worried about for smallmouth probably wouldn?t have the regulation applied. If we wanted to protect those, we had. There may be bodies of water in other portions of the state that had largemouth, and a large population of them that you would want to have some taken off. Because they were passing the regulation statewide, didn?t mean it was being applied to every body of water.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant to approve the fishing regulations for 2015 as presented and modified.

Commissioner Woodcock clarified that meant it modified Mountain Catcher Pond, that was coming out and it also modified Telos coming out. Other than that, everything else stayed in the packet.

Vote: 6 in favor; 1 opposed (Mr. Wheaton) ? motion passed.

B. Step 2 

There were no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1 

1. Licensed Guide Rules 

Lt. Gormely stated this involved the stand-up paddle sports. Traditionally if you were going to guide stand-up paddle sports on the ocean you were required to have a recreational guides license. The sea kayak guides license group came to the Department and indicated that did not make sense. They were more qualified to deal with them on the ocean so they approached the Guides Board. The Guides Board recommended that the sea kayak guides would be able to guide stand-up paddle sports on the ocean and a recreational guides license would be able to guide them on inland waters. In addition, we added ATV into guiding. If you were taking a guided trip with an ATV you would be required to have a guide license.

Lt. Gormely stated one of the controversies with this was the sea kayak guides thought they were qualified to guide on the inland side, and the Guides Board did not recognize that recommendation.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham asked if there was more than economics involved with the decision. Was there a reason to separate the two.

Commissioner Woodcock stated jurisdiction was part of it and Deputy Commissioner Erskine added safety to that.

Lt. Gormely stated the conditions with the wind, weather, tide, etc. their argument was they were more suitable to guide in that environment.

Mr. Fortier asked about ATV guides. In his area the ATVs had become similar to the snowmobile industry. How were those rules going to apply to the big clubs, where did the guide part come in?

Lt. Gormely stated the legal aspect fell into the remuneration piece. If there was an expectation of money for a service on a guided trip that?s where the remuneration came in. If a club member was going to have a rally and all go out together, that was not a guided trip by the definition of the law.

2. Boating Regulations 

Lt. Gormely stated he and Mrs. Theriault had spent a lot of time reviewing the boating rules. They had not been updated for the past 20 years or more. We were proposing a complete repeal and replace on the boating rules. They had broken it down into categories. We were obligated to bring out boating stuff into compliance with the Feds. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) dictates from the Coast Guard a standard. The first part of the rewrite was to bring that language into compliance. The second part of that were new rules that had not been applicable. An example being 20 years ago there were no ?jet packs.? Jet packs were considered personal watercraft by the Coast Guard. The goal was to be consistent and provide the boating community a clear updated boating rules and regulations.

Mrs. Theriault stated one of the other things they wanted to talk about was the delineation between the coastal and inland waters. They wanted the summary to be clear to the public what the regulations were for coastal waters and if you were going into a river where that changed, where that line was and what the changes were for inland waters.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Wheaton stated he saw moorings set out 200-300 feet. Shouldn?t moorings be within 200 feet of shore because you couldn?t speed or cause wake within 200 feet shore. If someone was running fast at night, make them stay out beyond 200 feet and they wouldn?t run into a boat that was moored.

Lt. Gormely stated the mooring rules fell under Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry under the waterway marking system. Current rules would mandate that they do stay within 200 feet. You couldn?t legally put a mooring outside the water safety zone. Rules were so vague that someone could moor a boat in front of your property and be perfectly legal.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated the issue of buoys, moorings and swim areas was first and foremost at the Legislature as well.

Mrs. Oldham asked if a repeal and replace was the best way to go.

Mrs. Theriault stated because there was so much being changed repeal and replace would be most effective.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated we did not use repeal and replace often. When we did we would make certain that any change that was substantive would be highlighted.

Lt. Gormely stated one of the changes was our current rules required if you were towing a water skier that they wear a lifejacket, belt, buoy belt or other life saving device. The Coast Guard did not regulate towed water sports. There were challenges with slalom skiers and others when determining wording for lifejackets in the summary.

V. Other Business 

1. Wildlife Action Plan ? moose update 

Ms. Camuso gave an update on the moose project. We had a project looking at survivorship of moose and last year we radio collared 16 individuals. Lee Kantar and his crew had been perfecting a water capture technique that would allow us to capture moose in the water in summertime at a much lower expense than hiring the aerial capture group. The plan for the winter was to supplement WMD 8, we were going to bring AeroTech back, the helicopter crew would come back and they would do a portion here and a portion in NH. This year would probably target younger moose, all the ones from last year that survived were now considered adults. We wanted to have a certain complement of adults and young animals with radio collars on. We would also be doing something in Aroostook County next winter depending how this winter went.

Ms. Camuso stated the Wildlife Action Plan was our basic strategic plan for the majority of our nongame species. There were some game species mixed in as well. It was required by the Feds every 10 years and we were required to do it to be eligible for federal funding. There were eight required elements in the plan that every state agency had to address. We were in the process of working through those eight steps. One of the required elements was public participation so we had a group of about 70 conservation partners that were working with us to help develop the plan. An initial meeting was held in July and the second meeting was September 30th. Staff would present what was close to a final species of greatest conservation need list. The next step was to go through the habitat association so all of those species of greatest conservation need had to be assigned a habitat. Staff had done a preliminary habitat association assignment and that would be presented to the group in September. There was a third meeting in October and there would likely be two more meetings with the full array of partners in the spring. A steering committee had been established and that was made up of a variety of people from the scientific community, large landowners, small landowners; about 12 people including staff. We also had an ad hoc landowners committee that we would continue to meet with to make sure that we were addressing concerns for the landowners and moving forward in a way that benefits both the landowners and the species. There were multiple PowerPoints on the IFW website.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated she went to the first meeting and it was very impressive. This was a federal requirement and on the list of specifications climate change was one of the things to be addressed. She found that to be interesting and challenging.

2. Baitfish Working Group update

Ms. Gallagher stated about 1 ? years ago the baitfish working group was convened and they were tasked with 6 major issues pertaining to baitfish and smelts to provide feedback to the Department with ways to move forward. Those six topics were to 1) review the list of legal baitfish. There were 22 species (23 with the inclusion of smelts) listed legally as eligible for use as live bait. 2) Trials and tribulations with fish ID. Because we had such a large list of eligible and legal species there was a lot of uncertainty and confusion with how to accurately ID them from across the board. 3) Issues associated with harvest, methodology, catch, weirs, holding of live bait in public waters, sorting of bait, transport, etc. That topic was a mesh of a lot of issues and also user groups and constituencies that need to be able to participate and provide input. 4) Licensing structures. Currently we had 3 licenses that regulate the use of live bait and smelt. There was a live bait retailer license, baitfish wholesale license which allows a license holder to harvest bait from wild waters, and the smelt wholesaler license. The fee structures were really low. The other issues were what the allowances and prohibitions were under each of those licenses. 5) Disease transmission. Moving live fish into public waters there was always disease concerns. How could we address that or improve that or reduce the risk. 6) Improving quality control. One potential avenue to pursue was an HACCP program, Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point program. It was basically a methodology to improve quality control.

Ms. Gallagher stated the group was in the process of drafting a response back to the Department on the first four topics. They were tabling the final two topics until we had more time after the current document was completed and presented to the Department on October 1. They would then continue work on the final two topics. Some things in the process were already underway. They were proposing to remove 3 species from the list of legal baitfish. All three species were not being dealt, they did not show up in the fishery and they were incredibly rare. They only occurred in a very small number of waters in Maine. Those fish were bridal shiner, long nosed dace and creek chub sucker. All of those species were also a species of greatest conservation need. There had also been convened an internal IF&W committee to begin to delve into the recommendations provided by the working group and to develop strategies for addressing the recommendations. The IF&W Committee was comprised of wardens, biologists and I&E staff. A lot of the recommendations coming out of the working group were improved education and outreach tools and materials for everybody involved with use of live bait. The baitfish working group work was ongoing. There may be rulemaking changes at some point in the future.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Wheaton asked what the chances were of yellow perch being moved into live bait.

Ms. Gallagher stated it was not a legal baitfish now and we were not proposing to add any new species to the list.

Mr. Wheaton stated we had commercial licenses for yellow perch in Maine.

Ms. Gallagher stated the commercial licenses, the fish had to be killed and then went to market. She did not think she had encountered anyone proposing to add yellow perch to the list of live fish. The risks of inadvertent introduction to a water would be pretty high. None of our legal baitfish were spiny finned species.

Mrs. Oldham asked if the reduction from 22 to 19 legal baitfish species was going to significantly help our problem with live fish as bait.

Ms. Gallagher stated it would significantly help our ability to develop materials and a program to improve fish identification skills. Those were just the 3 species the group was ok with outright removal at this time. There were other species continuing to be discussed. One of the recommendations that would be coming forward was the need for additional work research on a few species.

Mr. Wheaton asked if any thought was given to bait dealers having certain tanks.

Ms. Gallagher stated they had not talked about what gear or systems that a bait dealer had to have. They had talked a lot about bait sorting, the minimum requirements for an adequate sorting facility or holding facility. Many of the group members were dealers, and many of them were bait users. Other members of the group were conservationists.

VI. Councilor Reports 

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions 

Fern Bosse stated relating to the boating regulations, he and his wife lived on a lake in Poland for many years and while there he realized a tremendous amount of boats that belonged to the cottage owners that never got registered. He talked to the warden about it and asked if he could spend some time on the lake. He did, and let Mr. Bosse know that while he was there everything was fine. He asked if the warden had gone close to shore and checked the docks and moorings. What he learned was the rules are that unless the boat is underway, you could have your rig in front of your cottage unregistered. That did not make any sense. While working on the boating regulations, IF&W should look at it.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated the Legislature a few years ago made an exception for people that wanted to dock a big boat and leave it permanently; you could do that without registering. She was not sure we would be successful in changing the regulations to say that if your boat touched the water it had to be registered.

Jeff Reardon stated he thought the Council did the right thing on Webster, but something Commissioner Woodcock said resonated with him. When the issue came up there had been the change that was fairly controversial a couple years ago and when it came up for a change again and Mr. Reardon?s members asked for help drafting comments, he looked at the rule book and felt we should treat Webster like all the other similar waters. He thought he found 14 different special regulations that applied to moving water brook trout waters in the fall. There was clearly the need for more than one, but moving more toward fewer options might make sense and simplify the rulebook.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting 

The date and location of the next meeting would be forwarded to the Council at a later time.

IX. Adjournment 

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
August 15, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Charlie Todd, E & T Species Coordinator
Mike Brown, Fisheries Division Director
Shon Theriault, Game Warden Captain
Rick Clowry, Game Warden Corporal, Whitewater Specialist
Carol Tompkins, Office Associate
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Jeff Lewis (Chair) ? by phone
Dick Fortier
Lance Wheaton (Vice-Chair)
Sheri Oldham
Don Dudley
Dick Thurston
Gunnar Gundersen

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Rick Denico ? Chair Allagash Advisory Council
Fern & Sylvia Bosse
Brian Cogill - MTA


I. Call to Order

Lance Wheaton, Council Vice -Chair called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Thurston to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier.

Vote: unanimous ? minutes approved.

 

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. 2014-2015 Migratory Bird Season

Ms. Camuso stated the waterfowl season dates were handled differently because of the timing of the Federal process. There was one significant change from the proposal. USFWS sets the parameters around the waterfowl seasons and allows hunting of waterfowl for a certain number of days. Maine had 3 zones, the North, South and Coastal zones. The bag limits had not changed except for the regular goose season. The USFWS increased the daily bag limits for the migratory population of Canada geese so during the regular season we could take 3 per day with a possession limit of 9. There was also one slight change, a correction of a typo for the opening day for the special falconry season was December 15th.

Ms. Camuso stated we had also received a memo from the USFWS indicating that sea duck populations nationally were declining because they were more of a long lived species and didn?t reproduce as prolifically as some of our puddle ducks. They were looking to probably decrease the total number of days for sea ducks but not until 2016 ? 2017. Currently it was a 107 day season and it would be bumped down to 60 days. With eiders in particular there was no question the eider populations had declined drastically from even just 20 years ago. We wanted to consider looking at things proactively before the USFWS closed the season down by half. Black backed gulls in particular were a significant source of mortality for eider ducklings. We had not seen much eider production in Casco Bay in years due to the black backed gulls. We would be looking internally to see if there were some things we could do proactively to help.

Ms. Camuso stated there were no other changes to the proposal besides the ones mentioned. The Waterfowl Council had met, the public hearing had been held and there had been little comment besides.

Mr. Thurston made a motion to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

2. Fall Turkey Hunting

Ms. Camuso stated this proposal was to open WMDs 10, 11 and 19 to fall turkey hunting with a 1 bird limit which was consistent with how we opened districts in the past.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mr. Dudley to accept the proposal as presented.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

 

 

3. Any-deer permit allocations

Ms. Camuso stated we had received full blown support for the proposal. Given the severe winter last year the Department made a decision to reduce the any-deer permits significantly. There were no changes from the original proposal. Most of the permits would be issued in the southern part of the state which had a much less severe winter.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mr. Thurston to accept the proposal as presented.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

4. 2015-2016 Crow Season dates

Ms. Camuso stated this was the annual crow season and we were not proposing any changes to the crow season other than the calendar dates to reflect 2015 and 2016.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had received significant comments about the crow season. He felt a portion of those comments may have been because the understanding was as it was published we were instituting a new crow season. The crow season had been in place for a long time, but there was a group that was in opposition to it and we did have a considerable volume of comments on this particular proposal.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier to accept the proposal as presented.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

5. Whitewater rafting allocations

Corporal Clowry stated we were changing some of the guide licensing requirements allowing greater flexibility between the Kennebec and Penobscot rivers. The business climate had some companies moving to just one river instead of two and what they ended up having to do was shift their guide clients over to the Kennebec and train them there and then get them back on the Penobscot and retrain them again. We were changing the rule to an either or situation so that depending on where the guide would mostly be working. They would still have to follow all the other requirements, but they could pick either or river based on where the outfitter was. The second part of the proposal was the elimination of Sunday allocations. The industry?s 5-year review showed a significant decline in the Sunday allocations. They had not fulfilled them in several years. He had received no opposition and several comments in favor.

A motion was made by Mr. Thurston and that was seconded by Mr. Dudley to accept the proposal as presented.

Mr. Fortier asked if an outfitter was going to be doing whitewater rafting on one river but trained on both?

Corporal Clowry stated the statute required they train on at least 2 different rivers. The way the rule was currently written the majority of the runs had to be on the Kennebec. The proposal was so that the majority could be on the Penobscot but they still had to run the Kennebec. The majority could be on the river they would be on the most.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

B. Step 2

1. Endangered & Threatened Species listing

Mr. Todd stated this was the 6th time that IF&W had updated the list. The proposal was to add 6 new animals to the list which was currently 45 species long. We would also change the status on 4 animals currently on the list and do a name change on one bird. The proposal was advertised July 16th and we held two public hearings, August 4th in Portland and August 5th in Farmington. They were lightly attended; we had 3 official comments offered at the hearings. About 35 written comments were received. We had no opposition to the proposal as presented, but plenty of comments regarding other species. We raised some questions; there was a lot of interest in the subject but overall universal support so far.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated the one comment she read from the Audubon Society, she thought was constructive criticism in terms of how things were listed. In terms of the public she thought that was reasonable constructive criticism.

Mr. Todd stated our process had not changed in 18 years. The time to change the process was not in the midst of it. Ultimately a lot of people did not realize this was not a typical rule, we had to convert everything over to a bill and send it to the Legislature. By the time we started the process and finished it was a 2 year ordeal. We would never do it any more frequently than that. If we were working on a proposal for 2 years we would be starting now. Four years was a little bit more frequent. Audubon and some of the other partners would like us to reach a little bit further, but there was always a grey area between when we knew it was going to be a problem or when it?s a problem now. We had been consistent through the years but we could revisit the guidelines.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the bat situation was a little more precipitous than anybody expected. It was catastrophic.

Mr. Todd stated the last time we went through the process was in 2006 and the bat event hadn?t started yet. He felt there was a time and a place to go more frequently. There had been a vacancy on the staff about 4 years, maybe would could have done it after a 6 year interval and done the bats better service but we had to do it right and that was probably more important than being spontaneous. The bat phenomenon, there were 100 robo generated comments that came in from all over. The problem had spread through 25 states and 5 provinces since it first started in 2006. This was a game changer for several bats.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he had been getting questions about the impact on the insect community because of bats.

Mr. Todd stated several of the recent inputs had been very much on the high side of what bats did in the ecological system and whatever they took out of the black flies and mosquitos they were actually specialists on foliage insects, forest pests and agricultural pests. In the meantime listing them was the right way to go and we had seen unbelievable support.

Brian Cogill asked about the list. Everything on there was what we had in the states or were some animals missing?

Mr. Todd stated that was IF&W?s endangered species list. There was another part of state law that dealt with whales, sea turtles, animals that were under Department of Marine Resources jurisdiction. There were endangered plants that were handled by another agency.

Brian Cogill asked if lynx had been taken off the list.

Mr. Todd stated there was a federal list. Since 1995 the tie between federal listing and state listing that still prevailed in some states was severed. We looked at risks to animals through a different lens than the federal government. Similar process, but they were thinking large scale they did not list animals state by state. We did not replicate the federal list, but sometimes we ended up with the same results. We probably would with northern long eared bats.

Mr. Gundersen stated he was involved with the puffin project on the coast and had been on Little Egg Rock with Audubon and they did a lot of good work there. He was surprised at how much they were involved with terns and other threatened species besides puffins.

Mr. Todd stated that was probably the biggest upside to listing a species was the people that came out and helped us.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. 2014-2015 Furbearer Seasons/Regulations/Beaver Closures

Ms. Camus stated the only real change we were proposing was to the early muskrat season to correct a typo that was detected last year that opened up WMD 8 instead of WMD 9. Some of the specific waterways were landowner requests and some things changed from year to year for beaver closures.

There were no further questions or comments.

3. Fishing Regulations 2015

Mr. Brown stated we held 4 public hearings for the fishing regulations packet, Fort Kent, Princeton, Greenville and Auburn. Going through the hearings there were a few things that were evident. One of the comments was that they felt we should do a better job in getting out some of the information about when and where the public hearings were going to be held. In Fort Kent there was a request to put things in local papers so we would do what we could. Even with advertising attendance typically seemed low. The most in attendance was the Auburn hearing with 15 members of the public. The comment period closed August 4th and we received a number of comments. In Fort Kent we received some comments on the bait fish closures. They were to make the waters that were accessible to bait fishermen commercially and recreationally the same. Currently the majority of those waters were already closed to commercial taking of bait so we wanted to close those to recreational taking of bait as well to make those consistent. In Greenville there were a few comments regarding Webster Stream and the S code change we had for complimentary license holders. In Princeton bass dominated the conversation. People were concerned about bass and what we had proposed. They wanted to make sure those waters were protected as much as possible. We also received a comment about West Grand Lake and the togue regulations and what effect those may or may not have. In Auburn the majority of comments were on Webster Stream.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated reading the emails of public comments she felt like she walked in the middle of a movie about Telos Cut. What was the background on that? She did not know the body water.

Mr. Brown stated he was not with the Department when the process started there. It was a fairly remote area. There were issues with access and how we went about providing a fishery there and what the right type of fishery was for that particular stretch of the stream. It was an artificial stream that had some modifications to it. It was a remote section and people had to walk in or fly in. We did have some brook trout that came up into Telos Cut out of Webster Lake and congregated there. At one point there were some thoughts that we should protect those fish that were congregating there during that period from August through September to provide them with some added protection. There were some who felt that really wasn?t needed. That was where a lot of the questions came from. It was a hard place to get in to sample.

Mrs. Oldham stated we were proposing the change based on...

Mr. Brown stated the Department put forward the proposal for the Council to take a look at.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the current proposal would return the regulation to what was the regimen before we changed it in the last regulatory package. We changed it to artificial lures, catch and release. The proposal was for artificial lures and 1 fish over 12 inches. The discussion had been passionate. The August 15 to September 30 block that we were talking about regulating was the old block of when streams were closed at that time. We had expanded the fall fishery to include quite a few areas and the regulatory breadth of those fall fishing areas was exactly that, broad. The people that weighed in on this proposal were equal 17 opposed and 17 in favor which was pretty much mirrored to the last time we went through the process. There were some groups involved as well. Just as a reminder to the Council when a person wrote in on behalf of a group, it counted as one comment. This proposal was on the table because we would like to offer the opportunity to discuss if people would like to go back to the old regimen or would they like to stay with the regimen that was put in place which was in place currently which was catch and release, artificial lures.

Mrs. Oldham stated in terms of catch and release mortality vs. catching 1 fish. How did that factor in?

Mr. Brown stated typically catch and release was about 3%. If you catch one and take it home its 100%.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had some data on that. For those people that let most of the fish go, 3% was fine. Even if you could keep 1 fish you were still talking about a percentage of mortality. Not many people would walk in, keep their first fish and walk out. Mortality rate still stayed when talking about artificial lures and there was a lot of discussion about what type of hooks were best for catch and release to protect fish populations.

Mr. Fortier stated he had been to that area many times. He had seen a decline in the amount of people that were going on the river. It was a long way to go even for one fish and not many people were going there.

Mr. Dudley asked if we had any information on the amount of fishing pressure that was there.

Mr. Brown stated we did not have any information on angler use there. Biologist Tim Obrey tried to get some through the Allagash Wilderness Waterway. We did not have any surveys for angler days. A lot of it was anecdotal data.

Mr. Dudley stated he ran the dam there for a lot of years. He was familiar with it but not for the last 10 years. Back then he did not see many people in there.

Mrs. Oldham stated some of the comments she saw described it as one of the best brook trout fisheries in the state. Was that an exaggeration?

Mr. Dudley stated that was their opinion. Whether it was or it wasn?t he couldn?t say. It was one of the real nice spots for brook trout and togue and whitefish. What would have been helpful was more creel information.

Mr. Brown stated we had some ice angling data from Webster Lake. We did not have anything right in Telos Cut where the fish tend to congregate at that time of year.

Mr. Dudley stated there were a couple of unique things there. This was a dam that did not have a fishway in it. People could fish off the dam or up to the dam. Had we ever considered closing the pool? There were public comments in the emails as to ?shooting fish in a barrel? because the fish piled up at the bottom of the dam, there was no place further for them to go. Had it ever been considered to make it 100 feet or 150 feet from the dam that time of year.

Mr. Brown stated typically there was a fishway there and it was 150 feet.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we did protect some areas that were not fishway passage areas with red posts. We did have artificial markers but that had not been part of this discussion.

Mr. Thurston asked if this was a source for Webster Lake. He asked if Webster Lake was where most of the fishing took place.
Mr. Dudley stated the fish were coming from Webster Lake.

Mr. Thurston stated they were providing the fish of the future and we protected it. One of the comments referenced a special privileged group. There were comments that we should air to the conservative side of things and he agreed with that. He felt the rule in place was protecting the fish and should stay. He felt it protected all interests and maybe after the study was done the 100 foot rule should come into play. The Department?s purpose was to preserve and protect.

Mr. Wheaton stated he had seen all the dams on the St. Croix with 150 feet below, or 75 feet below and it still didn?t protect a lot of the fish. The key was 99% of the fishermen did not know how to remove a hook that didn?t hurt the fish. He could fish there and release all those fish and if he went down under the current you?ve got 75 that he caught that day that?s dead and they?re laying on the bottom. If you immediately went to a barbless hook and had them use a set of curved hemostats and take the hook out gently we would not have the kill rate that we did with barbs. Did we want to take the right of fishing away from the public? If we wanted some of the public to use it keep the fish alive and use something that wasn?t going to hurt the fish.

Mr. Thurston stated there was a risk and it would be a shame to close it but not if they were congregated and there was a risk in hurting a much larger population. Again, he felt we should leave the rule the way it was.

Mr. Wheaton stated he thought they were right if they were going to protect all, we needed to close it.

Mr. Dudley stated he ran the dam for about 10 years and he never saw this happening. There was a time when probably it was legal to fish it with worms. It would be nice to know if we allowed one fish to be caught how many did that amount to. If we went to catch and release did we suffer a smaller fish because of more of them. He would hate to take people?s opportunity away to fish off the dam. Some of the letters were along the line that it?s the time of year when the fish were preparing to spawn and he did not believe the fish spawned in that pool.

Mr. Lewis stated the Council worked on this a few years ago and they closed it. They were given a lot of information like Allagash Stream which was closed after the 15th because of Allagash Falls and the fish congregated at the base of the falls and they were vulnerable. It was the same thing here, the regulation that was passed was very similar to the rest that we had. It was a wild fishery and the fish needed protection. He did not think anything had changed but there was obviously two sides to it. It was the Department that brought the proposal forward the first time and they made it so people could still fish but we were protecting the fish. It was different in that there wasn?t a fishway but the fish were wild and needed protection. If someone wanted to kill a fish there were plenty of places they could go do it. He had fished there and heard the fishing was better there now. They could say there weren?t many fishermen but nobody really knew that. The gear and fishermen were better than they used to be. The point was made where people catch 1 fish and left, he was a game warden for 14 years and he didn?t see that ever happen. They protected the fish the last time they passed it and they still needed protection. The comments for and against, the people wanting to protect were giving some good reasons as opposed to the other side saying they just wanted to kill a fish.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we were working on it and there was a lot of data that needed to be had also. He appreciated the discussion on both sides of the issue.

There were no further questions or comments.

C. Step 1

There were no items under Step 1.

 

V. Other Business

There were no items under Other Business.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Rick Denico stated he had worked with Mr. Dudley on Telos dam over the years. He was the technical advisor to the dams in the Allagash Waterway plus president of a nonprofit that fixed dams there. He had spent 8 years on Telos dam. His concern on the fishing end of it, he had all the internal memos on Telos Cut and what he thought he saw was where the fisheries biologist the last time around was not listened to. This time he had a chance to write the regs and that was why it was in the packet. He would strongly urge they listen to the fisheries biologist, if they weren?t going to listen to them they didn?t need them and they ought to be fired. He thought Tim Obrey had done a good job and his approach to what he said about fishing made sense. Mr. Denico had fished there but hadn?t since it was closed to one fish. This was his 61st year on the Allagash Waterway. He would appreciate if they would please look over what the fisheries biologist recommended. It was pushed through somehow last time without the fisheries biologist vote. The reason they went back to it was to correct it. Last week there was nobody fishing there. He flew the whole river by helicopter as they were covering Telos Dam, Locke dam and Churchill dam. He hoped they would leave the situation as it used to be because that did work.

Brian Cogill stated as far as WMD 8 was concerned with the early muskrat season, his opinion was that we should leave it open. It had been open for the last year, what was one week? They were up along the Golden Road which they got a lot of early snow and ice and he could not see how one week before the normal season was going to bother. He spoke with Jim Connolly about the beaver rules. Last year it was brought up the town in Oxford County it was Bickford Pond and tributaries. He was going to look into it with Scott Lindsay. That was a huge pond that one woman had closed for the last 10 or 15 years. They had a lot of complaints there, did they find anything out about it?

Ms. Camuso stated it was one landowner and she had emailed Scott Lindsay to find out exactly where she owned and we would not close the whole waterway down just for her. We would try to resolve that before the next meeting.

Brian Cogill stated he had sent the incidental take permit out to a lot of people all across the country so hopefully they would get a lot of good comments and hopefully they would get it this year and move on. It had been 14 years they were trying to get it.

Mr. Thurston stated he read the comments that the biologist wrote and it seemed that part of the documentation was about trophy fish and preserving waters for trophy fish and getting advice from Tim. Mr. Thurston was offended, Mr. Obrey had been credited with accusing Matt Libby of doing things to get the change made. Secondly, usually people in the field came up the ladder and those higher in the process made the final decisions. While we respected all of their opinions we weighed them all. His remarks were made to John Boland. Mr. Thurston called John Boland, and he thought the process was still working. Mr. Boland was at Libby Camps around the time in 2011 with Dr. Elowe and they counseled with the guides of three sets of sporting camps not just Matt?s and Matt was not included in the counsel. The system was working and Department was working hard and he thought the Council would come to the right answer.

Gary Corson stated he was shocked this had turned into another public hearing on Telos Cut. He knew when the comments were closed, but if they were going to open he had something to say. Mr. Thurston was right and he was going to try and help the Council understand why this was put forward in the beginning as a trophy regulation. In 2009 they did a survey in Farmington on brook trout fishing and there were a number of guides and camp owners and the Department was involved to see what it took to draw anglers to Maine to fish for brook trout. The survey showed that what people were looking for were wild fish, not necessarily trophy fish but big fish, and remote settings. As a result of that, the Department asked staff to look at ways to promote this. In the Rangeley area there were 7 to 10 catch and release waters that produced 6? fish. That drew anglers to Maine. In 2011 the Department had a brook trout working group and they asked the brook trout working group along with biologists to submit some waters that might qualify for quality or trophy brook trout fishing. The brook trout working group, Mr. Corson was a member and Matt Libby. He had seen the document from Tim Obrey and that was his document. There were seven waters on it, and there were a number of them submitted by Igor Sikorsy, Matt Libby, and there were some that did not list anybody as submitting them and that was because they were Mr. Corson?s. He had another document copying that one where Tim Obrey made comments. It wasn?t as if the biologists did not have an opportunity to make comments. When the rulemaking packet came out in 2011 of the seven recommendations from the brook trout working group there were three that were in the packet. One of those was Telos Cut, which Matt Libby had originally suggested as a trophy water. The Department took his recommendation away and came back with their own recommendation. This was not Matt Libby?s proposal, it was the Department?s proposal. This had taken on a life of its own. To fly in to Telos Cut now you had different rules than in 2011 and it probably had a lot to do with this rule. He asked the Council to think about what they did in 2011. The fish were concentrated there. If we closed the dam within 150 feet there would be very little pressure there. Most of the people that were commenting in support of the proposal owned camps up in that area. The dam should be protected in some way in the fall.

Commissioner Woodcock stated this was not a public hearing, the comment period had closed. The Council always had the challenge on the day of any discussion to separate the public hearing comments and the deadline from comments that were made that day, because those were not part of the public hearing process. Just a reminder, the public hearing comments they received were closed. The comments at today?s meeting were public comments being allowed.

Rick Denico stated he hoped they would understand the first time around things happened a certain way. This time around the Department asked the fisheries biologists to write the recommendation up and that?s what was done.

There were no further comments.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The date and location of the next meeting would be forwarded to the Council at a later time.

Mr. Fortier requested an update on the Wildlife Action Plan as it pertained to moose at the next meeting.

Mrs. Oldham requested an update from the Baitfish Working Group at the next meeting.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Thurston and that was seconded by Mr. Dudley to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
June 14, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.
Presque Isle Fish and Game Club
Parsons Road, Presque Isle, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Andrea Erskine, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Charlie Todd, E & T Species Coordinator
Bob Stratton, Fisheries and Wildlife Supervisor
Dana Duncan, Information Management Supervisor
Mike Brown, Fisheries Division Director
Chris Cloutier, Major, Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Jeff Lewis (Chair)
Dick Fortier
Lance Wheaton (Vice-Chair)
Cathy DeMerchant
Sheri Oldham
Don Dudley
Dick Thurston

Guests:
David Allen
Gary Corson
Representative Theriault
Don Kleiner
Judy Thurston
Brian Gray
Janet Lewis
Roger Belanger
Dan Pelletier
Karen Fortier

I. Call to Order

Jeff Lewis, Council Chair called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as amended and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant.

Vote: unanimous ? minutes approved as amended.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Controlled Moose Hunt

Mr. Connolly stated this was the change that the group suggested switching to just 25 permits to adjust to the changes in the moose population in the area and focus on disabled veterans as they were the most effective hunters in past hunts.

Mr. Fortier made a motion to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Thurston.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

2. Native Brook Trout waters, A & B list

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated this was creating the list of state heritage fish waters in their own separate chapter within our regulations. The list was not quite the same as the original proposal, partly due to formatting. We decided to add 3 additional columns of information and in addition to that there were 6 waters that were proposed amendments to the original list. The first 3 were waters that were being removed from the list because they did not meet the criteria for inclusion; Indian Pond, Upper Twin Pond and Deboullie Lake. They were directly stocked more recently than 1989, the 25 year cut off. The next 3 waters were waters that were being temporarily removed from the proposal because we would be putting them through the rulemaking process over the summer as part of our regular rulemaking. They would be almost separate but still available for comment at those hearings. In the future, as part of the statute, when we modified heritage waters we would hold a public hearing. So, the last 3 waters is to add them to the list and apply the no live fish as bait special code.

Mrs. Oldham stated she was still confused about the last 3 waters. They were being removed?

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated we had them on the original proposal and once that was published we realized we needed to take the action of placing them on the heritage waters list and applying the S code through the regulatory process. We had not done that originally so we would be doing those 3 waters over the summer during our regular rulemaking for fishing regulations.

Mrs. Oldham stated we had the NLFAB controversy. Were any of those bodies of water that were controversial included in the list?

Commissioner Woodcock stated there were no bodies of water there that changed a regulation.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated the bodies of water that were controversial were in law.

A motion was made by Mrs. DeMerchant and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton to accept the proposal as amended.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

 

3. Fish River Fishing Regulations

Mr. Brown stated the Fish River Falls in Fort Kent down through the St. John River was proposed to go from an S-6, S-13, S-16 regulation and we were going to remove the S-6, S-16 and return that stretch to general law, terminal tackle and the bag limits. It was a pretty straightforward change back to what it had been originally. We would like to have this in effect for early July.

Mr. Lewis asked how the public would be notified.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated because this was less restrictive then what was still in the law book until we changed it, we would do press releases and put it on the website to make people aware. Mr. Belanger was at the meeting. He circulated a petition for the change and submitted it, but we had already moved forward with the proposal. The petition he submitted was entered as support. They were anxious for the change to occur for when the kids were out of school.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the regional biologist, Frank Frost, had originally intended to do an experiment with salmon and when he was asked about going back to the original regulation to make it available for the children and general law provision, he was completely supportive of that. He had no concerns with the change.

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier and that was seconded by Mr. Thurston to accept the proposal as presented.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

B. Step 2

1. Fall Turkey Hunting

Ms. Camuso stated this was a proposal to open up WMDs 10, 11 and 19 to a fall turkey harvest of 1 bird, any sex, consistent with the rest of the state.

There were no further comments.

2. Any-deer permit allocations

Mr. Connolly stated there was a reduction in permits of 9,525 permits overall. In WMDs 3, 6, 7 and 13 we eliminated all the permits, and we reduced it in WMDs 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 23 and 25. We increased permits slightly by 285 in WMD 21 and 230 in WMD 24. It was an analysis by the regional biologists when they met with Kyle Ravana to go through the conditions of the herd and hunters impact and looking at the biological data from last year?s season and setting the allocations. The proposal was conservative and should help respond to the scenario of the previous winter.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier stated he was for the reduction in the permits in WMDs 3, 6 and 5 but at the same time, the severity of the winter seemed to last an extra month. They did see a big congregation of deer coming out in the Ashland area. Now they had disappeared and gone back in the woods. He felt if we could have a ?normal? winter next year he thought we would see the deer herds start to come back.

Mr. Lewis asked what the percentage of winter kill was.

Mr. Connolly stated 17%

There were no further comments.

3. 2015-2016 Crow season dates

Ms. Camuso stated everyone had received the significant number of comments on the crow season. A summary of Maine?s crow population and history of crow hunting had been distributed to the Council. There appeared to be a misunderstanding that somehow got out to the media that perhaps this was the first time Maine was offering a crow season. In reality, hunting crows in Maine had always been legal. Up until 1972 we could hunt crows year round and they were not regulated at all. Then USFWS decided to regulate them under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and they set parameters under which the states could have hunting seasons. Pretty much all states had a hunting season on crow except Hawaii. Maine?s crow season was within the Federal allowance of 124 days, and those days could be spread out as long as they as they were not during the peak breeding season. Our season was designed to not overlap with the breeding season, but also not to overlap with waterfowl season. Looking at the crow population and the hunting seasons our biologists look at the population levels based on both the breeding bird survey and the Christmas bird counts. The breeding bird survey was by and large the most rigorous survey in North America for wildlife. It was done by trained professionals and you had to be qualified to participate in the breeding bird survey, it was not something that just anyone could do. The USFWS administered a test and you had to be able to identify 90% of the birds you heard by sound, etc. It was the gold standard for surveys and what most states used when looking at listing a species; it was the data set that was most defensible. It had been defended in Federal Court as well. When looking at the data analysis of the breeding bird survey it showed the crow population had continued to rise. There was a dip in 1999-2000, and that was a result of the West Nile Virus. Most everywhere the crow population had rebounded and recovered from that. Biologists felt our hunt was sustainable and was having no negative impact on our crow population.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated the information that was distributed should make its way to the Portland Press Herald, and a response should be publicized.

Mr. Fortier stated the emails, when they started coming from MD and CA it was pretty evident where their information came from. When the emails were coming 2 minutes apart it was clearly political and was nothing as far as he was concerned to do with the science. Some of them had good comments but at the same time were not addressing the proposal.

Commissioner Woodcock stated this was the second time we were dealing with a computer generated response. The first was with Rosie the elephant. We had over 300 form letters for Rosie emailed by people. Actually if we receive a group of form letters we put them in one category as 1. It was fairly common in the political arena.

4. Whitewater rafting allocations

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated the Council had been briefed that we were making some modifications to the whitewater rafting rules regarding allocated days, days when companies had to have an allocation to run on the river. We were removing 5 Sundays from allocation because the numbers on the use of those days just wasn?t high enough to warrant allocating them. We were also modifying the training requirements. Currently if a company only ran on the Penobscot River the rule required they do a fair amount of training on the Kennebec as well which really didn?t make sense. They still had to go there for 2 days because the rivers were different so they got a different sort of training there, but the bulk of their training if they only ran on the Penobscot would occur on the Penobscot. We had not received any negative feedback on the proposals so far. We were hoping to come forward with an order of launch for the outfitters as well, but because the Legislature removed the affiliation law in statute there were some questions. Companies now could have three outfitter licenses and if Company A had the number 1 slot on the Kennebec River and were now licensing a company that was number 8 on the order of launch, their request at this point was to be able to include that sister company in their number 1 order of launch which then effects all the other companies. We were still trying to work that out so the order of launch was not ready for proposed rulemaking.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Lewis asked if the number of companies had increased.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated it seemed stable. We were still figuring out what removing the affiliation law meant to IFW. The order of launch was set by the longest continuing operation on the river. The longest running company got to pick their slot and now they were saying they had 3 other companies and wanted to move them up.

There were no further comments.

C. Step 1

1. Endangered & Threatened species listing
Mr. Todd stated the proposal was to add 6 animals to the endangered and threatened species list of Maine, 5 as endangered and 1 as threatened. Currently Maine?s list of endangered and threatened wildlife included 45 animals. This had been going on since 1975 when the Maine Endangered Species Act was first adopted. Starting in 1984 Maine started taking a step at what was at risk in Maine regardless of what was going on nationwide or regionally, which was how Federal listings were driven. We added 1 bird to the list in 1984 and it was a lot of work. It was quite a process for the Council and staff. Since that time, we pledged to do this periodically so that we brought several animals before the Council at a time. A lot of times endangered species policy was controversial headline stuff that didn?t necessarily bring value added discussion to a regulatory function. The idea that this is a hybrid of both state agency rulemaking and law, we make a recommendation to the Maine Legislature this year and they act on it next year. The animals proposed as endangered or threatened had real vulnerability based on low numbers, they only occured in a few places, their populations were steadily declining. The numbers were based on real science, not speculation or perceived threats.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham asked what the species were.

Mr. Todd stated the list would go public at Step 2, but we were looking at listing 3 invertebrates; a butterfly, a snail and a beetle and each of them only occurred in one place in Maine. Sometimes in those types of animals that were not wide spread across the landscape they had a specialty niche and they were vulnerable just for that reason alone. Three of the animals that were going to be on the list were bats, three different species of bats. Never had they seen animals go downhill so quickly and so fast and it related to a vulnerability that they had always known. Some of the bats clustered in caves for 5 or 6 months a year and whenever you clustered anything they were fundamentally more at risk because they were all in one place. In 2006 an epidemic disease started in Albany, NY and has spread to 22 states so hard and so fast that we couldn?t actually catch up with the phenomena. One of the bats that will be on the list is estimated to be 95 ? 99% gone already in 7 years. That one is being proposed as a Federally endangered species. The little brown bat was once the most common bat in Maine, it was estimated to be 90% gone, and the smaller cousin of these cave bats is called the Eastern small footed bat. It always had a narrower foot hold in Maine and was pretty much tied to rocky outcrops on the landscape. Each of these had experienced catastrophic declines. We would be holding two public hearings later in the summer to be announced.

Mrs. Oldham stated as opposed to bald eagles, which she understood was partially a habitat problem, what was the chance of, by this declaration, doing anything about the catastrophic loss as opposed to just if it was habitat that we could help in some way.

Mr. Todd stated there might have been a root cause why eagles went down, and maybe it was more to do with DDT, the side effects of DDT in the environment that went on for decades. The path to recovering eagles, an animal from rarity, whether its an eagle or anything else has to involve more factors you just can?t concentrate on one thing. The path back for bats will probably start with minimizing any additional mortality. Whatever bats are left are survivors to this epidemic disease for some reason.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated the list was not available yet because there was still some ongoing assessment.

Mr. Todd stated we typically did a peer review among scientist that were familiar with the subjects and we had been through the Governor?s office first, just to make sure we were on track, and we would be reaching out to our peer reviewers concurrently.

2. 2014-2015 Furbearer Seasons/Regulations/Beaver Closures

Mr. Connolly stated late this summer we would have the full list of beaver closures which would be more specific to actual parcels of land. We did allow landowners to have their properties closed to beaver trapping. We always tried to use trapping as a way to resolve beaver problems in working with towns and landowners. The other part of the regulation would be to correct a typo that was in rule. The early muskrat season in the law book was correct, it showed the WMDs open to the early muskrat season as WMDs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11. In the actual rule there was a typo and it was put in as WMD 8. We would like to go back and make the rule consistent with that.

3. 2014-2015 Migratory Bird Season

Mr. Connolly stated the seasons would mirror last year. We did not expect any changes. The dates would adjust slightly depending on the days of the week. It was the same basic framework in all of the units. It was successful last year and the public accepted it well and we were not aware of any changes coming from the Feds.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated this one was a little bit different. We were before the Council ahead of what was known to be the actual proposal and we make the disclaimer on the notice of agency rulemaking that it was subject to the Federal guidelines that were issued. This year we didn?t expect any big differences. We would hold a public hearing and we could take action on it the very next day, there was an exemption in law from the normal comment period. This will appear different as we hold the hearing and the Council will be asked for consent the next day. The Council would probably not see this again until Step 3.

Mrs. Oldham stated in terms of being able to comment, that seemed odd because usually comment was limited at Step 3.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated that was why this was probably one of our most highly attended public hearings. We did receive written comments because once it was advertised it was open for the normal course of public comment.

Mrs. Oldham asked if this had been occurring as the normal process?

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated yes.

Mr. Connolly stated part of the issue related to when the Federal Government created their framework. He represented Maine on the Atlantic Flyway Council on the management side, and Kelsey Sullivan on the technical side. The USFWS was coming forward this year with 3 different proposals to change their rulemaking process to try and make it more timely. What they found is they may go back and use a year earlier data in order to do the regulation. What they were trying to do was incorporate the previous season, and much like our moose data, they were waiting for wing data. Their goal was to back off a little and give people a little more time to work through the information once they got it.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated we also had a Waterfowl Advisory Council and we typically attend a meeting with them the day of the hearing and they meet immediately following the public hearing and consider what was heard. Even though it was not an official vote as far as the regulatory process, we did get that layer of input. The reduced comment period didn?t have anything to do with the public; it was trying to meet the requirement that we then had to file the regulations with the Feds by a certain deadline.

4. Fishing Regulations 2015

Mr. Brown stated the packet was moderate compared to prior years. There were a few statewide proposals as well as some regional proposals that he would like to go over. The first statewide proposal would be changes to the general law bass season and bag limits. Currently there were 3 different seasons for bass and we were proposing to combine that into one season, January ? December with a 2-fish bag limit and only one fish over 14?. It would allow people to utilize some of the bass resources down in the southern part of the state yet protect those bigger fish which we would like to see stay in the fishery.
We had a proposal to change an S-code (S-15), that was the release slot 13? ? 18?, 1-fish April ? June; 2-fish, July ? March. We proposed to change that mandatory release slot to 12? ? 20? limit 1 fish. 0? ? 12? you could keep a fish or 1 over 20?. We did not have a lot spawning waters, especially for smallmouth bass. A lot of the fish were in fairly sterile environments and grew to a larger size, and we would like to keep the bass available to anglers and guides as they fish for them. We didn?t use the S-15 code very often, it was only used in about 15 waters mainly downeast.
There was a statewide proposal to look at the criteria of the complimentary license holders. S-9, which were kids only fishing waters were now open to complimentary license holders. We wanted to make sure those complimentary license holders were in the appropriate category to fish there.
The last statewide proposal dealt with the American eel. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission that oversees the management of eel along the entire east coast had changed their management of American eel and once they did that they gave states the opportunity over they next year or two to change their regulations. What they were requiring of all states along the east coast was to reduce the bag limit for recreational anglers that were fishing for eels to 25 fish and that there be a minimum size on eels of 9?. Currently the bag limit for recreational anglers was 50 fish and there was a 6? minimum length limit.
There would be waters nominated for the state heritage fish list. Those were all in Region D. Three were new additions to the law book.
There would be a number of waters closed to the taking of bait. One of the reasons was to take the list that was closed to commercial dealers and also make those same waters off limits to folks who could trap recreationally. A lot of these waters were already closed to the taking of bait. They happened to be in muskie waters, so places where we have muskie or bass we didn?t want to see those fish spread by anybody. It would make the rules consistent for everybody. There were a handful of trout ponds in the proposal that would also be restricted to the taking of bait. Most of those were downeast.
There would be 14, S-33 additions to the law book; S-33 establishes a maximum size for salmon and brown trout and was used any place there were sea run Atlantic salmon. If you were to catch a brown trout or a salmon over 20? there?s a greater chance that fish may be an Atlantic salmon. These S-33 waters were already in the law book, but they were not very evident. If you were to look at a county level you would see the exceptions to the S-33 but if you were to look on the border waters section you wouldn?t see any S-33 designations.
In terms of regional proposal, Region A only had one proposal to make a clarification on Little Androscoggin River, a fairly minor change. Region B we were going to create a new ice fishing opportunity for stocked trout at Half Moon Pond. Region C there were a handful of proposals; revise the smelt regulations on Beech Hill Pond, one on Pocumcus to make those togue regulations consistent with West Grand, and one on West Musquash to look at providing additional protection for those togue and salmon that reside there. Region D we were going to add an S-13 regulation to Little Mosquito. Unfortunately there were smallmouth bass there now and that S-13 would establish a no size or bag limit on smallmouth bass and allow anglers to legally remove those. Region E, last year there were a couple proposals to change the start date on Moosehead, East Outlet. From May 1 ? April 1 we had 3 new proposals to do that. Upper Wilson, Lower Wilson, Mountain View Pond we would get rid of that May 1 start date and it would be an April 1 start date to make it consistent with other ponds in the area and provide opportunity. Region F we were proposing to remove an S-9 regulation, a kids fishing/complimentary license holder regulation. The pond had not been stocked for a number of years it was now eutrophic, there was a lot of algae there and the water quality was not appropriate for stocking. In Region G the only changes were the taking of baitfish restrictions and there would be 8 of those.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham asked if there had been any progress on the ALO (artificial lures only) definition revisions.

Mr. Brown stated no, not at this point. It was something we were still working on.

Mrs. Oldham stated no decision had been made in terms of enforcement then. Before, they had discussed Gulp bait, and scented bait and whether or not that was an artificial lure.

Mr. Brown stated we were still in the definition phase. Not only would that affect artificial lures it would affect fly fishing and all those things.

Mr. Thurston stated they had discussed fish identification in the past. In Florida, they had a laminated fish ID chart available for anglers. He asked if that was something we could look into for Maine.

Commissioner Woodcock stated they had actually had that discussion recently about informational materials, not only fish ID but baitfish ID.

Mr. Brown stated we did have the Fishes of Maine identification books. We had a supply it was just getting them out to the public and having them available when fishing.

V. Other Business

There were no items under Other Business.

VI. Councilor Reports

Council members were asked to submit any reports they might have in writing.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

David Allen asked about the proposal for threatened and endangered species.

Mr. Todd stated it was one list adopted in statute and currently we were proposing 5 species to be added to endangered and 1 to the threatened.

David Allen stated during the brook trout stuff they went through there was talk about reducing the list of baitfish that was legally used in Maine. What was the progress on that?

Commissioner Woodcock stated the baitfish working group was discussing that. The focus had been on it, they were working very hard on smelt and baitfish both.

Representative Theriault asked Mr. Todd about the situation with bats. We did have bats didn?t we that were using the forest or the tree areas to nest and how did that come into play with transportation. We may want to do work in certain areas and there were certain times of the year possibly that we wouldn?t want that.

Mr. Todd stated primarily, not because of what we were proposing to do under state law, but one of the animals was proposed to be federally listed and one of the differences was under Federal law they deal with projects that they permit, license, fund or carry out from Federal Highway aid. This is an understandable concern. But, this animal is 90+% gone, we don?t think the roosting habitat the bats use is anywhere close to being a subject to oppose or not. In fact, when USFWS published their findings last October they admitted they didn?t know how to address that problem. It was a conceptual concern. When the state took the lead in listing its own resources it just doesn?t essentially defer to Federal policy. We had a lot more leverage in guiding the outcome.

Roger Belanger thanked them for their work on the Fish River regulation. He also wanted to bring up something to the board about a particular situation that happened in the spring a few years ago. Late spring, there was still some snow on the ground and a great ball of lightening came down and lasted for a split second, the lights went out and came back on. All night he thought it was a meteor or something, but come to find out, across the road in the snow was a Great horned owl with a partridge still in his claws. He must have just picked it up and flew into the power line. He sent an email and photo to Maine Public so they knew why there was an interruption in service. He wanted to keep the owl, he didn?t cause it , it was a freak thing, but the game wardens took it. He did not feel that was fair, it was a one of a kind thing. He thought those regulations could be changed and the owner should be able to keep the Great horned owl and the partridge.

Ms. Camuso stated that was Federal law and we would not have the prevue to change that. It was part of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Don Kleiner requested that since crows were a migratory bird, next year could we do the crow rule as part of migratory birds.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated we wanted to be able to publish the crow seasons for two years out in the hunting law book.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The date and location of the next meeting would be forwarded to the Council at a later time.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mr. Thurston to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
May 9, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Andrea Erskine, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Nathan Webb, Special Projects Coordinator
Mike Brown, Fisheries Division Director
Dana DeGraaf, Coldwater Fisheries Biologist
Mark Latti, Outreach and Communications
Dan Scott, Game Warden Lieutenant
Rick Clowry, Game Warden Corporal
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:

Dick Fortier
Lance Wheaton
Gunner Gundersen
Cathy DeMerchant
Sheri Oldham
Don Dudley
Dick Thurston (by phone)

Guests:

Don Kleiner, MPGA
Gary Corson
Katie Hansberry, HSUS
Teri Fortier
Dave Weatherby, New England Outdoor Center
Brian Cogill, MTA
Joe Christopher, Three Rivers Whitewater
Suzie Hockmeyer
Rick Mills

I. Call to Order

Lance Wheaton, Council Vice-Chair called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant.

Vote: unanimous ? minutes approved.

III-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

Chair

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to nominate Mr. Lewis for another term as Chair and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton. There were no further nominations.

Vote: unanimous ? Mr. Lewis reelected as Council Chair

Vice-Chair

A motion was made by Mr. Wheaton to nominate Mrs. DeMerchant as Vice-Chair.  Mrs. DeMerchant reminded the Council that she had reached the end of her two 3-year terms, and the motion was not seconded. and the Council was reminded that Mrs. DeMerchant had reached the end of her two 3-year terms.

A motion was made by Mr. Dudley to nominate Mr. Wheaton for another term as Vice-Chair and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant. There were no further nominations.

Vote: unanimous ? Mr. Wheaton reelected as Council Vice-Chair

Bear Presentation ? Judy Camuso

Ms. Camuso gave a Power point presentation to the group outlining IF&W?s position on the upcoming bear referendum and what the Department does as a whole in its bear management program.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Wildlife Violators Compact

Lt. Scott stated the compact would allow us to take part with 43 other states; if your hunting privileges are revoked in another state we could revoke it here as well. It had been in place for a number of years across the country similar to the motor vehicle suspension compact. Basically it was working. He had received a number of calls from people whose hunting license had been suspended in another state and they were checking to see if they could hunt in Maine. Not being part of the compact made Maine a filter for people to come here that were revoked in every other state. The basis was that fish and game violators really knew no boundaries and folks who were violating in other states may very well come here as well.

Mrs. Oldham made a motion to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

2. Moose Permit Allocations

Ms. Camuso stated the Council had received information regarding modifications to the permit recommendations. The Department had undertaken a major project looking at moose survivorship this past winter. We collared 30 adult females and 30 calves and monitored them through the season as part of a 5-year project and would continue to do that for the next several years. This year it was limited to WMD 8 and given the high adult mortality we felt it would be responsible to re-run the numbers and make sure what we were recommending was valid. We did have a winter tick episode this year with higher than expected mortality for adult cows. Winter tick was not new to the state. We had documentation of winter ticks back in the 30?s, 40?s and 50?s. We did feel that this year the adult mortality of 30% was significant and we needed to relook at the permit numbers. We also had documentation from many regional biologists across the state that documented mortality. Other biologists had also been in touch with Mr. Kantar. We did have quantifiable data that this was a statewide episode and not limited to the moose in Western Maine. We had adjusted the permit recommendations statewide. No changes were made to the bull permits. Ms. Camuso went over the permit reductions by WMD (see packet). There was a total reduction of 990 cow permits. This would put us below the threshold to be able to offer any permits to the lodges.

Commissioner Woodcock stated this was the recommendation to the Council. It had been discussed thoroughly and we had received comments during the comment period expressing concern.

Mr. Fortier stated there were areas that were cut back that really should have been. He felt some areas were too high, the total of 4,000 was too high. The data from WMD 8 collaring moose, he did not know if there was going to be any collaring of moose in the future but if it was to happen in Aroostook County that would be great. It was vast area and tough to get data. How did WMD 8 in dealing with ticks and disease and the kill relate to the northern part of the state.

Ms. Camuso stated wildlife biologist Amanda DeMuze had been out in the field in Aroostook County documenting. She had significantly higher mortality there as well.

Mr. Fortier asked if the tick mortality rate was as high in the north as they found in the southern part of the state.

Ms. Camuso stated yes. Also, the animals that died in WMD 8 would be having a full necropsy done on them so we would be able to assess if there were underlying diseases that maybe enhanced its vulnerability to the tick episode.

Mr. Woodcock commented on why WMD 8 was chosen for the moose collar study. It had a relationship with Western NH and north at the same time (mid-Somerset County). The habitat in Somerset County was quite similar to the northern and western and eastern parts of the state. It was a good indicator for our concerns about NH?s comments and other parts of Maine.
Mrs. Oldham stated we now had some high tech, critical data. She had been critical of the Department in the past for apparent slow response to new information. This was timely and significant and she would applaud everyone who worked so hard getting this new data. She thought this was a very appropriate response to some scary information.

Ms. Camuso stated in 2015 we would be starting the working group. One of the theories with ticks, is a way to minimize the exposure to ticks was to reduce the moose population. That would take major public outreach, it was not a decision the Department was going to make. It would be discussed with the public working group. If we were going to start seeing winter tick episodes every 3 years instead of every decade, would we need to bring the population down.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the wildlife action plan referenced was a very important public part of the process for setting the goals for the harvest of the animals under the Department?s jurisdiction. It was a 10-year plan that was coming up in 2015 so we would have many opportunities for the public to engage in that process as we formulated our wildlife goals.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mrs. DeMerchant to accept the proposal as amended.

Vote: unanimous ? motion passed.

B. Step 2

1. Controlled Moose Hunt

Ms. Camuso stated there were no changes from Step 1. We were proposing 25 permits to veterans only.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Native Brook Trout waters, A & B list

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated in the past, these waters would have been designated major substantive. We would have gone to a certain point with the Council and then gone back to the Legislature. That changed during the last legislative session where we now have the ability to put these through our normal rulemaking process. We were moving forward with a list of state heritage fish waters, waters that contain both eastern brook trout and arctic charr and are regulated in accordance with the statute which prohibits the stocking of waters that are on the state heritage fish list as well as the use of live fish as bait on those waters. The document before the Council was merely a list of the waters. The regulatory part came partly by the Legislature directing how they were to be managed. We presented them with a management plan for the waters that was accepted. In some cases we would then, in the regulatory process, be applying the special code or removing in some places. We had received a couple of positive comments.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the comments included some suggestions for us to examine the list closely as we present it for Step 3 and it would probably include some changes.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated the waters on the list were designated state heritage, and there were two categories. One, what we had been referring to as the ?A? list were waters that had never been stocked according to reliable records. ?B? waters were waters that had not been stocked in 25 years. The list of state heritage waters fitting those two categories and regulated as indicated by such.

Mrs. Oldham asked that moving forward, we would not be talking about ?A? and ?B? we would just be talking about state heritage fish waters?

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated yes.

There were no further questions or comments.

3. Fish Regs ? Pond in the River fishing petition

Mr. Brown stated we were looking to make some regulation changes on the Fish River from Ft. Kent down to St. John and to reverse the recent change that prohibited worms. It was something we had planned to do in our next rulemaking package for this summer. There were folks there that wanted to see the change go into effect earlier. Deputy Commissioner Erskine had contacted the Council to explain why the proposal was before them at Step 2. This was something the Department was ready to move forward and did not see the necessity of presenting at Step 1. We did receive a number of signatures from folks up north. It was not a valid petition, but we would use those as support for the rule change.

Mrs. Oldham stated if it would not be in the fishing law book would there be public notification?

Commissioner Woodcock stated the change would be sent out electronically, on the website and to clubs.

There were no further questions or comments.

C. Step 1

1. Fall Turkey Hunting

Ms. Camuso stated the Department was looking to open WMDs 10, 11 and 19 to fall harvest with a one bird limit. There were good populations of turkeys in those districts and they hadn?t been opened to a fall harvest so our approach with opening a new district for a fall harvest is a one bird limit and we will review in two to three years to see if it could support a two bird limit.

There were no further comments or questions.

2. Any-deer permit allocations

Ms. Camuso stated the winter was difficult for deer and they were vulnerable to snow depth for extended periods of time. In years that we had extended periods of high snow depth we expect our winter kill to increase and that was the situation we found ourselves in this year. We were proposing a reduction of about 20% of the any-deer permits from last year. The deer population was rebounding nicely from the two sever winters we had, but we were being conservative and recognizing this had been a hard winter on deer in particular. We had our winter severity data in and analyzed so she felt the numbers proposed would stand. Many WMDs we were proposing the elimination of the doe harvest entirely. Overall we had a reduction of 9,525 any-deer permits. WMDs 21 and 24, we did increase permits. Those were the southern Maine, coastal zones where we had a high deer density and there was less opportunity for deer hunting so our population remained above target there. Southern Maine did not have as extensive winter conditions as in other parts of the state.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated where there were no doe permits on youth day for hunting, no doe can be harvested either. A large portion of the state where on one day we were encouraging young people to hunt, but they?re not going to be able to hunt does. She knew this had been controversial in the past. It would be good to see some numbers about the youth harvest from last year where we did have doe permits to see how many deer we were actually talking about. Was it enough to jeopardize our rebounding deer population to allow the kids to be able to harvest a deer of either sex?

Commissioner Woodcock stated Ms. Camuso would get those numbers for them. The numbers taken on youth day were minimal. The discussion melded into whether or not you wanted to allow them to do it when no one else could.

Mr. Fortier stated he would want to make sure that the scientific data would say it could support it.

Mr. Wheaton stated he was very active in the rod and gun clubs and the guide association. It was very hard to get kids to come to a rod and gun club for any occasion; free fishing, fly fishing or even 4-wheel riding. To let them shoot a doe on youth day, he did not think that was going to make a difference whether they were going to buy hunting licenses.

Mrs. Oldham stated they always had a youth hunter breakfast at the Rangeley Region Guides. They had the same 7 kids every year and they had doe permits for the first time last year in a long time. The usual 7 plus 8 more kids came this year. She felt some of that was an increased likelihood that they might be able to harvest a deer.

Mr. Dudley stated the deer task force wrestled with the issue years ago and ultimately said it was best for the resource. Whether we actually lost any youth or not, he was not sure.

There were no further questions or comments.

3. 2015-2016 Crow season dates

Ms. Camuso stated the only change for the crow season was just the calendar year, the dates changed every year.

4. Whitewater rafting allocations

Corporal Clowry stated part of the proposal was a training issue. The majority of the training now was currently in order to get your license at level 1 was on the Kennebec. We weren?t going to change any of the number of days or the number of runs, but make it an either or so that subjects who were going to be on the Penobscot River mainly could train on the Penobscot River. Most companies that rafted both rivers were doing that now because the Penobscot was a far more technical river to run and required more training. They would still have to come to the Kennebec and do a couple of days, but they could major in the river they were going to be on.

Corporal Clowry discussed the second portion of the proposal. Sundays on the Penobscot River, the number of rafters had continually declined significantly. The last five year review, they were below 50% of the allocations that we allowed for that day on the river. We felt it important to have language in the rulemaking process to be able to take that out of an allocated river or day. Currently there was no language that allowed for it. We wanted the Commissioner, at the end of a 5-year review, and if business had declined 3 out of 5 of those years we would be able to respond to that and do something to help the outfitters.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine asked if it would be our intention in the language to strike out language where we?ve allocated the second, third and fourth Sunday in July?

Corporal Clowry stated we would strike those out on the Penobscot River Sundays. The Council would also be seeing a proposal coming soon for the order of launch.

Deputy Commissioner Erskine stated the order of launch for the whitewater rafting industry was established according to longest time running on the river. The Legislature made modifications during the last session specifically regarding affiliation. We needed to look at the launch order for companies that had been on the river that now had acquired a sister outfitter; they could have 3 licenses now.

Mrs. DeMerchant asked Corporal Clowry if he had worked with the companies on the proposal and if they were in favor.

Corporal Clowry stated yes.

There were no further questions or comments.

V. Other Business

1. Fish Regs ? Pond in the River fishing petition

Commissioner Woodcock stated we did not bring forth the Pond in the River request for a change in the regulation under the basis that it was his determination that the brook trout resource in the Pond in the River was one of the very unique brook trout resources in the U.S. He did not want to threaten that resource in any way. He supposed it would be possible to make accommodations, but was the risk worth it? It was not worth the reward. With the unique nature of that particular fishery and the regulations that existed there, it was his determination that we would not advance any changes to the Pond in the River fishing regulations and it was not at Step 3 for a vote.

VI. Councilor Reports

Council members gave reports.

Mr. Fortier stated that a petition had been circulating in the Portage area on wanting to look at rededicating the zone in WMDs 1 and 2 back to a recreational and trophy zone for moose instead of the way it was designated now. He asked if the Commissioner and biologists might look into that and review as part of the wildlife action plan.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Rick Mills stated he initiated the Pond in the River petition and was a little disappointed. He asked to see the science that Commissioner Woodcock based his decision on. He was a little annoyed that someone from Aroostook County that wanted to dunk a worm could get a regulation change in just like that and the rest of America had to go through a petition process to even get it on the table.

Commissioner Woodcock asked Mr. Mills to explain.

Rick Mills stated one of the fisheries guys stood up and almost approved a regulation change on the Fish River with no petition from a citizens group.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the petition came in after the change was proposed by the biologists. The petition was separate from that. The biologist was the one that proposed the change after it was discussed with a few people. The petition that came in came in after that fact in support of the proposed change.

Rick Mills asked if he didn?t see the difference between that and a guy having to go out and get 180 names himself and get the petition into the process?

Commissioner Woodcock stated he did see this one differently.

Rick Mills stated he would like to see the science. He did not think fisheries had any science pertaining to Pond in the River and he would like to see what he made his decision on. To Ms. Camuso he stated she had done a fantastic job. He would also like to see the collaring of the moose in the winter time, and the circumstances around collaring, if that was a result of any of the mortality.

Ms. Camuso stated there was no drug use.

Rick Mills stated the word in Western Maine was that it was actually the collaring that was killing the moose.

Ms. Camuso stated stress on the animals was taken into consideration and looked at and all the other states that had done it. Any time you handled an animal there was additional stress and there was potential for mortality. We monitored the animals very closely and made sure that the stress of capture and the burden of bearing the collar wasn?t too much. We did the same when banding birds.

Suzie Hockmeyer stated in the Forks Area they had seen a lot of dead calves especially this winter on snowmobile trails and they were full of ticks. The deer had a hard time this spring, they weren?t as lucky to stay on top, they were going through the snow. She was sure the coyotes had fun. She wanted to thank the Department and Corporal Clowry for bringing up two issues for the whitewater industry that needed to be addressed. One, changing the guide rules so that people that concentrate more on one river, they should be getting more of their training on that river and for going forward in trying to unallocate Sundays on the Penobscot. It was the right thing to do and it was time to do it.

There were no further comments or questions.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for June 14th, 2014 at the Presque Isle Fish and Game Club beginning at 10:00 a.m.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Commissioner's Conference Room, 284 State Street, Augusta
Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

Agenda

I. Call to Order 9:30 a.m.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Furbearer Seasons/Beaver Closures 2017/2018 - Judy Camuso
2. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Fish Waters 2018 - Francis Brautigam
3. Eastport Special Hunt - Judy Camuso

B. Step 2

1. There are no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. Wildlife in Captivity Chapter 7 Rules - Jim Connolly
2. Educational and Scientific Collection Permits Chapter 6 - Jim Connolly
3. Fishing Regulations Petition ? Eagle Lake/Jordan Pond - Francis Brautigam

V. Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 a.m.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment 12:00 p.m.

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Commissioner's Conference Room, 284 State Street, Augusta
Wednesday, October 25, 2017 9:30 a.m.

Agenda

I. Call to Order 9:30 a.m.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. There are no Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Educational and Scientific Collection Permits Chapter 6 - Jim Connolly
2. Wildlife in Captivity Chapter 7 rules - Jim Connolly
3. Fishing regulation petition - Eagle Lake/Jordan Pond - Francis Brautigam

C. Step 1

V. Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 a.m.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment 12:00 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
June 17, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
Cary Medical Center - Caribou Room
163 VanBuren Road
Caribou, Maine

Attending:

Tim Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Director
Bonnie Holding, Information and Education Director
Maryellen Wickett, Wildlife Biologist/Programmer Analyst
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Don Dudley (Chair)
Dick Fortier
Matt Thurston
Jerry Scribner
Jenny Starbird
Lance Wheaton


Guests:
Blaine Holding
Gary Corson
Brian Cogill, MTA
Hal Murphy
Gary McLaughlin, ACCA


I. Call to Order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton.

Vote: Unanimous ? minutes approved.

III-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

A motion was made by Mr. Scribner to nominate Don Dudley for a second tern as Council Chair, and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier. There were no further nominations.

Vote: Vote: Unanimous - Don Dudley elected as Council Chair

A motion was made by Mr. Thurston to nominate Jeff Lewis for a second term as Council Vice-Chair, and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier.

A motion was made by Mr. Wheaton to nominate Matt Thurston as Council Vice-Chair, and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier. There were no further nominations.

Vote: Of the six members present, four votes in favor of Matt Thurston as Council Vice-Chair; two votes in favor of Jeff Lewis as Council Vice-Chair. Matt Thurston elected as Council Vice-Chair.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Fall Turkey Season

Ms. Camuso stated that this was a proposal to open WMD 27 to a fall turkey harvest of one of any sex. Most of the state was open to a fall harvest, but we were not conservative with WMD 27 and believed it was ready for a fall harvest. No public comments were received on the proposal.

Council member questions and comments

Mr. Fortier asked about the turkey population there.

Ms. Camuso stated that it had been growing and disease had dropped the population a bit, but now it had stabilized. That was consistent across the northeast with various states with the population. We were still monitoring for disease and were being cautious when moving turkeys from an area of the state that had been effected.

Mr. Thurston asked about a turkey study that was being conducted.

Ms. Camuso stated that a 3-year project with the University. There would be grad students working with us.

Mr. Thurston asked if the diseases were related to too many turkeys.

Ms. Camuso stated probably. There was a bill passed in the Legislature to give the Commissioner authority to set bag limits for turkey. The bag limits were set in statute and that did not give us enough flexibility especially with a species like turkey that could produce lots of young in one year. As part of the big game process we reorganized that we wanted to be more fluid to adjust turkey harvest, season length, bag limits, ext.

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to adopt the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton.

Vote: unanimous - Motion passed

b. Step 2

1. Any-deer Permit Allocations 2017

Ms. Camuso stated we were proposing an increase in any-deer permits to a total of 66,050 permits. She wanted to remind everyone that when we made the calculations there was an expansion factor; we looked at the success rates by district. The total anticipated doe harvest from this was about 6,500 animals. Even though we were issuing 66,000 permits, that was the number of permits we had to issue to achieve the desired doe harvest of 6,000 or so animals. There were some WMDs we were recommending would still receive no permits (1, 5, 10, 11, 19, 28) those WMDs were still below objective and we did not feel they could sustain a doe harvest at this time. There were some WMDs that we were offering a small number of permits (2, 3, 27) 50 permits for an entire WMD was quite nominal but it allowed some opportunity, particularly on youth day, and still anticipate a very small harvest in those areas. Overall those districts were still below objective, but in many small local areas within those WMDs there were abundant deer that could sustain a doe harvest. The majority of the increase in permits was in central Maine. Most of them were in region B and those populations were at or almost above objective. With a couple of mild winters we did not want the population to bounce up substantially higher than it currently was given Lyme disease, car/deer accidents, etc. We wanted to actively keep the population where it was or even lower. There was a decrease in permits for WMD 13.

Council member comments and questions

Mr. Scribner stated he was in favor of providing opportunity if the long term sustainability of the population could handle it. He did not represent WMD 7 but that was where he hunted. Last year we started with 500 permits allocated and we reduced that to 375. This year we had upped that to 800 permits in the proposal. When he looked at the newspaper article, he knew the media sometimes did not get things quite the way the biologist presented them, but in Deirdre Fleming?s article she stated that Ryan Robicheau said that the state wildlife biologists still wanted to grow the herd in northern, western and eastern Maine. Even with 800 permits, and if 200 does were harvested, that seemed like it didn?t line up with wanting to increase the herd in the western mountains. He was in favor of providing opportunity if the herd could sustain it. He knew during the winter they could go on the Kennebago Road and over in Rangeley or Oquossoc, anywhere they were feeding deer and see 100 deer. Needless to say those deer were coming from miles around to get to those places where they could get feed. Personally, he would consider the past winter in western Maine to be average, not mild. He wanted to support the biologists, so what he would like was access to the mortality studies and whatever we had for biological data that got to where we were allocating 800 permits to WMD 7.

Ms. Camuso stated Chuck Hulsey and Bob Cordes had met with Mrs. Oldham because she had concerns as well. They went through all of the calculations and spread sheets that we worked through when coming up with permit allocations. She could ask them to do that for Mr. Scribner as well. The amount of data that they analyzed was overwhelming. It was important to know that you could still harvest does and grow a population. Hunting typically in the levels we were hunting was not additive mortality. It was not increasing the overall mortality of the population, it was only when you started taking more than 15% or 20% of the population did you start to see a decline in the populations. When we ran the numbers for WMD 7 in the total mortality when you looked at all the other factors of mortality, if we were to achieve our goal the mortality associated with does from hunting was less than 4%. It was not impactful to population growth. You could still harvest does and grow ample deer. It could be additive, it could be compensatory it depended on the level you were hunting.

Mr. Scribner stated wouldn?t that slow the growth? It seemed counterproductive that we focused on predator control and we were paying people around deer yards to control the predation so we had more deer as part of our plan to increase the population in the western Maine mountains. At face value, we save 200 by shooting the coyotes and now we?re going to shoot 200 of them. He would appreciate getting the stats that the numbers were based on for betting understanding.

Mr. Thurston stated he believed Mr. Scribner was correct that the deer traveled many miles for winter habitat. They also had social pressures when they were over populated which resulted in less fawn survival. It would be interesting to know what the success rate was for the 375 permits issued last year. It was a perception challenge because we would be criticized for the increase again. If we did not manage for deer or moose at all, we would have epic swings and highs and lows. What we were trying to do was manage that oscillation for smoother transition for a quality herd that we all could recreate with.

Mr. Scribner stated this was anecdotal, but in 11 days of hunting in the western Maine mountains he saw 4 deer, 2 were nice bucks. As opposed to when he was turkey hunting around the Washington, Somerville area he could not go out mornings without seeing deer or deer sign. He could appreciate and understand the increase required in southern and central Maine, but he just hadn?t seen an increase in the western Maine mountains.

Ms. Camuso stated we knew there had been concerns in the past in WMD 7 and her guidance to staff was to give her the biological recommendations. Their recommendations were based on the biology and she thought the WSI (winter severity index) for WMD 7 was below average this year. Part of the reason for that, it was sort of a perception issue. It was not that we didn?t have snow, it was just that the deer were staying on top of it. There were very few days that the deer were sinking below 8 inches. We had staff that spent 3 days per week monitoring winter severity. We had outstanding data on the winter survival of deer by WMD.

Ms. Starbird stated it would be helpful to see the goal for last year and the success rate so they could see what was actually harvested in comparison to what was being proposed for this year.

Mr. Wheaton stated they talked about a time in Grand Lake Stream when there were no deer, probably the 20?s and 30?s. Then they talked about a few deer moving in from the west. He looked at the chart and he saw WMDs 11, 19, 27 with no permits. Were the deer coming up back then because there were too many deer to the south? Were we going to kill off what could move east? He did not know, but it looked like we had too many we were going to kill off. It would be nice to see a deer in his area, he was in WMD 11. He had not been seeing many ticks this year.

Mr. Fortier stated he was familiar with WMDs 1 and 10. WMD 1 was a hard area to hunt, and he saw no permits issued. He did not know where we were with the threshold before they would allow any permits. He was exceptionally familiar with WMDs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. WMD 3 was Caribou and they had been seeing more deer in the farming country than they had been. He did some hunting in WMD 4 and a lot in WMD 5. He wondered what the threshold was in those areas before we started allowing permits. One of the concerns he had was for youth being able to hunt; he knew that was taken into account.

Ms. Camuso stated we were working on a 5-year study with Irving, probably the most comprehensive study we had done in quite awhile on deer survival and productivity. We had a number of animals collared in northern Maine, but for each animal we had some in areas that were being fed and then a control area where animals were not being fed. There were not many areas in the state where deer were not being fed. It appeared to be more prevalent than we realized. They were looking at forest conditions, predation, feeding and how all of things impacted winter survival. It was Irving, University of New Brunswick and University of Maine. There would be about 6 study areas with animals collared trying to figure out what was contributing; there were areas where we had deer yards and the deer either were not in them or we were not seeing any increase in population. We did not know if it was because they were being pulled out of the deer yards and going to a feeding station, or because the winter was too severe and they were not surviving, or because predators were coming in and taking vulnerable animals, but there were areas of the state where we should be seeing more of an increase given that there?s been no harvest and there?s just not.

Ms. Camuso stated at the same time there were areas such as WMD 2 that we had more animals killed on the road getting to food this year than the entire harvest through the firearms season. Particularly for northern Maine there were still a lot of unanswered questions that we were trying to figure out. We didn?t know if the feeding was changing the deer behavior. If the deer weren?t going into the yards, we really couldn?t keep asking the paper companies to manage for deer wintering areas when the deer weren?t using them. There were many areas where we had good habitat and they were not using them. That?s what the study with Irving was hoping to achieve.

Mr. Scribner asked how close we were to releasing the species by species wildlife management plan.

Mr. Scribner asked how close we were to releasing the species by species wildlife management plan.

Mr. Thurston stated we had 29 Wildlife Management Districts, was there a better opportunity; if you looked at some of the zones the habitat was a huge variable. We were sometimes using a broad stroke approach as opposed to isolating into more districts to better manage.

Ms. Camuso stated we did not have the populations to manage at a much smaller scale. In order to run the statistical analysis that we ran, you had to harvest a certain number of animals. We could not break it down much smaller than we had. We talked about that in the big game plan, did we want to look at redoing the management districts. We used to have larger wildlife management units.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the other side of that was working on tools through rulemaking or statute that we could manage at different levels inside of WMDs. We made strides towards that during the session to manage more efficiently inside an area with zero doe permits. Even inside large areas that had doe permits, we were still not getting the harvest in certain target areas along the coast. We needed to be able to target people into areas where we were already giving doe permits and we were not getting appropriate harvest in certain portions of that.

c. Step 1

1. Furbearer Seasons/Beaver Closures 2017/18

Ms. Camuso stated there were no proposed changes to the regulations other than the season adjustments for calendar days and based on landowner requests which areas were open or closed to beavers. Last time we expanded the bobcat season, and this was basically just to update the calendar and once we got feedback from the regional staff if there were landowners that had decided to open their property or they want to have it closed. Last year we put in the requirement for the jaw and tooth submissions so we would maintain that. We didn?t anticipate having as much compliance; Cory was thrilled with the number of jaws he received.

Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Fish Waters 2018

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated last year the regional biologists were under direction from the Commissioner to kind of hold back so we could do a reorganization of the law book. Basically the regulations we put forth in 2016 were pretty much creating the new law book. The direction this year from the Commissioner to the biologists was to work on more simplification and also look at some of the things they held back on for management. Essentially we had been two years since the regional biologists could do individual lake management. The Commissioner changed the process for proposing regulations. Regional biologists prepared them, they were compiled by Joe Overlock and Francis Brautigam and then they met with Jim Connolly and the Deputy Commissioner and reviewed each of the regulation changes. They spent an entire day going over proposals and felt it was beneficial to hear the different perspectives. The Commissioner then reviewed each of the proposals. In summary, there would be 16 statewide initiatives. The statewide initiatives was pretty much focused on the general law page. An example was doing away with the 10 fish limit on pickerel. We felt it was no longer a necessity to have 10 fish bag limit on pickerel. We were going to change the general law in northern Maine to no size or bag limit on bass, rather than putting a special regulation (S-13) when we had illegal introductions of bass to remove those we put S-13, which was no size or bag limit. By changing the general law it removed the S-13 from individualized waters in northern Maine. Water specific special fishing laws and identifying and removing unnecessary regulations; unnecessary meant we used to stock a body of water and we had a regulation to support the management of a stocked body of water and we stopped stocking it, but the regulation still remained in place so we looked at pulling back what was considered obsolete. Water specific proposals were included to address fishery management needs within the 7 management units. They would look at age, growth issues, etc. Some of those were combined simplification of waters, there were 267 water specific proposals. There were 32 housekeeping proposals.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated another simplification issue, there were a lot of waters that talked about confluences of rivers and we were going to go to a demarcation, whether it was an exact point of land or water markers. There was also the advancement of 17 additional state heritage waters. There was quite a bit of conversation in the legislature, there were 2 bills dealing with fisheries and heritage waters. Part of the outcome, there was a carry-over bill in the Legislature and we were going to work on heritage waters.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Dudley asked if there was a committee working on the legislative bills.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there was a group that would be coming together during the summer to work on heritage waters looking at tributaries.

Mr. Fortier stated it was discussed about changing the designation of how they became heritage waters. On the Fish River Chain, Solider Pond, areas in the Allagash, they were heritage waters, if that were to be changed, it had species that had been there forever, would those end up being classified as a heritage water? That effected live bait fishing so when that happened in his area it affected a lot of fishermen in his area.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated anything that had never been stocked or had not been stocked for 25 years came into consideration as a heritage water and a principal fishery of brook trout. If they fit in that category they had the potential to be considered to be listed as a heritage water.

3. Eastport Special Hunt

Ms. Camuso stated the packet included an overview from last year?s hunt. There were 11 does harvested. From the town?s perspective it went well, it was manageable. They had a deer reduction committee that was planning to do another survey of their residents to try and get a handle on what the nuisance level was. The proposal would be to keep the limit at 30 participants with the same split of 90% from Eastport and 10% from off island. They felt that people that lived on the island would be more likely to be there to be able to hunt. It would be 30 people through a lottery, but expand to 90 permits so that if someone harvested a deer they could go back to the town and take a second permit and continue to hunt. Successful hunters that were willing to put in the time and energy would be allowed to hunt and harvest multiple does. It was a small island, but recognizing they needed to harvest more animals was why they came up with the idea that people could go back and harvest more than one animal. Under the any-deer permit proposal we were offering a modest number of permits in WMD 27 so anybody could go to Eastport during the archery season and if they got a permit harvest a doe, and also youth. The Town has now opened the town property to hunting during expanded archery season which had been an issue.

Council Members Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier stated he was glad to hear the town was opening their lands. He did not think they would be able to get the necessary harvest numbers with that set amount of permits.

Mr. Dudley asked if we still felt they would need a special season as opposed to the fact that they now could take does during the season which they couldn?t in the past.

Ms. Camuso stated there were only 50 permits, and the people that received the permits could hunt anywhere in WMD 27, they were not targeting Eastport.

Mr. Dudley stated it would open it up for archery hunters and youth hunters. In the past they couldn?t harvest does period. We gave them a special season last year and they harvested 11. Did they need the expanded season or during the regular month when everyone hunted, it was strictly archery anyway. Did they really need a special season?

Ms. Camuso stated it was archery only and they needed additional help beyond the archery season.

Mr. Dudley asked if we had a count of how many deer were on the island

Ms. Camuso stated no, and this was more of a social issue. The issue on Eastport was deer had tipped the social carrying capacity. The town was committed to continue to survey the public to figure out when things were more back in balance.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there were 25 bucks harvested there last year during the regular archery season.

Mr. Dudley stated all 11 deer harvested there were checked for ticks and none were found. Wasn?t that strange?

Ms. Camuso stated the island was tick free.

Mr. Scribner stated we needed to find out why. With all the problems we were having along the coast, if they harvested 11 deer in Eastport and none had ticks, there had to be something there we needed to understand.

v. Other Business

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated he would like to give a legislative update. We had at least 85 bills before our committee including the Forest City Dam.

Ms. Camuso stated people should know about the hunting over bait increased penalty that was passed. If you were convicted of hunting over bait it was a 1 year mandatory license suspension, if you were convicted a second time you would lose your privileges permanently.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the budget was still being debated. The Forest City Dam bill, there was a resolve that had been voted on by the Committee 11-1 to pass an amended version of the resolve for the Department to take over Forest City Dam. It appeared we would be the owners of the American side of the Forest City Dam. We would own 2 out of 3 gates, and Woodland Pulp would retain ownership of one gate and a fishway which was on the Canadian side. Where we were entering into an operation agreement and the resolve from the Legislature said that it would be a 15 year agreement with up to 4, 5-year extensions. The contentious part was if Woodland Pulp changed ownership would the agreement be void. The Committee stated it wanted a solid 15 year agreement with Woodland Pulp. If they changed owners the new owners would take on any balance of the 15 years to maintain and operate the dam. We would be operating as new owners for fisheries management and recreational purposes. We would fall under MEMA for flood control. The resolve was contingent upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) accepting the licensing surrender by Woodland Pulp.

Mr. Wheaton stated he helped to build the dam back in 1971. The dam held back 6?7? of water. Originally, he believed the state gave up water rights to the log drivers association and in 1963 all log drives were eliminated. He thought the mills then bought the water rights from the log drivers association. It had changed into the generation of power or running a mill or whatever they did with it. He operated and owned the Village Camps on East Grand Lake for 49 years and he had built a marina to house boats, etc. He obtained permits from the state and learned that when there was a dam like that on the lake, if they did take the dam out the water would drop from the high water mark where the dam held to the low water mark belonged to the mill. You would have to get separate permits from the mill to change that. There were 2,000 camps on East Grand Lake. If they lost the dam they would not have any water rights.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the Fish and Wildlife Department would own it.

Mr. Wheaton stated he thought the legislation was going to work out good for everybody.

Ms. Camuso stated she would like to give an update on communications and outreach. We were trying to raise awareness of the agency to those that did not currently communicate with us. This included a new website, new brand charter that outlined how all of our materials would look including our logo, where the logo would appear, printed material, etc. We were actively participating in an R3 (recruitment, retention, reactivation) program having a plan written for the state for sportsmen. After the bear referendum we knew we really didn?t know how to communicate effectively with people who did not participate in our activities. We hired a public relations firm (Rink Advertising) to help us connect with those people that were active in the outdoors, but did not hunt, fish or trap. We hired Rink mostly because of their technical skills. Ads for IFW would appear based on your web activity. We also had 3 different umbrella campaigns to raise awareness of the agency to nonconsumptive users. They were not traditional and kind of spoofy. We hired a professional actor with Warden Kris MacCabe and Ms. Camuso also in the features correcting him. The skits focused on hiking, fishing and bird watching.

Mrs. Holding stated we would not make these people license buyers, that was not the intent. We wanted them to understand that what we did as an agency impacted their lives. If they saw a bumble bee in their flower garden or was hiking on a trail and got lost they needed to understand everything they did out there we had an impact on them. Maybe a better understanding and that would generate support from a wider group.

Ms. Camuso stated following that would be a campaign focused on moose, eagles and landowner relations. The funding had been through a combination of an additional dollar from the sale of every hunting and trapping license which generated about $180,000 per year and a matching grant. There was about $700,000 from the USFWS. There were no state funds being spent. I&E?s budget was pretty much geared towards this also. Other states were also participating in similar projects. We needed to have awareness of the value of state natural resource agencies.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Gary Corson stated he wanted to comment on the heritage waters. There was a group that was being formed because of the legislation and it was his understanding that the group would look at criteria.

Gerry McLaughlin stated he was there on behalf of Aroostook County Conservation Association (ACCA) he was the founder and president. They helped their deer herd considerably since 2008-2009. They had already planted about 661 acres of food plots to help the deer. They planted 6,200 cedar trees, oak and sliver maple to help the deer in and around deer yards. Last winter they killed 161 coyotes in and around deer yards which they had done consecutively every year. He was there on behalf of the youth. They also sent kids to conservation camp. If we were going to allocate any-deer permits please consider giving 75% of them to the youth. If we were going to have a lottery have the kids under 15 send in and put them in a drawing. We needed to get our youth into it or we were done. If they saw a doe and couldn?t harvest it they got tired of it.

Ms. Camuso stated the allocation of youth permits was set in statute. That would be a legislative change, right now they got 25%. Adults that received permits could transfer them to youth at any time.

Hal Murphy stated he would like to add to that. He had been a professional forester in Maine and New Hampshire and worked in deer yards from Vermont to Escort. Our deer yards were critical and they were dead now. The work had never been done in them that should have been and they were carrying way to many deer in their yards. When we had a bad winter they were going to die. They had too many does for the amount of bucks. He hunted last year and saw 62 deer during the deer season and only 2 bucks. The bucks weren?t surviving. If we were trying to build up the bucks it wasn?t going to work until we killed some of the does off. They were killing more does on the highways up there than during deer season. They were being fed off the highways, the yards back in the woods had no deer in them. It was time to give out some doe permits and do some work in the deer yards, he didn?t know why it hadn?t been done.

Brian Cogill stated on the doe permits, by upping the permits we were taking the pressure off the bucks and giving more people the opportunity to shoot the does that would otherwise strictly hunt for big bucks. It also gave the kids an opportunity to harvest a doe. The trappers would love to have the drags back. He knew they had to wait for the ITP permit. When we did away with drags they protested it. A lynx was shot that was staked solid to the ground last year that could have been saved if we had drags. When you talked to those that trapped in northern Maine, they would go for 2 weeks during the season and trap 25-40 coyotes, this year they gave up after 4 days because they had coyotes shot up from bird hunters. He knew they had to wait until the court case was settled and hopefully the lynx would be delisted.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for August 15, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. at Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 284 State Street, Augusta in the upstairs conference room.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier and that was seconded by Mr. Wheaton to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
August 16, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, Upstairs Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries Division Director
Tom Schaeffer, Regional Wildlife Biologist
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Shon Theriault, Game Warden Captain
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Don Dudley (Chair)
Dick Fortier
Matt Thurston
Jerry Scribner
Lance Wheaton
Jeff Lewis
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham
Gunnar Gunderson


Guests:
Fern & Sylvia Bosse
Jim Fleming, Kennebec Valley Furtakers
Chris Bartlett, Eastport Deer Committee
Gary Corson, New Sharon
George Smith
Dennis Smith


I. Call to Order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and thatwas seconded by Mr. Fortier.

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Any-deer permit allocations 2017

Ms. Camuso stated we held a public hearing in July and it was lightly attended. We were not proposing any changes from the original recommendations. We received public comments which were mixed primarily on WMD 27.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to adopt the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Lewis.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed

B. Step 2

Furbearer Seasons/Beaver Closures 2017/18

Ms. Camuso stated this was a list of beaver closures as requested by landowners. There weren?t really any changes from last year. The season dates had been adjusted for the calendar, but there were no real proposed changes to the trapping rules this year. A public hearing was scheduled for August 21.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Fish Waters 2018

Mr. Brautigam stated 5 public hearings had been held. The turnout was very light, at the Brunswick meeting no members of the public attended. Overall there wasn?t one particular item in the packet that seemed to draw a lot of attention and public comment. We had received some written comments.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Gundersen stated he had received an email from a person up north complaining about what we were doing with the bass season, eliminating the size and bag limit there because of the smallmouth bass fishery.

Mr. Brautigam stated the purpose for going to no size or bag limit on bass in the north zone was confusing to people. There were a couple of goals with that initiative, one was we recognized that the northern part of the state harbored our best and most robust wild salmon and trout populations. As a matter of practice anytime we had a new infestation of bass into a new water body in Maine, and that was mostly eastern and northern Maine (most of the southern and midcoast area had bass in those waters) we automatically applied an S-13 regulation which was a no size or bag limit on bass. We didn?t do that because no size or bag limit on bass necessarily influenced the population size in any way, it was really a tool we utilized to message to the public that those waters that received illegal introductions were not going to be actively managed by the Department. In the proposal we imposed essentially an S-13 on the north zone so any new waters that became infested were automatically covered under no size or bag limit on bass without having to impose a special regulation on that water body. The goal was not to reduce those populations through recreational angling, but a lot of people felt that was the reason we were doing it. Before advancing the proposal we reached out to all the northern region biologists and asked if they had waters with significant bass fisheries where they were actively managing those waters and we would create an exception. We had 8 or 9 in Region D, a couple from Region E, we may have had a dozen or so waters where we retained the current bass general law.

Mrs. Oldham stated she thought the public comments that had been received had been very good with some very good suggestions. Were we considering taking any of those suggestions into Step 3?

Mr. Brautigam stated we would review all the comments and have a narrative on those comments.

Mrs. Oldham stated the comment on the change about allowing bait to be taken by hook and line and the concern that could be transported. The restrictions on live bait were put in for a very specific reason and it seemed some people could take advantage if we opened the door even a little. She thought that needed to be looked at again because we were trying to not get these illegal introductions. In reading the public hearing minutes about the level of review that was done and the four levels, but when the changes that had been recommended a lot of the explanation was to simplify the rule book and when people tried to get more information about how that review took place for that particular body of water they weren?t able to get that material. She thought this was always going to be a transparent process.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he agreed the comments were restricted a lot by the numbers, we didn?t really have a volume of comments but the people that commented had great knowledge. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) didn?t allow us to do all the things she was addressing and the reason for that was, the public would not know for instance if we changed a rule from ?rule A? discussion and then made it ?rule B? that wasn?t even associated with ?rule A? in any way. They would have had no exposure to that rule so the Commissioner was not allowed in his recommendation to the Council in Step 3 to significantly alter the rule. You are allowed some leeway, but you can?t make a new proposal entirely because that would discount the public?s participation entirely. They would have zero understanding he was going to do that with the Council and they would vote and put in a new rule without them being able to comment. The APA was restrictive in that sense.

Commissioner Woodcock stated in terms of the specific comments, he thought a couple of the comments that were directed at movement of baitfish were very viable. The process for review was as healthy as we probably had ever had. He was concerned from the beginning, the packet was quite large and we were telling people we were simplifying the rules. It didn?t look like a simplification process but the APA process required us to do a separate listing for each one. He felt we could have done a better job in the justifications with some of the proposals. The question was what did the public want to have for a justification.

Mrs. Oldham stated responding to the criticism that the justification ?simplification? usually translated into more general law as opposed to protective mechanisms. How would the Commissioner respond to that criticism?

Mrs. Oldham stated responding to the criticism that the justification ?simplification? usually translated into more general law as opposed to protective mechanisms. How would the Commissioner respond to that criticism?

Mr. Brautigam stated whatever fell within the realm of simplification, and we tried to categorize all the different rule changes just to facilitate the four tier review process. There was no simplification that resulted in any resource impacts. Simplification took place where there was not going to be a resource impact. In most cases we had simplification because we were dealing with either a lack of fishing pressure or decline in fish quality resulting in a need for more liberalized regulations to encourage harvest and removal. There was a general mandate from leadership for staff to look at opportunities at simplification where there were no resource impacts. So that?s what they saw, a lot of general law and liberalized regulations which made sense. Why not provide more opportunity where the resource could support that additional use and opportunity.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had been preaching catch and release for 30-40 years and many people had come around to that regimen. Couple that with economic social factors and what we?d found, especially in more remote waters was that we didn?t have any fishing pressure. If we didn?t change the regulation and try to address it, his concern was that we would end up with fish that were smaller. If we didn?t have people taking fish from a body of water, there would be more fish in that body of water than we wanted and usually that resulted in a diminished size and quality. We tried to address that in some of the remote ponds by saying you could take more fish.

Mr. Thurston stated people would need to change their perspective on how they looked at the resource and the numbers of the resource.

Mr. Lewis stated one of the comments he read from Jeff Reardon, what he said about the bass and up north. In his area and Mr. Wheaton?s area the movement of fish, he couldn?t imagine how many trout ponds were now no trout, bass ponds compared to what they were 20 years ago. It didn?t seem like a very long time, but it was through his area now and all the way up to Mr. Wheaton?s. How far north some of the largemouth bass were was ridiculous and something had to be done, we had to try. He thought the proposal was good the way Jeff Reardon had worded it, it made more sense in a way to explain it to people. The public hearing in Ellsworth he spoke with Mr. Brautigam. The packet of over 200 proposals, he didn?t have the time to research it and he felt like he should be able to get what he could. They had this whole packet so did they vote the whole thing down because of a couple that they really had an issue with? It was how the procedure worked but he agreed that it was not the information that they needed and if there was a four step process somehow if they could understand because generally when he talked with staff he got a reasoning and it made more sense. Just to get the packet and read it it was hard.

Mr. Brautigam stated as we got into a more normal rulemaking mode most of the time moving forward it would not be restructuring and simplification effort we would be dealing more with addressing management needs and issues. The packet would be smaller. One of the new changes we implemented was all staff proposals were supported by a written justification. We did not include it in the packet because the size. Moving forward with leaner packets, which was the plan, so the public will have more opportunity to look at what we?re doing and understand it and we can support that potentially with those justifications.

Mr. Fortier stated with technology and the way things changed so fast, it may be the process we?re doing with the public he wondered if that needed to be reversed on how we got public input first and then go forward with the public hearings and that way we could take all the comments and put them into the proposal. Up north there were not many at the hearing, but at the same time they were happy about the hook and line for live bait. If you were fishing on the St. John you could fish on this part and you could do hook and line and that was it, but you couldn?t go up the river 5 miles and do hook and line. One of the gentleman also brought up about rubber lures and how many there were on the lakes. There were good things that came in the public hearing comments that maybe there was a way we could get that information before so it could be part of the packet.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the notion was a pre-process information piece where people were made aware of things that were happening around the state in terms of what we were considering before it went into the APA process. Then, they would be more aware before the packet came at them. The packet was intimidating and they discussed what could happen in the future.

Mr. Wheaton stated it was time the biologists got out of the office and into the field. They needed to see the hooks and the lakes and how people were fishing. He fished over 100 days every summer and caught many fish. He took a bass on Spednik Lake which had a rubber lure coming out the anal vent and another in its throat with a stainless hook. The rubber had expanded due to the body acids of the fish. He had caught rubber in landlocked salmon. We were making all these rules, and if he went down Baskahegan Stream, the head of the St. Croix and looked over the side of the canoe you could see every type of rubber tail. He did not let anyone in his canoe use rubber, it was killing the fish and the industry. He did not like what the Commissioner said about not killing five fish, or killing a few big fish. If we had a poacher on deer, probably next year we would have a deer back. If someone killed a 4 or 5 pound smallmouth in his neck of the woods it would be 25 years before they got another one. Killing them was not the answer. All the new baits and lures, we were killing what we loved. He was a bass fisherman, but he did not think the bass industry should have the right to kill every trout and salmon when they were bass fishermen. We needed to protect the resource and we couldn?t protect it by not looking at what had come along. Anybody could buy a GPS and find the fishing hole. He had one of the best bass lakes where he was and saw it gone by the introduction of alewives which was and still was a problem. He thought there was more they could do, not just have regulations on what they could catch.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the discussion had been about remote trout ponds when he commented on taking more fish; he was not speaking about bass.

Mr. Dudley stated the emails were good and the fishermen that sent them obviously did a lot of research to say what they did. What was not good were the public hearings. We were down to 3 or 4 people attending. Times had changed and he did not know what was the best way. We held public hearings and in one case there were zero people there.

Mrs. Oldham stated it was a waste of resources.

Mr. Dudley stated he didn?t think it had always been that way. The any-deer permit hearing there were 4 people and that was for the whole State of Maine. He thought there was a different way to do it, but he didn?t know what that was.

Mr. Farrington stated one of the concerns was not being able to regulate the bass on Indian Pond, there were a couple of guys in his area and that was how they made their livelihood now. When the fishing on the East Outlet slowed down they went into the West Outlet and Indian Pond. The number of people coming into the area to go bass fishing was quite large. There were probably more bass boats fishing on Moosehead Lake than there were people fishing for salmon and trout. He was glad we left Moosehead Lake S-13 because the bass should never have been put in there, but they were never going to get rid of them. If we were making exceptions to some ponds that were productive and people were making their living from it why not Indian Pond. If it had a scientific reason behind it, since he had been on the Council everything they did was based on scientific reason and simplification of the law book wasn?t really a scientific reason. Regarding the heritage trout waters, he assumed we still had a list of ponds that were going to be considered once they had been surveyed. It would make sense to him in the idea of conservation to leave them with the same laws we had on the heritage trout ponds that had been identified rather than open it up and then 2 or 3 years out, who knew how long it would be before it went through the process to be considered. It could be fished out or have damage done. If we were going to make a mistake he?d rather it be on the conservative side. If they were on that list to be considered as a heritage water, it would make sense to leave them the same as the heritage waters until it was decided rather than killing that resource off by opening it up and giving them 5 fish. The brook trout was the one thing a lot of people came to Maine for.

Mr. Brautigam stated even where we were at with the remote pond survey project, most of the waters that were remaining were extremely remote. There were waters that many of which we were not going to find brook trout in. The project was winding down and what was left on the landscape was going to be pretty difficult to access. His comments were neither in support nor opposition to Mr. Farrington?s statement, he just wanted him to be aware.

Mrs. Oldham stated she thought they had been given reassurances once before that these ponds under consideration for state heritage water designation would not be stocked.

Mr. Brautigam stated waters under consideration, they could not be considered until they had been surveyed.

Mrs. Oldham stated there was a list of waters, she thought Trout Unlimited had done a lot of work about proposing certain waters to be surveyed. She thought it came up last year when there weren?t the expected number of waters so designated. She specifically asked with those other waters that had been identified by the volunteer group that they would not be stocked because obviously then they could never be designated state heritage waters.

Mr. Brautigam stated we had some waters that either had information to evaluate their status and whether they should be nominated and or we identified waters where we didn?t feel we had sufficient information to make a determination so those waters were being scheduled to be resurveyed. They wouldn?t be stocked, we didn?t have enough information to decide whether they were going to be advanced or whether there was a justification to be stocked. The reality of the process was they wouldn?t get stocked because we didn?t have enough information to evaluate what was in them, whether they should be nominated so there was no justification to consider a stocking proposal. They were waters that weren?t likely to be stocked, they weren?t in places where the likelihood of stocking was very good.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had a list of waters that didn?t make it to the heritage list but they were on a list to be resurveyed by our group or sometimes they came in for a first time from other members of the Audubon/Trout Unlimited team. They had a list of bodies of water they were targeting. We had to advertise before stocking waters, we were under close scrutiny with what was being stocked. Regarding Mr. Farrington?s comments, there had been two discussions that in the future there would have to be some really pertinent decisions made. One of them was muskie and the other was a pond like Indian Pond, those bass of Indian Pond were illegally introduced. It once was a great trout and salmon body of water. It was a body of water that was being managed as an illegally introduced body of water. What did we do? We had been invited to the muskie tournament and he was not inclined to get involved with illegal introductions as a supporter. The question was how long could you keep that stance and be viable. If you were 25 years down the road from the illegal introduction and it?s become a significant fishery for the illegally introduced fish, were we still saying we didn?t want any part of anything that?s been illegally introduced? It had been discussed at length and would be on a broader scale in the future.

Mr. Farrington stated there were people making a living from Indian Pond. We were going to make an exception for 6 or 7 ponds for ?scientific reasons.?

Mr. Brautigam stated the guidance that went to staff was in identifying waters that there were significant fisheries that were worthy of management under current general law and were along and close to the boundary line we were really trying to preserve the intact north zone as much as possible. Bass were slowly moving south to north but if we had waters that were close to that line, those were the ones we were willing to take in and entertain a change. If we had waters way inland where we had special management it made it very difficult for the consistent messaging we were striving for.

Mr. Wheaton stated in his area they had West Grand Lake with salmon and trout or East Grand, the fishways on the dam at West Grand and East Grand had the steps and turns. They had a tremendous largemouth population in Big Lake and smallmouth too. Smallmouth were in West Grand, but if they wanted to stop largemouth from getting up there and on East Grand why not build the fishway with velocity they could not swim in. Rather than have the steps, if they had the speed of the water coming down the chute they knew a salmon or trout could swim in but not the bass they couldn?t get in there.

Mr. Brautigam stated we had utilized some hydraulic jumps dealing with pike in the Penobscot River in order to prevent pike expansion throughout the drainage. On West Grand, there was a hydraulic jump there. The strategy was in use to try to limit establishing expanded populations of non-native fish. There were other agencies (Federal) that had concerns because their species of interest were sometimes impeded by the hydraulic jumps as well.

Mr. Fortier stated one of the problems he saw IFW facing was on the St. John River, you could be on the Canadian side and there were different rules fishing on the American side. It affected the whole river the way it was taken care of.

3. Eastport Special Hunt

Ms. Camuso stated Chris Bartlett and Tom Schaeffer were both there if the Council had additional questions. The City of Eastport was requesting another year of their special hunt. The proposal was for 30 participants, 10% of which would be off island residents. The change this year was that if you harvested a deer you could go back and get a second permit up to 90 total permits. Last year they had 30 participants and harvested 11 does. There was a firearms restriction on the island. There was a designated area on the island where people would be allowed to hunt. The hunt would take place the two weeks following the regular firearms season on deer.

Council Member Questions and Comments

Mr. Dudley asked if we had a goal for the number of does to be taken.

Mr. Schaeffer stated we were using as a gauge to success Mr. Bartlett?s results of annual surveys to the population of the Eastport residents of when they?re seeing results. They just finished a survey of their population and asked their satisfaction and what their impressions were. After the first year and 11 deer he didn?t think there were a lot of people saying job well done. Those were the metrics they were looking at, reducing the number of traffic accidents, relieving complaints about property damage, ornamental gardens, etc. and people?s perception that the deer were better under control. That was how they would gauge the success and try to address the issue rather than population data.

Mr. Dudley stated in the information they were given, they were given the buck kill from 2016 ? 2011, 4 to 25 was this strictly due to the growth of the population of deer on the island or was there another factor.

Mr. Schaeffer stated that would be his assumption that was reflective of the population growth in that community. He was surprised at last year?s number and he was thinking about ways, this was in Washington County and the district it was in there could be some registration difficulties there. Eastport was restricted to archery only and he did not know how much room there was for registration error. Given the age structure of the does that were checked, that was a small sample size 11 animals, the age structure and the number of bucks he thought it was all indicative that Eastport did have a problem.

Mr. Farrington asked if the number of 30 permits was because of the number of sites they had to set people up on.

Mr. Bartlett stated it was based on limited areas they could hunt by standard ground blind. Also the city?s administrative capacity to work with each hunter to assign those properties. They found last year that 30 hunters was manageable given the limited amount of land and the limited amount of office time.

Mr. Gundersen asked how many deer were taken during the regular archery season.

Mr. Schaeffer stated those were the numbers they were just talking about. Because they were in WMD 27 up until this point they were limited to bucks only. The numbers have been climbing over time.

Mr. Lewis stated it was like when they went to the expanded zone in Brewer. They probably created more interest so there would be more people hunting there during the regular archery season. Places from Brewer and off shore islands in the beginning there was a large number of people. Eastport, he still maintained that the state created part of the problem. It was limited hunting because there wasn?t any land but we closed the doe hunt and there was no rifle hunt there. He believed it was our problem.

Mrs. Oldham stated this was the reason despite her dislike of special hunts, it seemed to her that a municipality that requested a special hunt could also take action to eliminate deer feeding. A local ordinance could be made that it was illegal to do that and she felt that would make sense and enhance the likelihood that they would see resolution of the problem.

Mr. Bartlett stated their deer committee had discussed that at length. Their difficulty was enforcement. When they talked to their local warden and police officers they would essentially have to make it illegal to feed any wildlife. As one gentleman pointed out at one of their meetings, if someone wanted to feed 50 pounds of grain to crows try to stop him. They had looked at other ordinances, Camden recently had one for no feeding of seagulls. They had not come up with a solution yet.

Mr. Thurston stated they had created some noise, and the bow hunting addicts out there wanted opportunity. They could help facilitate the issue tremendously if they could shoot does during the regular season. Eastport could get where they wanted to be much quicker.

Ms. Camuso stated they did open up WMD 27 to doe permits that year.

Mr. Dudley stated something they had not discussed was the fact that 11 does that were taken there were no ticks.

Mr. Scribner stated this was an abnormality with 11 does harvested not a tick was found. Given this was a coastal community there should be something we could learn. If the hunt was agreed to and they didn?t find any ticks the second time around he would like to know who could undertake a study to understand why there were no ticks in that location. Of anything that could come out of the special hunt it would seem that would be more important than anything else related to it. If the result of the second hunt was zero ticks found on the deer, who was going to undertake a study to understand what was abnormal about that locale that they might be able to transfer knowledge wise to other coastal communities.

Ms. Camuso stated Chuck Lubelczyk from Maine Medical Center was aware of the situation and consulted with Eastport. He did not have a strong theory as to why, but his records also indicated they did not find ticks out there.

Mr. Schaeffer stated he had discussed a local theory with him. Eastport was plagued with fire ants and there was a local theory that perhaps the fire ants prevented the presence of ticks, most notably deer ticks. Mr. Lubelczyk raised a good point that Bar Harbor also had fire ants and they also had plenty of ticks and Lyme disease so that theory probably did not hold water. They intended to keep communication with Mr. Lubelczyk going forward.

There were no further questions or comments.

C. Step 1

1. Wildlife in Captivity Chapter 7 Rules

Mr. Connolly stated in the past legislative session there were a couple of bills that factored into what we were doing with wildlife in captivity. Part of the challenge was much like bass and other issues we had we had strong feelings on all sides of the issue and even in the same session with the same committee we got conflicting messages. It was a challenge and he felt we had struck a balance that provided for less regulation for things that could be handled safely and sold in pet stores and cared for and then restricted things that were more dangerous either to exhibitors only and then have a second tier of things which was category 2 restricted species which were things that required special care or experience in order to justify having those. We were putting forth a rule that would have those lists in it. We put the unrestricted list on the website and had gotten good feedback. We did get some comments on dwarf hampsters not being included so we looked at those and tried to address that as well. We had received some requests to look at the tropical fish. The original unrestricted fish list was constructed in response to individual inquiries. For example, angel fish where two or three species might be covered, but there might be five more that weren?t. We had been asked to look at those and create a little more understandable presentation of the fish and more consistent way to approach those so that people would be able to get things that were very similar; pretty much the same fish just a different species.

Mr. Connolly stated we had a technical committee that had representatives from the state regulatory agencies as well as some members of the public and university that were experts in the area. We also assembled subcommittees where we allowed some of the enthusiasts to provide input. They met regularly and tried to find a way to increase the participation and then circulated some of the lists.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham asked if the academic research people were all happy.

Mr. Connolly stated we worked with the University of Maine system and the Vice-President for Research directly and the University was very comfortable with the approach we had taken. We created a research permit which allowed the Department to permit the University to address those things that could be used safely in a lab where there were handling protocols. Any animal that was handled on a University campus because of the USDA requirements and the educational and research requirements had to have an animal use and care committee where there were specific protocols for the humane treatment of the animal, addressing of biological issues, risk to the public, so the University had all those protocols in place. Building off of those we would permit the University to handle animals that were on our list that we agreed to in advance. That would give them the flexibility over that two year period to bring those in and use those in research, handle them according to protocols that they had and then at the end of the project work through them with the protocols they had for disposing of the specimens that they had. It could be a blanket permit that would address all potential needs and they could respond to any grants that may come up. The University as a whole was very pleased to be working with us.

Mr. Fortier stated in trying to put the rule together, years ago they had Loring Airforce Base with 20,000 military coming in and out. Butterfield Lake that was there, everybody would dump their goldfish in there when they were leaving. When we opened it up we could create an industry that could bring in animals that were not from here. He saw people that could not even take care of their pets after a while and he worried about exotic animals that someone would get tired of and discard them. When we did not have those exotic animals here and then people were bringing them in no matter what we had for permits, we were going to have problems.

Mr. Connolly stated the Senate chair of the committee shared the concern and in fact he sponsored the bill to address exotic escaped wildlife and increase the penalties for people bringing in stuff illegally and releasing them. It was scaled depending on whether you had a permit and you released it or whether you never bothered to get a permit. We had included on the website for unrestricted species the caution that if you tired of them you shouldn?t just be releasing. The language cautioned people about getting things like parrots and macaws that could actually out live them. The other challenge was that directly in statute goldfish were covered as one of the things we should be looking at on our unrestricted list. The direction from the Legislature was, and this was what our rulemaking stemmed from, gave us guidance that said we were not supposed to prohibit everything. We were trying to use education to reach out to consumers (pet stores). Some people may be irresponsible and there was nothing we could do to prevent that. We had stiff penalties now and clear communication. We had public awareness and a great deal of discussion. A lot of good information had been put out on the hazards of invasive species and what could come.

There were no further questions or comments.

V. Other Business

There were no other items under Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Chris Bartlett stated he wanted to thank the Council for considering Eastport?s request for a second special hunt. They should feel free to contact him if they had any questions.

Dennis Smith stated they may have seen his comments on fishing regulations. He had been working with landlocked salmon since the late 60?s. He was not happy with the way things were going, the salmon in his opinion were being displaced by bass and we were managing more for bass instead of salmon. He asked if the Council had read his proposals, very little of it went into the regulations. He used Department data to put the regulations together. Trap netting, they found 3+ salmon 7? difference in the size of them. Some were 15?-16? and 23? so this was what the regulation was about. At Long Pond there was a one salmon limit, and if they were allowed one fish they were not going to take the 14? one, they?d take the 21? the bigger one. That was why he put the regulation forth, he had two waters that had specials, Echo Lake was 18?-22? release slot and it was doing really well, 24? and 25? salmon.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the proposals we put out as advertised, we couldn?t have significant changes to them when they came to Step 3. Any new proposals we were asked to consider would have to be in the next cycle. We couldn?t have a new proposal after we had already advertised the rule.

George Smith stated last year his book was published on Downeast sporting camps and the history was we had gone from 300 to about 3 dozen. He asked the camp owners what their biggest challenges were and at the top of the list was the loss of hunters and anglers. The trout legislation, he proposed two bills. The Department reacted favorably to both the bills, but basically agreed to accomplish the goals. A working group was formed and Mr. Corson was on it. They had to report back in the next session and to make sure they got the job done the Committee carried forward one of his bills. One of the things he continued to advocate for was to protect the fish now until they did the survey and then if they found it was not justified we could take it off the list. Eastport, last year they had the discussion about letting them bait deer. He did not think it would ever be a success because they had to sit in one spot and let the deer come forward. The goal was to kill deer so why not allow them to bait, but it was a controversy in Eastport. He tried to help some of the hunters on Mt. Desert Island get their hunting done and even though the number of Lyme disease cases was skyrocketing the islanders did not want to hunt so they had not been able to achieve that. Exotic animals, that was his bill and when he wrote about exotic animals people read his column all over the world. This was an engaging issue for people. A lot of the people appeared to be angry. The Department had done a fantastic job, it was extremely controversial. His goal would be to have no exotic animals without a permit and if the animal got loose you had to report it. The unrestricted list that you could just have the animal was in the 1,000?s of critters you could have that really didn?t belong here. When he heard about the wind towers in Greenville, he thought it couldn?t be right because some of them were on conservation land where we bought the development rights years ago. He called the Nature Conservancy and asked, and they said in their negotiations they were offered the rights to wind towers but it was too expensive so they didn?t buy it. You couldn?t have a house there, but you could have a wind tower. That was really the wrong place for it so he hoped we would be able to stop that.

Dennis Smith stated he asked Mr. Brautigam and the Commissioner said they were going to regulate the salmon waters, there was nothing in the laws that he could see.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he saw Mr. Smith?s list, and he didn?t think we had anything on the list that applied. Talking about salmon waters in general he would have to check the list to see.

VII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for September 13, 2017

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen and that was Seconded by Mr. Fortier to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Commissioner's Conference Room, 284 State Street, Augusta
Tuesday, December 5, 2017 @ 10:00 a.m.

Agenda

I. Call to Order 9:30 a.m.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Educational and Scientific Collection Permits Chapter 6 - Judy Camuso
2. Wildlife in Captivity Chapter 7 rules - Judy Camuso
3. Fishing regulation petition - Eagle Lake/Jordan Pond - Francis Brautigam

B. Step 2

1. There are not items under step 2

C. Step 1

2. There are not items under step 1

V. Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 a.m.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment 12:00 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
September 21, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, Upstairs Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries Division Director
Bonnie Holding, Director Information and Education
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Chris Cloutier, Game Warden Major
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Don Dudley (Chair) - by phone
Dick Fortier
Matt Thurston
Jerry Scribner
Lance Wheaton
Jeff Lewis
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham
Gunnar Gundersen


Guests:

Fern & Sylvia Bosse
Gary Corson, New Sharon
Karen Coker, WildWatch Maine
Mary Throckmorton, Somerville


I. Call to Order

Matt Thurston, Council Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: Unanimous ? minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Furbearer Seasons/Beaver Closures 2017/18

Ms. Camuso stated there were no proposed changes from the original proposal. The only change from last year were calendar dates and a few different areas that were proposed to be closed and a few that were opened at the landowner?s request.

Mr. Lewis stated he wished there was a way we could open it up more. It was a huge problem in Downeast Maine. It was a huge cost for road maintenance and people were wondering what could be done.

Mr. Thurston stated it limited access as well if people could not get through the roads. Landowners would not address the situation until it became an issue for them.

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to adopt the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Lewis.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed

2. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Fish Waters 2018

Commissioner Woodcock stated it had always bothered him that they did inclusive votes and there were pieces of votes that sometimes got caught up in the discussion and people did not have a chance to address them individually. We had done this previously, and the Commissioner would allow the Council to set aside a particular proposal in the packet with a motion and a vote and then they would discuss and vote on the packet in general with the set asides removed. Then, they would come back and discuss the set asides and vote on them individually. There were individual proposals in the packet, if it were another proposal for a deer season or other you could not set that aside. It was a little different with fishing regulations as those came in as individual proposals to make the total packet.

Commissioner Woodcock stated this was a rather lengthy process for review of proposals by regions. He instructed Mr. Brautigam and Mr. Overlock to develop the new process. Every proposal was reviewed by the Commissioner. There had been a top to bottom review of the proposals. The simplification portion, some people asked what simplification was. It was important to appreciate what had already been accomplished. We had not had many complaints about the fishing law book recently. That to him was a good sign that the laws were more easily understood by people. When we alphabetized the bodies of water in the special regulations it changed the world of people?s reference to bodies of water; they could be found quickly. The north and south regions, we regulated by regions for awhile. Now, every listing of body of water had north region or south region on it so you could tell what the body of water was as soon as you opened up to it. S-codes, he asked staff to review and condense when possible. Some were spelled out under the body of water and the S-code eliminated. General law, we were trying in the proposal to make sure there were some parallels for north and south general law. He felt it was important to reinstate that the proposals, the north region (cold water region), was primarily the cold water salmonid fisheries that we had. We were looking to be very cautious with those and the no size or bag limit on bass in the northern region was part of that process. It was also a reverse simplification. If we did not have one uniform regulatory process for the state or region it meant they were all specials as opposed to making one universal statement and then exempt things in the book which made it easier. We were looking to make sure that when invasives were introduced we had something in place, that was why the bass proposal was before them. We also examined a simplified slot system, we had many slots for trout and salmon. The one over 14? became an important part of the discussion as opposed to one over 10? or 1 over 12?, etc. The process had been three years ongoing, there was no way to make it perfect for everyone.

Mr. Brautigam stated he hoped to provide a little better understanding of what they undertook with the 2018 fishing law book. In 2017 they focused on format and navigation and use of the law book. In 2018 they had four objectives in going through the law book. One of those objectives was to continue with lawbook reform and look at opportunities for additional simplification. Another important piece was to create accountability in the review and approval process. Another part was to look at changes in the laws and rules that would facilitate future development of our online interpreter and our ability to manage the regulations and law book. This was the first year in two years that staff had the opportunity to advance water specific rule changes to address management needs. There were four big objectives in this years law book and only one last year.

Mr. Brautigam stated one of the areas that we focused on was the narrow brook trout slots that we had. The narrow slots allowed for people to catch fish, there was a lot of hooking and handling and concerns that those fish may be dying. In the last couple of years we had been utilizing a new approach which was a 1 fish over 14? provision. It had not had enough time for evaluation of how well it was working. They met as a division and discussed undertaking a small study to actually look at how well the current slot limits were working and compare them to the new 1 over 14? slot so we would have information to base whether or not we should wean off the slots and move to the 1 over provision. Based on available data that was reviewed as part of the review process, the slots in general were maintaining good quality fisheries where applied. We wanted to move forward in a science, data based approach to ensure that if we decided to make a change to go to the 1 over provision that it would accomplish the end point that the current slots were providing.




Mr. Brautigam stated another big focus of the simplification was looking at trying to eliminate unnecessary regulations that were in the law book. There were regulations that were put in place at different points in time over the history of the law book that brought value and merit. Things changed, people?s focus and interest had changed and our understanding of the resource had changed. On the statewide level we eliminated a couple of regulations, one being the 10 fish bag limit on pickerel. Anglers were not heavily targeting and harvesting pickerel like they did 30+ years ago. We also eliminated minimum length limit on bass. All the bass work we had done in researching and managing bass populations, recruitment and reproductive success in our bass populations was not limiting the development and size quality we had in those fisheries. We were proposing to eliminate the minimum size limits on bass. We eliminated aggregate bag limits that we had on cold water fish. We had species specific bag limits in general law and that was the approach we wanted to take. In the past, we used aggregate bag limits and it created two types of bag limits and some challenges managing the information. We eliminated an obsolete S-29 regulation that was originally developed for protection of juvenile Atlantic salmon. We also looked at the value of having the water and then ?and tributaries? in the law book. A lot of the ?and tributaries? implied that all the regulations that were placed on the lake would also apply to tributaries and in a lot of cases it did not make sense. It wasn?t biologically beneficial to have the regulations in the lake also apply to the tributaries. We had to manage all the information and develop our online interpreter and our phone app and we needed to include every regulation that applied to every water.

Mr. Brautigam stated at the regional level they went through all the regulations that were in the law book with the intent of determining whether or not current management warranted the regulations that were in place. There had been a number of stocking programs suspended over time and those specific rules that were developed to support those stocking management programs were never removed, so a number of those were pulled out of the law book. We also proposed a new approach to try to manage bass infestations in the north zone. Instead of applying no size or bag every time on a water by water basis we looked at the north zone and determined that we really wanted to focus our management for cold water species. It made sense to set up a general law making no size or bag limit the norm so we wouldn?t have to advance on a water by water basis an S-13 regulation. Another important piece, there was a lot of reference to confluence between a river and a lake or pond, or to the outlet of a barrier dam which had long since dilapidated and disappeared. We tried to identify where we had references to demarcation and ensure that we either had red posts or some other highly visible demarcation point. A lot of what was done in the law book was to look at opportunities to clarify where the starting and end points were so the public could better understand which regulations were essential when they were on those waters.

Mr. Brautigam stated we tried to eliminate some of the confusion that existed on waters that were managed for multiple species of trout where we were also using an S-16 thru S-21 regulation. Those regulations were different types of slots typically developed to support for brook trout management, but on waters with brown trout and brook trout that regulation was also being applied mistakenly by the public. We clarified that S-16 to S-21 was designed specifically for the management of brook trout and for char. We eliminated general law boundary water regulations and we streamlined a few complex regulations and utilized text instead of some S-codes that were fairly low in number. It made more sense to use text instead of the S-codes.

Mr. Brautigam discussed the four-tier review process with staff and leadership. One additional step that was asked of staff was to prepare on standardized forms justifications for every regulation that was developed. We now had all the information to be able to evaluate the adequacy of the proposals that came forward. The heritage waters program, we spent time working with Trout Unlimited and Maine Audubon to develop new nomination criteria so we had more buy-in to the criteria used to nominate heritage waters. Time was also spent developing a state heritage fish database. This would provide the department a way to keep track of waters that we had already reviewed, waters that had not been reviewed or if they were waters that had a stocking history we wanted to make sure to identify waters that had not been stocked in 25 years. We also developed new data collection forms that were important in being able to provide sufficient information by which we could apply the new nomination criteria.

Mr. Brautigam stated we wanted look at ways to improve on reducing errors that showed up in the law book. A lot of that was accomplished through the new regulations database. This was the first time it was utilized by staff and leadership so it took awhile to learn how to use that. Most of the management proposals that were advanced in the packet related to waters where we had growth issues mostly on salmon and brook trout waters. Some of the criticism he heard regarding the proposals was that there wasn?t much there. If you looked at the totality of everything the agency did in advancing the packet there was a lot there. It did not mean we were done looking for opportunities for simplification.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he had forwarded the proposed changes from Step 2 to Step 3 to the Council. There were four changes listed. One of them was an omission that had to do with the St. John River, pg. 224 and 229. We had mentioned it in one of the public hearings in Presque Isle, but it was not included in the original packet. It had been out there for part of the process. He had read all of the public comments and had gone over the comments made by the Council at Step 2. One part that was not being addressed but would be in the future was the comment about what was in the packet in order to make decisions on regulation proposals. What did the public have for information available to make the best decision and whether they supported the proposal or not. The process for the proposals, the Council could vote on the entire packet up or down. If they would prefer to set one part of it aside and discuss one proposal they may do that also.

Ms. Orff clarified if the Council voted to pull a proposal out and discuss it, they could not modify the proposal only vote it out of the packet or leave it in.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated it would have been nice to know they had that opportunity prior to the meeting

Mr. Fortier stated the changes proposed, to him, were good changes. He did not think there were many bass fishermen in Aroostook County, trying to be consistent with the bass part but at the same it might work for up north with invasives but in the southern part unlimited amount of bass fishing, that was a real issue. The hook and line thing, some great comments came out of that. As far as up in the county part he did not see anything needing to be pulled out. The only thing he was not real sure of was the bass part of it.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the bass part had quite a bit of discussion. One of the questions was what was the influence of no size or bag limit on bass. Did it have a practical influence on the body of water. The discussion was focused on the fact that it probably would not, under almost all circumstances. There were some people that kept bass, but most people let them go. Because of the proximity of some of the waters the general notion was if you let people keep as many as they wanted and no length limit, that it wasn?t going to have a practical effect on the body of water. Having the piece in place as a base line for introductions was an important part of why this was being brought forward.

Mr. Wheaton stated it had changed, in the late 50?s and early 60?s it was catch and kill all you wanted. He saw people filling the bottom of their boat. He saw 60 smallmouth bass, sizes up to 4 pounds nailed on a sheet of plywood. They took pictures and threw them in the woods. Since then we had limits and better protections. Were the bass put into one category or were large and smallmouth separated?

Mr. Brautigam stated we did not separate the two. When we looked at the prospect of adding no size or bag to bass in the north zone, we acknowledged that everything in the north zone as in the south zone represented illegal invasive introductions. The populations of invasive bass were continuing, we were seeing more every year. We made more of a statement with the S-13 regulation than we did practical management. We were probably not going to have much of an influence on the bass population with no size or bag. We put it out there as a message to the public that the Department would not be actively managing those resources, they represented an invasive introduction and competed with native fisheries. The other guidance offered to staff was we wanted to manage the north zone for cold water species of fish. We indicated to staff when advancing the general law change that if they had any waters that were near the border of the north/south zone that were significant bass fisheries that we would be willing to create some exceptions and manage those waters under current general law, 2 fish, one over 14?.

Mr. Wheaton stated it was brought to his attention that the guides on the lower part of the St. Croix, if we didn?t promote a killery by killing them and throwing them to shore the largemouth, release the smallmouth and keep that fishery going, it would take a lot of pressure off the smallmouth population. He thought it would be a good thing. Now that they were in Spednik he would hate to see them get into Grand

Mr. Brautigam stated we had advanced a number of largemouth bass only, no size or bag. We were concerned, largemouth bass were definitely expanding their range east and north.

Mr. Lewis stated on the hook and line for bait, what was the difference with that from using trap or nets.

Mr. Brautigam stated those waters where we had invasive introductions of muskie and bass we had originally when those were established eliminated use of any kind of bait traps. The reason was when people were collecting bait traps they were getting a lot of small fish and they were not always easy to identify what was in the bait trap. That was eliminated because of concerns that people would be taking that bait and using it in other waters and in doing so might relocate some muskie or bass. Over the years the muskie fishing up there and some bass fishing was becoming more popular. Guides not being able to guide for brook trout and salmon were trying to exploit those new invasive introductions. They wanted a source of bait to do that. The idea with going to hook and line was that anything they would catch on a hook and line would be large enough to provide better ID opportunity than if you were handling a trap full of tiny fish. We thought that was a way to minimize risk of moving invasive species since people could handle a much larger fish and identify it more readily. This came at the request of the guides up north looking for a source for larger bait.

Mr. Lewis stated in the upper mid-west if you did have any bait it was from the pond or water body you were fishing. If we were allowing them to put that in a tank or live-well were we then increasing the risk of someone moving fish around.

Mr. Brautigam stated the thought was whatever they were putting in their tank was large enough they could ID it much more readily than the small stuff and minimize the risk. Looking at the availability of bait and for anglers to use bait in that part of the state, a lot of the waters were open to taking of bait and they could buy bait so they could move bait. We were not creating an opportunity to move bait, we were trying to create an opportunity for people to collect larger bait fish that wouldn?t be muskie or bass.

Mr. Farrington stated the list of exceptions for the no size or bag on bass, from where he sat they had Indian Pond which supported at least four people that went there to guide. Indian Pond did not make the exclusion list, yet down the road in Sangerville they had Manhanock which they protected and you couldn?t keep anything there. His request would be to add Indian Pond and its tributaries to the special list for that reason.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we would not be able to change the regulation at this point. He would have to vote against the bass proposal for the north zone.

Mrs. Oldham stated he would also have the option of a petition request.

Mr. Farrington stated the other thing in his district was the Moose River, in the new regulations we had the thing about trolling flies. From the red posts that used to be Woody?s Campground to the red posts at the end of the river the conception was that it was general law, but in that section of the river you could only have either 1 salmon or 1 trout. When you got on the other side of the red posts you could keep one of each. It seemed that would be an enforcement issue. Most of Moosehead was the first bridge or the first road that you came to. If we brought the new law down to the bridge and then had the lake regulations from there out it would be much easier.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he believed the Moose River was like a lot of rivers that involved spawning populations. He did not know if that section was more prone to be protected because of the spawning habitat.

Mr. Farrington stated if he understood the bass thing, he would have to vote against the whole proposal?

Commissioner Woodcock stated he could ask to set the bass part of it aside if he chose to do so. The proposal to have no size or bag limit on bass in the north region was a separate proposal. If he wanted to make a motion to set it aside, they could vote on the rest of the proposal and come back to it and discuss and have a separate vote.

Mr. Thurston stated it would appear their best avenue would be to petition for the bass regulations on Indian Pond.

Commissioner Woodcock stated when you talked about invasive introductions, he did not know that practical effect was always the discussion. The discussion was, what?s the message being sent? The message being sent for this particular proposal was that cold water fisheries in the northern part of the state were very important to Maine. What we?d like to do was have the no size or bag limit on bass and make exceptions for ponds that had a bass fishery there already as opposed to going through the process one at a time.

Mr. Farrington asked if someone got caught dumping pike or muskie into Moosehead Lake, what was the fine $200 or $300? In Alaska if you foul hooked a fish it was $1500 if they caught you. That sent a message they were pretty concerned about that. There were exceptions to every law but what if you saw a guy with a bucket full of pike.

Major Cloutier stated intentional dumping could be fined up to $10,000.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to adopt the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed

3. Eastport Special Hunt

Ms. Camuso stated last year the town of Eastport came to the Department and requested a special hunt to try and alleviate some of their deer issues. Last year 30 permits were granted and the town administered the program. The proposal was similar with 30 participants but we were going to authorize up to 90 permits with the thought of it being similar to the expanded season on deer in the southern portion of the state. If someone was successful they could go back and get an additional permit from the town. The Department opened WMD 27 to a small doe harvest and that would open up Eastport to archery hunting of does as well as youth day. She felt the town was optimistic with those permits through the regular season as well as the special hunt that they could accomplish their goals.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington asked if the reason for only 30 permits was because they didn't have enough room for 90 people to sit and hunt there.

Ms. Camuso stated they had stationary blinds that people had to sit in, there was very limited opportunity for access there.

Commissioner Woodcock stated as was always the case when you had communities requesting special privileges to hunt that not everybody in the community was of the like-mindedness that they wanted somebody on their land so they posted property.

A motion was made by Mr. Lewis to adopt the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous- motion passed.

Step 2

There are no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. Educational and Scientific Collection Permits Chapter6

Ms. Camuso stated the permits allowed schools or private entities to conduct research or education programs using native wildlife. For example, if an elementary school teacher wanted to have a class on identifying bird nests, they technically needed a permit from the Department to do that. We would authorize a special collection permit. Similarly, research institutes did a lot of their research on toxin levels through various systems and they got a permit from us for each project that they did. This was a very simple change in that we were trying to be more consistent with Title 12 and replacing the words ?wild animals and native wild birds? with ?wildlife? simply because ?wild animals? by definition did not include invertebrates. This also added in the opportunity for people to get a scientific collection permit to use native invertebrates that were not listed as threatened or endangered.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington stated when the issue first started there was a lot of contention, had that settled down because we had worked with all the groups?

Ms. Camuso stated she felt we had made a lot of progress and most people were modestly happy with the proposal. Some people would like us to just allow them to have everything and others would like us not to allow anything. This was a reasonable balance; it put the owness on the permit holder to take care of the animal and notify us if there was an escape or problem. There were pretty substantial fines now for levels of violation.

Mr. Fortier stated he came from the old school, if it didn?t come from the state it didn?t belong in that state. Many people couldn?t take care of their domestic pets. Some of the animals would outlive their owners. He thought it was going to grow and there would be more problems down the road.

Ms. Camuso stated the Category I animals were like York Wild Kingdom, they were more a zoo type establishment. Those facilities had very detailed escape plans, they had detailed plans for long term care of the animals.

Mr. Fortier stated when we became part of the wildlife violators compact, if you committed a crime in another state you were going to lose your rights and you weren?t going to get a license here. To him, the fines were not stiff enough to make sure that if someone was going to do it they would really be held liable for it. If someone wanted that pet, go to where the pet was and move there. He hoped he was wrong but thought it was going to be a big problem and he thought the fines should really be stiff. Local law enforcement would have to deal with it.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the process had taken a long time and included public involvement. It had been very thorough and he was very pleased at the way the list settled.

Ms. Camuso stated the fees and fines were established by the Legislature. What we were proposing was consistent with what the Legislature had passed.

Mr. Brautigam stated fisheries was also working on a fish in captivity component similar to what wildlife had developed. A small committee and been assembled and they would be pursuing the same kind of thing. They would come up with a broader unrestricted list and a lot of that was to accommodate a desire for more tropical fish that were pretty well sold throughout the U.S. that may have minimum effects and not likely to survive a winter in Maine. They were also liking the idea of having some species that should be on a prohibited list as well as a Class A or Class B list that might require some conditioning.

3. Fishing regs petition - Eagle Lake/Jordan Pond

Mr. Brautigam stated the Department received a public petition to change salmon regulations on two waters on Mt. Desert Island, Jordan pond and Eagle lake. The petition requested that we change the regulations to create an 18?-22? protected slot allowing one salmon over 22? and a 14? minimum length limit with a 2-fish bag. The public hearing was scheduled for September 26th in the town of Mt. Desert.

There were no further questions or comments.

V. Other Business

There were no items under Other Business.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Karen Coker stated she thought it was kind of ironic that there was so much trouble with drought and dried up streams and that we were not utilizing beavers to help change that. In dealing with the problem of road flooding and the damming of culverts, non-lethal flow devices capturing the wealth the beavers provided for water storage and purification and fish habitat, ect. It was a curious thing.

Mr. Thurston stated where people didn't want water they had too much and where we needed water there was no water. In the north county the owners of the land did utilize different techniques to try to alleviate issue of water on the roads. He thought it would come down to cost and economics at some point in time.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for October 25, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. at Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 284 State Street, Augusta in the upstairs conference room.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier and that was seconded by Mrs. Oldham to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
December 5, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, Upstairs Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Bonnie Holdling, Director of Information and Education
Tim Place, Game warden Lieutenant
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Don Dudley (Chair)
Dick Fortier - by phone
Jerry Scribner
Jeff Lewis - By phone
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham
Gunnar Gundersen


Guests:
Don Kleiner, Maine Professional Guides Association
Dennis Smith
John Glowa
Sergeant Pepper, Hancock County
Katie Hansberry, HSUS


I. Call to order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Educational and Scientific Collection Permits Chapter 6

Ms. Camuso stated the only change was in addition to education and scientific permits we would now have a category specific to research facilities. Universities and other facilities that were conducting research could apply through this permit venue. This, in conjunction with the next agenda item, had a large stakeholder group involved in the process along the way.

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

2. Wildlife in Captivity Chapter 7 rules

Ms. Camuso stated we had a public hearing and there was a broad stakeholder group that participated in the process. Most of the changes were a result of some changes that were made at the Legislature in statute last year and to bring our rules into conformity. In particular, it gave the Commissioner the authority to require particular animals to be microchipped if he felt that was necessary. There had been some calls and confusion whether that would be required of every animal that?s permitted, and that was not the case. This would be for animals the Commissioner deemed potentially dangerous to the public. Currently in rule there was a requirement that any person that had a permit had to notify the Department if the animal escaped. The proposal would increase the penalty if they did not notify us. There was also an after the fact permit fee that was raised. We were trying to prevent people from getting the animals and not getting the permit and thinking they would pay minimal fees. This was a more substantial after the fact permit fee.

Ms. Camuso stated other changes were that we removed the reference to propagation permits. In the past people would have to apply to have things like pheasants or quail that they were going to propagate. We had never denied a permit or tracked where the animals were being released so felt it was an unnecessary burden on the public as we were making the same decision repeatedly. The birds were not able to survive in Maine and would not pose a threat to native species, so we removed the provision. Because we had such an engaged stakeholder process we had very little public comment during the comment period.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington stated he noticed some of the species came under Agriculture also. Did their rules align with ours?

Ms. Camuso stated yes. For pheasants and other birds species, we did meet with the Department of Agriculture and tried to develop a process that was similar. They did not really track or deny permits for those also. People would be farming pheasants; there was a fine line between what IFW did and what Agriculture did because our birds were mostly being brought in and released for field trials with dogs. Some applied through Agriculture and were raising those individuals for meat. Similarly, Agriculture did not deny anyone that opportunity and we would not either.

Mr. Farrington stated there was a pheasant farm in Warren and he got holes in his fences. He was assuming his farm was licensed through Agriculture.

Ms. Camuso stated the Department of Agriculture had a number of animal inspectors that went out and when people applied for the permits they had to have their facility inspected both before they got approved as a farm to have the animals but then also annual inspections. The trouble was, and this was true for any farm, if we had a storm and there were breaches in the fence and animals escaped, she felt Agriculture had gotten better at conducting annual inspections and working with farmers to get fences upgraded.

Mr. Farrington asked if we had the technology to track the animals if we were making them put in chips.

Ms. Camuso stated there had been some confusion, the Commissioner would not require anybody to put a tracking device on those animals. It was a chip similar to what someone would put into their dog or cat so if the animal got lost, when it was recovered the vet or animal control officer had a wand to scan and discover who owned the animal. The chip was not going to locate the animal, when the animal was discovered it would allow us to track it back to the owner. If they hadn?t reported it missing we would leverage a fine and if they didn?t have a permit, an after the fact permit would be required. It was a struggle because those that had the animals that escaped most, most often did not have a permit. The Commissioner had the authority if people were doing the right thing and applied for a permit for something the Department deemed a threat to public safety the Commissioner could require that those individual animals be microchipped. They would have to show proof of that and in addition maintain a subscription service to keep the chip active. The Legislature viewed this as a step in the right direction.

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed

3. Fishing regulations petition - Eagle Lake/Jordan Pond

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had a public petition for regulatory changes on the two bodies of water listed. We had a public hearing and open comment period. The petitioner contacted the Commissioner wanting to withdraw the petition. The Commissioner stated he would do that if it was being requested, but would need to check with the Attorney General?s office. The Attorney General?s office suggested we not do that because it was a public petition and there were others involved. The Commissioner brought the proposal to the Advisory Council so it would not jeopardize the process.

Council Member Questions and Comments

Mr. Fortier stated on withdrawing the petition, how did that work. Someone put out a petition and people signed it and then that person decided they want to withdraw it?

Commissioner Woodcock stated the Attorney General?s office stated that the bearing was for the entire process and all those who were involved in the petition process and signed the petition; it would probably not be acceptable to just have the petitioner withdraw a petition that had been signed by members of the public.

Mr. Lewis stated the petitioner had called him quite frequently. Some of the information he gave Mr. Lewis that he had support from the Department, and he had not heard that.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the Department's position had not changed

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to deny the petitioner's request and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier.

Vote: 6 in favor of denying the request; 1 abstained(Mr. Lewis) - motion passed, petitioner's request would not be adopted.

B. Step 2

There were no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

There were no items under Step 1.

V. Other Business

There were no items under Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Mr. Smith stated he was not aware he would not be able to speak before the vote. They had a public hearing and there were 3 people there and no opposition that he was aware of. The Council voted against it, why? He asked if any of them could explain why they voted against it.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he would not speak for the Council, but the comment he had made was that the proposal was not in our regulatory packet. It was a petition that came in after our regulatory proposals were made. The Department was not in favor because we had examined the issue and decided it was not something we wanted to move forward with.

Mr. Smith stated he was very confused. What would the Advisory Council go for? What would the Department go for? More big salmon, 3 or 4 pounders, they had one water out of 200 that had that regulation. Something was wrong, we did not have any diversity of fishing regulations that the Department prided itself on. He had spent 100?s of hours and thousands of dollars and to be turned down at this point was very confusing to him. Could any of them address the situation?

Commissioner Woodcock stated he and Mr. Smith had many conversations regarding the issue. It came down to the difference between did the general public want bigger fish but not as many of them, or more fish not quite as large. The Department surveys showed that the public preferred to catch fish, they were not as concerned about size. In terms of diversification of regulations, as Commissioner, he got the other opinion most of the time. Most people felt we had too many regulations. We had plenty of diversity and they were managed individually. It was not a matter of what anybody wanted, it was that we were not accepting of the proposal for those two bodies of water.

Mr. Smith stated there were 200 Salmon waters and only 1 had that regulation.

Mr. Farrington stated at the Step 2 meeting Mr. Brautigam brought the K factors and reports from the ponds on the growth of the fish and they were well above one. His goal when trying to produce fish, the key thing was to get them to grow. The fact they didn?t grow up to 5 pounds, he agreed with the Commissioner he took people fishing all summer long and 99% of them just wanted to catch fish. Healthy fish, fat fish, but they didn?t care if they were 16? long or 20? long as long as they were catching fish. He thought that was the goal of the Department to keep people happy and catching fish. When you looked at those two particular ponds when you looked at the scientific evidence on how well the fish there were growing it was hard to change anything.

Mr. Smith stated you could keep two salmon and you were done for the day. So, they caught salmon and threw them all back until they got a big one in the release slot. The little ones were never killed and that was a serious problem. The little ones did not die, no one would take them.

Sergeant Pepper stated he was a fly fisherman from Mt. Desert Island and he had been fishing those waters his whole life. None of the ponds fished like Echo and he thought that was because of the slot limit. You would catch little fish in other ponds, but if you were a fisherman after awhile you were not really after those little fish. Echo was the only spot you could go and catch a fish 18?-22? which was the release slot but it was the only spot on the island where he was catching fish that were worth keeping. He thought that was in part due to the slot limit because you were not able to kill the fish that were just getting ready to spawn and those were the 18?-22? fish. As Mr. Smith said, no one was keeping the small fish, they just wanted the big ones. He thought that was to the detriment of the local people who wanted to fish Eagle and Jordan and all they caught were small fish. If we put a slot limit on it he thought we would catch more fish and more quality fish.

Mr. Brautigam stated he thought one of the aspects of managing a great number of waters and fisheries was our inability to develop water specific management plans. It really had not been part of the planning process, but it would be moving forward. For example, if residents of Mount Desert Island really wanted Region C biologists to put in more of a concerted effort to manage for trophy size fish there would be an opportunity through the stakeholder process that would be happening. Over time we were going to try to focus on those most important waters geographically where staff would be working with local stakeholders. We would have a consensus based approach to really being able to field proposals for regulation change and they would be rooted on a plan that the local public had involvement in.

Mr. Lewis stated he did not vote in favor of the proposal; he would like something to be done. Mr. Smith, the Commissioner and himself had worked on it at length and even been to the Governor?s office. One of the issues Mr. Lewis had after the Step 2 meeting was that there were other ways to go about trying to do it, but the other issue they had in that area was the amount of people that could actually get on the bodies of water to fish. Jordan Pond was extremely hard to get to most of the summer. On Eagle Lake they were charging to launch a boat and a lot of people were not going to bother because they didn?t want to pay the fee. Mr. Lewis did not know if they could accomplish what they wanted if they couldn?t get people there to actually fish.

Katie Hansberry stated she wanted to say thank you for all the work that had gone into the wildlife in captivity rulemaking process. She asked Ms. Camuso to briefly summarize, now that the technical committee had done the species review, how would the process continue? For example, if someone was seeking a change to the species list was that something that was brought to the technical committee?s attention and then go through the rulemaking process?

Ms. Camuso stated there were different categories of animals. Some we determined as prohibited that we were never going to allow in the state because of potential to cause havoc on our environment and public threat. There were some animals we determined people did not need a permit for and could have such as a hedgehog. The two others were animals that individuals needed a possession permit for which were animals we wanted to keep track of, but did not pose such significant housing requirements or care requirements that the general public couldn?t possess them. Then there were the animals that we would only allow to go to people that were exhibiting them, they had to show a resume of experience with animals such as York Wild Kingdom. The process to add a species to the list would be to pay to have the group review the request (approximately $250) and the technical committee would meet. They had agreed to get together as needed, or a minimum of twice a year so that people did not have to wait indefinitely. The list itself she felt could be approved by the Commissioner she did not think it had to go through rulemaking. If the technical committee came together and supported or denied the request they would bring that recommendation to the Commissioner and it was his ultimate decision.

Mrs. Theriault stated she was not sure if we would need to go through rulemaking to change the list for Category 1 or Category 2 or prohibited species.

Katie Hansberry asked if there were no requests, would the technical committee continue to look at species and make changes even if there were no requests?

Ms. Camuso stated if there were concerns or requests they would meet.

Mr. Brautigam stated he would like to bring to the Council?s attention that Fisheries Division recently received a prestigious national award for the successful restoration of char to Big Reed Pond. There would be an upcoming formal presentation of the award.

Mr. Farrington stated he had a question from a guide regarding the letter that had gone out about the fingerprinting requirement. If they were already in the state bureau of identification, did they need to be re-fingerprinted?

Commissioner Woodcock stated the fingerprinting process had been closely examined. Many of the processes did not transfer from one to another and we had been told consistently that the requirement would be that they would have to be fingerprinted whether you were in the records system or not.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated they were not holding the fingerprints unless you had a record through the FBI. The companies that were managing the fingerprinting were not holding the records.

Mrs. Theriault stated additionally, there was a federal law that did not allow entities who had it in law to run a fingerprint check to use that for any more than that one intended purpose. We could not take, for example, a coast guard license where they had been fingerprinted and use that for our purposes. There were different standards for what was allowed for someone who had committed a criminal act for different license background checks.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The council would be notified when the next meeting would be held.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Augusta Armory, Room 209B 179 Western Avenue, Augusta
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

** 2017 Sport Fish Restoration Project Award presentation - American Fisheries Society

Agenda

I. Call to Order

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. There are no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Migratory Bird Season 2018-2019 - Judy Camuso
2. Fishing Regulations petition - Branch Lake, Green Lake and Phillips Lake - Commissioner Woodcock

C. Step 1

1. Moose Permit Allocations 2018 - Judy Camuso

V. Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 a.m.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment 12:00 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
January 26, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street, Upstairs Conference Room
Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau of Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Don Dudley (Chair)
Dick Fortier
Jerry Scribner
Jeff Lewis - By phone
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham - By phone
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Shawn Sage
Brian Smith


Guests:
Steve Philbrick, Oquossoc
Deidre Fleming, Portland Press Herald


I. Call to order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to approve the minutes of the previous meeting, and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen.

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3

B. Step 2

There were no items under Step 2

C. Step 1

Migratory Bird Season 2018-2019

Mr. Connolly stated migratory birds were managed on a flyway basis. The USFWS collected the biological data via wing surveys, hunters, band recovery, and breeding survey counts in Canada. Most of our birds that were passing through hatched out and were raised initially in Canada or the Arctic. We had birds migrating through and we had resident populations and migratory populations. The seasons were set up to address that. We also had within the state opportunities because of the zones as birds moved through the state. We were given a framework in which we could establish the season.

Mr. Connolly stated in the proposal there was a reduction in the regular goose season. That was based on analysis of the breeding populations in Canada. They weren?t sufficient to support a standard 70-day season for goose hunting so there was a modification. There wasn?t a modification of the early season which was targeted towards the resident birds where we continued to have plenty of birds. The regular goose season which was based on birds coming out of the Arctic had been modified to reflect the reduction in the populations. There was also a proposed change in the woodcock season. In waterfowl hunting there were some states that had Sunday hunting and others that didn?t. We had a long-term ability, because we didn?t hunt on Sunday in Maine, to take the number of days and spread it out over a longer period of time to make up for the Sundays we couldn?t hunt. Woodcock hunting prior to this year didn?t have that same advantage. The season was set and the days were consecutive days, and if you didn?t hunt those days because you didn?t have Sunday hunting you lost that opportunity. We were successful this year in recognizing that we should have the opportunity based on the woodcock population and we would apportion that based on what was appropriate for our state. Because we didn?t have Sunday hunting we were able to take those Sundays and move them into weekdays at the end of the season. The season length had changed. Kelsey Sullivan had provided a note that woodcock telemetry studies showed the majority of breeding woodcock in Maine had migrated by mid-November and the additional week was not expected to increase the harvest significantly. Other patterns played into how successful people were. The weather patterns and the migrating patterns of the birds as well.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Scribner stated there had always been a week between the end of the early Canadian goose season and the beginning of the regular season. During that week, depending on weather, there were a lot of the farmers in Central Maine that would harvest their corn and those fields were like magnets for resident geese. If we were serious about harvesting more resident geese given the daily bag limit, he thought that would be a week that would be included in the early season. Was it because by that point in Central Maine they were seeing some migratory birds?

Mr. Connolly stated that probably played into it. He could get a specific answer from Kelsey Sullivan.

Mr. Fortier asked about the harvesting of crops and the timeline. Up north they were careful about when they started traipsing on people?s land because of the destruction of property.

Mr. Connolly stated migratory birds, when they passed through, may stay longer in an area because the food was available depending on the hunting pressure.

2. Fishing Regulations Petition - Branch, Green, and Phillips Lake

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had received a valid petition to revisit an issue to institute a 14? minimum on Branch, Green and Phillips Lake, and a slot limit of 18?-22?, only one of which may go over the 22? slot. Normally the petition process for this type of slot the individual would be looking to have larger fish in those bodies of water. We had addressed slots previously and he had made comments on the record about the biological impact on certain bodies of water. We were holding a public hearing on February 6th in Ellsworth.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington stated based on their experience with trying to keep bigger fish, it created more problems than it was worth. When you had to hold the ones in the middle, they made a lot more little ones. There were only so many groceries and when you got to the point that you had too many mouths, things were going to get skinnier and smaller. He had seen it happen on Moosehead Lake. They put an 18? or above limit on togue and then they had to open it up and keep as many as they could catch. It was a simple concept, you had to control the number of mouths based on the food. The proposal would increase the number of mouths in those ponds considerably.

Mr. Fortier stated on Eagle Lake the biologist opened it up and they had been cleaning the small fish out of Eagle Lake. He had not had a chance to talk to the biologist, but Mr. Fortier?s fear had been they would clean the lake out but they were not. They seemed to be doing a good job of not leaving a lot of dead fish on the ice. His fear was having to have some type of bag limit on the fish, but that was not his fear any longer considering how it seemed to be handled. He didn?t know how long it would take before they started getting bigger fish there. It had increased the amount of fishing there. If you just wanted to catch fish and take them home, Eagle Lake had created some traffic in that area.

Mr. Brautigam stated those liberalized regulations set the stage for reducing the population and allowing for some recovery of the smelt population and thereby improve growth on the remaining salmon. That was the strategy behind the regulation. The challenge we had with slots, particularly with salmon, you could end up with a situation for salmon where (in at least two of the three waters proposed) we would be protecting 57%-88% of the population in the slot. What Mr. Farrington stated earlier was right on, we would have to carry the fish for another two years and feed them. If they were not growing well they would not push out of the slot, they would stockpile and the fishery collapses. That typically meant we would stop stocking, and quite often have to liberalize regulations. It was a high-risk proposition and was why we did not have many of those regulations in place. If we looked at public interest in fishing for trophy fish, it reflected a low percentage of the public that was interested in fishing for trophy fish. If it came down to it, they would rather catch something than nothing. With trophy fish it was often slower fishing and not catching many fish.

Commissioner Woodcock stated you had to go on a lake by lake basis. There were some lakes that the principal was to move the fish through the slot to a larger size. There were some lakes that were able to sustain that and there were many lakes that kept the fish in the slot. Very few of them got through to the larger size. It wasn?t as simple as just creating a slot. With salmon, it was all about the smelts.

Mrs. Oldham stated she had a question about the public petition process. This was several months in a row they had been discussing slot limits on salmon that was outside of the management goals for those particular bodies of water. She could not remember having these kinds of public petitions, it was usually horsepower restrictions, open or close to ice fishing, etc. The amateur biology suggestions for these bodies of water, she did not know why that could be part of the public petition process. Slot limits were professional management kind of things. She knew they were reviewed every year. Was the public petition process wide open to anything anybody wanted to do?

Commissioner Woodcock stated yes. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) process regulated not only IFW but government in general. This was the second time this particular slot had been proposed and we were going through a public hearing process. The first hearing we held had 3 attendees in the eastern part of the state. He did not know what this hearing would bring. He was not compelled to hold a hearing on every petition, but it only took 5 people to request a public hearing on a petition and you would have to hold the hearing and re-advertise the notice. We were moving forward appropriately.

V. Other Business

1. Moose update

Ms. Camuso stated we had preliminary harvest numbers in. The overall statewide success rate for the 2017 moose hunt was 72%. Given the extraordinarily warm weeks we had in September and October, she found the number to be surprisingly high. The highest success rate was in WMD 2 at 91%. Recommendations for the 2018 hunting season would come before the Council in March. Staff would be meeting at the end of February to discuss allocations. The moose rulemaking was pushed back as far as they could to accommodate the drawing so they could have the best handle on what happened over the winter. In addition to the animals that were collared, staff also did aerial surveys. Putting the rulemaking off allowed us to have as much data as possible before we made recommendations.

Ms. Camuso stated the helicopter that was usually used for the surveys was down for service, and we had not been able to do the Potvin or composition count surveys. This would give time for those surveys to be done in particular in WMD 9. She thought it was safe to say we would be presenting permit numbers something similar to the past season. The big game plan was mostly done. Once it was complete it would go out for public review and then after public review we would start to implement. There were some recommendations in the big game plan that we probably would not act on until the 2019 season.

Ms. Camuso stated in addition, we had a moose collaring project and had collared 83 animals that year. They did a record number of 22 animals in one day. They collared 35 calves in WMD 2 and in WMD 8 they collared 33 calves and 15 adult cows. Calf weights were consistent between the past several years. One interesting observation was that tick counts were the lowest in 5 years.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier asked if we had the death rate on the collared moose, i.e. what was happening in WMD 2 compared to WMD 8.

Ms. Camuso stated she could get those numbers. WMD 2 had both calf and cow higher survival rate. The conditions were different there on when they got snow, the depth, etc. The mortality in WMD 8, in particular for the calves; the cow mortality was not that bad. In Maine we did not really have any large predators for moose other than occasionally a black bear. In other parts of the country they experienced a much higher calf mortality, particularly from wolves. The mortality we were seeing for WMD 8 in calves was higher than we had experienced in Maine in the recent past, but it was not far off from what other parts of the country experienced naturally from other predators. We were interested to see, given the lower tick mortality in WMD 8 this past winter, how that would play out in the spring.

Mr. Fortier discussed snow depth and how that may affect the animals.

Ms. Camuso stated moose were designed to survive Maine winters. The lack of snow in the spring and fall would impact moose because of ticks. Ticks were what we were determining was causing mortality. We did necropsy?s and could see that the vast majority of the animals were dying of anemia from blood loss to the ticks. What we did not know were any underlying conditions that may contribute to that.

Mr. Fortier stated Ms. Camuso had stated it was the lowest tick count in 5 years, was that because it was a cycle or was it weather related.

Ms. Camuso stated that would be our biggest challenge, trying to figure out if this was a natural cycle or because of weather conditions.

Mrs. Oldham stated another interesting question would be, we all believed the moose density was down and was that the reason. There were fewer hosts for the ticks.

Ms. Camuso stated one of the theories was that it was possibly a moose density dependent issue. One problem with that theory was in the northern zone, we did have higher moose densities but still had lower tick densities. She did not think it was as simple as moose density.

Mr. Dudley stated when they talked about moose density, the density in WMD 2 obviously was quite high compared to WMD 8, the difference in seasons in 2, could that be the moose were dropping their ticks in snow as opposed to bare ground in 8.

Ms. Camuso stated we had discussed with biologists from NH and VT as well about the weather conditions. We believed the weather conditions in the spring and fall for ticks was the most important thing. If the ticks were dropping off in the spring onto frozen snow banks, they were not as likely to survive as opposed to dropping off on warm moist areas or bare ground.

Mr. Sage asked if there was a plan to combat the ticks.

Ms. Camuso stated we heard that a lot. The reality was that the drugs had not been tested on wild animals. We would have no idea if they would work. They might work to prevent ticks but also disrupt the endocrine system which would make them not viable to reproduce. We also did not know how one could administer the drugs. How would we know which one was getting the drug?

Mr. Sage stated we shouldn?t be thinking the animal, we should be contacting the ticks. Was there a natural predator, something like guinea fowl. That was what a lot of people used on their lawns. He had heard that older moose would stop and avoid the ball of ticks whereas younger calves did not know and would walk by the ball and get the ticks.

Ms. Camuso stated that was an enormous chunk of the state to try and do any kind of tick control. We did not own the land and probably wouldn?t be comfortable proposing an insecticide at mass application across the northern forest of the state. We did not know the impacts on moose, the ticks, the environment, etc. She did not think it was a viable option for a wild population of animals. If this was a simple fix, we would not be suffering with Lyme disease. We had tick borne diseases that were affecting people and we did not have a solution to get rid of deer ticks. There was a lot of work going into trying to resolve the issue.

Mr. Fortier stated on the Canadian side of the northern border, because of spruce budworm and army worms they were spraying and we could not spray in Maine. There was a vast amount of spraying going on trying to combat the infestation that was coming. The Canadians had taken a very proactive spray program which was near the WMD 1, 2 and 3 area. Was that spraying affecting us?

Ms. Camuso stated she was not aware what chemical they were using to spray. Most insects had different adaptations to survive. Usually something that was going to affect the budworm was not going to affect the ticks.

Mr. Lewis asked about the moose tick numbers, was that only for WMDs 2 and 8? Did they notice any more or less down in the southern WMDs? It was not uncommon he would get 15 to 20 ticks a day in Hancock County into muzzleload season.

Ms. Camuso stated we did have biologists at all of the moose check stations and it would depend how long it took to get the moose to the check station. If it was more than 5 hours we couldn?t count the ticks, but if it was within less than 5 hours we had biologists that did transects on the moose counting the ticks. The September season was early to see ticks. The information that Lee Kantar gave was that of the past 5 years for all the animals we had collared this was the lowest year and some of the moose they did not locate any ticks.

Mr. Lewis stated he knew a lot of them were deer ticks down his way.

Mr. Thurston stated he had looked at the data on the website on the collar survey. What was the future of the study and how was that going to be addressed? It was very important so that we could be prepared for events and plan accordingly.

Ms. Camuso stated the original plan was to do a 5-year collaring study in WMD 8 and a similar study in WMD 2. This was year 5 for WMD 8 and year 3 for WMD 2. We also wanted to talk with New Hampshire and Vermont. More discussion was necessary but she felt they would try to extend their research in WMD 8. It was a huge commitment and something we would have to evaluate and make sure the resources were there.

Mr. Thurston stated he felt there was a lot of opportunity there.

Mr. Smith stated after reviewing the 2017 harvest age chart the health of the moose seemed pretty good. He asked about brainworm in moose.

Ms. Camuso stated in her opinion it was probably stable, the line probably hadn?t moved because otherwise there would be discussions about it. She did not feel we had to respond to as many brainworm/moose issues.

Mr. Lewis stated it was the end of January and we were just getting preliminary numbers on the moose harvest. He hunted in other states and they had ?telecheck? where you called in and did it by computer on your phone or sent a text when you tagged your animal and at the end of the first weekend they would come out with an accurate number of animals harvested. Was there anything being done with that type of system so we could get the data quicker.

Ms. Camuso stated the Department felt pretty strongly that the call-in/text-in option, the compliance was not ideal. The accuracy of the data wasn?t what we would need. It did work well in some of the other states, but those were states harvesting 250,000 animals. When you had data on 250,000 animals you could feel pretty confident. When you had data on 2,000 animals we did not want to lose 30% of that accuracy. We recognized the current system we had was slow so we were working with InforME to develop direct data entry so that people would still bring their animals to the registration station. Those stations would all be equipped with a web platform so the data was entered directly into a database and was uploaded so that each night staff could review it and have the most current numbers. It would still require the hunter to present the animal at a tagging station. We were hopeful that by the spring turkey season we would have some tagging stations that would be testers for the model.

Mr. Lewis stated in Missouri you still had to do the telecheck but you were required to bring the animal in and they would sample it and make sure information was entered correctly. It was a quicker way, it was good we were working on our archaic system.

Ms. Camuso stated our goal was to speed up the process and get access to the data as quickly as we could without jeopardizing the integrity of the data.

Mr. Farrington stated it seemed that the biologists could send their data sheets to Augusta at the end of the day and clerical staff could enter the data and we would have it all by the end of the moose hunt. All the tagging stations had a biologist or aid so the information was there at the end of the day.

Ms. Camuso stated the biologists were there generally for the first 3 days and collected the data for the busiest days. We did take the data and enter it directly and then we took all the data from the tagging stations and compared them to make sure the data was accurate. We had the biological data almost immediately after the season was done, the issue was getting the harvest data records from all 2,000 tagging stations. The biologists were not at the tagging stations full time. As soon as the direct entry went live there would no longer be paper tagging stations, there would be no books generated and no data collected on paper.

Ms. Camuso stated for about 10 years we had been trying to get rid of the paper moose applications. This year there would be no paper moose applications. We would not be accepting them. We had 50,000 ? 60,000 people that applied for moose permits and last year only about 2,200 used the paper form.

Commissioner Woodcock stated one of the essential elements of the discussion was that a person who was doing the paper applications may not be electronically connected. That made it challenging. It would be a word of mouth to notify them. We would be assisting them in the process so that we didn?t turn anyone away. We were hopeful there would be someone that had connectivity in the family to help that individual. In today?s world the paper applications were just not viable. Not only would we have no paper at the tagging stations we would have no paper applications.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments and Questions

Steve Philbrick stated reciprocity for the Cystic Fibrosis ride, it was an annual benefit ride that was held at Bald Mountain Camps on Mooselookmeguntic Lake. They raised somewhere between $26,000 - $56,000 annually for cystic fibrosis. One of the draws for the ride was reciprocity because they were close to the NH and Canadian border and they liked to come over to participate in the ride and then go back and not pay the fee. Each year they asked for a permit. The ride was February 17th.

Steve Philbrick stated there was a program he had been trying to put together and he finally got it off the ground with Mrs. Oldham?s help. He wanted to host a youth awareness safety day on Mooselookmeguntic Lake and the purpose was safety coupled with the Warden Service and how they responded. He would like them to bring some equipment. He had spoken with the Colonel and he was in favor of the idea. He would like to show people what in fact went into search and rescue. When he served on the Advisory Council there was a program in the summer that if you had your life jacket on and you were a youth the game warden gave you a coupon for free ice cream. One of his kids was a recipient and had always had good relations with the game wardens ever since. It was a proactive public thing to do, and he was trying to foster that in the winter time too. He had asked the Rangeley Region Guides and Sportsmen to be a part of it, and he wanted to turn it into a fund raiser for them. They wanted to try something new which had been met with some resistance. He would like to drill holes in Mooselookmeguntic Lake and fish with red hotdogs. One day only and charge $100 per hole. No one had done this before and the money would go to the guides and sportsman club. This was to get the kids on the ice, they did not have a lot of that in the Rangeley lakes area. He was not looking to change the rules and regulations for any of the big lakes. Their only opportunity to ice fish in the area was on Haley Pond. They wanted to hold the event in March.

Steve Philbrick stated in the discussion about moose, he felt compelled to tell them as a resort owner and registered Maine guide who spent a great deal of his life in the woods, do not discount the value of a live moose in a recreational state. There were thousands of people that came to Maine to see moose. Live moose were very important and he hoped that was considered in moose permit allocations. In the Rangeley lakes area it was important they had moose for hunting opportunities but also live moose for people to view.

VIII. Agenda Items and Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for March 7, 2018, at IFW, 284 State Street, Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Farrington and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Commissioner's Conference Room, 284 State Street, Augusta
Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.

Agenda

I. Call to Order 9:30 a.m.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Migratory Bird Season 2018-2019 - Judy Camuso
2. Fishing Regulations petition - Branch, Green and Phillips Lake - Commissioner Woodcock

B. Step 2

1. Moose permit allocations 2018 - Judy Camuso

C. Step 1

1. There are no items under Step 1.

V. Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 a.m.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment 12:00 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
March 7, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
Augusta Armory, Room 209B
179 Western Avenue, Augusta, Maine

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Tim Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau of Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Director or Fisheries and Hatcheries
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Supervisor
Bonnie Holding, Director of Information and Education
Mark Latti, Promotional Coordinator
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Don Dudley (Chair)
Dick Fortier
Jerry Scribner
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham
Matt Thurston
Shawn Sage
Brian Smith

Guests:

Dennis Smith, Mount Desert
Peter Bourque
Denny McNeish
Deidre Fleming, Portland PRess Herald
Gary Corson, New Sharon
Don Kleiner, MPGA


I. Call to Order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, Called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Pervious Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Thurston.

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Migratory Bird Season 2018-2019

Ms. Camuso stated for the proposed rule changes we held a public hearing with about 20 people attending. Most of the comments were in support. The primary changes for the upcoming season were a reduction in the goose season from 70 to 60 days. This was for the migratory goose season not resident geese. Also, a daily bag limit from 3 down to 2 and a possession limit of 9 down to 6. One other change was that the federal framework allowed a certain number of days for woodcock season. Because we were not eligible to hunt on Sunday they allowed us to add those days on to the end. It was still the same federal framework, they had given us the extra days to accommodate for the lack of hunting on Sunday.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Fishing Regulations Petition - Branch, Green & Phillips Lake

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had a petition for a 14? minimum with all salmon between 18?-22? be released immediately; 2 salmon bag limit; 1 salmon may exceed 22? for those three bodies of water. We had a public hearing in Ellsworth on February 6th and it was well attended. The comment deadline was February 16th and no additional comments were received. Fisheries personnel were there to answer any questions they may have.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham asked Mr. Brautigam, just to reiterate, the petition requests were not in keeping with the current management plan for those three bodies of water, was that correct?

Mr. Brautigam stated there were no formal management plans for those three bodies of water. Based on the regional biologist and his efforts to develop stakeholder for ongoing management these regulations were inconsistent with that.

There were no further questions or comments.

C. Step1

1. Moose permit Allocations 2018

Ms. Camuso stated she wanted to give an overview of the wildlife division for those that weren?t as familiar with how the program operated. They had 45 wildlife biologists across the state. They were divided among regional staff, there were between 2 and 3 regional biologists in 7 offices across the state. We also had a research and assessment group in Bangor where most of the species specialists worked. Those were folks that were assigned to one or a small suite of species. Instead of having oversight in a small area they made recommendations for statewide issues. Regional staff, rather than dealing with one or two species were expected to address all wildlife species within their given area. When we went about setting any sort of permit recommendations whether it was moose or any-deer permits, it was a combination of the two groups that came together. We had our moose biologist that worked in the mammal group in our Bangor office and he would do a preliminary review of all the data and then we had regional staff come in. Together, the regional offices and the wildlife resource assessment group came up with the recommendations for our permit allocations.

Ms. Camuso stated the data they reviewed when making allocations for moose in particular was a whole host of variables. To start, we looked at the harvest data, age, sex ratios, etc. Beginning about 7 years ago staff initiated two different helicopter surveys. One was a survey designed to estimate density in a WMD and the other was a survey designed to look at the composition sex ratios (male to female) and calf to cow ratios. We had those two aerial surveys in addition to the harvest data and as part of the harvest data we were also looking at tick issues. Five years ago we initiated a survival project in conjunction with New Hampshire and in WMD 8. Three years ago we initiated a second project very similar in WMD 2. This year, Vermont also participated in the study so we now had 4 study areas working on moose survival.

Ms. Camuso stated what we looked at when we were setting permits were productivity of moose, how many young were the females producing, how long were those calves surviving from year to year and their overall health. There was a whole suite of data that went into our permit allocation. We had just finished a big game planning process. The big game plan was initiated in 2015 and was the most public planning process that we ever had. We hired a professional survey firm to work with us to survey constituents across the state, both hunters, landowners and general residents. That set the background framework for the plan moving forward. Then we had a steering committee of stakeholders and each of the four big game species had a subcommittee that had our technical experts, regional staff, warden service and we brought in experts from outside our agency to help make sure we were incorporating what the public wanted and had a way to get there. The big game plan had been drafted and the first draft went out to the subcommittees, edits were incorporated and it went out to the steering committee, edits were incorporated and then it went to a technical writer who edited it and tried to make sure it was in a format that would be usable for anybody off the street. It was now with a graphic designer and the plan was to have it available for the Council in April. An overview would be given of the goals and objectives of the plan.

Ms. Camuso stated the plan set the vision for where we went and that was based on public input, the steering committee, the sub-committee, the survey, the town hall meetings, etc. Now, staff was challenged with how to get there. Based on the big game plan there were going to be some changes in the way we managed things. The number one priority for the public for all species of wildlife was they wanted healthy wildlife. They wanted healthy populations of wildlife. What did that mean? It meant different things for different animals and that was what staff would be charged with figuring out. One of the goals for the big game plan for bear was to increase participation in bear hunting. There were a lot of different ways we could approach that. Each month Ms. Camuso would have the species specialist come in and give the Council more detail about what the goals and objectives meant. There could be some changes in the way we managed our permit system, bag limits, etc. moving forward.

Ms. Camuso used deer as an example. Managing healthy levels for deer meant different things in different parts of the state. We would not be managing for 15 deer per square mile or 20 deer per square mile. There were other metrics we could use to determine health of an animal. A lot of it would also be the social tolerance for the presence of animals in your backyard. In southern Maine, there was probably more pressure to reduce the deer population because of some of the vector borne diseases associated with deer ticks and car collisions. The measure of health was variable, it was not as cut and dried, but she thought staff had really good ideas of how we were going to get there and measure that. We were committed to continuing to communicate with the public and every 5 years to do an additional survey. For the Department, a big part of knowing if we were doing the right job was when we surveyed the public, were they happy with the wildlife population levels. Were they happy with the animals that they were seeing; did they want more or less animals on the landscape. These were all considerations that we could look at when we were trying to manage a population.

Ms. Camuso stated recognizing that no one had a chance to review the big game plan yet, we did not feel comfortable moving forward with many of the recommendations. We were in a transition period between the old plan and management system and moving forward into a new plan. A couple of the changes proposed which were directly from the big game plan were to open the moose season in WMDs 10, 18, 27 and 28. We were not changing the permit allocation, we were shifting the hunting pressure from all in October to half and half. In those districts in particular, there was not as much access for hunting and there had been some pressure on those areas that were open. The regional biologist felt that this would be a good way to accommodate additional hunter satisfaction and ability to access land. It was bull only and instead of being all in October it would be half in September, half in October. A similar situation with WMDs 27 and 28. WMD 27 had moose, it could sustain a moose harvest, but there was not as much area available for access for moose hunting. We were proposing if you received a permit for WMD 27 or 28 you could hunt in either district. It was only 30 permits total.

Ms. Camuso stated there were some minor changes to permit allocations. Overall, our recommendation for permits was an increase of about 480 permits. That was largely due to good survivorship and we anticipated good survivorship this year. We had low tick loads coming into the season on moose both during the October hunting season as well as during the capture crews review. Staff felt these were appropriate changes.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Smith asked if WMD 26 had been combined.

Ms. Camuso stated we were not going to combine WMD 26. It was not just moose we managed by WMD, we wanted to maintain the WMDs as they were. It was WMDs 27 and 28, if you received a permit in either WMD 27 or 28 you could hunt in either district. There were no permits being proposed for WMD 26. The districts were staying the same.

Mr. Sage stated he was reading about the plan for ticks. Were we going to pick one district and bump up the moose permits and have a huge harvest to try to break the tick cycle?

Ms. Camuso stated our thought process was that we knew ticks were impacting calf survival in the southern most portion of the core range for moose. Adult survival throughout the state was at about 90% for both of our study areas. That was excellent. In WMD 8 we had seen higher calf mortality between 53%-57% . In other parts of the country where there were wolves on the landscape, the average calf survival was between 60%-80%. Our mortality was not out of line with other states and other jurisdictions that had more predators than we had. We did believe the limiting factor for calf survival in Maine was ticks and we believed that was a density dependent issue. With more moose on the landscape, the likelihood more ticks were going to land on them increased. Our thought was if we lowered the moose population down; we would want to do this in the more southern portion of the range of WMD 8 where climate was likely a factor in tick survival independent of moose populations, climate was likely a factor in tick survival. We believed if we could lower the moose population down we could minimize the tick mortality on calves. Our proposal in the coming year may in one WMD increase the harvest and monitor survivorship of calves in that WMD and see if we could get the population to where we didn?t have 57% of the calves dying from anemia.

Mr. Thurston stated relative to what she was saying about the big game plan, this was in order to get a healthy population of moose and to have a test situation where if that in fact did produce results of calf survival, then that?s a good process to get you to where you want to be in respect to how we managed all zones.

Ms. Camuso stated that was correct. She knew it was counter intuitive for people because people were seeing fewer moose. The thought of harvesting more might be contradictory. That was not how wildlife populations worked. When you had a population increasing and getting to carrying capacity and then you would start to see physiological changes in that animal whether it be survival, productivity, not enough food. We believe the moose got up here and they were down now, but they were still above the point at which where it was not food limiting them it was the level of tick load.

Mr. Sage asked if this had been tried anywhere else in the country.

Ms. Camuso stated Vermont had done it and they had pretty good success. They had done it on a much smaller scale. Our staff worked with all of the moose biologists in the northeast and in Canada. This was not something we were doing without consulting with Universities and other biologists across the country.

Mrs. Oldham stated in regards to moose density, she had heard Ms. Camuso state that moose density was actually higher in the northern zones and the winter tick thing may not just be an issue of moose density.

Ms. Camuso stated the core moose range, WMDs 1-8 and 19, we believed there were substantial moose within the core range. Below that, WMDs 17, 18 those areas probably had fewer moose. We did not know, were there as many moose on the landscape in WMD 8 as there were in WMD 2? When we modeled populations in the southern zone we were modeling it based off of the mortality of WMD 8. We were modeling those based on the higher mortality than we had in the northern zones. We knew for sure in the northern zones the calves were having average survival, they were not having the same level of impact from the ticks we were seeing in WMD 8.

Mr. Connolly stated the other piece of this was not just the number of moose for the tick to get the blood meal from, but the snow conditions when the tick dropped off in preparation for having young as to whether it got to a substrate where it could survive. In northern Maine there were a lot of moose, but the other thing working in our favor was the conditions weren?t favorable for the tick when it was off the moose to survive to be available and reproduce when the moose showed back up the next time when it needed the blood meal.

Mrs. Oldham stated it was not only moose density, but climate conditions. Further down the road with cow permits in WMD 7, she needed to have information and education so people would understand why we were doing that. The sightings of moose were decreasing.

Ms. Camuso stated the evidence to date was that the difference in the survival of the calves between WMD 2 and 8 we believed climate to be part of that equation. We did not know how much density, if we could bring the population in the southern portion of their core range where climate was more of a factor, could we manage the population for moose at a lower density would that minimize the impact of winter ticks. There were both the spring and fall condition. There was no question that climate was part of the discussion. There wasn?t much we could do about the climate, but we could try to manage for healthier population by reducing the density of moose to mitigate for climate conditions.

Mrs. Oldham asked how we decided the September vs. October season. In terms of the management plan how did that fit in?

Ms. Camuso stated some of that was based on the big game plan and what people preferred. September was typically the better month for calling bulls, but there was also a social component. We purposefully didn?t put in the Greenville, Rangeley area because before we could propose a September hunt there we wanted to reach out and have a conversation with those communities. Some of the changes made in the proposal were based on the regional staff recommendations. We had excellent success rates considering that we had 80 degree weather, we had an average of 73% and a high of 89% success rate people had very good success. We also wanted to make sure that not only were they successful harvesting, but that it was a good experience. Some of the decision for splitting a small number of permits into September were to try and alleviate access issues in communities where we didn?t believe we were going to have a push back from having a September season.

Mrs. Oldham stated so it really wasn't a biological reason.

Ms. Camuso stated no, not for bulls. It was mostly hunter satisfaction.

Mr. Scribner stated there was a phrase there that was new to him, "adaptive management unit" within a single WMD.

Ms. Camuso stated we dealt with adaptive management all the time, it was basically what wildlife biologists did regularly. For the proposal, we would take a WMD and take half of it and apply more intense harvest and then compare it to the other half and then be able to react. We would have pretty similar conditions from the landscape perspective.

Mrs. Oldham stated we would need to report what was coming and prepare the public for the change.

Mr. Scribner stated this would be a new concept for a lot of the population in terms of not equating the number of animals seen with a healthy population. They would need to be equipped to have those conversations.

Mr. Farrington asked if when the big game plan came out, would explanations for the increases be in there so that people would understand?

Ms. Camuso stated the proposal for permit allocations was not based on the big game plan, it was from recommendations based on survival and productivity across the state and all our aerial surveys and data.

There were no further comments or questions.

V. Other Business

There were no comments under Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Dennis Smith stated he had petitioned to change the regulations for the three lakes. All three of them were general law on salmon. All three of the ponds closed to fishing the last day of September. Why? He put a great deal of work into the proposal. He referred to a sheet he had passed out during the public hearing and asked if the Council had received a copy. They stated yes. Mr. Smith stated as they could see the number of 2 year olds at 18? was quite high. The fish got caught up quite quickly and that was why they were trying to stop that from happening so much with the 3 and 4 year olds. The Department?s data showed they did not spawn until they were 4 years old. They were trying to get more spawners, the best fish to spawn more. Right now they were being caught up. Each year they were catching up the big ones and throwing the rest back and that was why the older fish were smaller. He had put a great deal of work into it. Mr. Lewis was not at the meeting but Mr. Smith quoted him as saying that the salmon in Green Lake were really bad. If the Council could go with just one lake that would be it. Mr. Smith asked if the Council could vote on individual lakes.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the Council was not allowed to change what was before them so it would stay with all three. The reason for that was the public would not be aware they were limiting it to one vs. three.

Mrs. Oldham stated they had received the minutes from the public hearing, and the turnout was fairly good, and almost everyone indicated they were in favor of the current regulations.

Mr. Smith stated he realized that. The Department did a great job with the opposition and it was on Facebook.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the opposition at the hearing came from a Facebook campaign by people from the general public. The Department did not campaign on Facebook.

Mr. Smith stated he didn?t expect the Council to vote for the proposal, but he wanted them to know he put a lot of work into it. He had also sent them an email on Mopang Lake. Did anyone have any thoughts on his Mopang lake proposal? It had some semblance to the project at Big Reed Pond with the Arctic char. Mopang stream was the outlet of Mopang Lake and his proposal was to catch some of those fish and put them in the lake until 5 years and put a catch and release regulation on.

Peter Bourque stated he was happy to be invited to the meeting and he was proud of all the work that was done on Big Reed. It was an amazing project. The gene pool was so small they had questioned if it would make it. There were discussions about removing char from 3 or 4 waters and trying to expand the gene pool back into Big Reed but most amazingly with such a few number of char it was phenomenal to him it had been successful and it was truly great.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he wished to comment on the scope of the Big Reed project. It happened before he became Commissioner but the finalization was while he was in office. It was a significant project noted by the award to the Fisheries Division. It was a complicated procedure, not one you could just drive a truck to a body of water, it was fly in. And for Gary Picard to be able to engineer enough fish to put back in the pond. The mature char with spawning colors was the most unbelievably beautiful specimen you could possibly imagine. Without everyone who was involved we would not have been able to do the project. He thought it was one of the most significant projects we had done and he wanted to congratulate everyone again for helping to preserve something quite special.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The Council would be notified of the next meeting date.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Farrington and that was seconded by Mr. Sage to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Commissioner's Conference Room, 284 State Street, Augusta
Thursday, May 22, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.

Agenda

I. Call to Order 9:30 a.m.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

III-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Moose permit allocations 2018 - Judy Camuso

B. Step 2

2. There are no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

3. 1. 2018 Any-deer permit allocations - Judy Camuso
4. 2. Special falconry season correction/Controlled moose hunt permits - Commissioner Woodcock

V. Other Business

5. 1. Big Game Species Plan - Wild Turkey overview - Kelsey Sullivan

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 a.m.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment 12:00 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
April 25, 2018 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau of Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Francis Brautigam, Director or Fisheries and Hatcheries
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Supervisor
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Don Dudley (Chair)
Jerry Scribner
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham - by phone
Matt Thurston (vice-chair)
Shawn Sage
Brian Smith Jeff Lewis
Gunnar Gundersen
Dick Fortier

Guests:

Deidre Fleming, Portland Press Herald
Gary Corson, New Sharon
Nelson Palmer, Kennebec Furtakers
Don Kleiner, MPGA
James Cote, MTA


I. Call to Order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Migratory Bird Season 2018-2019

Ms. Camuso stated there were no changes to the proposal. The rule would make minor changes to the goose season from 70 days to 60 and the daily bag limit from 3 to 2 and possession limit of 9 down to 6. There was also an accommodation that we did not have to count Sundays for woodcock hunting so there would be a few extra days. Comments had been supportive.

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier and that was seconded by Mr. Sage to adopt the proposal as presented.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed

2. Fishing Regulations Petition - Branch. Green & Phillips Lake

Commissioner Woodcock stated this was discussed at Step 2. There was no further information. The comments at the public hearing were in opposition. Two written comments had been received and those were also not in favor of the proposal.

A motion was made by Mr. Scribner to oppose the proposal and that was seconded by Mr. Farrington.

Vote: 10 in favor to oppose proposal; 1 (Mr. Fortier) in support of proposal - motion passed, proposal would not move forward.

B. Step 2

B. Step 2

1. Moose Permit Allocations 2018

Ms. Camuso stated we were not recommending any changes to the proposal. A public hearing was held and there were no members of the public at the hearing. We had not received any written comments on the proposal.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier stated where we had gone up and down with permit numbers, was one year enough to go to 2,500 did we have enough data to be safe.

Ms. Camuso stated we had excellent data and staff were very conservative in the allocations of permits. The plan was to move the proposal forwards and a brief overview was going to be given on the Big Game Plan and the in the next couple of months Mr. Kantar would come before the Council and give a presentation on the plan as it related to moose. Ms. Camuso stated that moving forward she believed we would be looking to increase permits, not decrease. That would be an effort to improve the health of the moose which we believed were impacted by winter ticks and there was density correlation there. We did not wan to make those recommendations this year because of the Big Game Plan had not been presented.

Mr. Fortier asked about the kill rate. What was happening at the New Hampshire/Vermont borders with moose and the Canadian Side, were they still in a decline?

Ms. Camuso stated their moose populations were more impacted by winter tick than ours were. It was important to remember they were more southerly than we were so that was what we would expect given tick behavior. We did believe the winter ticks were a climate issue and the temperature (weather) in the spring and the fall was the most impactful as to whether the ticks would survive or not. In the southern latitudes when they dropped off in the spring and in the early fall they were not hitting snow and were more likely to survive.

Mr. Cordes stated they had just attended the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference and they had a whole new symposium. Vermont and New Hampshire had seen a little bit of increase in their productivity. Their districts were about in line with our WMD 7 and that was where we had a little more impact with winter tick and their core moose range would fit in WMD 7. They had less moose to work with.

Mr. Fortier stated the moose hunt that year was extremely hot during the first week and even going into the second week.

Mr. Sage asked about the mortality rate in WMD 12.

Ms. Camuso stated we had two study areas but WMD 12 was not one of them. She could give an update on the study from previous years.

Mr. Thurston asked if New Hampshire had collared moose as well (yes). Was their calf survival rate similar to that of WMD 8. We had data that WMD 8 was not as successful as the northern zones with respect to calf and cow survival.

Mr. Cordes stated they were about the same as WMD8.

Ms. Camuso stated for 2018 to date in WMD 8 we had 36% calf mortality. Last year calf mortality for WMD 8 was 57%, the year before that it was 74% and before that 60% and the year before that 73%. 36% calf mortality was a normal mortality even on the low end for any wildlife species in its first year.

Mr. Sage asked why it was so low compared to other years.

Ms. Camuso stated we were figuring that out. We did see fewer ticks on the moose when the animals were being collared. Either the fall of 2017 or the spring of 2017 was low survival for the ticks and lower tick loads on the moose.

Mr. Cordes stated one theory was we had a drought in the fall and the ticks could not handle that sustained dry landscape.

Mr. Farrington asked what the numbers were that the percentages were based on.

Ms. Camuso stated we had 105 collared.

Mr. Scribner stated back to the density factor, how did densities compare over those years in comparison to the mortality. Did the density also go down; they had mentioned the density of moose was also a factor in terms of winter ticks. Had density stayed level in WMD 8?

Ms. Camuso stated it had probably come down a little bit. The other thing density impacted was productivity. It was only the 5th year of the study and they did not want to jump to conclusions. The density in WMD 8 was lower than it was, but probably not as low as it should be.

Mr. Fortier asked if the ticks were running in a cycle.

Ms. Camuso stated she was not sure we could identify that the ticks had a cycle similar to predator/prey. They were definitely susceptible to climatic conditions in the spring and fall. That was what we believed was determining their survival or not and their impact on moose. The adult cow mortality in WMD 8 was less than 5%, and that was one female that we did not believe was tick related. Her collar had turned off and we could not find her. She was found by an ice fisherman this fall. She was too far gone to perform a necropsy. Last year for WMD 8 adult mortality was 10%, then 8%, then 8% and in 2014 it was 43%. WMD 2 calf mortality was 11%. That was well below normal mortality. Last year it was 24% and the year before that is was 48%. WMD 2 to date had not had any cow mortality. That was the same last year and in 2016 there was 17% mortality.

Mr. Farrington asked if we were far enough into the study to understand what caused the largest percentage of mortality.

Ms. Camuso stated it was ticks.

Mr. Sage asked if we had looked at how to combat ticks. He knew we could not Frontline all the moose, but was there any creature that fed on the ticks? He knew we were trying to bring down the population in WMD 8 to help control the ticks, but were there any birds that ate the ticks.

Ms. Camuso stated in the world of parasites it was not a new issue. We had encountered deer ticks for a lot of years. We had a tick problem that actually posed a significant human health issue and there was not any good answer for eliminating or reducing ticks. Birds in general were not big predators of ticks. Years ago people used to get guinea fowl and other species to have in their yard to try and eat ticks and to her knowledge that was not particularly successful.

Mr. Sage stated it was successful, that was why he was curious in choosing WMD 8. If we had chosen a more southern district like WMD 12 where there were more wild turkeys, turkeys loved to eat ticks. Wild turkeys ate ticks, it was one of their natural foods and they had more of a population in WMD 12 so he would be curious to see more south.

Ms. Camuso stated we had abundant wild turkeys in the southern part of the state and we still had a huge tick problem. She did not think turkeys, guinea fowl or anything else was going to be successful at a landscape scale at taking care of winter tick on moose. The climate was changing, this was a climate issue that wasn?t going to be solved with a chemical or by introducing a new species.

Mr. Sage stated it appeared we were trying to manage the ticks not get rid of them. He was curious as a nation, were we looking at ways to combat ticks.

Ms. Camuso stated as a nation there were people all across the country looking at ways to reduce the impacts of particularly deer ticks on human health issues. We had a parasite that caused significant impacts to humans and to her knowledge there was no solution for eliminating the ticks. As human health interests continued around the subject more information and tools may become available.

Mr. Scribner stated to better understand the interactions between predators and the calf mortality, he knew the winter ticks were the biggest factor. On the calf mortality, in Newfoundland the caribou herd in particular was really impacted by black bears and to a lesser degree moose up there. In our mortality studies of calves, what percentage did bear predation play.

Ms. Camuso stated the most likely scenario for a black bear, that would be at the neonate stage in the first few days of birth. That did happen, but the animals we were collaring by the time they survived that long at that point they were really not vulnerable to bear or other predators here.

Mr. Sage stated at the last meeting he thought Ms. Camuso made a comment that the mortality rate was very similar to Minnesota where they had wolves. The tick death was similar to theirs with the wolves.

Ms. Camuso stated in an ecosystem with more large predators you would annually see much higher mortality rates of neonates and calves. Without the presence of those animals in Maine we had a higher survival rate than you would normally expect.

Mr. Thurston stated it looked like what we were trying to do was not let moose be its own worst enemy right now with having too many moose. When you looked at any population if there was too many of anything there were usually challenges with that species.

Mr. Farrington stated the percentage of mortality, would be happy if it stayed at the current rate.

Mr. Cordes stated it was not considered to be an epizootic event until it reached 50% of mortality of calves.

Ms. Camuso stated 11% mortality in WMD 2 was low.

Mr. Cordes stated most of the proposed permit increases were in the northern WMDs.

There were no further questions or comments.

C. Step 1

There were no items under Step 1.

V. Other Business

1. 2017 Deer Harvest/Any-deer permit Allocations 2018

Ms. Camuso stated this was just a broad scale overview. We would be at Step 1 next month with permit recommendations. She anticipated permit levels would be similar to what was issued last year. Winter mortality was average. Until they had the Big Game Plan and had been able to review that we would wait to implement changes next year. The deer population was doing well.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier discussed deer/truck accidents in his area.

Mr. Lewis asked if we knew the winter mortality up north.

Ms. Camuso stated the WSI (winter severity index) stations were currently being taken down. We would calculate all the data and make adjustments as necessary. We should have a handle on winter mortality prior to Step 1.

Mr. Dudley stated the deer were clustering around the towns in the winter and people feeding deer. They were not in the deer yards they had normally been.

Mr. Thurston discussed the clusters of deer in Eustis.

Ms. Camuso stated we were conducting a study and there were collared animals in an area where they were being fed and an area where no feeding was happening. We would be looking at the differences.

Mr. Dudley stated if people were feeding deer they needed to learn what to feed them and feed correctly.

Commissioner Woodcock stated in order to feed deer correctly it was expensive in order to get the nutritional value. People would migrate to something that didn't cost as much but unfortunately it didn't add value.

2. Big Game Species Plan

Mr. Cordes stated the plan had been a couple years in the making but was finalized and out for comment. We had been doing big game planning since the 1960?s for all hunted, trapped and endangered and threatened species. It was really the guide on management decisions. Since 1989 formal public participation had been part of the process. The historic planning was three components; species assessment, goals and objectives and a management system. We had changed the format slightly. The species assessment was for individual species or groups of species such as songbirds and typically written by the species specialist and then reviewed within the division and then outside expert review. The species assessment was really everything we knew about the species. The goals and objectives was where the public working group came in and had input on the species assessment with department and outside experts and developed sideboards and participate when asked. The goals and objectives were based on population targets for the number of animals then IFW would respond to those goals and objectives whether they were feasible, the capability of the habitat and some possible consequences. After that it was reviewed to be approved by the Commissioner.

Mr. Cordes stated after the assessment and goals and objectives, then the Department would go through with the management system. That was data we collected, create some rules of thumb and management responses based on those rules of thumbs. Again, they were developed by our species specialists with internal and external review and then go out to public informational meetings and rulemaking. Those plans were updated every 15 years. Some of the furbearer plans were 30+ years old. Each plan revision required reconvening the working group. Some of the lessons we learned, the old plan system wasn?t really managing moose relative to carrying capacity. Some of the old goals such as 10 deer per square mile in northern Maine really weren?t realistic given some of the habitat. Some of the goals weren?t mutually exclusive, imagine moose and deer and maximizing moose viewing and maximizing hunting opportunity. The plan had not been adaptable and that was something we?d talked about moving forward. We had moved to this new system as we managed wildlife based on more than just abundance. We were concerned about habitat, herd health, conflicts in damage management and we had started to increase our public education and research in some of our emerging disease issues.

Mr. Cordes stated in the new way moving forward we had a comprehensive wildlife action plan for most of the nongame species, but also included some game species. The complexity of wildlife management was increasing with more human interactions, new endangered and threatened species, diseases, invasive species, climate change, etc. The public expectation had also changed and we managed for the full suite of interests and perspectives. The new planning process was a more comprehensive management plan. We did not have multiple documents, and streamlined species assessments so there were fewer pages with natural history information. We also had broader public consultation so further than just working groups we had reached out to the broader public. The working groups had changed to steering committees, similar to the Advisory Council and our management systems were not part of the plan so they could be more adaptive. In the comprehensive plan we had the goals and objectives, assessment and the management strategies all in one document. We used Vermont as an example to draw from when creating the document.

Mr. Cordes stated some species such as lynx would need more extensive assessments due to the complex issues surrounding them. Our broader public consultation, we had the prior working groups which had quite a balance of input from different interest groups. Now, we were reaching the general public but separated out landowners and other targeted groups. The Department also identified survey questions and reached out to professional survey companies that specialized in human dimensions. Some of that included focus groups where we had interaction and could get to the details of what they were interested in and what their issues and concerns were. We also had Responsive Management and reached out to Market Decisions Research for telephone and mail surveys. The working group transitioned to a steering committee and in the back of the plan there was a list of all the steering committee members. They shaped the public input and put them into goals and objectives and strategies and then we drafted the content for consideration and sent it back to the steering committee as we worked through the issues. The subcommittees worked on individual species. The management system we would do afterwards and make it more adaptable as the current research and science evolved.

Mr. Cordes stated the plan combined moose, deer, turkey and bear into one and had a 10-year planning horizon. Between the old management plan and the management system, the management plan described where we were going guided by both biological and social issues, identified the goals and objectives and strategies; the management system described how we got there and was the metrics or rule of thumb to be able to implement those strategies. Goals were put into broad statements identifying the vision for each of the species. Objectives had more measurable targets and supported the attainment of the goal and the strategies were the actions to get there.

Mr. Cordes discussed goals for each species which included a healthy population, public satisfaction, research and management, policies, communication and outreach. The draft plan was made available on the Department website for review at: http://www.maine.gov/ifw/docs/biggamemanagement_18-03.pdf

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Lewis stated regarding the moose, we were trying to increase the amount of surveys we received from hunters by 50%? In some of the states he hunted out west, if you did not return your survey you were no longer eligible to be in the lottery the next year.

Mr. Fortier asked if any thought had been given to how species adapt to their environment.

Mr. Cordes stated there had been discussion. The initial turkey management was to put turkeys in all places suitable in Maine and the first directive was, we were going to let the turkeys tell us where was suitable. The theory was it would be York and Cumberland counties. That was not the case any longer.

Ms. Camuso stated at all the conferences she had attended if you asked what were the top two threats to wildlife management in North America, climate change and not enough people going outside were the top two challenges we were going to be facing.

Mr. Scribner stated regarding the return of the surveys and getting the data, ovaries, or whatever we would need, was there any plan to put more teeth into that to encourage the return of the data.

Ms. Camuso stated we had discussed ways to come up with incentives to try and encourage better participation. Some of the issue was people struggled to find the ovaries. We had videos and how to instructions, but some were intimidated. We had discussed making it mandatory, but the point was raised that things did happen out in the field that may prevent someone from turning them in.

Mr. Sage stated it was as simple as taking care of them right away, putting them in something so birds couldn?t take them. If you knew next year?s license relied on it you would do it. We were a soft state, if we were tougher a lot of things would change.

Ms. Camuso distributed copies of the draft plan. Each month we would have staff present more detailed information for each species regards the plan.

Mr. Fortier discussed the antlers being higher than the ear for deer and moose. Personally, he would like to see that done away with. It either had antlers or it didn?t. He thought it was because of the deer having 3 inches, you had to identify and shoot. To him whether it was a deer or moose it either had antlers or it didn?t when you were identifying your species.

Ms. Camuso stated that was a statutory issue.

Mr. Sage asked if there was a way to come up with a document about moose ovaries and how important it was and what to look for that they could have as a handout for students at hunter safety courses. He had not heard the data was not being turned in.

Ms. Camuso stated it was provided for everyone that received a moose permit.

Mr. Thurston stated the information was also online on the website.

Mr. Cordes stated that was a good suggestion and they could work with Mr. Sawyer to possibly get something in the course materials.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

Mr. Kleiner stated like Ms. Camuso, he was looking towards the future and it was not good for fish and wildlife conservation because of participation levels. It was striking how complicated we continued to make it. We had discussed earlier about taking away someone's ability to hunt based on not finding an ovary in a gut pile. He was sympathetic to both sides, but we needed to sort that out as a community or we would go extinct.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, May 22nd at 9:30 a.m. at IFW Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m.

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Commissioner's Conference Room, 284 State Street, Augusta
Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.

Agenda

I. Call to Order 9:30 a.m.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV.Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. There are no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. 2018 Any - deer permit allocations - Judy Camuso
2. Special falconry season correction/Controlled moose hunt permits

C. Step 1

1. Beaver Season and Closures/Furbearers - Judy Camuso
2. Eastport Special Hunt - Judy Camuso
3. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2019 - Francis Brautigam

V. Other Business

1. Electronic Lawbooks - Deputy Commissioner Peabody
2. Direct Data Entry Tagging - Judy Camuso
3. Big Game Species Plan - Moose update - Lee Kantar

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 a.m.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment 12:00 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
May 22 , 2018 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau of Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Director or Fisheries and Hatcheries
Bonnie Holding, Director of Information and Education
Nate Webb, WRAS Supervisor
Kelsey Sullivan, Regional Wildlife Biologist
Chris Cloutier, Warden Service Major
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Don Dudley (Chair)
Jerry Scribner
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham
Shawn Sage - by phone
Brian Smith - by phone
Jeff Lewis
Gunnar Gundersen
Dick Fortier

Guests:

Deidre Fleming, Portland Press Herald
Gary Corson, New Sharon
Katie Hansberry, HSUS
Don Kleiner, MPGA
James Cote, MTA
Eric Miller


I. Call to Order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved

III-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to nominate Don Dudley for another term as Council Chair, and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner. There were no further nominations.

Vote: Unanimous - Don Dudley re-elected as Council Chair

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to nominate Matt Thurston for another term as Council Vice-Chair, and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner. There were no further nominations.

Vote: Unanimous - Matt Thurston re-elected as Council Vice-Chair

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Moose Permit Allocations 2018

Ms. Camuso Stated there were no changes to the original proposal.

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner to adopt proposal as presented.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed

B. Step 2

There were no items under Step 2.

1. 2018 Any-deer permit allocations

Ms. Camuso stated she felt it would be helpful to give the Council some background information on the permit allocation numbers. In 2017 we had estimated we would harvest, based on the biological samples, about 29,000 deer. The actual harvest was likely between 27,000-28,000 there were still a few registration books missing. The season started with a major wind/rain event but otherwise was unremarkable from a weather perspective. Some snow in northern Maine in mid-November but otherwise pretty quiet. There was an increase in harvest last year by about 15%. The highest percentage gains were in the southern WMDs, and the highest losses in harvest were in the northern WMDs.

Ms. Camuso stated every year the way we came up with our permit system was by looking at what we projected the buck harvest to be that year, and then a portion of that we projected based on the buck harvest what we expected the doe harvest to be. We knew that everyone that received a permit did not actually take a female. We called this the expansion factor. We based that on the previous year’s harvest; the number of permits we gave out compared to the number of does harvested. For example, in WMD 15 in 2017 we projected we would harvest 238 and actually harvested 297. In most of the WMDs we did not reach our goal, all but six of them. In all of the WMDs we did not meet the harvest projection for the number of females we needed to remove from the population. The decision to remove females was based on the public goals and objectives whether we were trying to stabilize, increase or decrease the population in that particular WMD. Overall, we underachieved the doe harvest for most of the WMDs in the southern part of the state.

Ms. Camuso stated the winter severity, every week we had staff that went out and monitored the winter severity across the state. They looked at temperature conditions, snow pack, sinking depth, the profile of the snow, compare open habitat to areas that were under softwood or sheltered habitat. In the northern part of the state we had a pretty severe winter. We recommended to maintain permits in all WMDs that had them last year. That also keeps the WMD open for youth day as well as archery hunting. We felt it was important to keep that opportunity open for people, but we did reduce the permit allocation in those WMDs. WMDs 1-14 was either no permits or a reduction in permits from last year. In the southern part of the state given the mild winter and that we under harvested does last year we looked at what we had recommended for permits in 2017 and what we were recommending for permits for 2018. The total number of permits we were recommending was close to 85,000 across the state. 90% of the permits were in the central or southern part of the state. For example, in WMD 12 in 2017 our target was 144 does, we applied an expansion factor of 5, so for every 5 permits we gave out we expected 1 doe to be harvested. That gave us a total of 725 permits. The actual harvest was 87 so our expansion factor was a little higher of 8. This year our doe quota was 53, if we applied an expansion factor of 8 then we came up with a permit recommendation of 400 permits for WMD 12. We did anticipate for 2018 that we may have more permits available than people that would apply for them. Those WMDs would get bonus permits. We wouldn’t issue the bonus permits the same way we did the any-deer permits. The bonus permit was an extra animal. Most hunters wanted a buck and they would wait to take a doe. If they had a bonus permit, they could take a doe and then keep hunting. The expansion factor for the bonus permits would be much lower than a regular any-deer permit. We would issue any-deer permits up to the recommended amount. Any permits that were not requested in a WMD we would issue bonus permits but we would reduce the expansion factor to 25%. If we had 1,000 extra permits in a WMD we would only issue 250 of them. WMD 29 was a little different. That was the southern/coastal district and basically anyone in that area that wanted a permit would get one. That was dependent on how many people applied. That had severe access issues and probably the highest deer concentration in the state.

Ms. Camuso stated we were recommending a total of 84,745 permits. We were expecting our total harvest may not be higher next year, it could be lower. In southern and central parts of the state we had an outstanding buck harvest this year, one of the highest in history. We expected that would moderate. Our projection for the buck harvest next year was lower than this year. Our total projected harvest was around 26,000 animals. Our target for does in issuing 84,745 permits our expectation was that 8,000-9,000 would be the actual harvest. Consistently we did not quite reach our projection. She did not want people to think that we would suddenly be much more effective and there would be a sudden change in the harvest level for deer in the state. We had ample deer populations in southern and central Maine and in most of those WMDs our target was to reduce the population in those areas.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier asked if road kills and predators were taken into account for the permit numbers.

Ms. Camuso stated we looked at what we anticipated to be the annual survival of animals. We would look at animals that died from harvest, winter and all other forms of mortality.

Mr. Fortier noticed in northern Maine the deer population had moved more out of the big woods and closer into the farm country. People were feeding deer and there seemed to be more road kills in the North Maine Woods within a 10-mile radius of the gate.

Ms. Camuso stated one of the things that biologist Nathan Bieber would talk about when he addressed the group from the Big Game Plan, we would be looking in some areas to issue additional permits at the town level. We may be looking to help alleviate nuisance complaints. There were some towns in Aroostook County that had a lot of deer in the wintertime. Most of the animals did not come into the towns until after the hunting season. It would not be an effective way to address some of the concerns such as road mortality. As part of our long-term survival study that we were doing on feeding vs. un-fed populations of deer and their survival over winter, that was one of the things we were looking at.

Mr. Fortier asked if there was anything being done working with wood operations for creating more deer yards in the big woods.

Ms. Camuso stated we had cooperative agreements with many of the large landowners up north to actively manage deer yards. Northern Maine was at the very northern extent of whitetail deer range so there was always going to be an issue to maintain deer populations that people wanted to see.

Mrs. Oldham asked about new cases of Lyme disease and was that something that should be incorporated.

Ms. Camuso stated it probably would be moving forward. There was a group called the vector born disease working group, and it was a group of biologists from Maine Medical Center and the University and other agencies and we worked with them on any vector born diseases that crossed people and wildlife. In southern Maine when we looked at permits we were probably going to continue to issue large numbers of permits in southern Maine with the idea that we didn’t want to maintain as many deer on the landscape to try and alleviate some of the human health issues.

Mrs. Oldham stated in terms of how the public would view those numbers, she thought if we could incorporate some information about vector born disease as part of the reason she thought people would be more accepting.

Mr. Farrington asked about harvest levels for does and how did we achieve above 100%.

Ms. Camuso stated most of those would be from youth day or from archery season. They were not issued an any-deer permit, but when the WMD had any-deer permits it became open for archery and youth day.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there were a couple of points that he would like to reinforce. When people saw a number, many people anticipated that was really the number that would be harvested. He thought it was 9.7 was the number of permits issued to achieve the harvest of 1 deer. If we were issuing 85,000 permits we were looking to harvest 8,500 deer roughly. That was important for people to appreciate.

Mr. Farrington asked about WMD 9, last year we issued 200 any-deer permits and only 30 were harvested. This year we were proposing 50 permits, what happened to the 170 deer that were still there?

Ms. Camuso stated the goal was 48 deer and we harvested 30, there were actually only 18 unfilled. The total number of permits issued was the expansion factor. There was also a severe winter and to accommodate for winter mortality we reduced the permits.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Special falconry season correction/Controlled moose hunt permits

Commissioner Woodcock stated in our migratory bird season proposal which was passed, we had included geese in that proposal and there was no falconry season for geese. This was pointed out to us by the USFWS so we needed to make a correction.

Mr. Sullivan stated it related to exposure days on a particular species and that was why we couldn’t have over exposure on geese with our falconry season and needed to strike the word geese from that section. As the Commissioner noted, falconers did not pursue geese anyway.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the second portion of the rule was the controlled moose hunt. The Governor was interested in having more veterans be able to be involved in the hunt. It was a very successful hunt for the landowners who allowed hunters there to assist them. USDA had concerns, if moose went into the broccoli field you couldn’t sell broccoli from that section of the field. We were adding 5 additional permits so more veterans could participate.

V. Other Business

1. Big Game Species Plan - Wild Turkey overview

Mr. Sullivan discussed the handout(see below).

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Scribner stated he thought the plan was an excellent document in terms of turkey management. How it tied the survey findings to goals and things they could take steps towards. There was only one thing in document he took exception to. In terms of “increasing hunter participation would be required before harvest could be used as a tool to effectively control or reduce turkey populations in WMDs where that may be desireable.” Mr. Scribner believed that it was not only hunter participation but he thought it needed to be partnered with increased bag limits. He was a very avid turkey hunter. This year was a prime example, he got his two birds the first week. In order to stay in the game he would contact people and call for them when they could get out (mostly Saturdays). If there were increased bag limits he would be out harvesting more birds. He had several friends in the same category. They could not harvest additional birds during the week when they couldn’t find anyone else to call for. He was also a member of the Wild Turkey Federation and he knew quite a few people in the same category that would hunt much more and harvest more birds if it was tied to good biological data. He thought it was a combination of hunter participation as well as increasing bag limits.

Mr. Sullivan stated it was a combination of participation and season liberalization to increase participation. One of our priority goals was to develop a system similar to deer to get WMDs where we thought we could increase bag limits.

Mr. Scribner stated he understood for long term population numbers the hens in the fall were very important. In terms of going through the summer, harvesting some of the toms after the breeding was done were really surplus and were contributing to some of the negative impacts.

Ms. Camuso stated one of the detractors from high satisfaction for turkeys was disturbance by other hunters. We did ultimately want more people to participate, but at some point that would start detracting from the hunters experience. There had been proposals before the Legislature to eliminate the turkey permit system, but where we had a turkey permit we could keep track of how many people were actually participating in the activity. If suddenly we had an extra 30,000 people purchase a turkey permit we would be prepared and could change the bag limit in rule to adjust for that.

Mr. Sullivan stated there were about 18,000 people that hunted turkeys. That included about 3,000 youth that we did not track (they did not require a permit). An average of 20% took two birds.

Mr. Smith stated Downeast he did not think there were enough birds yet. When we put in the two-bird fall season in WMD 28 it really diminished the population. What he was hearing from the hunters that spring was they were seeing a lot less toms the last few springs and he thought it had to do with the two-bird limit in the fall in WMD 28 and the one bird limit in the fall in WMD 27 and 19.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the turkey season had been legislatively controlled in the past. We tagged turkey, so if the Legislature gave the Commissioner the opportunity to manage turkey in the same fashion he managed deer we would have a finite ability to harvest them around the state. He felt they needed to be cautious when the discussion turned to allowing hunters to call in and electronically tag their own turkeys. He was leery that the participation would be limited and the data would be skewed. The future held some interesting discussions about turkeys. It had been controlled by agricultural farmers for the past sessions of the Legislature. Particularly apple farmers and they made the pitch they were losing harvest and they wanted to see every one of them killed (turkeys). He would hope when the turkey discussion came around in the future there would be more ability to finitely mange it with our biological staff.

Mrs. Oldham stated after reading the plan, she thought some of the problems in terms of what they were talking about legislatively was that the Department was slow to respond because of conservative permit numbers and concentrated areas of crop damage, etc. Some of the problem had been we have WMDs but statewide laws or rules. We had talked many times about how diverse our habitats were across Maine. Using our WMDs and acting more aggressively needed to be the way to go.

Mr. Sage asked if the apple growers were using the tools of the hunters and allowing hunters there to help control the animals on their properties. He was sure there were a lot of turkey hunters that would love to go hunt their orchards and help them control the turkeys in that area.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he felt it was being utilized. It was being utilized by the individual that was driving it. That farmer along with others also utilized depredation permits to harvest as many as they wanted. That particular farmer had stated he did not have the time to hunt turkeys.

Mr. Sullivan stated one of our strategies in the plan for landowner relations was identifying conflict areas and directing hunters there.

Mr. Farrington asked about youth permits and why we went away from that.

Mr. Sullivan stated it was the result of a legislative bill. Prior to that we had 2,600 youth hunters so we have that number.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Deputy Commissioner Peabody asked about an update on electronic tagging.

Ms. Camuso stated the Department had been working on a program to allow for direct data entry with tagging of our big game species. We had hired a contractor to help with getting the tagging stations trained. The hunter would still bring the animal to the tagging station, the animal would be physically tagged by the agent but rather than using the paper book they would have a web portal and do it directly on the computer. The contractor was working to train 5 stations so for the rest of the turkey season they would be doing a beta test tagging animals using the direct data entry. We would then make any corrections to the program and the contractor would go statewide training all tagging stations by bear season.

Mr. Dudley asked if this would cover all the tagging stations, he knew some were not online.

Ms. Camuso stated we were going to require tagging agents to use the program if they were going to be an agent. They would need WiFi or a cellular data plan as there were not going to be paper books any longer. We may lose some tagging stations due to the new requirement. Data would become available to the Department to compile and review. Because of winter severity the timing of the deer proposal would probably remain the same. The system was very intuitive and should be a smoother process for the tagging agents.

Mr. Fortier asked about new agents as he had some in his area that were interested in becoming a tagging agent.

Ms. Camuso stated that initial process was the same, they would contact their regional biologist or warden to get set up.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, July 11th at 9:30 a.m. at IFW Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Commissioner's Conference Room, 284 State Street, Augusta
Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.

Agenda

I. Call to Order 9:30 a.m.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

1. 2018 Any-deer permit allocations - Judy Camuso
2. Special falconry season correction/Controlled moose hunt permits - Commissioner Woodcock

B. Step 2

3. Beaver Season and Closures/Furbearers - Judy Camuso
4. Eastport Special Hunt - Judy Camuso
5. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2019 - Francis Brautigam
6. Fishing Regulations - Striped Bass - Francis Brautigam

C. Step 1

There are no items under Step 1

V. Other Business

1. Big Game Species Plan - Deer management update - Nathan Bieber

V. Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 a.m.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment 12:00 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
July 11 , 2018 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau of Resource Management
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Nate Webb, WRAS Supervisor
Bob Cordes, Wildlife Special Projects Coordinator
Lee Kantar, Moose Biologist
Sarah Spencer, Regional Wildlife Biologist
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Shon Theriault, Game Warden Captain
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Don Dudley (Chair)
Jeff Lewis
Jerry Scribner
Larry Farrington
Sheri Oldham
Shawn Sage - by phone
Brian Smith - by phone
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Dick Fortier

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Fern and Sylvia Bosse, Norway
Katie Hansberry, HSUS
James Cote, MTA
Chris Bartlett, Eastport Deer Reduction Committee
David Anderson, Maine Clerks and Tax Collectors Assoc.
Nelson Palmer, Kennebec Valley Fur Takers


I. Call to Order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Smith

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved.

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. 2018 Any-deer permit allocations

Ms. Camuso stated we were proposing 84,750 permits across the state. The vast majority of the permits were in the southern and central part of the state. Some WMDs did have a reduction, particularly in the northern part of the state. We held a public hearing and two members of the public attended and did not provide any comment. We sent an email to licensed hunters through Gov delivery which generated quite a bit of written comments. There were some that were completely opposed to hunting, there were some that were not supportive of the increase in permits for a variety of reasons, but primarily because they felt we did not have enough deer in some parts of the state and some that were very supportive. There were some comments that weren’t really about the proposal, but things like antler point restrictions or muzzleloader season. We were not proposing any changes to the proposal based on comments that were received.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated there were a lot of written comments. She thought in reading them it was apparent that a lot of people didn’t understand that proposing 80,000+ permits we would expect only 20 or 25% of those in terms of a harvest. That was probably a hard message to communicate to people. In our publications in terms of educational outreach she thought we should emphasize that.

Ms. Camuso stated when she communicated with the media she tried to reiterate the fact that with this level of permits we were anticipating that would generate 8,000-9,000 animals be harvested.

Mr. Farrington stated it was a common question he received. The permits were reduced in his area. Last year there were 300 permits issued, 25 does harvested and this year the permits were cut back to 200. One of his constituents thought that was not good math.

Ms. Camuso stated there were varying winter conditions across the state. When we put in 300 permits the target probably was 25 to 30 animals. That WMD met its goal and experienced a harder than normal winter which reduced the survival rate for the animals available for harvest. It wasn’t simple to communicate.

Mr. Dudley stated at the public hearings it was easier to convey that, but attendance at the public hearings seemed to have dropped off. Were it not for the Gov delivery message he did not think we would have received many comments.

Mr. Smith stated in WMD 27 he believed it had been about 30 years since they had permits and last year they had 25 doe permits. He asked what the doe harvest was in WMD 27 in 2017.

Ms. Spencer stated the total doe harvest in WMD 27 was 156, 80 on youth day and 46 during archery season. That made up 126 of the 156 total, the majority from youth day came from areas where we received a lot of deer complaints. There were 50 permits issued for 2017 so there was an expansion factor of 30. 25 permits were proposed for the 2018 season.

Mr. Thurston stated the email blast was to receive more public input and that was great. He thought the information should be broken down to proponents and opponents, it was hard to read through them all and keep a tally.

Ms. Camuso stated the deer biologist had been compiling a spreadsheet to summarize the comments and we could share that with the Council.

Mr. Farrington stated one of the comments that seemed to come up a lot was that IFW was only increasing the number of permits so they could sell more licenses.

Ms. Camuso stated she could assure them that staff did not discuss the financial implications of any kind of permit recommendation. They looked at the scientific and biological data we collected and made recommendations based off the goals and objectives that were derived through the public processes that we had.

Commissioner Woodcock stated it was complicated to accomplish the education piece sometimes. It was his 8th year at IFW and he had consistently given the public the message that we didn’t manage wildlife for monetary reasons. He thought we did not have attendance at public hearings because people appreciated that an electronic comment equaled a comment made in person so why come out? Generally, comments were solicited when the issue was ripe or controversial. This was not a controversial issue.

Mr. Scribner stated something that came out of several of the comments for him was the issue regarding managing within WMDs. If you looked at the harvest data there were some towns, i.e. WMD 7 if you looked at Rangeley with a harvest of 76 or 78 deer, but if you got away from Rangeley in some of the other townships the harvest went way down. What tools did the department have where you had trouble spots in terms of deer populations and it was definitely the right thing to do to take a lot of does and then you had other townships within that same WMD where it was detrimental to the herd to take does. He was sure it could be micromanaged to death. The WMD structure was better than a statewide structure.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there was a new law that allowed the Commissioner to identify areas within a WMD that had no any-deer permits issued. WMD 27 had pockets, if we had no permits being issued the Commissioner could identify special areas of concern and address it. We issued 50 permits last year, once the permits were issued it didn’t allow the Commissioner to address the pockets of deer because the law stated it had to be areas with zero permits. We were working on a modification of that in the law that would allow the Commissioner to address areas of concern, period.

Mr. Smith stated he thought it should be noted that 11 of the WMDs had reductions in permits from the previous year. More than 1/3 we reduced the permits and greatly increased in some of the others.

Mr. Thurston stated that a couple of them had met with biologists with respect to how they made the permit allocations. The data was a lot to grasp. Trying to manage and measuring snow loads, etc. We were managing the herd for the health of the herd.

Mr. Gundersen stated it seemed like if someone wanted to get a deer and they looked at the number of permits in the WMDs they would go hunt someplace where there were a lot of permits. He thought a lot of people had a place where they hunted and were comfortable and were reluctant to go someplace they didn’t know and look for a place to hunt. A lot of the comments were from local areas where they hunted and were comfortable.

Mr. Sage stated when we were trying to inform the public, the department had a Facebook page and a Twitter account, and with this new age of electronics we may want to put the information more out there to try and explain the process that we used to do at public hearings. He thought that would help convey the message. It was a confusing process for those that weren’t in the know.

Mr. Dudley stated he logged all the comments and it was about 2 to 1 in favor of the proposal.

2. Special falconry season correction/controlled moose hunt permits

Commissioner Woodcock stated in order to comply with federal guidelines in the migratory bird scenario we were removing geese from the falconry season. It was an oversight previously. Falconers did not pursue geese and we needed to remove the word geese from that portion of the rule to comply with the number of hunting days allowed for them. The second piece about the controlled moose hunt, the Governor had a desire to have more veterans involved in the process so we were proposing 5 additional permits to be utilized. It was in conjunction with the Bureau of Veterans Services.

C. Step 1

Beaver Season and Closures/Furbearers

Ms. Camuso stated we were not proposing any changes to the beaver season other than at the request of the landowners. Each year regional staff reached out to landowners that requested a water body on their property be open or closed to beaver trapping. Regional staff was working to compile that information. The only change we would be proposing for the beaver season would be at the request of the landowners for areas open or closed to beaver trapping. For the regular furbearer season we were proposing a 2-week extension to the fisher season in the southern part of the state in WMDs 12, 13 and 15-29. The season was currently 4 weeks long so we would be extending it an additional 2 weeks. The justification for that was back in 2014 when we received the incidental take permit (ITP) we executed a requirement for all trappers to use exclusion devices. As we anticipated, we have seen a significant decline in the fisher harvest statewide. We had seen a decline in both the harvest and the number of people participating in trapping for those animals. The exclusion devices were a little expensive and heavy to carry around. It was not as appealing for people. We had seen a decline in the success rate that the trap required. In our own studies, we documented animals approaching the fisher traps, but what we call refusing, they would not go in. We had seen a decline both in the number of people and in the harvest. We were not proposing a change in the 10-animal bag limit for fisher. We were just asking to offer an additional 2 weeks at the end of the season which was prime season for the pelts to provide trappers that were interested in pursuing fisher. Since the implementation of the ITP and the exclusion devices the success rate had been about the same, 2 fisher per trapper. The harvest varied between 300 and 400. That was down substantially from the 1,000 or so that used to be harvested.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham asked if at Step 2 they could be provided with harvest data.

Ms. Camuso stated yes.

Mr. Farrington asked how serious was the decline in trappers.

Ms. Camuso stated it was substantial.

Mr. Sage stated trapping may be declining, but from teaching the safety courses especially in southern Maine, they couldn’t get enough classes for the people signing up for the trapping classes. There were people out there that wanted to trap.

Ms. Camuso stated the exclusion device provided excellent protection for lynx which was the reason we had it, but it did make it more challenging for species such as fisher.

Mr. Dudley stated there was a lot of rejection to the devices. The snow around the traps told the story. That was a good part of why the catch was down.

Mrs. Oldham asked if anyone was working on a better fisher trap.

Ms. Camuso stated the trappers were outstanding at coming up with alternatives. Through our ITP process there was a procedure if we were going to authorize a new device we would have to test it and have it approved through the USFWS.

2. Eastport Special Hunt

Ms. Camuso stated Sarah Spencer from the Jonesboro office and Chris Bartlett from Eastport were there if anyone had questions. This was not a new proposal, this was the third year for the request for the hunt. The Town of Eastport was requesting some assistance with an overabundance of deer and would like to have a 2-week extension (special hunt). In the past their success rate had varied. Last year was very successful for the town. Eastport had substantial issues with overpopulation of deer such as up to 2 car/deer collisions per day, substantial home and garden issues, etc. They requested permission for a special hunt 3 years ago to extend the season to try and harvest does to bring the population down to a more sustainable level. The first year, they only harvested 11 does; last year we opened WMD 27 with a modest number of any-deer permits which opened it up for archery hunters, and they took 17 during the regular hunt. She thought a total of 60 does were taken off the island last year. That was a significant reduction in the doe population. She believed they needed to continue the hunt for at least another year to continue to increase the pressure to reduce the deer population on Eastport. The proposal was very similar to last year’s hunt. The first year they issued permits to 30 people and the second year they decided they were going to issue 30 permits but they had 90 tags so successful hunters could come back and get additional tags. They proposed to do that again, but the people that were successful last year in harvesting multiple does that wanted to participate were not going to have to go through the lottery process. The remaining permits would be available through the town’s lottery process. Crossbows would also be legal.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham stated the Town of Eastport had done a good job and they were being smart about it. They were working towards their objectives which may be the first time a special hunt had ever fulfilled its objective. Going forward, the Council needed to make sure the math worked.

Ms. Camuso stated the total doe removal there last year was 50, 30 during the special hunt and 20 during the regular season.

Commissioner Woodcock stated it was interesting there were no ticks there and Lyme disease was not an issue.

3. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2019

Mr. Brautigam stated the last couple of years we went through some substantial changes reformatting the lawbook. We were also developing electronic tools to help support people in navigating through the lawbook. The goal for this year was to limit the number of regulations, we wanted to maintain our commitments in advancing heritage waters to the heritage fish list and we limited regional proposals to those that were urgent in nature. We had 6 waters we were proposing to add to the heritage fish waters list, and we had 4 waters we were proposing to remove from the heritage waters list. We had 11 management initiatives to address needed management changes in a more-timely fashion.

Mr. Brautigam stated the 4 heritage waters we were looking to remove from the list, most of the waters had been discussed with the heritage fish working group. Two that were coming off related to there not being any brook trout in the pond or there was no longer a pond. Two others related to conservation of two native species of fish, char and lake whitefish. In order for us to manage and conserve those two species of fish we had to remove two waters from the heritage list. The heritage waters law precluded us from transferring or stocking fish in a heritage pond as long as they were on the list. We were proposing to remove those two waters to address the conservation initiatives, one geared at lake whitefish and one geared at char.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Lewis asked if the char and whitefish were being stocked into waters they were already in to help the population. Being a heritage water we had worked to get the brook trout protected there.

Mr. Brautigam stated the stocking would not have any impact on the integrity of the brook trout populations in those waters. Only one water were we looking at moving char from one water to another. On the other water we were interested in conserving a population that was in decline of lake whitefish. We were looking to bring in a species of fish that was indigenous to the pond that was no longer present to help suppress the smelt population. They were all a conservation focus, but we couldn’t explore those conservation initiatives under the current statutory limitations. We did not want to remove them from the list but legally we had to if we wanted to serve our other two species.

Commissioner Woodcock stated one of the concerns that arose was when you remove a body of water from the list, what was going to happen to the water. We were not talking about any regulatory changes on the water, they would remain the same as when they were a heritage water.

Mrs. Oldham stated there would be a change. The law was that there was no stocking.

Commissioner Woodcock stated not all, the best. We looked at other places, the best water was a heritage water. When the time came and we could do it successfully there wasn’t any reason why we wouldn’t put the water back on the heritage list. The working group had been able to discuss the idea, the char discussion was very pertinent. We had a body of water we were trying to address and it was challenging.

Mr. Brautigam stated we were working on an outline for a conservation plan for one char population that was at risk. He thought the final draft would help address some of Sheri’s concerns about what we were trying to do.

Mr. Farrington asked if the char were at risk because the smelts had returned.

Mr. Brautigam stated the smelts were illegally introduced.

Mr. Dudley asked how many heritage waters they examined, there were six coming in the proposal?

Mr. Brautigam stated they had looked at a considerable number of waters for consideration.

V. Other Business

1. Electronic Lawbooks

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated when we had drafted our budget for the previous year and the current year we had put in a substantial reduction in our budget for printed lawbooks. We saw it as a trend for the Department that we needed to change our message of distributing lawbooks. Also, we were recycling or throwing away a lot of lawbooks. Hunting lawbooks we printed about 240,000 per year. We were spending $180,000 a year printing lawbooks. We took the hunting lawbook printing and cut it by 1/3. Last year we distributed 160,000 to license agents and staff. Along with the reduction we did very little communication that we were reducing printing. We were currently printing 80,000 lawbooks. We recognized we needed an aggressive communication plan on how to access hunting and fishing laws online. Our goal was to potentially go to zero printing. We probably wouldn’t get there for awhile, but we would really be campaigning to encourage people not to pick up a paper lawbook. Some indicated they were not electronic and didn’t want anything to do with electronics. We heard that and we were trying to address that. We wanted agents and staff to be advocates and we were going to give them the tools to do that. We were developing 1 page “cheat sheets” for season dates, bag limits and hunting times. It would also include information on how to access the lawbook on our website and download for future reference.

Council Members Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston stated the site needed to be better organized to make it easy to access the information.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we needed to make it more interactive. We were working on a landing page to help navigate the site.

Mrs. Oldham asked what percentage of licenses were paid through MOSES?

Ms. Camuso stated 40%

Mrs. Oldham stated for those that were already electronically connected at the end of the application could we direct them where to go to download the law book?

Ms. Camuso stated that had been discussed.

Mr. Sage stated they would need to come up with something for the hunter safety classes. They went through teaching them the laws and they needed something to navigate. Instructors needed to be included not just the coordinators and Department heads. The instructors were on the front line and needed to be informed.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated our goal was to address hunter and all of our recreational education programs as a separate issue that we had to develop training materials for them.

Mr. Fortier stated in his work capacity they dealt with electronics at the hospital. He could appreciate trying to go to an electronic lawbook and how some people would not want to do it or get involved and want a paper book. He could view security features of their website and that morning they had 33,410 hits trying to break into their system. The state having a website had to make sure that somehow it was secure for people. Hacking was a big issue. He applauded the Department but there were parts of Maine that were just not going to do it so they had to have availability to a paper book.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated regarding our data security we were operating under the state system under the Office of Information and Technology. They ran the infrastructure for entire state government. All of our electronics fell within that.

Mr. Scribner stated he felt it was a very commendable direction we were going in terms of the gradual reduction versus just cutting everything out. What we did not want was a significant increase in infractions because people used the excuse they didn’t know it was the law.

2. Direct Data Entry Tagging

Ms. Camuso stated this was a program where we would be directly entering tagging of big game animals into a database. People would still have to go to a registration station to present their animal to be tagged. When they got to the registration station the tagging agent would have a web platform they would utilize to tag the animal. Ideally when you presented your license it would pull up your information and permissions on your license. It should be a faster process for the tagging agents. We had hired a temporary person to work exclusively to train tagging agents as well as staff on how to utilize the system. We also had two-part time contractors that would be assisting as well as regional staff and warden service going to the tagging agents. We had about 300 tagging agents statewide. We were going to their store to train staff on the device they had. We had about 20 stations that had connectivity or a device issue. Two stations had dropped out of the program. We were working through some of the issues of getting stations the appropriate device. All stations should be trained and ready to start using the electronic data entry at their tagging stations for the beginning of bear season.

3. Big Game Species Plan - Moose update

Mr. Kantar gave a PowerPoint presentation on the species plan for moose (available upon request to becky.orff@maine.gov )

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Lewis asked how long the collared moose study would last.

Mr. Kantar stated this was going to be the 5th and final year in the western unit. New Hampshire’s study was ending as well. We had agreed to continue for two more years. The WMD 2 study began two years later so we had only been three years there. We wanted to make sure given environmental conditions, winter weather; we wanted WMD 8 and WMD 2 to have the same number of years. When we ended the study in 2020 or 2021, we would end capture but still have collared animals. Most collars would last 3 ½ years.

Mr. Lewis asked why the study was ending.

Mr. Kantar stated New Hampshire had produced masters thesis’ on our work and we had been using the same data. The original intent of the study was to assess adult cow and calf survival. It was not to study winter tick. The study had become all about winter tick. Looking at the data we had, by the time the study ended we would be good to go and it may be better to go in a different direction at that point.

Ms. Camuso stated one of the largest expenses for the project was bringing in the capture crew. Because we were bringing them here, we would be bringing them here for at least two more years for the northern district and we opted to continue in the southern district as well.

Mr. Webb stated we had two more years of the telemetry project and then we would reevaluate. The aerial survey work and major sources of data were part of our annual management program and we expected those to continue.

Mr. Cordes stated there were some other research questions in our big game plan and once the study was over we could move into that next phase and start investigating some of those questions. It would not be the end of moose research, it would just switch gears.

Mrs. Oldham stated there had been a level relationship between the harvested moose ticks and calf mortality, had the numbers been tracking appropriately?

Mr. Kantar stated most of our tick data was on bulls. We wanted to make sure there was a relationship between bulls and calf mortality. We had two study areas, people thought moose were dying everywhere and they were not. We had high calf mortality just in the western unit. The western unit had adult cows and calves and the northern unit had adult cows and calves and you looked at the survival rates of the four groups, it was just the calves in the west that had been hit hard from the ticks. The northern calves had twice the survival rate of the western calves. There were challenges when working with the media. Based on our aerial survey work we had done since 2010 and the survival work, we had a very stable and now growing moose population in the north. The key to survival and growth was how many calves made it through their first winter to be a yearling and how well the cows were producing newborn calves. Just that change between the north and the west was enough to make a difference. The adult survival rates of both populations was very high survival like we’ve always had in Maine. This year he had one collared cow die in the western unit and none died in the north.

Mrs. Oldham stated it was a positive correlation between hunter data and the necropsy study.

Mr. Kantar stated it was not perfect across all four study areas. We saw a huge decline in winter tick counts this year in the fall. We counted winter ticks on harvested moose in the fall, we counted them at time of capture on moose we captured and if a moose died we did the same count.

Mrs. Oldham asked if ovaries were harvested from road kill moose.

Mr. Kantar stated only if someone from the Department was present, and it was a cow.

Mr. Scribner stated under one of the goals it mentioned, maintain a world class moose hunt. Hopefully that didn’t equate to necessarily a 70% - 80% success rate. Had we come up with a good definition of what a world class moose hunt was?

Mr. Webb stated there had been much conversation related to that. The development of the term took a lot of time. The moose subcommittee we assembled to guide the planning process for moose, there was a strong feeling that we had something pretty special in Maine. We had a good moose population, it was very accessible, hunting here was economical and with some effort and expertise you could expect to get a pretty nice bull if that’s what you wanted. All of those things didn’t really come together in many other places in the world so there was a sense we wanted to do what we could to maintain that opportunity here.

Mr. Kantar stated it was hard to define. A graduate student had been working on moose data and looked at 30 years of the physical characteristics of bulls that we collect at the hunt. Starting in 1980 there had been no changes in the bull class. We had more moose hunting than any state outside of Alaska, it was readily accessible and the do-it-yourself hunter could do that.

Mr. Scribner stated if he was in a location or on a hunt where he knew there were healthy, mature specimens in that area and if he had the appropriate skill level he would perhaps see and have an opportunity at one of those animals, that was world class to him.

Mr. Kantar stated one of the things the moose hunting group talked about was that we liberalize the harvest of bulls in WMDs 1 and 4. The number of bulls versus cows was important because there was a part of breeding behavior where you needed to have enough bulls out there so that it was synchronized so that in a short window all the breeding took place so the calving would occur all at the same time. In WMDs 1 and 4 based on good research done in Quebec, we knew we could allow the bull to cow ratio, which in the past had always been 60 per 100, to drop below that. Instead of saying it had to be 60 per 100, we created a range. In order to maintain world class in the other zones in the core range, we were looking at 50 per 70. When we had flown in the past, WMD 4 was a good indicator, we had a big drop in moose numbers over the last five years and we also had a drop in the bull to cow ratio. In the past 15-year plan we would have said we were cutting bull permits, or increasing cow permits. Now, we were going to say that was fine. We could sustain that in WMDs 1 and 4 without affecting the breeding. The other zones would still be in the 60 range.

Mr. Cordes stated even that number was conservative. The biological minimum was 25% - 30% for that adult bull class to have synchronized breeding.

Mr. Webb stated there were a number of strategies under the goal which related to public satisfaction with the moose population which included hunter satisfaction and that was where the objective of having a world class moose hunt was found. There were a whole host of strategies, all of which addressed that objective from different angles. Ultimately, the way we would evaluate and look at whether we were achieving that was through future public surveys and hunter surveys and ask what their level of satisfaction was. It was really high and historically had been really high and that was the metric we were looking to continue and keeping hunter satisfaction above 90% which was exceptional.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments and Questions

David Anderson stated he represented the Clerks Association for Maine as well as the tax collectors. They had a great meeting with Deputy Commissioner Peabody and staff regarding communications. They were the front line, there were over 500 of them out there and they took the heat about booklets and about online participation, etc. They were going to be working very closely with the Department and be proactive in trying to promote the Department within their communities. His goal and strategy as chairing the committee for the association was that he would be in touch with them monthly, and hopefully attending Advisory Council meetings as much as possible.

VIII. Agenda Items and Schedule Data for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, August 23rd at 9:30 a.m. at IFW Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A Motion was made by Mr. Smith and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
August 23 , 2018 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau of Resource Management
Nate Webb, WRAS Supervisor
Nathan Bieber, Deer Biologist
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Section Supervisor
Matt Lubejko, Coldwater Fisheries Biologist
Shon Theriault, Game Warden Captain
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Don Dudley (Chair)
Jeff Lewis
Jerry Scribner
Sheri Oldham
Shawn Sage - by phone
Brian Smith - by phone
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Dick Fortier

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Fern and Sylvia Bosse, Norway
Katie Hansberry, HSUS
Brian Cogill, MTA
Chris Bartlett, Eastport Deer Reduction Committee
Jeff Reardon, Trout Unlimited
Nelson Palmer, Kennebec Valley Fur Takers


I. Call to order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved.

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. 2018 Any-deer permit allocations

Mr. Connolly stated there was an increase in permits due to the weather and a healthy deer population. He did not believe there were comments received that were problematic.

Ms. Orff stated we received between 50 and 60 written comments. Some were in favor, some were against, some neither for nor against, it was pretty well balanced.

Mr. Smith stated he was opposed to the 25 permits in WMD 27, and then he met with Mr. Bieber and other biologists. When they finished their presentation, he was in support.

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mrs. Oldham.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

2. Special falconry season correction/Controlled moose hunt permits

Commissioner Woodcock stated this was discussed previously. We had inserted the word geese in the falconry season and that was being removed. The controlled moose hunt had an additional 5 disabled veteran permits for residents being proposed.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

B. Step 2

1. Beaver Season and Closures/Furbearers

Mr. Webb stated every year we made minor adjustments to the beaver season closures through the request from landowners. This year the only request we received and put forth was the removal of a closure in Alna in WMD 25. For the fisher season we were proposing to increase the length of the fisher season in southern and central Maine by 2-weeks. The weeks would be added to the end of the season and that was in WMDs 12, 13 and 15-29. In 2014 we implemented an emergency closure to the martin and fisher seasons due to the incidental capture of two lynx. That resulted in a decline in fisher harvest statewide as well as in the portion of the state we were proposing to extend the season, as well as a decline in the number of trappers that caught one or more fisher. Starting with the 2015-16 season we implemented mandatory exclusion devices for martin and fisher trapping and that caused a further decline. Overall, both on a statewide basis and in the specific area, we were talking about extending the season. The decline was roughly 75% in the fisher harvest from post exclusion device as compared to before we made the change. A fairly dramatic decline in the harvest. The fisher trapper success rate, that was the number of fishers caught per trapper that captures at least one fisher, was a pretty good barometer for trends in fisher populations and remained fairly constant over time. Those trappers that were out pursuing fisher and being successful were still capturing between 2 ½ and 3 fisher per year. We felt confident that the decline in harvest was due to reduced participation by trappers in that season, that was the basis for the 2-week extension. The bag limit of 10 fisher per trapper would remain in place.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier asked if the weather this year with extreme heat and lack of feed played into that.

Mr. Webb stated it did, but the pattern was more obvious with marten. We had a long history of seeing sort of a 2-year cycle with the marten harvest and we believed that was linked to the beech nut cycle. Years there were abundant beech nuts there were more small mammals and alternate prey for marten and trapper success seemed to be lower. Certainly, weather conditions during the season could impact trapper participation.

Mr. Sage asked what was the purpose of adding the days if we wanted the same amount.

Mr. Webb stated we were comfortable with the harvest level for fisher which was roughly 1,000 animals per year prior to the implementation of exclusion devices. Adding two weeks to the season in that part of the state would give more opportunity for those trappers and still keep us below the harvest level we believed was sustainable.

Mr. Dudley stated he was at a guides meeting and one of the comments made was they had cameras out on bear baits and were seeing fisher like never before. He thought there were a lot of fisher out there and they were not going to catch the same amount of fisher with the exclusion devices they were required to use as they did in the past. Another factor with not catching as many fisher was they were one of the main predators for lynx. The limit would still be 10 fisher so he did not see much changing.

Mrs. Oldham stated the average harvest per trapper really hadn’t changed, it was the participation number that seemed to have tilted the scale. Perhaps it was the expense of getting the exclusion devices as opposed to the device itself.

Mr. Sage stated the cost of fur had hit bottom. He taught trapper safety and that was one of the most filled classes. He had people calling constantly. Talking with the trappers association their focus was more on trapping bear.

Mr. Lewis stated a lot of the trappers he talked to did not want to mess with the exclusion device.

Mr. Dudley stated there was a certain amount of refusal. When trapping on the snow they could tell the refusal they got from the exclusion devices that they didn’t seem to get with the tree setting. There seemed to be plenty of fisher.

Mrs. Oldham asked what the status was of delisting lynx in Maine.

Mr. Connolly stated the USFWS had reviewed the species status assessment and recommended that a rule be put forth to delist the lynx. They were talking about trying to get that in place in the fall. Because it required a process to delist, they had to put forth a rule and go through a comment period. They had reached out to the 14 states that had lynx and invited them to participate in the process for creating the rule.

Mrs. Oldham asked if it was delisted, would the rule for exclusion devices change.

Mr. Connolly stated no. Our rules were in place and were done because of our responsibilities under our incidental take permit (ITP) in order to protect lynx. Separate from that was the delisting proposal. If the delisting proposal went through then that would change our liability under our ITP because it wouldn’t be necessary anymore. The separate decision the state would have to make was how were we going to manage trapping in order to address any concerns we had. There was a 5 year period after any animal was delisted that the USFWS required states to participate in reviewing the population of that species to make sure that they were not adversely impacted by delisting. There was no open season on lynx and Maine protected lynx before they were listed and we would have a responsibility to do that for any species there was a closed season on.

Mr. Fortier stated for the delisting, was there a number of families that had to be maintained to be able to apply to have it taken off.

Mr. Connolly stated there was a federal standard in terms of the status of a population that had to be met. It wasn’t a particular number of animals, it was the relative distribution of the species, the ability for it to withstand the pressures that caused mortality within the population, changes over time, etc. The species status assessment was kind of a state of affairs with lynx and the 5 year review was an evaluation of what those meant in relation to the standards for the endangered species act. The feeling was from a fish and wildlife directorate that reviewed the species status assessment that lynx were at a point where they should be delisted. It wasn’t just the state meeting criteria it was the entire U.S. where lynx were present where the rule applied which was not Alaska, you were allowed to trap lynx in Alaska. It was the lower 48 states and there were 14 states that had lynx that were impacted by the rule. The population was looked at across all 14 states. There was a way to evaluate the health of the population and its ability to persist over time and withstand the pressures that would cause mortality or decline of the species that had to be met. Maine had the highest population of lynx in the lower 48 and we anticipated, based on the work that we had done with trappers in protecting lynx and the work forest landowners had done managing their land to have habitat suitable for lynx, that they would continue to persist into the future. That was our contribution to the species status assessment. Since the listing was put in place we had used Pitman Roberson monies and worked with trappers to understand lynx dynamics and how healthy the population was in Maine.

Mr. Fortier asked if the feds could move what they would use for criteria.

Mr. Connolly stated the criteria for implementing the endangered species act were in place and there were policies and guidelines that did that. There wasn’t any proposal to do that. We contributed our information to the species status assessment, it was relevant and impactful. The recommendation from the directorate of the 5-year review was to delist. The USFWS needed to create the rule saying what the conditions would be for them to delist and then put it in place through the federal rulemaking process.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he would like to compliment staff. During the species assessment our biological work played a major role in some of the decision making. Our staff was highly regarded and widely respected nationally.

Mr. Sage stated on the marten and beaver, had we looked at, especially in southern Maine, expanding the timeframe for beaver. With trapper activity going down only so many trappers could help dispose of the beavers that were becoming an issue.




Mr. Webb stated the harvest of beaver over the past several years were down. Pelt prices were very low and it was arguable whether it was worth it for most trappers. Trapper participation in beaver trapping which was similar to fisher and marten what really drove the harvest level which was way down was primarily pelt prices. We were in regular communications with the trappers association to talk about the issue and there had been in the past 4 or 5 years a number of changes to fisher trapping seasons to extend the season. The feeling was at this point was that any further extension would put us into a period when the pelts weren’t prime and would further reduce the value.

2. Eastport Special Hunt

Mr. Connolly stated we were in the third and final year of the Eastport special hunt. There were some tweaks last year made to the hunt to give additional tags to successful hunters. They had 9 hunters harvest 31 deer, 30 does and 1 immature buck in 2017 which was an improvement over the 11 deer harvested in the first year of the hunt. The change was impactful and we were recommending to proceed with the third year as proposed.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Dudley stated they had done a good job, they had stepped up the harvest unlike some of the other special hunts that had been approved. The deer that were harvested were studied, and there were no ticks found on them and he was curious why.

Chris Bartlett stated he suspected they were just behind the curve. They had contacted Chuck Lubelczyk at the CDC and asked if he would like to come and do a spring sweep for ticks. He was not able to make it that year. Mr. Bartlett stated he knew ticks were along the coast but just hadn’t reached them yet.

Mr. Sage asked what happened to the meat from the deer that were harvested.

Chris Bartlett stated all hunters that harvested deer took their own deer. In his area hunting and giving away wild game was part of the culture. Hunters for the Hungry offered to pay for processing of all donated deer and only one deer was donated. They continued to make that offer each year. There had not been a lot of deer donated because people were getting them directly from the hunters.

3. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2019

Mr. Brautigam stated between the public hearing and written comments the greatest focus had been on a couple of the removals associated with the heritage program. He would say probably the next most common item would be related to changes to the Sebago Lake lake trout slot limit. Most of those comments with regard to Sebago reflected a desire for more aggressive change regarding the slot. At Sebago, the step was what he would view as an interim step. It was made in response to some additional data that became available as it related to lake trout growth rates. His expectation was that over the next 6-8 months we would be doing some additional modeling and assessment to better evaluate the direction we needed to go. The approach we undertook with the current slot was a top down control approach. We were having challenges with anglers not harvesting enough lake trout in Sebago and as a result the lake trout population was not declining and was inhibiting our ability to manage for a high quality wild landlocked salmon fishery. We put the new regulation in place based on research that was done out west in an effort to try to stabilize lake trout population growth by providing more larger individuals that would help suppress the population.

Mr. Brautigam stated unfortunately, the data that was recently compiled on Sebago Lake as it related to growth rates indicated it would take about 20 years for lake trout to work through the slot we had established. That was a long time to wait for a determination as to whether or not this would be an effective strategy. The step we had taken in slightly reducing the slot was in an effort to mitigate for any additional lake trout we added to the slot to give us more time to evaluate whether we wanted to stay with the top down approach in making the slot or whether we wanted to move in a different direction. The impetus for the current regulation in place was to try to biologically manage a population in such a way it would self-regulate because we couldn’t get enough harvest from recreational anglers. The only other option we had at the time we were exploring this new slot limit that’s currently in place is we were looking at the possibility of commercial harvest which we didn’t feel was going to be socially acceptable.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Scribner stated there was a linkage between the larger togue at the higher end of the slot and the number of smaller togue. Were the larger togue preying on the smaller togue in terms of a biological control?

Mr. Brautigam stated that was a small piece. Some of the work that had been done looking at lake trout populations suggested that the larger lake trout were actually excluding some of the smaller lake trout from the better quality habitat. There was other research that suggested that as you cropped off the top end of lake trout populations it actually stimulated spawning. Fish would start maturing at a younger age. Other lakes out west were struggling with the same issues. They had taken more aggressive approaches where they had funding through hydro relicensing and they had undertaken a commercial harvest operation to deal with their population problems.

Mr. Scribner stated he could understand how a lot of the fishing public would think if you didn’t have a slot more lake trout would be harvested. Therefore, the total number of lake trout would be down.

Mr. Brautigam stated the younger, faster growing fish were eating more and they were more active on the spawning scene. A lot of the modeling that was done tied it to forage. We were trying to maintain forage. We didn’t care there were as many lake trout at Sebago Lake except for the fact they were limiting the amount of forage that was available for the primary focus, landlocked salmon. All of that suggested we were better off having a smaller population comprised of older age, larger individuals.

Mrs. Oldham stated the recommendation was promulgated by data from out west.

Mr. Brautigam stated the initial regulation was based on some of that work.

Mrs. Oldham stated we now had more current information from Sebago which indicated the regulation was going to take 20 years and was doomed not to achieve what we wanted to. The other thing we looked at was commercial harvest. If those were the two extremes she did not understand why. Was there an opportunity to do a regulation which had a better chance of succeeding short of commercial harvest.

Mr. Brautigam stated that had been the goal all along. We felt commercial harvest was not going to be palatable. We were trying to explore all the options that were available. With the recent data we knew it was going to take upwards of 20 years to fully evaluate whether or not the regulation would work. He did not think the public would be that patient and there were some concerns if it didn’t work. We were trying to reduce the number of fish that were currently in the slot to buy more time to do additional assessment and monitoring in an effort to determine whether we wanted to commit to the top down approach or move in another direction. We did need a little time to do more assessment and decide what would be the best regulation to have in place.

Mrs. Oldham stated if we were talking about 1 year, how was the data going to change in 1 year for something we knew was going to take 20 years to decide. Why not just get rid of the slot this year?

Mr. Brautigam stated then obviously the approach and strategy we’d taken to suppress the lake trout population would be removed. We’d have to assume that approach was not going to work. He did not think we were there yet.

Mrs. Oldham stated so we thought the proposal would work?

Mr. Brautigam stated he never suggested it wasn’t going to work, the concern we had was it was going to take 20 years to evaluate whether or not the regulation was going to work. We now knew that based on data that was collected over the last 2 years on Sebago Lake. There were concerns from the public that it was going to take too long to see a change in the fishery. His concern was the public would not have the fortitude to weather it out and see if it worked. What we were trying to do was take available information and do some additional modeling. We hadn’t done any modeling. We looked at lake trout growth rates and we developed some population estimates. We now had a pretty good handle on what the population of lake trout was in Sebago Lake which provided a basis for us to evaluate whatever changes we made.

Mr. Thurston asked if we could agree that the anglers out there fishing for lake trout were not keeping smaller fish to the degree we would like.

Mr. Brautigam stated it was a problem. Part of that was because Sebago Lake was so deep, it was the deepest lake in the state at 300 feet, it was a challenge. Some of the water where the smaller lake trout were present was challenging for anglers and they were not fishing that deep water. A lot of the anglers tended to catch some of the bigger fish that were in the slot because they were occupying the relatively shallow water in the lake system. The anglers perception was that the lake was full of lake trout that were within that slot. When we did our netting work under the spin program we saw that was not the case. There was a much larger biomass of fish that were under 23” than the 23”-33”. They were just not in places where anglers were fishing. The people that got the smaller fish were the winter anglers that fished with jigging rods and set lines and fishing deeper parts of the lake.

Mr. Thurston asked if we were effective enough messaging that they should keep those smaller fish?

Mr. Brautigam stated when he worked in the region they posted signage at the access launches. When they conducted outreach at the clubs Sebago Lake was always a topic for discussion. We had certainly made an effort in trying to educate the public and make them aware we were trying to increase harvest of lake trout in Sebago Lake. The piece where they couldn’t harvest in the slot had probably resulted in some people not wanting to fish the lake anymore.

Mr. Thurston stated the data would probably not change a lot. What we were looking for was time to focus on the next effort and what the possibilities of what the next efforts would be in order to figure out what we wanted to do.

Mr. Brautigam stated to clarify, when we established the slot we didn’t have a lot of data to define what the slot should be. We knew there would need to be revisions over time. Even if we continued to track on using that slot as a strategy to suppress lake trout population growth. It was somewhat arbitrary picking the 23”-33”, there was also a lot of discussion that took place in the angling community about what the upper end ought to be.

Mr. Scribner asked if we felt like we had a good handle on the survival rate of the slot fish that were released since we were catching them out of deep water.




Mr. Brautigam stated not specifically on Sebago. If you looked at some of the other states, they had done a lot of work on the Great Lakes, certainly there was a lower survival rate for fish that were caught from deep areas of the lake and released. Especially during the summer months.

Mr. Lewis stated when the rule was put through before, Mr. Brautigam put on a great presentation and he was excited about it for some of the lakes in his area. He did not think this was a failed proposal, he thought it was growing. We had to figure out what was going to happen next. At Sebago was it possible like they did at Branch, they got a lot of participation and wiped out a lot of the small fish and they had come back quite well. Was there a way to get the public more into that.

Mr. Brautigam stated one of the big benefits on those other waters Mr. Lewis mentioned was the availability of ice angling. The ice angling crowd liked to harvest fish. The open water crowd was different. That was a challenge on Sebago Lake. We had done what we could do to encourage derbies and incentives to harvest smaller fish.

Mr. Fortier stated on the Fish River Chain, he noticed the last two years especially Eagle Lake, there was a lot more fishing going on. Since 2016 it was unlimited, now it seemed like they had more fish on Eagle Lake. He thought they would go there and take boat loads of fish. There weren’t as many anglers but this year and last year he noticed a lot more boats and people fishing the Fish River Chain. One of the issues that happened there, especially after the springtime, the water was low off the shore and for instance on Square Lake it was very difficult to get a boat in. There wasn’t an adequate boat launch site there. People with camps were ok because they would put their boats in early but they had people traveling up from the south and even the locals could not get boats in the water. If you wanted people to fish you needed an adequate boat launch. People would get frustrated and go to Eagle or Long Lake with great boat launches. Square Lake was not getting fished. It was a big lake but it didn’t have easy access.

Mr. Brautigam stated that was a water where we did not have a state launch, it was a traditional launch site owned by a private landowner.

Mr. Scribner stated there seemed to be two other bodies of water that were contentious in the communications they received. One was Cold Water Brook Pond, whether or not it was still a pond. It looked like there were some inconsistencies in terms of the rule book in that we’re still regulating it as a pond even though there was some question as to whether or not it was. The other one was Henderson Pond in terms of our desire to stock Henderson with Bald Mountain Pond charr. He asked Mr. Brautigam to talk to some of the justifications of the direction we were going with those bodies of water.

Mr. Brautigam stated he asked Mr. Overlock to pull together a recent report they compiled with regard to Bald Mountain Pond. He was providing it because it gave a pretty good overview of our historical and current management in our efforts to conserve one of 11 or 12 indigenous populations of charr that resided in Maine. Maine was the only state that supported charr populations in the lower 48. The populations that we had in the state were part of a sub-species that existed both in Maine, New Brunswick and Quebec and all total that sub-species represented just over 300 waters. Maine was the southernmost population within that sub-species. All those waters in Maine had been genetically tested so we had an understanding of the fact that they were all different. Because all these populations had been isolated for so long there had been no exchange between populations at least in Maine. They had all adapted to local conditions. We had some charr that could coexist with smelt and other places where smelt were the bane of charr’s existence. We had a lot of waters with both charr and brook trout. They were very closely related, to some extent they could interbreed. As an agency we had always taken a very conservative approach to managing the charr population we had here in Maine because they were different. Morphologically if you looked at those populations like Bald Mountain Pond, it had a population of charr that was extremely small, they were not much more than 6”-7”. We had other populations like at Floods Pond that were considerably larger and more predatory in their feeding habits. The charr in Bald Mountain Pond were feeding more on zooplankton and invertebrates.

Mr. Brautigam stated there were a lot of differences in characteristics in the populations we had. We looked at each population as a distinct population and tried to manage and conserve each population as such. It was important to understand that as it was the underlying basis for why we put in such an effort that was detailed in the report to try to conserve that population and it was why we were looking at exploring other options to conserve the population that was now at risk because of the presence of an introduced population of rainbow smelt. Unfortunately, with the case of Bald Mountain Pond those introductions were documented around 2014. It was 2018 and there hadn’t been a lot of time that lapsed. We dealt with smelt introductions on two other waters, Big Reed and Wadleigh. We had more time to react and plan and put forward a strategy in the case of both those waters to reclaim them using rotenone, basically killing off all the fish. Before that was done the fish were put in a hatchery, propagated and restocked. We had evidence of reproduction at Big Reed. We had not sampled Wadleigh, but based on reports there was a good population there. We had not documented reproduction yet, that would probably happen in the next year or two by regional staff.

Mr. Brautigam stated if they took the time to read the report they would see we identified a number of different conservation and management contingencies. We looked at the prospect of whether or not we could chemically reclaim Bald Mountain Pond. Because of its size and configuration and the amount of product that would be required and logistics involved we did not believe that reclamation was a viable option at this point in time. We looked at other options that included the prospect of doing something similar to what we had done with Big Reed and Wadleigh and trying to propagate the fish in a hatchery system in an effort to create enough fish to do something with them. Not necessarily with the intent of putting them back in Bald Mountain Pond because he was not sure that was a viable option in the absence of any kind of chemical reclamation effort. With the idea of trying to salvage that distinct population and manage it in a new home. We had discussions with Gary Picard who had a private hatchery that was no longer operational. We contracted with him to support hatchery cultivation of fish that were taken out of both Big Reed and Wadleigh. We had reached out to him to discuss potentially partnering with us at Bald Mountain Pond. He had a full-time position as Town Manager and was not really interested, but more importantly, he was deeply concerned by the fact that we were dealing with an extremely small charr in Bald Mountain Pond. When you took fish from the wild and put them in a hatchery it was not a smooth transition. The fish were used to certain feed and it was very challenging to get the fish accommodated in the hatchery. The smaller the fish were, the more difficult it was to manage the transition. He expressed great concern about the ability to be able to successfully cultivate those.

Mr. Brautigam stated in lieu of that, cultivation was probably not going to be a good prospect. The population appeared to have declined pretty rapidly over a short period of time. We continued to do monitoring and collections. We had not been able to catch many charr in the last couple of years. We did some netting that summer and caught one charr. We had very low numbers of fish, some might question whether there was anything that could even be done to conserve the population. We were committed to do everything we could and trying to outline as many contingencies as we could. People needed to appreciate the fact we had a low number of charr, they had been heavily impacted by the smelt population and we didn’t have a lot of options. That was one of the reasons we identified Henderson as a potential receiving water for fish that we might be able to collect from Bald Mountain Pond through additional survey and sampling efforts. When we thought about where those fish could go, we went through a process to try to filter the waters in the state that would offer the best chance for success. We went through a process mostly in Region D, G and E, Region E had more waters that were suitable, and we ranked them. We did a filter search and at the top was Henderson. That was why it was being discussed and part of the packet. If we were successful in obtaining any charr from Bald Mountain Pond, directly transfer them over into Henderson Pond.

Mrs. Oldham asked if there was a non-state heritage water in the top 10.

Mr. Brautigam stated the top 4 were all heritage fish waters and 6 of the next 8 were heritage fish waters. There were 2 waters that were non-heritage fish waters. Based on characteristics, Henderson rose to the top.

Mrs. Oldham stated what a lot of them were concerned about was that so much effort, not only from IFW but volunteers and sportsman’s organizations had gone into not only identifying the state heritage water but pushing it legislatively. Clearly, they all knew we were the home for most of the remaining eastern brook trout. To delist a good state heritage water set a really bad precedent. As this being the top option, the fact that Henderson came to the top of the list and so we were going to try to delist on that basis she thought was bad precedent for the Department. There were identified waters that were not state heritage. She knew we wanted to conserve that genetic population. The report was extensive and good work, but the problem solving tree that whatever was on top of the list was the best place; overall it set bad precedent, there were other suitable waters that had been identified and in terms of triage, when you had critically ill populations triage was always difficult. The end result of triage was that you saved the one you had the highest likelihood of saving. The charr population, she could understand an effort to preserve it but it sounded like the likelihood of it being successful was pretty low because we had such a small population of those fish. To set the precedent of delisting a state heritage water trying to save another fish, she thought was not in the best interest of the Department and the eastern brook trout.

Mr. Brautigam stated when we looked at this very challenging situation, recognizing that the prospect for getting any number of fish was going to be small, we wanted to make sure that whatever fish we could recover from Bald Mountain would be put in a place that would offer the best prospect for success. Whether Henderson for other reasons was the best choice, he appreciated that. From a biological standpoint it offered the best prospects for a successful transfer given that we felt we were going to be able to access only a small number of fish we felt we had to go for the best of the best in terms of exploring this contingency. In discussions with the heritage fish working group they talked about creating a vision for the heritage law and the need to decide if the original intent was still applicable today and what was the future of the heritage fish list.

Mr. Brautigam stated one of the things he struggled with was being the individual within the division ultimately responsible for the conservation of the state’s fishery resources. We had other charr populations and he was sure we would have other situations develop where there were going to be other populations placed at risk. As we continued to add the very best charr waters to the heritage list under the current law we were precluded from considering those waters as transfer candidates without delisting. In his opinion he thought those populations, because charr and brook trout did coexist, there was no risk of charr being introduced into a water body and the population of brook trout disappearing. There was no evidence that would happen. Would there be competition between the two, there probably was wherever they coexisted. We had other populations and there was a desire to look at being more proactive in conserving the distinct genetic populations that existed in Maine and looking at doing some additional transfers. Where we had the luxury of an abundance of charr and we had waters that were not on the heritage list that we thought offered great prospects for success, it was worth experimenting. He would suggest that the 578 waters that were on the list represented the best waters that we had to conserve our charr populations in the state. It was important to think about how we wanted to manage a heritage fish, the arctic charr and brook trout were both heritage fish. Unfortunately, the charr existed in much lower abundance and were in need of more urgent attention. Moving forward, he thought in strategic planning they would see a vision established where we were interested in establishing more populations of arctic charr to create some redundancy in those populations. Where that could be done through a planned process utilizing non-heritage waters would be great, but he thought those waters were not going to be as conducive to those transfers as state heritage fish waters because they represented the best waters in the state. There was urgency with Bald Mountain Pond that drove the decision to try to advance the change to the heritage list.

Mrs. Oldham asked if there were ponds where charr were existing that were not designated as state heritage waters?

Mr. Brautigam stated yes.

Mrs. Oldham stated as she read the report there was an emphasis on the unique genetic population of those fish as opposed to waters where, there were genetics but they were still charr. Her interpretation was the emphasis was maintaining the genetic uniqueness of that population vs. putting them where they might have a chance to live even though the genetics of the charr might be different. Rather than delisting a state heritage water being at the top, put them in a non-state heritage water that already had charr successfully living there.

Mr. Scribner asked if there was another option that might be more complicated from a legislative perspective in terms of not delisting. If charr and brook trout comingled and survived but the issue was that because we were stocking charr into a heritage water we needed to delist, wasn’t that the problem?

Mr. Sage stated reading the proposal it stated after 5 years then Henderson Pond would be proposed through rulemaking to be restored to the state heritage waters list. Didn’t that have to be 25 years?

Mr. Brautigam stated the 5 year cap was to address the delisting and if we were not able to obtain charr from Bald Mountain Pond and complete the transfer it would be reinstated within 5 years. It was not that we were going to stock charr into Henderson.

Mrs. Oldham stated there were no existing charr in Henderson currently.

Mr. Sage stated if we were able to do that, then we wouldn’t be able to put it back on.

Mr. Brautigam stated that was correct. The way the law was currently written we would have to wait. The 25 year timeframe was not entirely scientifically based. Mr. Brautigam stated he would like to clarify Mrs. Oldham’s question on the genetic piece. The availability of genetic information had really blossomed. Genetic technology would probably continue to grow and we would be able to fine tune our assessments of populations and issues to a much greater extent moving into the future. The reason we had taken a very conservative approach in managing our charr waters as distinct populations was to reflect the fact that they may be evolutionarily advanced and developed to a point where they represented some other category beyond subspecies. We were trying to be sensitive and responsible and protect and maintain the integrity of those genetic populations. From a subspecies level, we should be able to mix and match but on the landscape when you looked at those populations they were different. All of that reflected some level of divergence.

Mrs. Oldham stated there was evidence this was a very distinct population from our other charr containing waters.

Mr. Brautigam stated yes, and we had additional testing that was in play to further refine some of the work that had been done in the past to better understand the level of divergence that may exist with those distinct populations. We currently had a contract with UMO on that.

Mr. Thurston stated this was due to an illegal stocking of rainbow smelt. That was the root cause of all the trouble. Unfortunately, we fought that battle in many different forms.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the heritage bill was his bill in cooperation with many of the NGO’s in the room and individuals in the room, they were aware of the experience. He wanted to dispel the rumor there was political consideration that staff was trying to take away the integrity of the heritage list by putting Henderson on the top of the list. He and Mr. Brautigam had many discussions on Bald Mountain Pond. Mr. Brautigam had focused on the science from day one, he had never wavered from we needed to do the best we could for the issue. The issue was important, but he wanted to take away the political aspect that we were trying to do something illicit with the heritage waters. This was not an integrity of the heritage bill discussion for him politically, it was a science discussion. If it wasn’t acceptable to people he appreciated that for scientific reasons. It was a wonderful discussion.

Mrs. Oldham stated there were some political ramifications in that so much effort had gone into designating these waters as important. The Commissioner always talked about science and the public and the balance between those. We lived in a political, public world and what she was concerned about was that the problem solving algorhythem for this particular problem that a state heritage water floated to the top of the list and therefore we’re going to go with that. She could see having the state heritage water delisting as a last desperation measure when something like this came up. We had bodies of water that this political issue contained charr and we knew charr could live there. Because there were no charr in Henderson Pond we were assuming that the Bald Mountain charr would exist in Henderson Pond. That was the assumption but it hadn’t been proven. We had bodies of water that didn’t require the delisting political problem that contained charr. It was hard for her to understand other than the genetic purity, when you were in desperation measures sometimes you had to give up something.

Mr. Sage stated what Mr. Brautigam had said was the charr in one water may feed on minnows, but the charr in this water was feeding on invertebrates and plankton. If you took the fish and put them in that water, they may not have the proper feed like the issue with moving them to a hatchery. There was a reason why this water rose to the top and that was what he would like to know.

Mr. Brautigam stated it was a culmination of all the factors such as size, species assembly, etc. but the other piece which was not really captured in the data set was the habitat piece. The regional biologists knowledge and understanding of what the habitat was like in that water body and whether or not it was likely to best match with what a charr would need in terms of spawning. That piece was important and would help differentiate between some of the other waters. If this was more of a long term planning initiative, if we were planning to introduce charr to maintain some redundancy in those genetic populations more broadly it would be a slowed down process. We were trying to react to a fairly fluid situation that seemed to be rapidly moving in the wrong direction.

Mr. Scribner stated in terms of brook trout and charr, we had proven they could coexist in a particular body of water and our stumbling block was the delisting of a heritage water because we were stocking charr, was there any opportunity to somehow create an exemption for the stocking of charr in a heritage water so we did not have to delist.

Mr. Brautigam stated that was a topic that had been discussed with the heritage fish working group. He thought there was some interest in exploring that. He would like to explore that. He thought that was a shortcoming in the heritage law when it was conceived. He thought there was more of a focus on precluding the Department from stocking to create recreational fishing opportunities.

Mr. Lewis stated they had only caught one charr in Bald Mountain Pond. How many did we have to catch before we thought there were enough to move? What about getting rid of the problem there now, smelt or whatever. He had some bait dealers in his area that had been very effective in wiping out smelt populations. Was it a better option to try to wipe the smelt out or at least knock them down. It seemed like a problem to him moving fish from one body of water to another due to an illegal introduction. Were we not doing the same thing?

Mr. Brautigam stated the water had not been on the list due to the presence of charr. Given the charr abundance was now quite low, we would be open to adding that to the commercial list. He questioned how much use they would see there. It was pretty remote, but we were not opposed to adding that water to the list. It would probably be a recommendation as we developed the new commercial list for 2019. It was important to appreciate some of the efforts staff had undertaken to suppress the smelt population there. It was remote and a camp owner had allowed us access to conduct experimental smelt reduction efforts. We started by removing adults and that was very labor intensive and we did not feel we were making much of an impact. Smelt did not just use tributaries, they used the lake shoreline. The second phase investigation we were currently using as a suppression method. There had been work done elsewhere using electricity to kill eggs and the same method was applied to tributaries at Bald Mountain in an effort to kill deposited smelt eggs. We had also been monitoring hatch out with drift nets installed at the mouth of the brook. This was one of the few tools we had to try to maintain smelt population levels while we were trying to work through the next step. We did only get one charr; as one of our contingencies we’ve got a number of radio tags at our availability if we’re able to successfully get any amount of charr we’re going to tag those fish. The goal is to follow the fish and hopefully set up some trapping devices wherever they’re holding and find others there. If we’re getting one or two fish we’ll have a contingency laid out that will allow us to transfer the fish we get if we have a suitable home for them.

Mr. Overlock stated it was a very remote location and they had done a fair amount of night work dipping for smelts in the spring. We had experimented with drop nets to target smelts to see if that would be an effective method. It was particularly hard to access in the winter, it was only by snowmobile. It could be challenging to get anyone to do it even commercially.

Commissioner Woodcock stated muskie had come in and we were asked to support a muskie derby. Illegal introduction of smelt on a pond and we want to let commercial bait dealers go there and do some smelting. Mr. Brautigam had already suggested we were going to put it on the list for commercial dealers. It was a very sensitive issue. We had to be very careful about allowing commercial use of an illegally introduced species because the invitation was immense.

Mr. Scribner stated it seemed like from a regulation perspective that some of the comments that were received were that if Cold Water Brook Pond was not a pond why were we still regulating it like a pond?

Mr. Brautigam stated at one point we had a pond that had a self-sustaining population of brook trout. That was the result of the construction of the dam by the Department on Department owned property. The dam was breached, there had been some intermittent beaver activity. The pond was maybe 1 – 1 ½ acres in size. Much like they would see on a lot of our flowages when you had beavers coming in and small impoundments, when he thought about the nomination criteria used to nominate waters for the heritage list, we were trying to find those waters that supported self-sustaining populations of brook trout exemplified; established robust populations. We had a healthy population at Cold Water Brook, the question was did the little area at the base of the dam represent a pond or a lake dwelling situation. To him it really didn’t. The request to make the change came from the regional biologist looking at the list that was supposed to represent the best waters that were out there on the landscape, why would something more of a riverain stream dwelling population be added to that list. We did manage it as a little bit of a pond because in that part of the state they didn’t have those kind of fishing opportunities. It was well used, there was a lot of interest in fishing there. He did not believe the biologist would be changing the regulations there other than possibly the slot. He was planning to manage it conservatively as a recreational opportunity to fish for wild brook trout. It was on Department owned land so why would we not manage it. We could change the name. It was more of a stream dwelling population.

There were no further comments or questions.

4. Fishing Regulations - Striped Bass

Mr. Brautigam stated the rule addition was being advanced at the request of the Dept. of Marine Resources (DMR). They were responsible for managing migratory and ocean fish. There was a larger entity, National Marine Fisheries Service that managed the migratory fish including striped bass and they had concerns that we did not have in fresh water sections of where striped bass occurred a regulation to protect that resource. We were advancing the rule change in response to that. Over time with the improvement of fish passage there had been more striped bass moving further inland on some of the river systems like the Penobscot and Kennebec.

C. Step 1

There were no items under Step 1.

V. Other Business

1. Big Game Species Plan - Deer Management update

Mr. Bieber gave a PowerPoint presentation on the species plan for white-tailed deer (available upon request to becky.orff@maine.gov )

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier stated WMDs 1 and 2 traveling the area and seeing the increase in the deer population especially around WMD 3 because it was more in the farming community and the town. Seeing the deer population grow around a farming community in WMD 3, and then go into Ashland seeing more deer for the first 10 miles and then after that it was almost zero deer.

Mr. Bieber stated it was a real challenge trying to get an idea on what populations were doing up north because they were so shifty seasonally. They were really concentrated in the winter. We may need increased education on how to feed responsibly if people were going to feed. We didn’t really know if deer moved into towns if they would go back to those areas. Feeding was very expensive and if a big feeder stopped where did those deer go?

Mr. Lewis asked about the collaring project, was the information on the website.

Mr. Bieber stated J.G. Irving was putting together a website that was going to present the data for the Department and all of the cooperators.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments and Questions

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated anyone that wanted a printed lawbook would be able to get a printed law book. There may come a time when someone had to print one from their computer and mail it. The current law book was on the internet and Emily MacCabe had created a landing page which had all the law books on it with quick reference guides and how to download the book. We had 80,000 books printed and reduced printing costs.

Mr. Webb stated we were moving to direct data entry through a web application and that had started during the controlled moose hunt. Eight moose had been tagged successfully. The start of bear season on youth day would be the beginning of the real roll out. We had an individual on contract that had gone around the state with help from other staff and individually trained every station in advance of bear season. We were up over 200 stations that had been trained. The application seemed to be working well. We did plan to have staff available to assist stations if they ran into problems. We would have real time information. We would be doing the same for tagging of furs, but had just started working on that. We hoped to have it ready for next year’s season. Some stations elected not to participate. A list of active stations would be available on the website.

Katie Hansberry stated they had a useful experience working with Major Chris Cloutier. Some in MA and some that worked nationally on wildlife issues had been working with him in his role as Vice-Chair of the Interstate Wildlife Violators Compact. MA was one of only two states that were still not part of the compact. He had been extremely helpful in his role as Vice-Chair attending meetings with legislators in MA. There was a bill that had been trying to be passed there for a number of legislative sessions. They had honored him and he accepted on behalf of the entire board of the Interstate Wildlife Violators Compact on July 18, 2018. They had a nice ceremony at which they presented a humane law enforcement award to Major Cloutier and a member of the MA environmental police.

Chris Bartlett stated he wanted to thank the Council for hearing their request and to feel free to contact him if they had any questions.

Mrs. Theriault stated we would begin rulemaking for Chapter 4 next month. Chapter 4 was the hunting and trapping and falconry rules. About six months ago, we started a thorough review to bring everything up to speed and into consistency with our statutes. There were references to old statutes, we reformatted and split the rule into three different chapters. There would be a chapter for falconry, one for trapping and one for hunting. It had been an in-depth project with upwards of 50 staff members reviewing the documents.

Jeff Reardon stated their discussions on Henderson Pond mirrored the discussions they had internally with TU and discussion he suspected the Department had. It was a really hard choice. In his comments, one of his concerns was there wasn’t any justification in the proposal for why it was Henderson instead of some other water body. He wished that information had been available for the public to comment on. It may have changed how the proposal was viewed. Similarly, there was not a stocking proposal and he didn’t think any fish could go into Henderson until the Department went through public comment on a stocking proposal. One concern they had with the stocking proposal was the plan was to put Bald Mountain charr there. There was also the proposal that charr might go there from some other source. To his knowledge none of the other sources were in imminent danger. A good discussion about whether to mix these populations or not. He was firmly of the camp that they had been separated since the glaciers retreated and they had adapted to the waters they were in. Mixing Bald Mountain charr with Floods charr or Deboulie charr, he did not know that it would do harm but it might and it was better to be conservative.

Mr. Brautigam stated we were not geneticists but there was a good one at UMO. We would be relying on him to provide guidance should we decide that we wanted to bring in individuals from an outside population to create enough of a biomass to establish a population in whatever the donor water might be.

Jeff Reardon stated Cold Water Brook Pond really was a question of consistently making a decision about what was a pond and what was not. If it was not a pond for heritage reasons it should not be a pond for other reasons too. He knew there had been conversations about the potential for rebuilding the dam.

Gary Corson stated he shared Jeff’s concern with the charr from another source. If you started mixing the populations, it was just another stocked water. We were not dealing with genetics we were dealing with stocking a heritage water. If we could save the Bald Mountain charr population that would be a much more difficult argument that we shouldn’t put them in a heritage water because they’re the best. Floods Pond for example, that was where most charr that we stocked came from. We were going to take charr from Bald Mountain and put them in Henderson and then take charr from Floods Pond and put them in Henderson. Why didn’t we just move the charr from Bald Mountain right over to Floods. He guaranteed that the geneticist from UMO would not be happy if we suggested that because we were mixing those genetics. The heritage waters law was put into effect for that very reason, to stop stocking fish that didn’t belong in those waters. The issue they had with the rulemaking vs. legislation, it was a major substantive rule if the Department wanted to stock a water they had to get permission from the Legislature. No one opposed it. The Department never liked the major substantive rule and he worked with Andrea to change to routine technical which moved it to the Advisory Council and the APA process. The problem was that no one had the authority to say we could stock it and keep it on the list. It did when it was major substantive. It created this problem. He did think there was probably something that could be worked out, even if it was just notifying the Committee. He wanted to comment on the “conspiracy theory”. He did not think there was a conspiracy theory, he thought there was a concern that we might be weakening the law. There were a lot of people that were concerned. There were four proposals to remove heritage waters from the packet and most people supported all except Henderson. When it came to Henderson it was the best of the best, our heritage waters were the best of the best for a reason. We didn’t allow any stocking there and we didn’t allow live fish as bait. It was all dealing with competing species. When the Department stated that charr and brook trout coexisted they did in some places. He thought if the Henderson Pond proposal went to the Legislature, it would not pass because we were putting non-indigenous fish in there.

Brian Cogill stated he understood that DOT state roads were being trapped for problem beaver by federal staff. Why were they not using ADC agents across the state that the Department gave them licenses to do? Why were they using federal people to trap beaver? He knew someone that worked for DOT in southern Maine and there were two places they were told they couldn’t use ADC agents they had to use the federal guys.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he felt it probably had something to do with federal funding, but we would look into it.

VIII. Agenda Items and Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, September 18th at 9:30 a.m. at IFW Augusta

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mr. Smith to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta
Thursday, October 11, 2018 @ 9:00 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:00 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence
II. Introductions

III. Rule Making

  A. Step 3
  1. Emergency rulemaking - Transportation of Certain Wildlife into Maine from Outside the State... Commissioner Woodcock

  B. Step 2
  There are no items under Step 2.

  C. Step 1
  There are no items under Step 1.


V. Other Business
There are no items under Other Business.

VI. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Adjournment 9:30 A.M.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta
Wednesday,December 12, 2018 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.




I-A. Moment of Silence


II. Introductions



III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

There are no items under Step. 3

B. Step 2.

1. Chapter 4 Rules repeal and replace - Christl Theriault

2. Animal Damage Control rules - Judy Camuso

C. Step 1

1. Commercial Whitewater Rafting rules - Steve Allarie

2. Wild Turkey Spring and Fall seasons - Kelsey Sullivan

3. Bear Trapping rules - Judy Camuso

V. Other Business

1. Black Bear Management Plan - Jen Vashon


VI. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Adjournment 12:00 P.M.
DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta
Tuesday, January 29, 2018 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.




I-A. Moment of Silence


II. Introductions



III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1.Chapter 4 Rules repeal and replace - Christl Theriault

2.Animal Damage Control Rules - Bob Cordes

B. Step 2.

Commercial Whitewater Rafting rules - Steve Allarie

C. Step 1

1. Wild Turkey Spring and Fall Seasons - Kelsey Sullivan

2.Bear Trapping Rules - Nate Webb

3. Migratory bird season 2019-2020 - Kelsey Sullivan

4. Wild Trout Conservation Strategy - North Zone General Law Concept - Francis Brautigam

V. Other Business

1. Ch.24 Licensed Guide rules - Christl Theriault

2.Ch13. Watercraft rules - Christl Theriault


VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 a.m.

VI. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment 12:00 P.M.

Advisory Council Meeting
September 18 , 2018 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Judy Camuso, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Bonnie Holding, Director of Information and Education
Chris Cloutier, Warden Service Major Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Don Dudley (Chair)
Jeff Lewis
Jerry Scribner
Sheri Oldham
Shawn Sage
Brian Smith - by phone
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Dick Fortier
Larry Farrington

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Fern and Sylvia Bosse, Norway
Katie Hansberry, HSUS
James Cote, MTA
Karen Coker
Melissa Sage
Deirdre Fleming


I. Call to order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved.

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Bear Trapping Emergency Rule

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had a situation arise where we had to take emergency rulemaking into consideration. He consulted with the Attorney General’s office as there was a very short time span and it cut into the last few days before the start of the season. He read the AG’s office statement into the record, “Actions by the Advisory Council must be taken in a public meeting and preceded by at least 7-days notice. Proceeding with a conference call would be adverse to the public meeting requirements of FOAA. That requirement, however, should not interfere with the ability to adopt an emergency rule with less than 7-days when needed. The Department should have the inherent authority to adopt an emergency rule without Advisory Council consent when it is not possible to convene a public meeting within the time required to address the situation. I suggest the rule be adopted under the regular emergency rulemaking authority in 5 MRS, Subsection 8054 without convening a conference call to obtain the Council’s consent. You should then schedule a special meeting of the Council with appropriate public notice at which time you would ask the Advisory Council to ratify the emergency rule.” Commissioner Woodcock stated that was what we were seeking to do.

Mrs. Oldham asked what the history was regarding the emergency rule.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had a new device that was presented to us for examination for bear trapping season. We took the opportunity to closely examine it and that was Thursday of the week that bear trapping season would start on Saturday. There wasn’t much time. In the discussion, other devices came into play. The emergency rule would pertain to the current trapping season and would be in effect for 90 days. It was our desire to examine the issue more closely for the 2019 season. The Commissioner felt strongly we had to protect our lynx and ITP scenario with the emergency rule.

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to accept the rule as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Lewis.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

2. Beaver Season and Closures/Furbearers

Ms. Camuso stated for the beaver season there was one town that had been closed to trapping of beaver that had now been opened and we were requesting authority to extend the fisher season by two weeks in a subset of WMDs, mostly in the southern part of the state. The bag limit for fisher remained at ten. A public hearing was held with about 20 members of the public attending. Everyone there was supportive and there was not a lot of comment. The bag limit for fisher would remain the same, we were proposing to extend the season by two weeks and trying to recognize that with the requirement of exclusion devices we had reduced both the number of people participating as well as the effectiveness of the trappers. We were trying to provide them with more opportunity.

Mr. Sage asked if there was any proof that the lynx were moving south.

Ms. Camuso stated that staff did surveys every winter and we did have evidence that lynx were in more areas than had been in the past.

Mr. Sage stated they had to use the exclusion devices in southern Maine, but what if they weren't an animal that migrated south.

Ms. Camuso stated the approach they took when they developed the exclusion device requirement was they thought the trappers and the Department felt strongly that we needed to protect lynx statewide. It was not likely we would have a lynx in York County but we felt we needed protections if there was an animal that was roaming. The exclusion device requirement would stay in effect.

Mr. Fortier asked how much territory a family of lynx would stay in.

Ms. Camuso stated it depended on the time of year. There had been reports of dispersing animals.

3. Eastport Special Hunt

Ms. Camuso stated the town of Eastport was requesting a special hunt to assist with their overabundance of deer. They were pretty successful last year and they were proposing to give permits first to the successful hunters from last year and allow them to take up to a certain number of deer and also to use crossbows. They were going with the same number of permits (30) with up to 90 tags.

Mr. Thurston stated there was some apprehension with the special hunts in the beginning. He asked why the Georgetown special hunt had been taken off the agenda.

Ms. Camuso stated it was removed at Georgetown’s request. They had reached out to staff and were emphatic even though we had some plans to help them next year, they wanted to address some things this year. We scheduled a meeting with members of the town to talk about the issues. With the Advisory Council rulemaking schedule, in order for them to have an approved hunt for this season, they would have needed to be at Step 1 in September. They were on the agenda as a placeholder so they would have the opportunity if they decided to move forward. They met with staff and talked about their issues and we discussed what we would need to see for a proposal and models for success. One of the most important things being support from the town rather than just a small group of people. They had a broader meeting and found they did not have the consensus they initially thought they had. They decided without the town level support the hunt would not be effective so they withdrew their request to take more time to work on their proposal.

A motion was made by Mr. Lewis to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed

4. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2019

Commissioner Woodcock stated we had been trying to decide the definition of a pond. He went to Cold Water Brook Pond and around Kennebunk Plains. He went to the dictionary to find the definition of a pond as it was not clear. Cold Water Brook Pond had a “Wat code” which was assigned to ponds. The dictionary definition of a pond was, smaller than a lake. The lake definition was, bigger than a pond. The pond definition also stated it could be a pool or a puddle, often man-made. After processing the information, he had decided to remove the proposal from the packet and Cold Water Brook Pond would remain on the heritage fish waters list. It was only one of four heritage waters in Region A. It fluctuated in size and had a self-sustaining population of brook trout. He decided to leave Cold Water Brook Pond on the heritage list, and the definition of pond we would expand further in the future.

Commissioner Woodcock stated for Henderson Pond, that would also be removed from the proposal and remain on the heritage waters list. In an attempt to locate a body of water to salvage the rapidly diminishing charr population in Bald Mountain Pond, Henderson became the leading candidate. Staff examined what bodies of water would be acceptable to receive charr. It went to the top of the list for a variety of reasons. The current statute did not support stocking of heritage fish waters. He believed that a statutory change was an important part of the heritage water discussion and should be closely examined. The concept of possibly losing a heritage fish water because of another heritage fish was worthy of discussion. We would leave Henderson Pond on the heritage list and pull it from the proposal. The population of charr and the necessity to do something with them seemed to have been lost in the comments and discussion. It was more about salvaging heritage waters by definition. He thought the heritage brook trout working group should take a look at that. Should the two heritage fish species conflict and why should it be considered under certain circumstances.

Mrs. Oldham stated she had been prepared to vote down the proposal if the waters had not been removed. She re-read the packet and there were two heritage fish, but on Big Reed and another reclamation we had relied on a private contractor. Some of the discussion should be, was there something in our hatchery system where we could rescue these fish until we figured out what to do with them.

Commissioner Woodcock stated there were more options than moving them to another heritage water, we could tank them. Gary Picard had talked to us about that and sometimes the charr were very small and it was difficult to get the right food source. They were planktiverous feeders.

Mr. Sage stated after reading all the comments, someone had stated it had been attempted 25 times to move charr to other bodies of water and only two were successful, Big Reed bring one of them. Was that correct?

Mr. Brautigam stated there had been a number of attempts over the years to establish, and some of the earlier attempts were in waters that weren’t the most suitable. They were using age classes that did not take. The most successful attempts we had aside from Big Reed was at Wadleigh. We also successfully introduced charr from Floods into Enchanted and also into Long, and that was using a pre-spawn adult fish. Looking at how things had been done in the past, the considerations and approaches had varied. It was a viable option moving forward we were likely to anticipate more challenges in managing and conserving charr populations. Any options we explored would involve significant costs.

Mr. Farrington stated the Bald Mountain Pond report they had received showed we had spent a considerable amount of time at Bald Mountain Pond. The trapping of the charr that were present there had not been successful. It appeared they would have to find them before worrying about re-creating them. The feed could be purchased commercially. What kind of strain would we put on Henderson Pond by putting the fish from another water body there. He would be supportive of putting them in a hatchery.

Mr. Brautigam stated we had purchased transmitters and the intent was if we successfully collected the charr we would insert transmitters on the fish in an effort to identity where there might be some concentrations.

Mr. Farrington stated what he read in the Bald Mountain report indicated we had not found many of reproduction age. Was there a cause why they were not making it in Bald Mountain Pond?

Mr. Brautigam stated besides the interaction with smelt, it did appear as though water quality was limiting there in the summer. Historically, that did not appear to be the case prior to the smelt introduction.

Mr. Lewis stated he agreed with Mrs. Oldham, he was glad the proposal was removed from the packet. He thought we had time to look at all avenues and do what was best.

Commissioner Woodcock stated an important notion for him was we were talking about Bald Mountain Pond, but it wasn't solely a Bald Mountain Pond issue for him. It was the future of charr issue.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to accept the proposal as amended, that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed

5 Fishing Regulations - Striped Bass

Mr. Brautigam stated he was not aware of any public comment that had come in with regard to the proposal. It was being advanced on behalf of the Department of Marine Resources to ensure we had the same minimum length limits on inland waters that we currently had on the coast line to support interstate management of the species.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

B. Step 2.

There were no items under Step 2.

1. Chapter 4 Rules repeal and replace

Mrs. Theriault stated we started about six months ago with the review. This was to bring the rule up to date with statutory language as there were some inconsistencies, reformatting the rule for clarity and it was decided to separate the rule into three separate chapters. Chapter 4 would remain and contain the falconry rules, and we would create a Chapter 16 for hunting rules, and Chapter 17 for trapping rules. We reviewed the WMD boundaries to ensure they were consistent with current road names. Railroad names were removed due to the large volume of turnover in companies that purchase railroads. Charts were created for the season dates and bag limits for ease of use. Outdated information was removed such as someone having to attach a tag to their antlerless deer. We didn’t provide tags anymore, individuals now created their own tag. Prior to Step 2 a list would be sent out of all the changes that had been made. There were few substantive changes.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham asked about substantive changes.

Mrs. Theriault stated for example, because we were going to electronic tagging we looked at the registration station language for furbearers and big game species and the language was updated so it would be consistent with what the practice would be.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the task was to have a set of regulatory mechanisms that didn't contradict statute or other rules.

Mrs. Theriault stated a lot of the changes were clarification and removing statements that were redundant.

Commissioner Woodcock stated we were a public agency and the goal of the project was to make it easier for the public.

Mrs. Theriault stated she created in each rule chapter a scope of the rules, a table of contents and a definitions section. Lengthy sections specific to species also had a table of contents.

Mr. Fortier suggested to keep it simple. A lot of times an example or a for instance was used to help clarify what someone had read. If the rule could have an example it would explain better and help with interpretation.

Mrs. Theriault stated some of the substantive changes came from the big game species planning process. A complete review of the rules had not been done in 20-25 years.

Mr. Farrington stated we should work with the technology to make things easy to find online.

Mrs. Oldham stated when you opened something up for repeal and replace, there could be unintended consequences. Did we anticipate any fights with the Legislature over unintended consequences?

Mrs. Theriault stated this was the public process for rulemaking, this was not going through the legislative process.

2. Animal Damage Control rules

Ms. Camuso stated this was a brand-new rule. The Department had administered an animal damage control program for a number of years through a policy, but we decided it was time to put something in rule so those applying would have an understanding of what the requirements were. Very similar to becoming a wildlife rehabilitator, there were certain things you would have to do to meet our standards to perform the duties for us. The rule would outline the educational background, when you would need a trapping license, what animals you would be authorized to work on, testing requirements and requirement to work with game wardens and regional biologists. There would be four classes of ADC agents; bat exclusion, harass wildlife with dogs, home and garden and all other. There would also be a requirement that individuals applying for and those that held an ADC license have and maintain a clean background; no fish and game violations. We did not want to be sending people with crimes against a person in their background to someone’s home. We set up standards for those applying and once they were issued a license there were standards they would have to maintain.

Mrs. Theriault stated we tried to mirror rule language similar to taxidermy and guide licenses so we had authorization to do some of the things.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington asked about those that were currently licensed, would they be grandfathered?

Ms. Camuso stated there was a grandfathering provision. They wouldn’t have to retest, but they would be expected to maintain a clean background. There were provisions for revoking a license in the proposal.

Mr. Sage asked about an insurance requirement.

Mrs. Theriault stated they would be independent contractors, although they were agents of the Commissioner. They were not technically licensed, they would be certified so they would have to get their insurance on their own.

Ms. Camuso stated she would like to update everyone on the direct data entry process. In August, we started our direct data entry web portal for tagging agents and we had trained over 300 tagging agents across the state. We had a contract person working specifically on the project. Brittany Peterson had been doing the majority of the training along with game wardens and regional biologists. There had been a few issues. We began with the controlled moose hunt, then bear season and then into archery season for deer. The volume had grown; there were some issues such as people with a Superpack license tagging under expanded archery. We were working through the issues. The mandatory bear tooth submission requirement, if somebody didn’t have the tooth it wouldn’t allow the tagging agent to register the animal. The vast majority of calls we were getting were that the tagging agent had forgotten their log-in information. Overall, there was positive feedback. There was a 1-800 number for agents to call for assistance. On the positive side, we could log into the system and know how many bears had been harvested. More data was available for the current bear season than last years. There had not been time to do a quality check on last year’s data. The instantaneous feedback was fantastic. When hunters tagged an animal, they would get an email with pertinent information. Wardens were also able to query to see who had harvested animals in their district.

Mr. Fortier stated if a warden stopped someone he could log into the system to see if the animal was tagged, he wouldn't have to travel to the facility.

Mrs. Camuso stated the warden could monitor daily for tagging information.

Major Cloutier stated the wardens could access the information from their smartphone in their truck.

Commissioner Woodcock stated he wanted to credit Maryellen Wickett and Brittany Peterson for their hand in this project.

Mrs. Oldham asked if there was a concern with volume. The website had crashed with the any-deer permit deadline, did we have a sense what the volume would be and how to address that.

Ms. Camuso stated InforME had assured us they could handle the volume of registrations. The biggest holdup to this point were people tagging deer with paper licenses that had not been entered in the MOSES system.

Mr. Thurston stated he had gotten a call from Naples Bait & Tackle and told them he would follow up.

Mrs. Camuso stated the Department offered to facilities that needed a device to reimburse them for up to $100.

V. Other Business

Mr. Fortier stated in the Square Lake area, the boat landing site that belonged to a private individual, the water was really low. The Square Lake area in the spring got a lot of fishing and they would like to be able to access it. Most of the people that had camps accessed it in the spring because that was when the water level allowed them to put boats in. The exceptionally low water level had brought things to a head with people wanting to access the lake. Maybe the state did not want to own the site, but a lot of people fished the lake.

Commissioner Woodcock stated it had been discussed and was discussed often.

Mr. Brautigam stated typically when we utilized federal funds for water access development we had to have some kind of right or title to the site we developed and made those investments for the public. It also spoke to how the regional biologist was managing the waters. Management objectives there, and with the strategic planning we were trying to develop more water specific management plans with local stakeholder input. Square Lake had been managed more as a remote lake experience. The biologist may not be on the same page as far as enhancing access to the lake. Before considering any investments there we would have to make sure we had a site we could develop that would address the long-term needs. The current site may not be the best prospect for access development.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments and Questions

Katie Hansberry asked about the checking of traps, wasn't that once a day not 24 hours.

Ms. Camuso stated, once a day.

Melissa Sage asked about the squirrel issue. They were seeing a lot of dead squirrels and she was concerned it was going to cause an accident.

Mr. Cordes stated we had an outstand mast year last year which added to their survival and reproduction.

MR. Corson stated he would like to thank the Council and Commissioner for the effort that was put in on the heritage waters.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The Council would be notified of the next meeting.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Farrington and that was seconded by Mr. Sage to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
December 12 , 2018 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director, Bureau of Resource Management
Nate Webb, WRAS Supervisor
Kelsey Sullivan, Wildlife Biologist
Jen Vashon, Wildlife Biologist
Steve Allarie, Warden Service Corporal
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Don Dudley (Chair)
Jeff Lewis
Jerry Scribner
Sheri Oldham
Brian Smith - by phone
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Dick Fortier
Larry Farrington

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Fern and Sylvia Bosse, Norway
Katie Hansberry, HSUS
James Cote, MTA
Don Kleinerm, MPGA
Bob Parker, MPGA


I. Call to Order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Chapter 4 Rules repeal and replace

Mrs. Theriault stated a brief overview was given at the last meeting on the general changes throughout. This would break the rule into three chapters, Chapter 4 would remain as the falconry rules, Chapter 16 for Hunting and Chapter 17 for Trapping. We tried to be consistent with a table of contents, scope of the rules, charts for season dates, etc. A complete review of WMD boundaries was done. A list of edits was distributed to the Council with substantive changes highlighted. For Chapter 16 sections with substantive changes included labeling of moose; requirement of ovary submission; deer either sex permits; antlerless deer for a portion of a WMD; the emergency rule change pertaining to CWD; all moose hunting WMDs the hunting would end ½ hour after sunset; tagging stations and standards for agents and requirement for credit check before approval.

Mrs. Theriault stated the changes for Chapter 17 – Trapping, there was a lot of variation and the requirement for reporting if a species was caught out of season and we tried to make that consistent; beaver trapping language was made consistent with ITP language to make it October through April; incidental catch during the beaver season the rule only allowed for the keep of otter and mink was added; in following the AFWA best management practices for muskrat and included a minimum jaw spread for a foothold trap used on a cover float muskrat set of 3 11/16”. The 1 ½” foothold set was removed because the manufacturers had a variety of names for foothold traps that were typically used for muskrat sets, the minimum/maximum size allowed the agency to set measurable parameters for the trap size.

Mrs. Oldham stated 3 11/16' was a strange size, was that a standard trap size?

Mr. Webb stated it was about the size of a 1 ½”. There was sort of a standard size but it diverged over time. There was a different numbering system based on the manufacturer so rather than use a numbering system which was not really standard we were proposing to go with just a set size.

Mr. Thurston stated we just wanted to ensure that it was the right size trap to effectively do what it needed to.

Mrs. Theriault stated under fur bearing animals there used to be an exemption for taxidermists that they did not need to tag raw skins if they were imported. We could not locate a statutory reference that allowed them to be exempt. We had received a few public comments on the proposal regarding trapping. When it stated “no person may set, place or tend any killer type trap unless set completely underwater except” the word “except” was removed and replaced with “set completely underwater at all times.” There was concern with the interpretation and enforcement of that, so there was discussion of removing the language, “at all times” from the proposal. The other comment pertaining to Chapter 16 – Hunting was on transportation of live cervids.

Mr. Connolly stated deer were regulated in two places in state government. IFW had sole jurisdiction over whitetailed deer and no one was allowed to keep them as pets. The Department of Agriculture regulated deer farms and shooting preserves. By agreement between agriculture and IFW the four species allowed to be used in those facilities for cervids were elk, red deer, sika deer and fallow deer. Agriculture had regulations in terms of health when they came into the state. Through an MOU with the Commissioner’s called for in statute, those four species were the limit of what could be brought into the state for agricultural purposes, but also there was a health standard that was enforced. If any animal was brought into the state to be put into a facility they had to come from a state that was CWD free, and from a certified herd. A certified herd related to the USDA standards. Currently, no one was importing live deer into Maine for shooting preserves. Most of the deer farms in Maine were very small. There was an exemption in statute for live animals to be brought in for same day slaughter in southern Maine. That was ongoing related to a particular business.

Mr. Connolly stated on the captive wildlife side, we put all cervids in as a Category 1 exhibitors only species to prevent people having deer as pets. There were some deer in Maine that were pets and kept to be exhibited i.e. reindeer. When we redid the captive wildlife rule, we made health as a condition for the Commissioner to deny the right to import. If you were importing for deer farms you had to have permission from agriculture, if you were going to import into Maine any exotic wildlife you had to have permission from the Commissioner of IFW, get an importation permit and produce a health certificate. We were currently not allowing anyone to bring deer in for exhibitors permits for Maine. We were concerned about the enforcement of the herd certification program nationwide. There had been some serious lapses, the majority of new cases of CWD in terms of facilities or states in the last year had come from certified facilities and noncompliance. The state vet was very committed to a program of testing and following up. They tested every animal that died in a captive deer facility in Maine. From an IFW standpoint, we were monitoring deer across the state. We were sampling in towns where there were deer farms and sampling wild deer adjacent to that. The idea of a total ban on moving live deer across the country was being discussed. There were some states that were prohibiting any wild deer from being brought into their state. Most everyone was looking at a ban on the movement of carcasses. Ours had been strengthened in the proposed rule.

Mr. Lewis stated there had to be something done to educate people on CWD within the country to get people to comply with laws for transporting carcasses.

Mr. Connolly stated there was no current test that could be done on a live animal. There was no vaccination and there was no cure once the animal contracted CWD. Many animals exhibited no symptoms while they were capable of transmitting the disease. That had been the concern in terms of any movement of a live animal, it created that risk and potential for a problem. At the border we messaged to the sporting camps that dealt with Anticosti Island that we had the ban in place and to notify hunters coming to Maine to respect that ban. Anyone that came to the border with a whole deer was given the chance to take it back into Canada and have it cut up before they brought it across the border. In a number of other states CWD was in the wild deer herd and it was moving through the mechanism of contact. Feeding was a problem. When you congregated deer any disease was an issue. Some of our radio collared deer were venturing in the summertime into Canada and CWD was present in Quebec.

Mr. Thurston asked at what point would the Department say you could no longer feed deer in Maine. How could we limit our exposure to this challenge? Urine based lures were being discussed as well.

Commissioner Woodcock stated the messaging that went out surrounding the Quebec scenario with CWD had to do with what the future held for IFW and deer. In that messaging we cited that feeding was a concern and urine based lures were discussed as well. It was out there that we were considering banning feeding. The dormancy of the prions was an interesting fact.

Mr. Webb stated it was more than 10 years.

Mr. Connolly stated that states that had CWD spent millions of dollars to try and address it. One of the impacts was that it also affected hunting participation and the tourist dollars that accompanied that.

Mr. Farrington stated there was no way to test the animals while they were alive.

Mr. Connolly stated there was no test currently. You could do surgery and pull the nodes but you would have to sedate the animal. There was no easily applied blood test.

Mr. Fortier asked how well the Canadians were looking at the disease on their border? He had seen deer crossing the frozen St. John River because coyotes were chasing them.

Mr. Connolly stated we were looking at how we could sample deer along the border. Probably the best way to do that would be to look at road kills. The International border was not a border to wildlife and we had deer, lynx, etc. that moved back and forth across the border. Part of our telemetry study had shown movement as much as 84 miles.

Mr. Webb stated the rough average distance in the north for a collared deer between winter and summer was about 20 miles. Sometimes they moved over 50 miles. Typically, those deer were associated with feeding operations. That was a risk we were concerned about with them coming from Quebec where CWD was present and may not be present in the wild yet. We did not know the answer to that, and then coming into Maine where there was a significant concentration of deer at a feeding site.

Mr. Connolly stated Quebec was taking it serious in that they created a line around the area where they documented the infection and were looking to eliminate deer. They were doing a testing program and minimizing the movement of carcasses of any deer that were taken out of that area. They had allowed whitetailed deer to be held in captivity and he thought they were looking at that as well as a liability.

Mr. Fortier asked if temperature or climate played any part.

Mr. Connolly stated probably not. Looking at the states that had CWD in the provinces a lot of them had been in very cold areas. It was more an infected animal coming in contact with a non-infected animal.

2. Animal Damage Control rules

Mrs. Theriault stated this was the first time we’d had a rule on the animal damage control program. We wanted to have a testing process and be able to have minimum experience requirements and some training. We had a committee that met on it monthly. We were establishing an application process, operating standards and eligibility requirements which would include a background check. They had to show minimum experience and we would provide training to them in the form of training materials they would have to read and sign off on. Much of that would be available online. We broke the certification into classifications of Home and Garden, All Other, Bats and Hazing with Dogs.

Mrs. Oldham stated in the specifications, the calls she received as an Advisory Council member were nuisance wildlife complaints. Including the Advisory Council in the process we needed to have a central ADC number for people to be referred to rather than referring them to a warden.

Mr. Connolly stated the state police dispatch had the numbers for the ADC agents and could make a referral directly. We would be strengthening the reporting by ADC agents so we would know what they were doing and then we could track the problems and sorts of situations they were addressing.

C. Step 1.

1. Commercial Whitewater Rafting Rules

Corporal Allarie stated the rule was initiated by the commercial industry themselves. He met with them on three separate occasions as well as dialogue through most of the summer and a fall meeting to come up with the proposed rule. They were having difficulty meeting their allocation system that was currently under state law. Their review process was coming due and they wanted the Department’s help to have a better system in place where they could maintain their allocations. Currently we had 36 Kennebec allocations for sale and had not been able to sell them for over 6 years. Under section 14.03 which dealt with CPR and First Aid, we would be allowing online courses. In 2008 language was removed due to the fact that the online courses were not good enough and we had no way to confirm who had actually taken the test. Now the online courses were much better and the outfitters would like to have that option.

Mrs. Oldham stated there were more and better courses available, but there were still bad ones out there. Were we going to specify the best ones that were available?

Corporal Allarie stated if the website met the standards we proposed, they would be able to use it and we could address any questionable courses if they arose. Under section 14.05 it talked about minimum specifications for size capacity. They were allowed to use a craft 13 feet in length on any rapidly flowing river except the West Branch. If they wrote to the Commissioner to ask permission to do so they could if the conditions warranted. The water had been consistent on the West Branch and he had an outfitter ask to offer the trips for 13 ft. rafts. The outfitter took the liability and there were very few accidents on the West Branch. In section 14.07 the proposal would simplify the 5-year allocation review period. We had to review their performance every 5 years and it was based on an industry average. The industry average on the Kennebec River for a 5 year period for them using their allocations was around 64%. The proposal would hopefully give more stability to the industry. The goal was 80% for many years, the outfitters needed to meet 80% of their allocations in a given year to maintain 100% or we would take allocations back after a 5-year review. Currently we could not sell them if we took them back. The industry average was 64% so he felt reducing it by 10% to 70% for a minimum standard would work. If their average was 70% they could keep 100% of their allocations.

Corporal Allarie stated we needed to maintain an order of launch for commercial outfitters. It was based on seniority. The trend we were seeing was more non-commercial rafters than commercial activity on a given day. The rule was last revised in 2011 and we felt we could refer to the website and update when necessary rather than go through the rulemaking process to make a change to the order of launch and the outfitters were in favor of that. Any violations would still be listed in rule.

Mr. Farrington asked if the order of launch had a particular timing based on the water release from the dams?

Corporal Allarie stated it was based on 1,000 commercial passengers on a Saturday for the months of July and August. The water came up at 9:50a.m. and the first-time slot (Northern Outdoors) was expected to be there ready to go. On a Saturday in July or August it would be backed up. They only had a 3-hour window of water flow. The industry had declined significantly and the Department was trying to help any way we could.

2. Wild Turkey Spring and Fall seasons

Mr. Sullivan stated the proposal was to change the spring season in WMDs 1-6 up north. For four years we had a split A and B season and based on your birth year (even or odd) to spread out the hunting pressure and the number of people on the landscape at any given time. It alternated by year who would hunt the first and third weeks of the season and then everyone would hunt the fifth week. To start out the season the turkey numbers were not as high in the north and it was a new hunt on the landscape and there was concern about negative landowner implications. It was springtime and there was concern with hunters going on soft ground. The intent was to spread the pressure out by half the number of people hunting in any given week. There had been no indication of issues with landowners over the last four years. The turkey numbers were stable there. There were not many open fields in WMDs 1-6 so we did not expect expansion beyond what we were seeing. We had relatively low spring harvest in those WMDs. The lowest harvest in WMD 1 was 4. The highest harvest was WMD 6 with 37 birds in the spring. Looking at statewide trends for turkey harvest it fluctuated with high and low years all within the bounds of sustainable numbers. Looking at the harvest numbers for WMDs 5 and 6 their harvest trends matched the statewide trends. We had not seen a crash in turkey numbers since having the spring hunt. We were proposing to eliminate the A/B season so that all spring turkey hunters in WMDs 1-6 could hunt the 5 weeks. Mr. Sullivan stated the second part of the proposal was to increase in WMD 26 to a two-bird limit in the fall season.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham asked about a fall turkey season in WMD 7?

Mr. Sullivan stated there was not one being proposed. We had high productivity that year so there had been interest in becoming more liberal in a lot of places. We were addressing that and working on a more science based process to allocate harvest across the WMDs.

Mr. Scribner stated in terms of the finalization of bag limits and season lengths, it seemed to him that turkeys, as well as deer, until we knew each year what the mortality was during the winter it was hard to peg a reasonable biological basis for the season and bag limits. From a timing perspective, did we have built into any proposed season the ability to modify based on winter mortality.

Mr. Sullivan stated we were monitoring female survival with the research project and also winter conditions. The study would give us more science based information to incorporate into the new management system.

Mr. Thurston stated the mast crops were significantly less than they had been, what effect would that have on the birds through the winter?

Mr. Sullivan stated he suspected we would see a significant effect on birds because of the lack of mast crops. They would gravitate towards dairy farms and feeders. Production was based on an insect diet because of high proteins.

3. Bear Trapping rules

Mr. Connolly stated we had the emergency rule we put in place for bear trapping to address a concern we had about the liability of bear traps for lynx. We never had any documented mortality of lynx in a bear trap but there was a concern when a new trapping mechanism was presented to us for review and made us aware of a technique and potential liability we felt we needed to be addressed so we used the emergency rule to address it temporarily. The emergency rule would expire 90 days from the effective date. It gave us a chance to review the issue. We found there were some concerns with the way some of the devices were structured. We were completing some testing and would be putting forth some guidance. It appeared some of the characteristics for the “critter done” device were effective and precluding capture of certain animals in a way that would be harmful. There were some best management practices and there was a positive benefit when implementing those. In terms of the weight on top of the trap was significant. A lynx would not move a 35-pound weight on top of the trap. The bear trappers had recommended that, but it was not required. That was part of our concern having practices in place that we knew would be used consistently so that we would have a predictable response in terms of what the exposure was to lynx to bear to other animals. If it was not in rule, even though the manufacturer assured they were suggesting that, there was no mechanism to ensure that it happened consistently. There were some principles we needed to consider such as the weight on the trap which would select what size animal or what species would be capable of moving that to get at the device; the opening of the device to limit an animals entry into that device and the positioning of the bait. Was the bait accessible to the animals mouth or was it something it had to reach in with a paw to get at. These were all things we were looking at. Bear trapping rules had been designed to catch the bear by the foot. We were looking at reinforcing those procedures to make sure that was what happened and if there was a chance for any other animal to get caught that it would be by the foot as well. We had stops in place now on the cable to limit how narrow it would close (cub stops). A small animal could pull their foot out of the device. We may recommend a slight adjustment in those as well.

V. Other Business

1. Black Bear Management Plan

Biologist Jenn Vashon gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Black Bear Management Plan (available upon request to Becky.Orff@maine.gov)

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Fortier stated in his area they had conflicts with bears because of sprawl. People were moving in and putting up housing developments in the middle of the wildlife habitat. In the spring the bears were out looking for food. They would go to garages, garbage areas, etc. He thought if we had a better plan when a live trap was set to remove the bear from the conflicted areas it would help. It was a money issue at times and where to move the bears to relocate them.

Mrs. Vashon stated in the new ADC policy they were addressing some of those issues. It had generally been our policy that we did not move black bears. There were situations where we do move them such as human safety threat or causing significant damage. However, moving a black bear is not always effective as they often hone in and return to those areas. They are also at greater risk of dying when moved (hit by vehicles, shot causing damage, etc.). What is often the most effective, is working with the individuals and community to identify what the attractant was and work with them to remove or secure the attractants.

Mrs. Oldham stated one of the objectives in the new plan was to increase hunter participation. She felt we needed to increase successful hunter participation. Bear hunting was not easy and the idea of increasing the bag limit to two by either method, we now had the ability to instantaneously know harvest. Would it not be reasonable to entertain that a successful bear hunter that harvested two bears could apply for a third? We knew what the harvest was and the objective, therefore whatever WMD we were looking at trying to keep under carrying capacity, let them have a third one.

Mrs. Vashon stated when we looked at the plan we recognized it would be hard to increase participation right away but we needed to increase harvest. There was some concern from groups that there would be too many that would take advantage of the two-bear limit and we would overharvest. We would probably move forward with caution.

Mr. Scribner stated in terms of a spring season, he assumed that would be a legislative change. If we were not meeting our harvest objectives that would be one of the easiest ways to get there.

Mrs. Vashon stated it would be legislative. It was a contentious issue.

Mr. Thurston stated with the direct data entry, when could the public see the data.

Mr. Webb stated it had been a big project. Our focus had been to get the system up and working and getting the data into the system. Our plan was to make the information more available to the public on our website in near real time. We were still fixing errors with preliminary numbers and things that hunters were reporting to us when they received confirmation emails. It would take time once seasons closed to release official numbers. We were planning to make the information more available after the seasons.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments and Questions

Katie Hansberry stated she wanted to say thank you for all the conversation that came about from the comment they submitted on CWD. She also wanted to comment that she appreciated being part of the black bear subcommittee. It was a productive process and even though she was not on board with many of the things that came out in the plan, she did appreciate having the opportunity and to submit comments that were on record. She also wanted to point out that the survey Mrs. Vashon mentioned in her presentation that went out to the general public about whether or not they supported legal hunting, it didn’t get into the specific practices. She felt it was important not to read into that whether or not people answering were specifically responding about whether or not they supported specific practices as opposed to supporting bear hunting generally. Even though it did say legal bear hunting, she did not think that necessarily got through to people that was what was trying to be captured.

Bob Parker stated he had some comments on the new tagging system. It was very good and very much needed. He did see there were some problems with it and some things we could do to make it better.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next Advisory Council meeting was tentatively scheduled for January 16, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta
Thursday, March 21, 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.




I-A. Moment of Silence


II. Introductions



III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1.Commercial Whitewater Rafting rules - Steve Allarie

B. Step 2.

1. Bear Trapping rules - Nate Webb

2. Migratory bird season 2019-2020 - Kelsey Sullivan

C. Step 1

1. 2019 Moose permit allocations - Nate Webb

2.Wild Trout Conservation Strategy - North Zone General Law Concept - Francis Brautigam

3. Ch. 20 Taxidermy - Freeze Dried classification - Christl Theriault

4. Ch. 13 Watercraft rules - Christl Theriault

5. Wild Turkey hunting - fall season - Kelsey Sullivan

Other Business

1. LD 1298 - An Act to Enhance Fish & Wildlife Laws - Commissioner Camuso

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 a.m. VI. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule for Next Meeting
IX. Adjournment 12:00 P.M.

Advisory Council Meeting
January 29 , 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Judy Camuso, Acting Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Nate Webb, WRAS Supervisor
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Specialist
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Matt Lubejko, Fisheries Planner Steve Allarie, Warden Service Corporal
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Don Dudley (Chair)
Jerry Scribner
Sheri Oldham
Brian Smith - by phone
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Dick Fortier
Larry Farrington
Shawn Sage

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Fern Bosse, Norway
Katie Hansberry, HSUS
Brian Cogill, MTA
Jeff Reardon, MTA
Bob Parker, TU
Steve Wood


I. Call to Order

Don Dudley Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Gunderson to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Sage

Vote: Unanimous - minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Chapter 4 Rules repeal and replace

Mrs. Theriault stated there were a few minor changes to Chapters 16 and 17. For the new Chapter 16 Hunting, under section 16.07 there was an error with the header; moose hunting season and districts there was an internal proposal to modify the second week of the moose season to start on the first Monday of October rather than the second Monday. After further review it was determined to keep the second Monday start date and the proposed change was removed. Chapter 17 Trapping, a modification was made to the definition of a steel foothold trap to make it easier to understand. Under Section 17.05 a season end date was corrected; under 17.06 a word was corrected to read beaver instead of muskrat.

Mr. Thurston stated there were some discussions on other zones moving into the September moose hunting season. A lot of comments from the public were that they would rather hunt that period.

Mrs. Theriault stated we should have a chance to do that when we proposed our regular moose hunting season rules. We didn't want to incorporate anything substantive in the clean-up.

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham to accept the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

2. Animal Damage Control Rules

Mr. Cordes stated this was a new rule as part of our modernization of the ADC policy and program. We needed to align with other rules with our certificates and permitting. In addition to previous categories we had created hazing with dogs and a specific class for bats. Part of the rule would be an examination for new applicants so we partnered with National Wildlife Control training out of Cornell University and the University of Nebraska and they were going to create a manual for the Department. They would also be able to create the test. If anyone was previously certified they would not have to take the test.

Mr. Sage asked how many states used the program.

Mr. Cordes stated there was an internet center for wildlife damage and they had created that; they had been around for a number of years.

Mr. Sage asked if there was reciprocity between states.

Mr. Cordes stated he did not think so. New York, West Virginia, Virginia, were some of the states had adopted that ADC agents had to be certified. Maine was not one of those. We would have the exam but someone would not have to pay a $200 training fee.

Mr. Farrington asked if someone had been an agent for 10 years, would they be up to the standards of the new agents.

Mr. Cordes stated they would be grandfathered and would not have to take the exam. Part of the modernization of updating the policy would include some of that information.

Mrs. Theriault stated when someone renewed they would still have to meet the training standards even if they didnt have to retest. There would be an obligation for them to read the educational material that we provided and sign off on that to bring them up to speed.

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

B. Step 2

1. Commercial Whitewater Rafting Rules

Corporal Allarie stated there were no changes except for a spacing correction. The information for the proposal was based on and supported by the commercial rafting industry. There were no public comments received on the proposal. The rule was to enhance our allocation system for reviewing purposes to help them due to a decline in the industry. The Kennebec was the big issue, the Penobscot had held its own. The annual numbers were not good on the Kennebec. Their allocation system they were paying for was declining every year based on the percentage of use. The old review criteria was based on a 5-year review to ensure they were complying with state laws, providing a quality service and utilizing their allocations. The proposal was from information they proposed on a simpler method for review and the percentage would change. It would be this 5 years, here is the percentage, the criteria to meet and they were in the 55% - 60% range for use on the Kennebec. It was declining each year. We were seeing an increase in non-commercial use on the Kennebec. The Penobscot was not seeing as much, it was a more technical river. We were trying to help the outfitters as much as we could. They wanted to keep an allocation system, however, they thought it was time to make some modifications. The last time that was done was in the 1980s. We currently had about 34 allocations on the Kennebec River that we could not sell.

Council Member comments and questions

Mr. Fortier asked what was the reason for the decline in use.

Corporal Allarie stated on the Kennebec it was easy access. Even someone with no rafting experience could make it down the Kennebec. Many were drinking which we were trying to get a handle on. The commercial outfitters offered a great program but there were some things they could not do. The young people today didnt want to go on the two-day excursion in northern Maine without internet and long overnights. They wanted a quick fix as was being offered in Boston. Groupon was an issue on the West Branch of the Penobscot. There were a few outfitters that did Groupon and got $25 for a raft trip and then had to pay their guide $100. Distance, gas prices, extended forecasts for weather, etc. were all contributing factors to the decline.

Mr. Sage asked what allocations were and how did they work.

Corporal Allarie stated we allowed 1,000 commercial passengers to go down on an allocated day. An allocated day was every Saturday on the Kennebec and every Saturday on the West Branch for the months of July and August. No outfitter could exceed 120 people on a Saturday. This was in place in the 80s when business was booming and the groups were competing for use on the same water. We had specific launch times and it was by public auction that they were sold to the outfitters. They had to maintain a standard so we would take the industry average for every 5-year review. If they were not using the allocations, we took them back.

Mrs. Oldham asked if the whitewater rafting business had a seat at the R-3 summit.

Commissioner Camuso stated she believed so.

Mr. Farrington asked if the allocations had to be coordinated with the power company for the opening of the dam for the water.

Corporal Allarie stated it was a separate license. Brookfield had their own license for all outfitters and they arranged that ahead of time during the spring. They had a fall meeting to discuss water releases, how much they were guaranteed and what their license restrictions were going to be. They had significant insurance requirements. In the spring when they met it was to finalize their license agreement with Brookfield based on water releases. They were guaranteed releases for 3 hours of water.

Mr. Fortier asked if the industry ever held a forum to see what others were doing that made them more successful or cross train.

Corporal Allarie stated they were starting to see more of that after going away from the affiliation law.

C. Step 1

1. Bear Trapping Rules

Mr. Webb stated last summer we became aware of some bear trapping devices and trapping techniques that we felt posed a small risk of incidental take of lynx. Lynx were listed federally as a threatened species and we had an incidental take permit (ITP) that allowed a maximum of three lynx to be incidentally taken over the course of the permit. Unfortunately, we had two of those events the first year of the permit. As a result, we passed an emergency rule just before the start of the 2018 bear trapping season. The rule expired after 90 days. We committed to go through regular rulemaking to address the issue long term. We held a public informational meeting in Augusta on October 18, 2018 that was well attended by the trapping community with the objective of getting feedback on various design standards and ways of setting bear traps that could minimize the risk of catching non-target species, lynx in particular.

Mr. Webb stated we took that information and suggestions and consulted internally to develop some recommendations to address the issue and reduce the potential for incidental catch of a lynx. As part of that, going through the big game planning process the bear subcommittee had a number of recommendations for bear trapping that we wanted to incorporate in the rulemaking effort. The draft rule took the existing language and added a number of additional requirements. Changes that resulted from the big game planning effort were sort of basic design standards for bear trapping that we used for research and that the vast majority of trappers already used. They followed best management practices, they were fairly standard among bear trappers to minimize the potential for injury for bears. The big game subcommittee recommended entrenching those in rule to make those requirements for everyone. They included things such as minimum diameter for the cable to ensure the cable was strong enough, swivels, fixed anchor as opposed to a drag as well as some other items related to the catch circle and reducing the potential for entanglement. They were all things we required for other types of foothold trapping for other species. A new component to the rule specifically addressed the types of traps that led to the concern last summer, the so-called "bucket or pipe-style" traps. The proposed language would set a minimum inside diameter of the device as well as a minimum opening size of 6, would limit the type of bait that could be placed within the device to limit its attractiveness to species other than bear, and would also require the trigger to be recessed at a depth that would make it very difficult for non-target species to trigger the device. Where the bait may be placed to make sure that its not accessible to other species and the requirement that the device be covered by a weight to prevent access by non-target species. Those were all things that were recommended by the trapping community and used to develop the proposal.

Council Member comments and questions

Mr. Sage asked how long the ITP was for.

Mr. Webb stated it was a 15-year permit and went into effect in 2014, so 2029. The USFWS had announced its intention to develop a rule to propose delisting. Their timeline was to have a proposed rule for public comment by the fall of 2019. There was potential that lynx could be delisted before 2029.

Commissioner Camuso stated that would not lessen our need to protect lynx.

Mr. Webb stated we felt regardless of whether lynx were listed or not we had an obligation as a state agency to minimize take as we did for other non-target species.

Mr. Sage asked about studies in the state to see if the lynx population had started to grow.

Mr. Webb stated we had an active survey underway. This was the 5th of a 5-year study resurveying towns across northern Maine to document whether or not the range had expanded. We had seen a fairly substantial range expansion since the surveys were done about 15 years ago. The USFWS did a species status assessment as part of their process to determine whether they would propose delisting or not. One of the things that went into that status assessment and we believe ultimately led to their recommendation was all the information we gathered in Maine. Lynx were doing much better in Maine than anybody thought when they were listed almost 20 years ago.

Mrs. Oldham stated when Jenn Vashon did the presentation for the bear management plan as part of the big game management assessment she spoke about the two bear limit and that it used to be one by either hunting or trapping and they were going to recommend that be eliminated. No person may have more than one trap set at any one time, as long as they hadnt already harvested one bear. Was that a possibility you could set two traps if you hadnt harvested any. We wanted to increase the bear harvest.

Mr. Webb stated the bear bag limit was set in statute and the limit was two, one by hunting and one by trapping. That was not something we could change in rule. There was a bill before the Legislature to give the Department full authority to regulate the limit through rulemaking.

Mr. Sage asked if we had the harvest numbers from the seasons bear hunt.

Mr. Webb stated it was around 3,309. We needed to harvest approximately 15% of adult females to stabilize the population. Our bear population estimate was approaching 40,000. It would take a substantial increase in harvest to stabilize the bear population.

Mr. Smith asked if there was a bill in the Legislature to go to a two-bear limit in the fall.

Commissioner Camuso stated if we had the authority to set the bag limit in statute she would look to the bear subcommittee to make recommendations for a variable bag limit across the state similar to deer management.

Mr. Webb stated we believed a bigger challenge was to increase participation in bear hunting. There would be a certain percent of hunters that were interested in harvesting two bears and a smaller percent that were actually successful. We believed that would help get us towards our goal but unlikely to get us all the way. A big part of our bear management plan moving forward which tied in with our R3 program was to increase hunter interest and participation in bear hunting.

2. Migratory Bird season 2019-2020

Mr. Sullivan stated for the most part the proposal was pretty standard compared to last year, a 60-day season for regular ducks. There were some changes to the mallard bag limit. This was a directive from the USFWS based on mallard population trends across the northeast and most of the Atlantic flyway. Mallard numbers were going way down and states were directed to go from 4 to 2 mallards per day during the regular season. Prior to that, we had a hen restriction where only 2 of those 4 previously could be hens and its going to a 1 hen restriction with the reduction from 4 to 2 total. The waterfowl community was well informed of the change. It was different in Maine, we had a healthy mallard population but we derived our harvest from Eastern Canada from a different source than almost 95% of the rest of the flyway. It was a flyway wide management perspective.

Mr. Sullivan stated the other change was pintails which didnt necessarily effect Maine waterfowl hunters but because of the breeding population estimates we were going from last year with 2 in the bag to 1 this coming season. The other change was the coastal zone regular goose season. Our goose populations derived from Atlantic population geese which were Hudson Bay west and North Atlantic population (NAP) geese which were east of Hudson Bay. 95% of the geese we got from migration were from the NAP, the eastern Hudson Bay population. That population was managed differently from the western population. Because of that, bag limits and season lengths were different. Most of Maines harvest in the coastal zone was from our resident population, birds that bred in Maine and a very low percentage were migrant geese that were taken in the coastal zone. There was a caveat in the USFWS that allowed if you could derive your harvest mostly from resident geese in a particular zone you could increase your season length and bag limit. That was why our coastal zone was going to be different than our northern and southern zone in terms of the regular goose season. The remainder of the proposal was pretty much a shift in date based on the calendar. Next year, the regular duck season north zone start date would be 5 days later. Because of the calendar, we could set our seasons the Saturday closest to September 24. Every seven years it shifted so the north zone would be almost a week later.

3. Wild Trout Conservation Strategy - North Zone General Law concept

Mr. Brautigam stated this was a fairly bold initiative that required quite a commitment from staff and the public and the heritage working group to pull together. This was an effort to conserve our native trout in the state. In northern Maine you currently could use live baitfish anywhere unless there was a specific special regulation that prohibited that. We were proposing to prohibit the use of live fish as bait as a general law in the north zone with exceptions. There would still be waters where we would retain opportunities to fish with live fish as bait. This was being done to discourage introductions of fish and other things found in the bait bucket from ending up in waters that were supporting our brook trout and charr populations. The range of the Eastern brook trout extended from Maine to Georgia. Maine and parts of New Hampshire stood out in the range where other states were seeing decline. Some of the threats that had contributed to the range wide declines included development which caused habitat degradation, barriers and introductions of fish that competed with brook trout. Brook trout did not compete with other fish very well and were quite vulnerable when exposed to new introductions of fish. That was the underlying reason why we were developing the strategy to better conserve the wild trout populations we had in Maine.

Mr. Brautigam stated this started from proposed legislation in 2017-2018 and resulted in direction from the IFW legislative committee where they were interested in seeing additional protections to tributaries to heritage ponds. Heritage ponds were waters that were on a special list that represented waters that supported self-sustaining populations of wild brook trout and charr. When waters were elevated to that status the Department was required to impose a no live fish as bait restriction in order to protect those populations. The Department pulled together a heritage working group which was comprised of Department staff and some public members in the conservation community. In October of 2018 a report was formed detailing their work to try to address the concerns and direction set forth by the Legislature. The main reason the Department was not excited about the proposed legislation to add no live fish as bait to all the tributaries to heritage ponds was, in part, there were 578 ponds, many which would have tributaries. Many of the ponds were in very remote areas and not in places where people were inclined to use live fish as bait. We felt the risk of introductions was extremely low in those settings and that compliance and enforcement would be poor and it didnt address the issue of fish being able to swim up into the heritage ponds from some outlets.

Mr. Brautigam stated we remained committed to addressing the fundamental concern expressed by the Legislature to establish some protections to tributaries. We wanted to do this in a way that would not alienate all the different user groups and be sensitive to their concerns. We established 8 guiding principles that would guide development of the proposal. The initiative was going to focus the northern zone, we managed the south zone differently. The focus on the north zone was that 95% of our heritage waters were located there. Maine waterways supported a lot of healthy wild brook trout populations that would also benefit from broader levels of protections. We spent several years restructuring and simplifying the fishing law book and we wanted to be sensitive to that. We were also concerned about not eliminating traditional fishing opportunities. Fishing with live fish as bait in Maine was a traditional form of fishing. There was a small economy associated with bait collection and sale in Maine and we wanted to support that as well as those that liked to collect bait themselves. We identified three potential approaches to meeting our expectations with the Legislature and trying to provide a broader level of protection into our native wild trout resources. The first was adding no live fish as bait protections to tributaries to heritage ponds. This was not an initiative that we thought was meaningful and would add a lot of regulations to the lawbook. The second approach was going to no live fish as bait in all the flowing waters in the north zone with exceptions. That would be more comprehensive and address waters where there was a greater likelihood of people using live fish as bait. The third strategy that we were looking to advance through rulemaking was where we would change the general law to no live fish as bait in the north zone with exceptions. This would provide the most comprehensive approach to conserving our wild trout populations in the northern zone. It targeted the vast majority of waters where the public would be more likely to fish with live fish as bait and increased the opportunity for us to see a reduction in special regulations in the law book.

Mr. Brautigam stated the proposal would control the use of live fish as bait, it did not eliminate opportunities to use dead fish as bait. The proposal was for all north zone waters, those that were currently open to ice fishing would retain the use of live fish as bait. That represented, from the bait industry standpoint, where most of the bait sales were occurring. Staff had been tasked with the responsibility of identifying waters where there was significant traditional use of live fish as bait during the open water season. Both the waters currently open to using live fish as bait in the winter as well as those where there was a tradition of using live fish as bait during the open water season, those waters would be identified and listed with special regulations in the law book.

Council Member questions and comments

Mrs. Oldham stated during the open water season there were many alternatives to the live fish as bait, but she did not understand why the recommendation was considered important. She did not have any idea how many waters we would be talking about with the last recommendation.

Mr. Lubejko stated about 60 lakes and ponds during the open water season that would retain the use of live fish as bait.

Mrs. Oldham asked how important they felt that recommendation was.

Mr. Brautigam stated it was a consideration as part of the development of the proposal and we were trying to ensure that moving forward we would be able to establish broad based support from the different stakeholder interests. Staff in some of the regions were quite concerned that the average angler would be losing opportunity to fish with traditional methods.

Mr. Sage asked how many of the 60 waters had a substantial brook trout population.

Mr. Brautigam stated they were waters that were open to open water fishing that may or may not have trout or salmon or they may be warm water fisheries. Staff were asked to identify waters where there was a definite tradition of fishing with live fish as bait and where use was more than incidental.

Mrs. Oldham commented on the statement Mr. Brautigam made that protecting the tributaries of all 500 state heritage waters was not practical because fish swam upstream. She thought it was a harder argument to make that during open water fishing, that population of anglers justified potential risk of illegal fish swimming upstream and hurting some of the state heritage waters.

Mr. Brautigam stated in crafting the proposal we were seeking balance. The initiative was broad enough that it could have gone in the other direction, it was pretty comprehensive in scope. If they saw what would be off limits to using live fish as bait in the north zone after the rule he thought they would be pleasantly surprised at the number of waters afforded those protections. It was substantial.

Mr. Farrington stated in the lawbook there were a few ponds that said you could use live bait in the pond if you caught the bait in the pond, i.e. Sheepscot Lake. Why couldnt they do that with the 60 waters they were discussing.

Mr. Brautigam stated it was hard to enforce. If they were limited to using only dead bait they would have some assurances. When we provided opportunities for using live fish as bait we lost some of the controls over the source of the bait. It had been discussed.

Mr. Brautigam stated we had done two email blasts to the public explaining the initiative. We also conducted two public informational meetings and had participation from about 70 members of the public. At the meetings, there was a lot of interest in moving forward with strategies that were going to conserve wild trout resources. There were a few comments suggesting there may be some reservations. The vast majority of the people in attendance were conservation minded and concerned about maintaining Maines unique wild trout and charr populations.

Mr. Brautigam stated in summary, we tried to develop a balanced approach by developing eight considerations to support the strategy that we were ultimately looking to move forward for conserving trout in the north zone. The strategy only limited where you could use live baitfish, it didnt limit where you could use baitfish. It would retain use of live fish as bait opportunities on all the waters that were currently open to ice fishing. It would stand to reason during open water you could do the same on those waters. It would retain additional waters during the open water season. We believed the initiative was bold and provided a much broader level of conservation for trout resources and exceeded the direction we had gotten from the Legislature. We saw benefits including further simplification of our fishing lawbook. Another important aspect which did affect bait dealers, they collected bait from various sources and stored them. The could store bait wherever they wanted except for a list of waters that excluded bait storage. Under the proposal that would change. The only places they would be able to store live fish as bait in public waters of the state would be in those waters that were going to be open to using live fish as bait. It would concentrate all the places people were using and or storing bait to a more limited number of waters.

Mrs. Oldham stated years ago, there was a baitfish committee that was tasked with trying to eliminate the multiple legal baitfish in Maine. Nothing came out of that as far as she knew.

Mr. Brautigam stated it was a pretty active group. They did shrink the list of legal baitfish slightly by removing 3 species of fish. They tried to focus on fish that were important to the commercial market. There were lots of other issues related to management of the bait industry that were discussed. Some which needed further resolution.

Mrs. Oldham asked if there was a baitfish which when illegally or inadvertently introduced into a brook trout water would be considered the most detrimental. They had talked about other waters which had lost their eastern brook trout population because of illegal introductions.

Mr. Brautigam stated smelt was a big one as far as charr were concerned and smaller brook trout ponds. In dealing with some of the reclamation projects and seeing what happened when golden shiners were reintroduced was quite interesting. There was some work that Tim Obrey had done on Moxie Pond looking at sucker removal, showing there was competition between brook trout and suckers. Brook trout just did not get along with other fish. The rule would discourage introductions from the bait bucket.




Mr. Fortier stated up north one of the concerns was muskie and trying to prevent them from getting into the Fish River Chain. The muskie fishing up there was a large sport fishing industry to the point where the purses for derbies were up to $15,000-$20,000 in the Fort Kent area. That year with the snow, high water and ice he was always worried about the muskie making it over. What detriment would that do to the brook trout?

Mr. Brautigam stated it was one of the reasons we had implemented some restrictive regulations on bait harvest in the St. John to make sure people wouldnt be taking muskie out and moving them. Dealing with invasives and introduced fish was one of the biggest challenges in the fisheries division.

V. Other Business

1. Ch. 34 Licensed Guide rules

Mrs. Theriault stated she had been working with the guide advisory board to update the guide rule chapter. The main focus was to bring language into current practice for what they did going through the testing process. There was a section we wanted to repeal that spoke to grandfathering, folks that had one or more classifications, if they were licensed pre-2002 they could pay a $100 fee and work up to their master guide license. Now, we required someone to pay $100 for each classification. We also wanted to add language about the background check requirement in statute. There was discussion about expanding what one or three years of experience really meant; competency standards.

There were no further comments or questions.

2. Ch. 13 Watercraft Rules

Mrs. Theriault stated it was brought to our attention that warden service had been dealing with complaints about loud boats, particularly on Sebago and Long Lake. There was a prohibition in statute that someone not exceed 90 decibels under a stationary test, 75 decibels in a moving test and that the Commissioner would prescribe the way in which the testing occurred. A rule was never implemented to describe the testing process. New Hampshire had been conducting testing for a number of years on Lake Winnipesaukee for loud boat noise and we had received a copy of their rules. We would try to implement a stationary process. The moving process was virtually impossible to conduct on Maine lakes. We were referring to the SAE national standards for prescribing the testing process.

Council Member comments and questions

Mrs. Oldham asked what the decibel level was on a standard motor such as a 250 hp Mercury while it was idling.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated in order to violate typically you would have to alter the exhaust. You would be testing against that.

Mr. Dudley asked about the moose permits for lodges legislation.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there was a new law passed that 2% of the total permits issued would go to lodges. There was a definition for commercial sporting lodges. The permits would be taken from the nonresident moose permits. This was the first year of implementation. The outfitters wanted to be able to sell the permits at sportsman shows. We held the lottery in January 2019, sent out applications the first week of December and drew the 50 outfitter permits. We took the list of licensed sporting camps from DHHS and we also took several camps that were licensed as eating and lodging facilities that had been previously licensed as sporting camps, and we sent them applications as well. We had received numerous questions on how the list was determined. We used the DHHS list. We mailed 104 applications and had approximately 47 outfitters apply for the 50 permits. Some outfitters received two permits. We had made the determination that once the outfitter received the permit we did not care what they did with it. The statute was written that if you were an outfitter and received a permit you could sell it, etc. The outfitter would need to pay the Department for the permit and by July 1 there needed to be a person assigned to the permit. Once a hunter was attached to the permit the law stated the hunter could not sell or trade or swap, it had to go back to the outfitter. We based the number of permits on what was issued for 2018.

Council Member comments and questions

Mr. Smith asked what the permit fee was

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated it was $1,500. The outfitter would apply like the regular lottery with zone choices, season choices, etc.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Jeff Reardon stated he wanted to commend staff for their work on the brook trout proposal. There was about two years of work in the proposal. The public meetings were some of the best hed ever been to. He shared Mrs. Oldhams concern about the list of 60 waters and they would be taking a close look at it. He thought some of them would be bass waters or muskie waters or waters where the baitfish species we were concerned about were already present. Some of them were likely to be waters that did not have a principal fishery for brook trout so would be less of a concern.

Steve Wood stated as a previous State Representative he used to get a lot of phone calls regarding the guide background check. Speaking with most of them, once he told them the reason why the bill was passed, they understood. Lately, he had been receiving calls about them not being able to get an appointment to get their fingerprints taken. Maybe we needed to allow sheriff or police stations to take fingerprints and then turn them over to state police. It was almost a month before he could get his fingerprints taken. Also, he had been at two sportsman shows and no one had asked him about trout fishing in Maine, they wanted to know about smallmouth bass fishing and northern pike. We did not promote that enough in Maine. It was harder to get bear hunters in Maine and there were some barriers such as the crossbow permit. You had to purchase a big game license before you could buy the crossbow permit. If you were a convicted felon you could not buy a big game license. We were hurting a group of people that would like to come to Maine.

Mr. Sage stated they could purchase an archery license and get the crossbow permit as long as they had the safety course.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated in regard to the guide background check, it was still new to the Department. We were going to review our procedures internally and work to streamline some of that and identify the problems that were brought up regarding IdentoGO.

Katie Hansberry stated she had been working with Bob Cordes on updating resources and policies for wildlife rehabilitators and it had been a great process. She hadnt been involved in the ADC work, but she was sure it was just as much of an undertaking. She just wanted to say a quick thank you.

Gary Corson stated he did not disagree with what he heard Mrs. Oldham say regarding the fishing proposal. The number of waters that he heard from Mr. Lubejko, he thought what they would find was that any principal brook trout water in northern Maine that currently allowed live fish as bait would continue to allow it. If they looked at it from the perspective of what they were actually getting, it was all of the low hanging fruit and it was huge. All the lower dead waters, all the beaver ponds, all the small brooks and streams. It was a big difference what you could currently use live fish as bait on. Whether people did or not that was another questions, but that was really what they were focused on. This was a huge step in the change to general law. He thought it was being done in a way that people were going to accept it. The proposal came from Fisheries and he served on the working group. He hoped the public hearings would follow the informational meetings where there really wasnt any opposition.

Brian Cogill stated he had more beaver complaints that winter about different places across the state. He never had so many beaver complaints.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in AugustaIX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Sage and that was seconded by Mr. Farrington to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta
Tuesday, April 30, 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.




I-A. Moment of Silence


II. Introductions



III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Bear Trapping rules - Nate Webb

2. Migratory bird season 2019-2020 - Kelsey Sullivan

B. Step 2

1. Moose permit allocations - Nate Webb

2. Ch. 20 Taxidermy - Freeze Dried Classification - Christl Theriault

3. Wild Turkey hunting - fall season - Kelsey Sullivan

C. Step 1

1. Furbearer Rules - Shevenell Webb

V. Other Business

1. Wild Trout Conservation Strategy - North Zone General Law Concept - Francis Brautigam

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 a.m. VI. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule for Next Meeting
IX. Adjournment 12:00 P.M.

Advisory Council Meeting
March 21 , 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Judy Camuso, Acting Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Nate Webb, WRAS Supervisor
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Specialist
Lee Kantar, Moose Biologist
Nathan Bieber, Deer Biologist
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Steve Allarie, Warden Service Corporal
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Don Dudley (Chair)
Jerry Scribner br> Sheri Oldham
Brian Smith - by phone
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston
Dick Fortier
Shawn Sage
Jeff Lewis

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Fern Bosse and Sylvia Bosse, Norway
James Cote, MTA
Jeff Reardon, MTA
Bob Parker, TU
Dierdre Fleming, Portland Press Herald
Bob Noonan, Somerset
David Anderson, Maine Clerks Association
Don Kleiner, MPGA


I. Call to Order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved.

B. Step 2

1. Bear Trapping rules

Mr. Webb stated a public hearing was held in Hallowell on March 5th and the comment period had ended. We received a fair number of comments and quite a few questions from the trapping community in terms of whether certain devices or practices would be legal under the proposed rule. We were able to answer most of those questions at the hearing. There had been some concerns expressed related to the fact the rule as written would prohibit the use of drags for bear trapping. A fixed anchor point would be required and typically that would be a tree. Some members of the trapping community had expressed they would like to see the option for drags continue. There was also some concern expressed related to the requirement to have a clear catch circle and the size of the area that they would have to clear in order to create the catch circle. There were some comments received in opposition to bear trapping in general. The component of the rule related to the pipe or bucket style traps for which the emergency rule was put in place last summer, there had been minimal feedback on that. There were some questions on certain devices whether or not they would be legal. The amount of concern was minimal.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Sage stated he spoke with the president of the Maine Trappers Association and he could bring in some examples of the bucket traps so the Council would understand them better.

Mrs. Oldham asked with the change in the rules they had seen where changes in trapping rules previously had led to decreased harvest and participation. Was it anticipated that we would see that with the change in bear trapping rules.

Mr. Webb stated it was hard to say. Bear trapping was unique in that it was an activity that was increasing. Permit sales were steadily increasing. We believed the rule would allow most of the common techniques the trappers were using. He felt most of the trappers were already following most of the standards. It could cause some trappers to not continue because the way they liked to trap would no longer be allowed. The primary concern that had been expressed was the use of drags. In the Department's experience, we had a lot of experience trapping bears for research primarily, as well as conflict management, and we felt confident the methods did allow trappers to be successful but it would require a change for some.

Mr. Thurston asked if we had a breakdown of residents vs. nonresidents and where that growth was coming from.

Mr. Webb stated it was coming from both. Permits sales had steadily increased from the 300-400 range to the 500-600 range. There had been slow and steady growth both in the resident and nonresident permit sales.

Mr. Sage stated he knew because they taught the trapping classes and asked people why they were getting into trapping and 95% of them said they wanted to trap a bear.

Commissioner Camuso stated we did have a bill before the legislature that would give the Department the authority to set the bag limit for bear and it would also require a mandatory bear trapping course. That would be available online so nonresidents would still have the opportunity to take the class before they came to Maine.

Mr. Webb stated one of the challenges that nonresident bear trappers currently had was that many of them were bear hunters and they viewed bear trapping as another harvest method and they were not necessarily trappers in the sense they had a background in trapping other species. Currently, they had to purchase a nonresident trapping license which was fairly expensive and to do that they had to take a trapper education course. The bill would allow them to buy a bear trapping permit either a hunting license or a trapping license, but they would be required to take an online bear trapping education course.

Mr. Lewis stated with the drags, it was the same when they went through it with the foothold traps. He had trapped quite a few bear, mostly nuisance bear and a lot of times there wasnt an area he could find an anchor. He was doing it around beehives, blueberry fields, etc. where it was hard to find a place to anchor. Also, he did not want the bear to be left out in the sun.

Mr. Webb stated there were pros and cons. The way they trapped for bear for research was, he thought many trappers were trapping where they had their bait site and then they found a spot to set the trap. We found an anchor tree in a shady spot in an area that we didnt have to clear other trees, there was a clear catch circle and we would attract the bears to that site. As opposed to having a location and finding a way to do a set that would trap the bear. It was a different approach.

Mr. Smith stated the bill before the Legislature for a second bear, was that hunting or just trapping?

Commissioner Camuso stated the bill was to give the Department the authority to set the bag limit through rule.

Mr. Smith asked if the Department wanted to extend the hunting season by a week for baiting, would that be a rule change?

Mr. Webb stated we currently had that authority in rule. Statute set the boundaries for a 13-week season, set the bag limit. Within that 13-week season through rulemaking we could adjust when the use of bait or hounds was allowed. The current framework had been in place for quite some time.

Mr. Smith stated he had some bear hunters in Washington County say they wanted to kill more bears, it seemed averse to a spring season or a two-bear limit, give them an extra week of bait hunting and they could take additional bears.

Mr. Webb stated part of the challenge was in some years in the northern part of the state we had bears denning up about the end of the third week of baiting season. There were guides that did not put clients the last week because they didnt know going into the season when the bears had denned up.

Mr. Thurston asked if the bill would give us the option to create a spring season.

Commissioner Camuso stated it did not.

Dudley asked what the guidelines were.

Mr. Webb stated currently the start date was fixed to the last Monday in August and youth day was the Saturday before, and that would be moved back to August 15th. The seasons would be set in rule, the sideboards were in statute.

Mr. Smith asked what the harvest numbers were for last year.

Mr. Webb stated 3,306. Our target was about 15% of adult females with a rough estimate we had about 36,000 - 38,000 bears, we would need to harvest in the 5,000 bear range again.

2. Migratory Bird Season 2019-2020

Mr. Sullivan stated a hearing was held on March 6th. At the hearing, there were a few comments about the sea duck season timing. Based on those comments and where we had been we didnt feel there was any good reason to make any changes at this point. We could look at doing a survey again of sea duck hunters and look at what the majority of folks would prefer in terms of season dates if we made any changes. The proposal was pretty much the same as at Step 1, but there was a change in the brant season. Brant seasons were set after the January survey, and the proposal was before the January survey. It came back the population estimates were below the liberal threshold so based on federal guidelines we had to go from 60 and 2 to 30 and 2. On section D. Brant, there were some changes in the dates. On the coastal zone, in Maine there was not a lot of brant hunting but someone that was a brant hunter on the coast came to the public hearing and commented the season on the coastal zone should be when the brant were more likely to be there. We changed our original thinking of setting brant seasons at the beginning of our zones to the end of the coastal zone. December 3 to Jan. 6 was 30-days counting backwards from the end of the coastal zone.

Mr. Sullivan stated there was a comment about the woodcock season. Maine Professional Guides sent a letter asking for timing the woodcock season, if there was a potential change in our grouse season to match them. Under federal guidelines we couldnt set the date any sooner than October 1 for woodcock.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Lewis stated the public comment that was received from the person in southern Maine talking about sea duck hunting, that was not the way it was in Hancock County. There were outfitters gassing up every morning to go, it was hard to find a place to launch. It was unbelievable how many people were sea duck hunting in his area compared to what it used to be.

Mr. Scribner asked about the possession limits on geese. During the early season, we had a possession limit of 30 up to September 25th and once the migratory season started the possession limit in the south went down to 6. What would the possession limit be in the interim period and going forward?

Corporal Allarie stated technically you couldnt exceed your daily bag limit.

Mr. Fortier stated with the early winter was that affecting the partridge?

Mr. Sullivan stated not unless there was an extended period of snow into June. Even grouse in southern Maine would have a second attempt 3 weeks to a month later. They were still keyed up to breed well into the middle or end of June. There was a large window for breeding.

C. Step 1

1. 2019 Moose permit allocations

Mr. Kantar stated wildlife division biologists met and the biggest driver for 2019 was the fact they were implementing the new big game plan. There were a couple of take home messages with the big game plan. One, we transitioned to looking at moose health and what health was driven by for moose was really about productivity and producing calves. It was about trying to minimize parasites and disease. That had a lot to do with permit allocations. The second big thing was for WMDs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 27, 28 we developed a new dynamic for issuing permits. We recognized that in WMDs where we had very few permits over time there was very little data or knowledge about moose. Harvest data would not get us anywhere when harvesting just a few animals. In recognition of that we took a step back and looked at how many permits we could have on the ground where you could actually hunt moose. The example he used was looking at WMD 17 and looked at permit levels, what was the reality of where you could hunt moose. WMD 17 ran from Bingham all the way over to Bangor, it was not moose country except in parts and there were four towns where people had harvested moose over the years. We built a dynamic where we were issuing permits based on the reality of how much habitat was there. Looking at WMDs 10-14 there were a lot of changes there and that reflected a straight metric across the board being evenly done for all those areas. That was also what we called in the big game plan a peripheral range for moose. We were also recognizing there was a core range for moose which was the commercial forest land which was really WMDs 1-11 and 19. We had been very successful for the last decade of being able to conduct aerial surveys and get information on reproduction and our survival study. We had a lot of data that informed us about the status of moose in those areas. In the core range, we felt we could be more specific and strategic with how we issued permits and the reason why. The driving factor remained that we had depressed or low reproduction on our moose. In some parts of the state we had issues with winter tick. Winter tick was an issue on moose calves; in our study area, it influenced calves in our western study area as far as survival mortality. In northern Maine in our WMD 2 study area survival was twice as high. There were winter ticks out there that could be lethal but it affected calves. Adult survival remained high in Maine. The answer from a management perspective was that we should be increasing hunting permits. We had always been conservative with moose permits in Maine. Hunting mortality on an annual basis was not what drove the moose population in Maine. What did drive the population was productivity and that meant how many calves a cow dropped every year, her age of first reproduction, whether she had twins or not and if the calves survived the first month of life in May and then their first winter.

Mr. Kantar stated in the past when we had a moose population with low reproduction that had been tied to the food resource meaning, whatever number of moose were out there, there wasnt enough food for all of them so they were all producing at a robust rate. In Maine, combined with New Hampshire, looking at moose it was not the food driving the decreased productivity but the winter tick. The winter tick did not kill a cow moose, but it put enough pressure on her physiologically so that when she was carrying a fetus in March and April by the time May came she was in poor enough condition perhaps that it was impacting how well the calves survived. In northern Maine we recommended some moderate permit increases in many WMDs with an increase in cow permits. In WMDs 1 and 4 during the new planning process they acknowledged that we could also afford to increase the bull permits there. Prior to this, our plan had a static number to maintain a level of bulls to cows, 60 per 100. If we dropped below that we would take management action. Fortunately, we recognized that having one point like that was a very difficult way to manage. We needed to have a range of values. Our range of values for bull/cow ratio had increased and we had a wider range, especially in WMDs 1 and 4 we could issue more permits.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Dudley stated it had been a difficult winter snow wise, what affect did that have on the calves?

Mr. Kantar stated based on information from our collared animals, in a difficult winter moose were like deer in deep snow, they did not go anywhere. To date, we had lost very few calves in our study. In our western study area we collared about 35 calves and another 35 in the northern part and we had not lost any calves there. In the western study area, the first calf lost was predisposed with a swollen front and rear leg which impeded movement. The other three calves, two of the three had the highest winter tick loads of all calves captured.

Mr. Lewis asked if they always stayed in a small area in the winter or did it depend on the snow.

Mr. Kantar stated this was the 6th year of data and the reason we did not fly aerial surveys past mid-February was because the moose disappeared. They were holed up in places and not going far.

2. Wild Trout Conservation Strategy - North Zone General Law concept

Mr. Brautigam stated this was again at Step 1. The comment period was still ongoing and we wanted to allow enough time to review the information and comments. Two public hearings had been held, one in Millinocket and one in Hallowell with fairly low attendance at both. Except for one individual there had been support for the proposal. There were concerns with some of the specifics where we were retaining the use of live fish as bait on some waters. There was some concern about the information provided in the packet not being comprehensive enough for one NGO in terms of being able to do a comprehensive and complete analysis of all the data. There were some concerns that more proposals that involved retaining live fish as bait occurred in just one part of the northern region. There were some concerns that retention of those use opportunities wasnt equally distributed throughout the north region. Overall people were supportive of the concept to move forward with the no live fish as bait provision in the north region. We looked forward to reviewing the comments to the extent they were germane to the scope of the effort and would look at the merit of making any further additions to the list of waters that would be retaining the use of live fish as bait use in the north region.

3. Ch. 20 Taxidermy - Freeze Dried Classification

Mrs. Theriault stated this came about due to someone calling and asking if they could preserve specimens via a freeze-dried method. After reviewing the statute it did appear that somebody would need to be licensed as a taxidermist to use that method. Currently, we had five different classifications for taxidermy; bird, fish, mammal and head, skull and bone and a general classification which encompassed all of them. We were proposing to put forward a new classification called the freeze-dried classification. Those interested in doing it would not have to take a written exam but would have to provide us with three species that they had done in the last 3 years. It would be consistent with testing for other classifications. Additionally, as we started the review a staff member pick up on the way the statute was written for all fish and wildlife and parts thereof that someone could preserve using taxidermy. Had we ever considered they could do it for reptiles and amphibians? Someone could, but we did not have a classification specific to it. In order to accommodate that we also created a classification for reptiles and amphibians. The classification would not require a written exam, just an oral exam where they would provide specimens they had done in the last 3 years. Also, we were looking at our testing requirements for other commercial licenses and trying to bring consistency in terms of the time frame for notification and the time for retesting and some changes would be included in the proposal. If someone came in for a written exam they would be told that day if they passed or failed. We would allow them 14 days before they could retest on the written exam. For an oral exam where they came in and provided a specimen we would allow 30 days before they could retest.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Lewis stated the language for skulls said, should be bleached and sealed. Was that for part of the test? The newest thing was that you shouldnt seal them. If they were sealed they would turn yellow, it wasnt as good as just leaving them.

Mrs. Theriault stated that was something we could look into and possibly change in the testing.

Mr. Sage stated under the freeze drying they had to present specimens. How could they provide specimens if they were not licensed?

Mrs. Theriault stated they could work under a licensed taxidermist.

4. Ch. 13 Watercraft rules

Mrs. Theriault stated the primary reason for the proposal was to establish some specifications on statutory and operational boat testing for decibel levels. This stemmed from complaints in the Sebago Lake area on loud boats. Our statute allowed the Commissioner to adopt rules for provisions such that a game warden could do testing on boats to determine what the noise levels were. We never had rules in place. Lt. Gormely, the boating law administrator, had looked at rules from New Hampshire and we were utilizing their framework for standards for testing. The stationary test was not very practical for Maine but we were going to put it in the rules as the statute did speak to it. Primarily, we would use the motion test where a boat would pass by as they ran the test. We referred to the SAE standards, they were a national standard for testing. We had purchased the most recent layout for that and would provide a link in the rule.

5. Wild Turkey hunting

Mr. Sullivan stated we had a new approach to turkey management through the big game management process and one of the things identified was getting better information on basic turkey biology, survival rates, and managing at a WMD level. There had been interest in liberalizing the turkey season. Moving forward with the proposal we wanted to recognize that and in a lot of the state turkeys were abundant. There were basically five aspects of the proposal: 1) eliminating the A/B season in WMDs 1-6; 2) opening the fall turkey season earlier by about two weeks. Putting the start date the Monday closest to September 17; 3) proposing to have a fall youth day the Saturday prior to the beginning of the fall season; 4) increasing the bag limit in the fall for the core turkey area (WMDs 15-17 and 26) going from 2 to 5 birds. WMD 26 would increase from 1 bird to 3; 5) expanding the shotgun gauges including 28 and .410. Also increasing shot size to 2 through 9. They had discussed the effectiveness of .410 #9 lead shot which if you were 10 yards away would probably kill a turkey but maybe not at 40 yards. There were some new products available, tungsten TSS that had shown to be pretty effective at killing turkeys at a significant range. It would be difficult to start identifying particular products, expanding in a general sense and education would be the approach. Most turkey hunters knew what was effective.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Smith stated he was part of the wild turkey working group that worked to get the shot size restrictions to 4 to 6 after a warden was shot. At 40 yards #2 shot may have been fatal, but #4-#6 was not. Also, not shooting birds out of a tree, they were looking at ethics and safety. Why the .410, they knew what a marginal shotgun gauge that was as far as killing ability and distance. He could understand the 28 gauge with some of the new loads but not .410. He did not have a problem with the bag limit increase. What he saw in WMD 27 where he lived was someone would shoot a bird in WMD 27 and then go across and shoot another bird in WMD 28. He was concerned about the shot size restrictions, he knew there was newer shot but a .410, #9 wouldnt kill a grouse at 30 yards.

Mr. Sullivan stated it was in response to interest with the new TSS, tungsten matrix #9 out of a .410.

Mrs. Oldham stated the shot would not be cheap, it was very expensive. If the rule passed, and the argument was for the .410 for youth hunters, a .410 shotgun kicked more than a semi-automatic 20 gauge. It was not ethical hunting. The number of people that were going to be able to afford the newest and latest was minimal. People would be using lead shot and that was not ethical if we wanted to promote ethical hunting.

Mr. Thurston stated he agreed with the concern with respect to the .410, but the 20 gauge with the right loads increased kills. The 20 gauge was something the kids could handle, had a longer range and was more accurate.

Mr. Lewis stated he had a concern with the 5-bird limit and that they could do it all at once. He had seen other states where you could only take 1 or 2 per day and then the rest another day. He felt some people would take the opportunity and wipe out a whole brood.

Mr. Fortier stated he agreed with the others regarding the .410. He had recently purchased 2 new .410s but waited 1 yrs. to get them. They outperformed his 20 gauge. 24" with four different chokes, there was no kick, but more penetration and more range. They were new to the market, lever action. The technology was changing, the ammo was expensive, but he would not hesitate to use one on a turkey.

Mr. Sullivan stated we tried to go around being specific to what type of material was in the shot.

Mr. Sage stated he saw us getting sections of rural Maine that would buy the cheapest .410 ammo they could and go out and try to hunt and end up wounding a lot more birds.

Mr. Smith stated the last two weeks in September should be limited to bow and crossbow instead of shotgun to help resolve conflicts. Instead of .410 they should be allowed to hunt turkey with a handgun. He felt we should be cautious with the shot size, he didnt see a reason to go to shot size #2 because of the penetration factor of #2 if a hunter was shot.

Mr. Scribner stated his concern was more connected to making sure that on an annual basis there was a link to winter mortality, nesting success, etc. He fully supported the bag limit of 5 in the fall at this point in those particular WMDs that we were proposing. He was cautious in that going forward he wanted to make sure we were keeping in mind the population health and making sure each year there was an annual link to winter mortality as with deer and moose. Also nesting success and adjust accordingly. Otherwise, as weve seen with other populations if our bag limit became too liberal then we would have issues.

Mr. Sullivan stated the basis of his research project was to address those things that Mr. Scribner mentioned.

Mrs. Oldham stated in terms of expanding the fall season we were waiting for survey results. Her concern was she felt there could be a fall turkey season in WMD 7 based on the marked increase of turkeys in the last two years. If it was going to take 2 or 3 years to get results of the study, there werent a lot of turkey hunters in that area. If we wanted to encourage hunting a 1 bird fall bag limit for WMD 7 would not be that detrimental if they had to wait 2 or 3 years for a good study.

Mr. Sullivan stated some of the other regions had concerns but WMD 7 did not come up. It was up for consideration. If we could maintain registration and do something like that he would be comfortable. We could track things with registration data and see if there was a significant drop.

V. Other Business

1. LD 1298 - An Act to Enhance Fish & Wildlife Laws

Commissioner Camuso stated we had a request to extend the ice fishing season in the north zone on water bodies that were currently open to ice fishing. There was a tremendous amount of ice still available with no sign of much change. We did not currently have the authority to extend the ice fishing season so we worked with our legislative committee to put forward an emergency bill that would give the Department the authority to extend the ice fishing season. It passed unanimously through the committee and was reported out and was scheduled to be on the House and Senate floor. Once that was completed we would work with the Attorney General to enact an emergency rule. Ice fishing ended March 31 so we needed to move fast. Mr. Brautigam and staff would make a recommendation on how long the season would remain open in the north region. The Commissioner asked for a show of hands from the Council to show if they were in support of an emergency rule going forward. It was unanimous from the Council they would be in favor.

Mr. Fortier stated he assumed it was just the Fish River chain up north.

Mr. Brautigam stated all the waters currently open to ice fishing. It would only really effect the northern region. In the southern region it was pretty much year round fishing. We did not have the wild populations and fall spawning issues as up north and had a different framework for seasons.

Commissioner Camuso stated this was not on the agenda, but deer biologist Nathan Bieber was going to give an overview of our proposal for the any-deer permits. This was in preparation for the actual allocation of permits because we had identified in the big game plan the ability to manage deer at the sub-WMD level. Nathan would be walking them through the process for the sub-WMD level so when the proposal was advertised they would have the background on how we were handling the sub-WMDs.

Any-deer permits sub-WMDs (this was presented in conjunction with a PowerPoint slide presentation. A copy of the presentation is available by request to Becky.Orff@maine.gov )

Mr. Bieber stated some of the priorities items in the new big game plan we were trying to address with the proposal included developing adaptive processes and management triggers to deal with overabundant deer. It was a new high priority item from the game plan to adjust deer densities using any-deer permits and where deer abundance exceeded social and ecological carrying capacity to use whatever tools we could to control those issues of local overabundance and also monitor nuisance deer complaints and deal with those complaints with whatever management tools we had available. We currently managed deer at the WMD level and had been since 2006. For the most part it worked well. WMDs were small enough we were able to represent different areas of the state but still big enough we were able to collect data that was represented above those WMDs. There were areas of WMDs that did not seem to quite fit with the whole WMD and management at the WMD scale did not always address all of the towns within a WMD. Some of the negative impacts we may see associated with locally overabundant deer could be damage to property, increased deer vehicle collisions, high prevalence of Lyme disease, decreased forest regeneration, etc. It was also worth noting that as long as we allowed these little pockets of locally overabundant deer to persist our WMD scale management efforts may be skewed. It would be ideal if we could address these areas.

The goal was to use tools we already had and data that was readily available, not to develop new things. What data did we have to support deer being locally overabundant? There were a number of different sources, we could get road kill data from MDOT; nuisance deer report data from Warden Service; Lyme disease prevalence data through CDC; harvest data; ideally would could incorporate some measure of impacts on stand regeneration but currently there was not a good source for that. All the data sources were incomplete in some way or another but were useful as trend indicators to compare towns around the state. We compiled data for those metrics for all the towns around the state and basically ranked every town from where it stood for each of the different problem deer metrics. If a town was in the top percentile for road kills it would receive a score of 10. If it was on the very bottom, a 1. Likewise, for the different metrics. We created a composite index to basically describe all the towns in the state as far as deer issues who had it the worst consistently across all the different metrics. Of note, he only included the Lyme disease metric for the southern districts. Lyme prevalence was pretty much a coastal, southern Maine thing at this point. Also, the harvest metrics he didnt include any towns that were closed to hunting.

They mapped the composite scores to identify visually chunks of area around the state that were experiencing a lot of issue with locally overabundant deer. He mapped the higher priority towns with red, orange was moderate, tan was low priority and white towns were non-priority. The threshold of what made a red vs. orange vs. tan were arbitrarily set and could be adjusted in the future. The way we proposed to designate a sub-unit, a sub-unit should consist of at least one high priority town and one moderate priority town or at least three of the orange moderate priority towns. Those towns should be connected side adjacent or connected by lower priority towns. We were looking for chunks of area around the state where they were experiencing all the different deer issues. Sub-units should be in a single WMD where the management strategy they had for deer was to either decrease or stabilize the deer population. We hadnt overlapped with expanded archery areas to avoid confusion with what weapons could be used and because we already had additional harvest options in those areas. Any area we identified as a sub-unit should be an area that was open to hunting. Before we would designate a sub-unit we would confer with the warden service and regional biologist to make sure there was on the ground support for the idea and some sort of corroborating evidence that suggested the data but also the people in the area and staff agreed this was a problem area that should be addressed.

We would define sub-unit boundaries using readily identifiable features like highways, roads, waterways, etc. We would be proposing two sub-units, one in WMD 25 and consist of Georgetown/ Arrowsic. We had many discussions around this area and there was general agreement that the areas were very high deer density and needed to be brought down. There had been efforts to put a special hunt into place and he thought the sub-unit permits may address that. We would also propose a sub-unit for WMD 26 consisting of portions of Brewer, Holden, Dedham, Orrington, Bucksport, Orland, Verona, Penobscot and Castine. A lot of staff discussions about the area and locally overabundant deer compared to the rest of the WMDs. During the comment period for any-deer permits last year we received comments about WMD 26 and we had letters as well from orchard owners.

The sub-unit permits we would give out would be additional to other any-deer permits we were putting in the WMD. Essentially, we were looking at how much area was made up of the sub-unit within the WMD and what was our doe quota for that WMD. How much of the doe quota we ascribed to the WMD would be normally ascribed just to that sub-unit if all things were equal, then multiplying by how much more productive was the area within the sub-unit compared to the whole WMD. There was a second term within the equation if we wanted to be more conservative that accounted for the fact that some of the any-deer permits we already allocated were going to be used in the sub-unit naturally so we were subtracting those numbers. If we wanted to be aggressive vs. conservative would determine which formula we wanted to use.

For the proposed sub-units in the Georgetown/Arrowsic sub-unit depending whether we were being conservative or aggressive we would propose harvesting an additional 27 does if we were being conservative or 52 does if we were being aggressive. Naturally, similar to any-deer permits when we issued those permits some fawns were going to be taken as well so those were accounted for. In the sub-unit 26 we proposed an additional 74 does if we were being conservative, or 110 does if we were being aggressive. Similar to any-deer permits there would be an expansion factor. The estimated expansion factors were based on bonus permit expansion factors we had seen around the state as well as just the WMD expansion factors we had seen. He would estimate in WMD 25 an expansion factor of 4 or 5 would be appropriate to achieve the doe quota and the sub-unit for WMD 26 an expansion factor of 1 or 1.5 would probably be used.

We would reevaluate the existing sub-units every 5 years to give the area a chance to have the extra management take effect. Additionally, every year we would look at the data for all the towns and see if any other areas of the state should be identified as sub-units for further management. For permit allocation, the simplest method would be to use the currently existing permit lottery. Someone picks where they want their any-deer permit or bonus permit and they would just be able to choose their bonus permit for a sub-unit instead. We wanted people in those areas to be encouraged to get permits so they had some ownership over the deer problems in their areas. The most appropriate approach would be to achieve that through outreach and do a ".Gov delivery or something to hunters who took a deer within the sub-unit area last year or had a residence in that area and let them know we were doing an additional harvest and encourage them to apply.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham asked if this was an adaptation of strategies used elsewhere.

Mr. Bieber stated it was our own creation for the most part. A lot of other states used sub-units for different things.

Mr. Webb stated the idea was we would start small with the two units and if it went well the criteria could be adjusted to be more aggressive.

Mr. Scribner stated having been to Georgetown and hearing their concerns he was sure this would be received very well.

Mr. Dudley asked how the collar study was going up north.

Mr. Bieber stated it was going well this year. In WMD 6 where it was pretty easy to catch deer they put out 40 collars and they had lost 5 so far. They went to a new study sight northeast of Baxter around Scraggly Lake and were hoping to get 10-15 collars out before the end of the season.

Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Fern Bosse stated what was brought up about using .410 for turkey hunting, please dont. What was mentioned about the heavier shot people were not going to pay $1.25 for a .410 shell to give the kid to use. If we let the proposal go like that there would be a cart load of wounded turkeys. In the right hands of an experienced shooter, yes, but more youth would be using a .410. Also, the mix of the shot size #2 was too big and dangerous.

David Anderson stated he agreed the .410 was an experts gun, not a kids gun. The clerks association the town clerks wanted to encourage the councils support with the LD going through for increased agent fees. The agent fees had been static for even longer than the license fees and although not a significant source of revenue to the towns it was a revenue line and they would appreciate an increase. If it came up in their discussions, they would ask for support.

Jeff Reardon stated regarding the fishing regulations proposal, there were several categories of waters they would be flagging that they had concerns about. There were a number of tributary streams that were proposed to be left open to live fish as bait that were either direct inlets to or outlets of or both of heritage waters. The whole thing that started it was the bill about tributaries to heritage waters, so they thought all of those should be captured unless there was a very specific reason. There was another category of lakes and ponds that were upstream in the watershed above heritage waters so it was kind of the same issue as tributaries. The legislation proposed would not have captured those, but the idea was this approach would be better because it would be more comprehensive. In a couple of watersheds there were some extensive stream networks and he questioned whether there was much public demand for use of live fish as bait for brook fishing. He was not talking about muskellunge waters. These were watersheds that were wild brook trout waters. Overall, they were supportive of the proposal.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in Augusta.

Ix. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier and that was seconded by Mr. Sage to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta
Tuesday, May 21, 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.




I-A. Moment of Silence


II. Introductions



III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. 2019 Moose permit allocations - Nate Webb

2. Ch. 20 Taxidermy - Freeze Dried classification

3. Wild Turkey hunting - fall season - Kelsey Sullivan

B. Step 2

There are no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. Furbearer Rules - Shevenell Webb

2. 2019 Any-deer permit allocations - Nate Webb

3. Ch. 13 Watercraft rules sound level testing - Christl Theriault

4. Conroy Lake open ice fishing petition - Francis Bratuigam

5. Wild Trout Conservation Strategy - N Zone General Law Concept - Francis Brautigam

V. Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 a.m. VI. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule for Next Meeting
IX. Adjournment 12:00 P.M.

Advisory Council Meeting
April 30 , 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Judy Camuso, ommissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Nate Webb, WRAS Supervisor
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Specialist
Shevenell Webb, Furbearer Biologist
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Jason Luce, Warden Service Sergeant
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Don Dudley (Chair)
Jerry Scribner br> Sheri Oldham
Brian Smith - by phone
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston(vice-chair)
Dick Fortier
Shawn Sage
Jeff Lewis
Larry Farrington

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Jeff Reardon, MTA
Don Kleiner, MPGA
Karen Coker, WildWatch ME
John Glowa, China
Dave Goodson, Rangeley
Steve Brook


I. Call to Order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to approve the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Gundersen.

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Bear Trapping

Mr. Webb stated we were recommending a couple of minor changes. Based on public comment, under 4.7 we added a sentence to clarify that the tree used as an anchor for the cable restraint did not count as something that could cause entanglement which was our intent, and we wanted to clarify that. We were also recommending removing the word "small" prior to sticks to give trappers more latitude for material they could use when building cubby sets and walking and stepping sticks. The intent was the same, we wanted to ensure trappers weren't using something that could cause entanglement. In recognition that bears were a larger animal and the swivels and devices were larger than regular foothold trapping, it made sense to remove that word and give more flexibility. There were no other changes recommended to the original proposal.

A motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to accept the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mr. Fortier

Vote: 9 in favor, 1 opposed (Mr. Sage) - motion passed.

2. Migratory Bird Season 2019-20

Mr. Sullivan stated on the brant season for the coastal zone there was a change. We needed to count backwards from the very end of the brant season in the coastal zone, so 30 days back from January 6 would be the season date. There were no other changes from Step 2.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to accept the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mrs. Oldham

Vote: unanimous - motion passed

B. Step 2

1. 2019 Moose permit allocations

Mr. Webb stated the comment period had ended and we received one written comment in support. We held a public hearing and there were no attendees. We were not recommending any changes to the proposal at Step 2.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Lewis stated he had found two moose calves that had died. Had we been receiving more reports of that.

Mr. Webb stated we were actively in the season and staff were responding to incidents. To date we were at 60% calf mortality in WMD 8. He thought we were at 48% in WMD 2. Typically, at that point in the year, the mortalities began to taper off. In WMD 8 it was typical of what we had seen since we started. Most years calf mortality had exceeded 50%. In WMD 2 it was looking a bit higher than what wed had. Every year we learned new things, the one positive thing was that the adult cow mortality was still very low, wed had 2 or 3 across the study areas. It seemed to be a calf survival issue once they reached a certain age they seemed pretty durable. If we saw exceptionally high calf mortality once the winter mortality period ended, we could recommend some changes in permit numbers at Step 3. Mr. Kantar did not think it was warranted at this time.

Mr. Scribner asked what we were seeing for winter tick loads.

Mr. Webb stated it was comparable to previous years. The combination of relatively abundant winter ticks coupled with the long winter, it was an energetics thing. You could have fewer ticks but a longer winter and the outcome would be the same. Tick counts last fall on harvested moose were a bit lower.The mortalities we saw almost without exception had high tick load and extremely low body weights.

Mr. Farrington stated he had someone ask why we increased the numbers in WMD 9. It had always been 75 and it had gone up to 100. The person had read Lee Kantars report that said the moose population was stable to decreasing, but we increased the permit numbers by 30%. It didnt make sense.

Mr. Webb stated in WMD 9 those were all antlered permits. The harvest wasnt effecting cows, just bulls. The antlered bull component we managed based on two things, the bull/cow ratio and also the maturity or age structure of the bull component. WMD 9 consistently the bull/cow ratio had been very strong and exceeded our thresholds as well as the percent of mature bulls in the harvest had as well. Even though the population could fluctuate from year to year the bull component of the herd was doing very well. Our perspective was there was room for a small increase in the antlered harvest in WMD 9.

Mr. Farrington stated the bull population did not decrease like the cows?

Mr. Webb stated the bull component in terms of total numbers tended to track what the cow herd did. It was the ratio and age structure of the bull herd that really drove our management and permit allocations for antlered moose.

Mr. Farrington stated he could understand the persons concern when we were told to use the science, and the science said our population was decreasing and yet we were increasing the number of moose we wanted to harvest.

Mr. Webb stated that part of what we were learning from the project was there was growing evidence, and he felt NH and VT were reaching the same conclusions, there was a density dependent effect happening. It was possible the high calf mortality we were seeing due to winter ticks was because we were supporting a quite high density of moose on the landscape. That high density was contributing to disease and parasite impacts we were seeing. This was why we were recommending an increase in antlerless permits in some WMDs where we felt the moose density was probably playing a role in the calf mortality. One of the solutions to improve the health of the herd, reduce calf mortality and increase productivity and reproduction of the cows likely would be to reduce the moose population from where it was now. That was extremely challenging from a social perspective.

Commissioner Camuso asked Mr. Webb to brief the Council on the North American Moose conference.

Mr. Webb stated annually there was an international moose conference and it rotated from Canada, U.S., Europe, but in June it was going to be in Maine at Sugarloaf on June 10-14. It would be attended by folks from all over the world. There was a core group from Canada and Alaska that attended each year. Moose biologists from other states of the lower 48 often attended as well.

Commissioner Camuso stated this was where all the cutting-edge research would be presented. If they were interested she strongly encouraged them to attend.

Mr. Fortier stated it would be helpful if mortality information was posted on the website or advertised to show it was the basis for permits being issued. It would help people understand why we did it.

Mr. Webb stated he felt we were coming to a crossroads with moose management. It was laid out in our moose management plan and big game plan. We were learning the moose herd in Maine was essentially being managed by parasites. That was what was holding the population where it was. As an agency and a public, we had to decide if thats what we wanted, or did we want to manage them with hunting at a lower density but potentially healthier, more productive level.

Mr. Sage asked about handouts for safety classes to explain the science behind the moose permits.

2. Ch. 20 Taxidermy - Freeze-dried classification

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the focus was to create the freeze-dried classification. The public comment period had ended and no public comment was received. Mr. Lewis had commented at the last meeting and based on that there was one change to the rule under cleanliness of specimen to change from bleached to whitened. That was the only change proposed from Step 1.

Mr. Lewis stated the bleaching broke down the bones. They used a peroxide based 40% by volume to whiten them and it didnt break the bone down.

3. Wild Turkey hunting - fall season

Mr. Sullivan stated he would try to summarize the comments that came in. There was a portion of them that were very supportive of the proposal. He felt there was more in general concern about the increased bag limits, start of the fall season and a lot of the comments were from folks that were part of the process in getting the turkey season going. From the comments, jumping from 2 to 5 birds in the fall was just a large change. It seemed there were more that were not supportive of that. Adding two weeks in the fall, folks were concerned with how it would affect the population next season or down the road. Two weeks more of a shotgun season could potentially significantly increase harvest, or it couldnt. These were the general concerns, more liberalization and time and the bag limit. With our proposal for liberalization we were trying to address, and this was in our management plan, recognizing that turkeys were abundant in many of the southern Maine districts. The goal was to keep the population in check in high density areas. The National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) sent a letter and they had concerns with liberalization for the fall season for the length and bag limit. They commented in support of the shot sizes, but more for the TSS shot which was higher density and more effective in smaller gauges. He felt if it was just #9 lead shot or smaller shot and lead their comment would have been different. Their comment recognized the market was changing and there were more options. The concerns with liberalization from turkey hunters was the quality of the hunt the following spring. The reference to being able to take 5 birds in one day led to comments regarding flock shooting. It was worth further discussion looking at alternatives such as limiting to 2 birds or 3 birds per day if we went to 5.

Mr. Lewis stated if we were trying to reduce the population we may not get the goal we were looking for.

Mr. Sage stated his main concern was with the .410 shot size. He knew there were new shot sizes out there, but people were not going to go buy them. They werent going to go to Cabelas to purchase it, they would go to the local hardware store for $5. Mrs. Oldham had statistics to share.

Mrs. Oldham stated Mr. Fortiers comments last month were true, the new .410 with the federal heavyweight TSS would kill a turkey at 30-40 yards. The cost of those shotguns was not inconsiderable and for 5 shells the price ranged from $30 to $48. To pattern the shotgun would cost around $50. We were not saying if you had Grandmas .410 and bought #9 lead which had...3 mag, .410 bore, #4 shot, 98 pellets vs. 12 gauge or 20 gauge, 274 and 164. The regular .410 shotgun with #9 shot and try to shoot a turkey at 30 yards you would cripple a lot of birds. She did not think depending on hunter ethics as a management tool was a wise decision. We had to have laws and rules for 95% of the population and they were going to use lead. 10 gauge, #2 shot we would have more hunter mortality. Did we want to try to buy turkey loads in 16 and 28 gauge? Cabelas and ballistic products, there were none. It didnt make sense to expand the weaponry or the shot size. It terms of meeting our objective, it didnt appear to have anything to do with that. She was sure there were some that wanted to harvest a turkey with their .410, but we couldnt make rules for the small minority. We were going to cripple birds and that was poor hunter ethics.

Mr. Sage stated he read all the comments, and one person commented that the .410 shotgun was an experts rifle. He was sure there were good hunters out there that could bag turkeys with a .410 and the proper ammo, but a lot of kids started out with a .410. They were not going to buy $50 ammo to hunt turkeys.

Mr. Fortier stated the market changed with firearms and where the need was the market would start to grow. The price of expensive ammo would come down and the technology and firearms would grow.

Mr. Dudley asked if it would be possible to limit it to the new shots, the tungsten loads.

Mr. Sullivan stated we had not been familiar with TSS (tungsten super shot) and thought it was a trademark product, which it wasnt. Other companies were making it such as Browning, Remington, etc. We were concerned about trademark rules, but because it was not a trademark there was a possibility that we could limit it. There was a small interest group that was interested in promoting it. If we were to open it up and limit to the TSS he thought that would address the folks that were originally wanting to promote it at the legislative level.

Mr. Sage asked in order to reduce the number of birds, was it necessary to have the .410? There were other shotgun options that were proven to harvest turkey. We had to look at it as a whole, if our goal was to harvest 5 birds to take the turkeys from a nuisance problem down to manageable.

Mrs. Oldham stated our research was not complete. She understood the pressure to reduce the population. What was in the proposal was not only a dramatic increase in bag limit, but also controversial shotgun and shot load changes. Perhaps the proposal would be more acceptable if we modified the bag limit in terms of the objective to reduce the turkey population. The discussion about shotgun sizes and loads really didnt impact the objective.

Commissioner Camuso stated the request for the change in shot loads had been brought to the Commissioner for at least the last 4 years. It was not a new discussion. There were multiple requests to adjust the shot load as other states had done.

Mr. Webb stated that part of the feedback we were getting was that, setting the .410 aside, the 12 and 20-gauge people argued that it was more humane because there were more pellets and denser. The .410 was a component of that, but there was also pressure saying we were not allowing the most humane loads that were available.

Mr. Thurston stated there was a very passionate group of people out there, there were segments of the industry built for those people. He would like to enhance their ability to harvest. TSS was offered by other manufacturers. We should have flexibility to allow that industry that was specifically for the turkey hunting population. If we enhanced the rule for the 12 and 20 gauge we would have better kill ratios and more effectiveness.

Mrs. Oldham asked what their thoughts were on the 10 gauge #2 shot.

Mr. Scribner stated he understood the smaller pellet size because he used the Federal 3rd degree and he had not seen a more lethal turkey load with the #5, 6 and 7. The #7 were TSS, much denser so whether you were shooting a bird at 10-yards or 40-yards there was shot size with densities and spread pattern that would lethally and ethically kill birds at all ranges. He did not understand the #2s.

Mrs. Oldham stated that was brought up because of range and the increase chance of hunter injury.

Mr. Lewis stated it was getting to a point, years ago bows were not ethical. People were going to make bad shots and wound a lot of stuff. We would not have a lot of people hunting with a .410 but there was a small group that wanted to be able to do it.

Mr. Scribner stated he would equate it to the rule for deer hunting where a .22 magnum was legal. How many people hunted with a .22 magnum? We needed something reasonable on the books. Back to the NWTF, he did not think we would be having the discussion if it wasnt for them and everything they had done for turkey introductions. In terms of the .410, that was not something he would live or die on. In terms of the shot size he was seeing that as being something that was improving. He could not understand the #2s, he did not know where that came from.

Mr. Sullivan stated when they were tasked with the rule they looked at it as a broad brush anticipating changes down the road. There were other states that allowed #2 as well. They referenced safety at 35 yards, and accidents and reduction at shot size #4 or smaller as significant. It increased quite a bit when you went to a #3 or #2. It was worthy of discussion.

Mr. Fortier stated when teaching hunter safety classes when dealing with turkeys it differed from deer hunting. Up north there was a lot of wide open country and tight brush area, where western Maine was pretty condensed. In other states that allowed different types of shot and shotguns, was it because they were in a denser area?

Mr. Smith stated he did not think there had been a fatal turkey hunting accident in Maine. He would like to keep it that way. He was on the wild turkey working group and worked with the NWTF. The reason they went from #4 to #7 shot was to prevent not only crippling of birds but a fatal accident. He was also opposed, based on the reason in a lot of the emails, of starting the season before October 1 in the fall and going to a 5-bird limit. Maybe 3 or 4 was fine, but if we had a bad nesting season because of rain or a bad winter the turkey population could plummet like it had in many states. He was opposed to switching from 4 to 7 shot, smaller than 20 gauge, starting the season before October 1 and going to a 5-bird limit.

Mr. Scribner stated they hadnt talked a lot about the season opening and also the bag limit. Going back to the letter from NWTF, they stated, we strongly believe that the authority for setting bag limits and season must remain within IFW. Mr. Scribner totally agreed. He was very concerned with the number of bills that had been proposed and also seeing the liberal nature of some of them. If the Department didnt take action that was viewed by the public as bagging more turkeys in those WMDs that could support that, the Legislature was going to take it out of IFWs hands. He had turkey hunted since their introduction in Maine and back when the Department hired the company to do the survey of how the general population felt about various big game species, it was evident the majority of people were ok with the turkey population. This was in about 2015. There were more that felt there were too many as compared to deer, moose and bear. The biggest majority felt the turkey population number was ok. Since then, as an avid turkey hunter he spoke with landowners to gain access and it was evident the trend in those WMDs, particularly WMD 23 and 25 where he hunted, it was evident those landowners were trending towards feeling there were too many turkeys now and the Department had to take steps to mitigate that. He would like to see the Department be able to continue to manage the population in a reasonable manner. He had asked for an annual review because it would only take one bad winter or bad nesting season to knock the population down. In his scouting, he had seen 100 birds a day in WMDs 23 and 25 so it was evident that in those WMDs there were plenty of birds to have a more liberal bag limit. The NWTF was opposed to going to 5 birds in the fall. It sounded like they would support 3 in the fall. If, in those WMDs where we had higher density then what would be deemed reasonable by the public, we kept talking about a fall harvest and in those WMDs bumping it up from 2 to 5. Wouldnt it be reasonable to go from 2 to 3 in the spring and 2 to 3 in the fall? He would think that would be something that potentially NWTF could better support that the public would view as taking a step in the right direction. In terms of the early start, he thought NWTF had some good points from a biological perspective in terms of harvesting birds earlier in September. If we left it in the hands of the Legislature we would get things like November hunting which required turkey hunters to hunt in blaze orange and there would be some knocking off turkeys with .306 deer hunting in the fall. He did not want to see Mr. Sullivans proposal that was headed in the right direction get scuttled and be turned over to the Legislature because the Department didnt take action.

Commissioner Camuso stated the Legislature did vote to carry over one of the turkey bills with the understanding they would review what the Advisory Council voted on. The bill they held over would eliminate turkey permits, turkey tagging and expand the fall season to 8 birds. The Department did experience a lot of complaints with turkeys. Personally, almost every place she went, she heard people complaining about turkeys. We were balancing a fine line where we didnt want turkeys to become like Canada geese with a nonstop nuisance problem. The beauty of the Department doing rulemaking on the bag limit was that we would do it annually so that a bag limit of 5 for next fall did not mean it would be a bag limit of 5 in perpetuity. It would be reviewed annually. It was critical we maintain tagging of turkeys. We needed to show aggressively that we were listening to the public and responsive to what they were asking for. She wanted recommendations to be science based and reasonable.

Mr. Thurston asked when turkeys would become their own problem much like moose had become their own problem. We didnt want to have so many birds they began to impede their own health.

Mrs. Oldham stated if we were going to be aggressive with the numbers, and it sounded like we needed to be, the tagging was important to track the numbers.

Mr. Sullivan stated we had two more years of the research project and we were trying to get representative information in similar WMDs and then carry over that information. With the research project and maintaining the tagging it would be an ongoing thing.

Mr. Farrington stated they were allowed 2 turkeys now in the fall, what percentage of those turkey hunters filled their tags?

Mr. Sullivan stated 38% took two turkeys last fall. He doubted people would take more than three.

Mr. Scribner stated according to NWTF they said we had 18,000 turkey hunters in Maine. It was $20 per permit, $360,000. He knew it was not related to the proposal, we had 180,000 people that bought hunting licenses, if we were to offset that with a $2 increase on the general hunting license then we wouldnt have to have a turkey permit. It would be fund neutral. He didnt hear anything in terms of the spring season. Why did we focus just on the fall and not bump it up 1 in the spring and 1 in the fall vs. 5 in the fall?

Mr. Sullivan stated targeting the fall was open to females. If we were trying to reduce a turkey population our best bet was to reduce the brood stock. That was why we focused on the fall.

Mr. Gundersen asked if there were as many hunters in the fall as in the spring.

Mr. Sullivan stated we tagged 3,500 turkeys last season. We didnt track fall participation, it was one universal permit. In terms of the spring that was something we were going to look at following the research project. Our goal had always been to maintain the quality spring hunt.

Commissioner Camuso stated to clarify, the tagging fee for turkeys was $2 which the registration station kept, the Department did not get any money for tagging turkeys. We made it as affordable as possible while still trying to compensate the tagging agents for their time and effort.

Mr. Webb stated we paid the web provider $1 per transaction so it was actually a revenue loss.

Mr. Lewis asked about winter severity and what that did to the adult birds. Last year they had a cool, wet spring and down his way they didnt see any young turkeys until into August. Did they possibly have a couple clutches?

Mr. Sullivan stated they only had one. The females would nest their first year. Females would re-nest up to 3 times.

Mr. Sage asked for the agricultural people that were having issues, was there a list compiled that turkey hunters could contact them for permission to hunt on their land and help with the issue?

Mr. Sullivan stated that was something in the management plan identified as one of many tasks.

C. Step 1

1. Furbearer Rules

Mrs. Webb stated the first change we were proposing was to extend the beaver trapping season in southern and central Maine. Currently, the season ended March 31 and we were proposing to extend it by two weeks so it would end April 15. As we did every year, the general public could request areas to be closed to beaver trapping and this year we only had one change in WMD 6 in Ft. Fairfield. The next change we were proposing was to have tagging time limits for otter taken after the general trapping season closed. Currently, any otter taken after December 31 if caught by accident, could be kept by beaver trappers. We were proposing to add a time limit for any otter taken January 1 - 30. That aligned with when beaver trapping was allowed, general trapping season was closed. Any otter taken after January 1 would have to be tagged within 10 days. To be consistent with bobcat that were also a CITES managed species, currently, all bobcat taken by hunting had to be tagged within 3 days. We were proposing to make that consistent with otter of 10 days. Currently, any coyotes taken could not be gifted or given away to a friend until they had a permanent tag. We wanted to make it easier to utilize all coyotes taken and allow gifting for coyotes to take place before the permanent tag was put on them. We were proposing gifting of untagged coyotes. People could make their own label with the hunters name, town it was taken in, the date, etc. That person could take it to the fur registration station with the information. We were also moving to electronic registration of furbearers that fall. People would have the opportunity to tag in real time with that information coming in. With some of the time limits for otter or bobcat we didnt currently have any concerns with their population, they were very healthy, but it gave us the opportunity to make changes if necessary. Covered floats regarding muskrats and that was simply a minor revision to the definition so that covered floats when set, placed and tended were completely surrounded by water. That was to reduce non-target species. A new bill was passed for upland game hunting and changed the start date for the hunting season for snowshoe hare, gray squirrel, ruffed grouse and bobwhite quail, would be last Saturday in September.

Mr. Sullivan asked why ring-necked pheasant was not included in the season start date change.

Commissioner Camuso stated we could change that, it did not come up with the Committee

Mr. Webb stated the bill that passed was specified those four species, but we had the authority to do that for pheasant.

V. Other Business

1. Wild Trout Conservation - North Zone General Law Concept

Mr. Brautigam stated this effort was pretty significant in scope. We were talking about going from a culture where you could use bait pretty much anywhere with exceptions, to the complete opposite where you couldnt use it anywhere except where we allowed it. The goal was to reduce unintended introductions of baitfish that competed with native trout and charr. For the most part, comments that were received on the proposal had been in support, but with some concerns. A lot of the public sentiment that was expressed focused on issues beyond the scope of the proposal. Many of the comments focused on how staff applied the guidance in identifying waters that wed be retaining live fish as bait. In response to the public input, we met with staff in the affected regions and looked at how they applied the guidance. We determined, based on those discussions, that staff did apply the guidance in a manner that provided broad based support for the regulation proposal. In response to the public comments that came in, mostly from special interest groups, we wanted to take another look at the guidance that was applied to staff in developing the list of exceptions. We were planning to redefine the guidance to provide clearer information to staff that would create more consistency in how the guidance was applied. We would have advanced to Step 3, except after the close of the comment period, we reached out to the Attorney Generals office and explained we had revisions to the list of exceptions. As 14 days had lapsed since the close of the comment period, we did not have the latitude to revise the list. We had to pull the proposal and start anew. We would redevelop the list of exceptions where we would be allowing live fish as bait under the no live fish as bait general law in the north zone.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston asked with some of the concerns of some of the organizations and individuals, would there be some reflected change with the new proposal?

Mr. Brautigam stated yes.

Mr. Lewis stated it was something that needed to be addressed, someone had a place on a heritage pond and people ice fished it and it was closed to ice fishing and they got a fine. But, they used live bait and brought it in. Was there something we could address as a Department to make that more of a penalty.

Mr. Brautigam stated he was anticipating more discussion about improving efforts to conserve our native fisheries and that would include heritage waters. Enforcement was always an issue. He had been involved in reclamations in southern Maine. They had people come in the winter time and fish with bait and mess up a significant investment rebuilding the fishery.

Commissioner Camuso stated maybe we could look at a mandatory revocation. That was a pretty strong disincentive for bad behavior.

Mr. Thurston stated when we had these passionate issues it always came back to messaging by the Department and how we got the word out. No matter what side of the issue you were on, at least you understood the issue and why the decision was made. Communication with the general public was critical.

Commissioner Camuso stated as an agency we would soon be doing a strategic plan to come up with priorities for what we wanted to accomplish in the next 4-8 years. For her personally, increasing staff in the Information and Education division would be a top priority.

Mr. Dudley asked how did we get to the public? Our public hearing attendance was one issue. How did we get around that? No one was showing up.

Mr. Brautigam stated to Mr. Lewis concern about people using live fish as bait, even though it had been part of our discussion as a division they focused more on the bigger predatory invasive introductions. One of the great things about no live fish as bait general law in the north zone was that was right out on the table. That would be an educational instrument in and of itself. People would be asking why that was an issue. It would create awareness on the topic and we would be able to emphasize that down the road.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Don Kleiner stated just an observation; the disconnect between hunters and the public on turkeys was breathtaking. People had had it with turkeys and it was showing very strongly at the Legislature. There was pretty strong sentiment that if we didnt do something, he thought there would be a move to eliminate seasons and make them vermin which was his fear. He knew it was stronger in central Maine where he lived.

Jeff Reardon stated on the rulemaking process, he continued to not understand why IFW rulemaking was so much less open to changes in response to comments that came in from the public than other agencies. The idea that it had been open for 14 days so you couldnt make changes, he spent 3 years going back and forth with LUPC over the adjacency rule changes. It seemed so different from other agencies, this agency. Mr. Reardon had met with the AGs office and thought that was the advice we were getting from them, but it was different for this agency than others. It made it harder for us to do rulemaking in a way that responded to significant input from the public. On the outreach piece about live fish as bait, in the old days there was a consistent message from the first edition of Maine Fish and Game magazine had an article titled, Trouble by the Bucket Full. That was a consistent message in Maine Fish and Game magazine through the mid-1980s and that messaging from the Department stopped. It was a message that was promoted very effectively by the Department for a long time and he hoped we could get back to it. He asked if we would have to repromulgate the rule or just go out for additional public comment?

Mr. Brautigam stated we would be starting over. We were revising the existing list, it would be less of an effort than last time.

Steve Brook asked if the rule would be advertised separately or rolled into the next set of fishing rules?

Mr. Brautigam stated he felt they would track as two separate rules.

Gary Corson asked if the concept of the proposal was going to change or was it just the list.

Mr. Brautigam asked what Mr. Corson would like to see.

Gary Corson stated definitely the regions. In order to understand the first list a tremendous amount of work had to go into it.

Mr. Brautigam stated in the past those that carefully reviewed our decision making in the fish world had emphasized the need for watcodes and those were included on the original list. It was a bit of a surprise there were some other fields that they also needed.

Gary Corson stated normally when we provided rule changes we provided a page for each one. It gave a purpose; there was a lot of information on those pages. The proposal was nothing but 3 columns, watcode, water, town. Were we going to provide more information with the new list?

Commissioner Camuso asked if he would like the information broken down by region with an overview of the purpose and why these particular waters were added to the list, similar to the regular regulation proposals.

Gary Corson stated definitely the regions.

Mr. Brautigam stated the list was long and we had tried to keep it as simple as possible. A number of the public members already had our database they could work with to manipulate the information.

Gary Corson asked if there would be public hearings?

Mr. Brautigam stated we may want to have a hearing. We had vetted the issue pretty well, we were just fine turning the list of exceptions. He did not feel there was much of a need based on the attendance at the two hearings that were held.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mrs. Oldham and that was seconded by Mr. Sage to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta Wednesday, July 10, 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order - 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making



A. Step 3

1. Ch. 13 Watercraft rules sound level testing - Christl Theriault

B. Step 2

1. Furbearer Rules - Nate Webb

2. 2019 Any-deer permit allocations - Nate Webb

3. Conroy Lake open to ice fishing petition - Francis Brautigam

4. Wild Trout Conservation Strategy - N. Zone General Law Concept - Francis Brautigam

C. Step 1

1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2020 - Francis Brautigam

V. Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 a.m. VI. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule for Next Meeting
IX. Adjournment 12:00 P.M.
DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta Wednesday, July 25, 2019 @ 8:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order - 8:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Emergency rulemaking - Ch. 13 Watercraft rules - remove scope of rules - Commissioner Camuso

B. Step 2

There are no items under Step 2

C. Step 1

There are no items under Step 1

V. Other Business

VI. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Adjournment - 8:45 A.M.

Advisory Council Meeting
May 21 , 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Judy Camuso, Acting Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Nate Webb, WRAS Supervisor
Nathan Bieber, Deer Biologist
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Specialist
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Jason Luce, Warden Service Sargent
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Don Dudley (Chair)
Jerry Scribner br> Sheri Oldham
Brian Smith - by phone
Gunnar Gundersen
Matt Thurston (Vice-chair)
Dick Fortier
Shawn Sage

Guests:

James Cote, MTA
Gary Corson, New Sharon
Don Kleiner, MPGA
John Glowa, China
Deirdre Fleming, Portland Press Herald
Eliza Donahue, Maine Audubon
Al Cowperthwaite, Holden
Nelson Palmer, Kennebec Valley Furtakers
Edward LaBelle, Burnham
Katie Hansberry, HSUS


I. Call to Order

Don Dudley, Council Chair, called the meeting to order

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A Motion was made by Mr. Gundersen to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Sage

Vote: Unanimous - minutes approved.

III-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

A motion was made by MR. Dudley to nominate Matt Thurston as Council Chair, and that was seconded by Mr. Sage. There were no further nominations.

Vote: Unanimous - Matt Thurston elected as Council Chair

A motion was made by Mr. Dudley to nominate Jerry Scribner as Council Vice-Chair, and that was seconded by Mrs. Oldham. There were no further nominations.

Vote: Unanimous - Jerry Scribner elected as Council Vice-Chair.

2. Ch. 20 Taxidermy - Freeze Dried classification

Mrs. Theriault stated only one comment was received and that was from Council member Jeff Lewis regarding a word that was used in the cleanliness of the specimen, bleaching. It was an antiquated method and actually deteriorated the skull so it was asked that the word bleach be changed to whitened. That was the only change from the original proposal.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mrs. Oldham

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

3. Wild Turkey hunting - fall season

Mr. Sullivan stated he wanted to start out by saying he appreciated the Council's comments. It had been really helpful during the process. The handout showed the changes from the original proposal. The spring season change was removing the A/B season from WMDs 1-6, that had not changed from the original proposal. The legal weapons methods, based on a lot of discussion and comments we made some modifications. Originally, the proposal was to have shotgun sizes 10-28 up to 2-9 shot size with no limitation on type of shot. The modification is still including 10-28 but including the smaller shot size in TSS only. Instead of starting at size 2 we were going back to the original rule which was size 4. The fall season start date was the same as the original proposal, starting the Monday closest to September 17. In the season date table, instead of being specific with the dates the guideline was used so that we were not locked into having to set the season date each year. We had proposed 5 turkeys in WMDs 15, 16 and 20-25 and we were retaining that based on a lot of discussion addressing what was perceived as a nuisance and addressing the overabundance in those districts. We were retaining the 5 birds but limiting to 2 per day. There was a typo corrected in the language carried over from the spring season youth day for the fall season youth day.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Sage stated when people registered birds, they would register the gauge of gun used. Down the road we could revisit the issue and see if .410's were being used. Especially if there were a number of wounded birds being reported.

Mr. Sullivan stated we had tagged 200 males and 200 female turkeys for monitoring and would hopefully be doing the same the following year. We may get a small sample of crippling loss. We had birds with radios that we could actually track.

Mr. Fortier stated in northern Maine that was an issue with a farmer. Houlton and north, a fall hunt would probably exterminate any wild turkey hunting. They were pretty well dispersed in the area. There was a farmer that was having a real issue with 100-200 turkeys on his silage pile. He would like the opportunity to help that one spot with one problem. He had plenty of people that would help trap the turkeys and be able to bring them further north and disperse them.

Commissioner Camuso stated the regional biologist could work with Mr. Sullivan on figuring out a solution for that one particular spot whether it be trapping and transferring or something else.

Mr. Sullivan stated they trapped there the winter of 2018 to put bands on the turkeys. They lost count at 90 and there were lots more birds. It was a concentration. Mr. Haskell brought it up at a recent meeting with people in the area regarding moving the birds there, and were in favor and were not. They had been discussing options including having a fall season, but in WMD 6 they were not well established. We did not think the whole WMD could support a hunt. A fall hunt would not concentrate hunters to the problem area. They were discussing a special hunt to direct turkey hunters to the problem area in December when the birds were congregating.

Mr. Fortier stated to him, it presented a good opportunity for landowner relations.

Commissioner Camuso stated the Legislature had passed a law so next year hunters would be able to use a crossbow.

Mr. Webb stated that was for both fall turkey as well as archery season for 3 years and they would reevaluate.

Mr. Sage stated at the last meeting Mr. Scribner had brought up the use of .22 magnums for deer. They should look at .410s being used the same way. He was hoping the super shot took care of the concerns they had.

Mr. Smith stated he had heard some of the discussion. In Washington County, there were reports of seeing less birds than previous springs.

Mr. Sullivan repeated the changes from the original proposal to Mr. Smith.

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier to accept the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: 7 in favor; 1 opposed(Mr. Smith) - motion passed

b. Step 2

There were no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. Furbearer Rules

Mr. Webb stated the public comment period was still open and a public hearing had been scheduled. There were two proposals for the furbearer rules as it pertained to the two chapters 16 and 17. We were proposing an amendment to a covered float; extending the beaver trapping season in southern and central Maine by 15 days; one minor adjustment to the beaver closures; required that bobcat taken by hunting and otter taken in beaver traps from January 1 to January 30 be registered within 10 days of the harvest; allowing the gifting of unregistered coyotes and adjusting seasons dates for upland game other than woodcock so the season would start the last Saturday in September. That was to align the rule with statute for a recent law that had passed.

Council Member Questions and Comments

Mr. Dudley asked about the tagging of otter and bobcat. What would happen if the trapper or hunter called the warden and the they didnt show up within the 10 days?

Mr. Webb stated his understanding was that if the contact had been made they would consider that due diligence on the part of the trapper to make the effort they were required to make.

2. 2019 Any-deer permit allocations

Mr. Bieber stated he wanted to touch on how the harvest panned out in 2018 compared to previous years, what the winter looked like, and what our recommended permit allocations for the coming year would be. Deer hunters in 2018 harvested 32,451 deer, that was about 5,000 more than the previous year. A lot of that had to do with the fact that we issued over 84,000 any-deer permits. Climatic effects during the firearms season played a lot into it as well. Biologists harvested over 8,000 bio samples, about of the total registered kill. Historically, we used that and the relationship between bio data sample numbers and the deer harvest to project at the end of the season what the harvest would be. Now that we had direct data entry for tagging we did not have to do that. The harvest was up about 19% statewide. The statewide doe harvest objective in 2018 was 8,959, the adult doe harvest was 9,659. It was the first time in over a decade that we met or exceeded our doe harvest objective.

Mr. Bieber stated a lot of that had to do with the fact that we issued a lot of permits, but a lot of it had to do with a weird season as far as weather as well. In the firearms season we took 1,500 adult does, in week two we took close to 1,300 does and in week three and four we harvested 1,700 and 2,500 does. Most harvest typically took place on Saturday, and the first handful of Saturdays were very poor conditions. We had great conditions the second half of the season when people were more prone to use a permit for a doe. We also had accumulating snow in most of the state by mid-November.

Mr. Bieber stated as far as the winter went, in our northern districts our winter was comparable to the 2008-2009 winter. In our western mountains, the winter was comparable to the 2007-2008 winter which was slightly worse. These would be categorized as very severe winters in our northern and western mountain districts. In southern, central and coastal Maine we saw moderate to mild winters.

Mr. Bieber stated the 2019 total permit recommendations were 68,145 any-deer permits down 16,600 about a 20% decline. Most of the permits we issued were in the south. In southern Maine, WMDs 15-29 recommendations were for slight declines from last year in most areas. This was largely due to the fact that in 2018 we were compensating for an under harvest of does in previous years. Given that we met the doe harvest objective in 2018 we did not have to compensate. In our northern WMDs we were recommending none or a small number of permits across the board. In some of the WMDs where the impact was estimated to be between 5 and 10 adult does including youth harvest we elected to recommend a small number of permits. The harvest would naturally localize itself around the areas and the WMDs with the most deer and those would be areas we would be seeing road kill numbers increase, habitat around town being degraded, etc. In WMDs where the impact of issuing a small number of permits would be minimal we recommended to issue a small number of permits. WMD 6 was a little bit of an exception. There, we had seen very steep inclines in the number of road kills and especially around the bigger towns such as Ashland, Caribou and Monticello. We were recommending a similar number of permits to last year.

Mr. Bieber stated we would be issuing permits at a sub WMD level that we were calling subunits. One of the subunits would be Georgetown, Arrowsic in WMD 25 and the other was the core of WMD 26. We were recommending issuing 270 bonus antlerless deer permits in subunit 25a and 200 bonus permits in 26a subunit. The recommendations were based on the land area in the subunit, the doe quota for the district on the whole and an expansion factor. We elected to be conservative with expansion factors but those were based on bonus permit success rates in other WMDs as well as the overall expansion factor used for the WMD. The issue was to target areas of the state where we were seeing persistent issues associated with locally overabundant deer, road kills, nuisance deer complaints, Lyme disease, etc. They would be an option when hunters were applying for an any-deer permit and they could pick a preferred WMD for a bonus permit and be able to select a subunit for their bonus permit. This posed some issues in our first year, especially in WMD 25 in that there would probably be a lot of WMD 25 bonus permits in general. He thought hunters would gravitate more towards those than a 25a permit. Currently, you could only select one preferred WMD.

Mr. Webb stated we were working with those that ran the lottery. We were discussing allowing a second option for bonus permits.

Mr. Bieber stated there was a group in Georgetown that had an interest in reducing tick numbers, and as a part of that, deer numbers. We were working with them on messaging and encouraging hunters to apply for the subunit 25a permits.

Mr. Dudley asked how many deer had been collared for the study.

Mr. Bieber stated we had about 10 left in WMD 1, a slightly smaller number in the new study sight, WMD 5 and about 35 in WMD 6. There were about 5 left in WMD 17.

Mr. Webb stated the Passamaquoddy tribe had collars out and New Brunswick had study sights as well. We were sharing information.

3. Ch. 13 Watercraft rules sound level testing

Mrs. Theriault stated the change was addressing something we already had the authority in statute to do which was noise level testing. We just never had the prescription to allow law enforcement officers to do the testing. We created a section in rule to address that and be able to instruct law enforcement on how to test boats that seemed to exceed the noise level. Current NH rules were used to develop the rule. They had been utilizing the testing procedures for a number of years. One of the challenges was that we were using the SAE standards for testing, and we had to navigate legal issues when incorporating by reference. We were putting in a website link in the rule so the public could access the document. The testing procedure was what our law enforcement officers utilized so it wasnt really something the public needed, but if someone did want it they would have to go to the website and purchase a copy. The Department had to purchase a copy to be able to utilize it for our training. The two different types of testing were laid out in the rule, stationary and operational. We had received two comments in support. Most of the complaints in the past had come from the Sebago Lake region.

Sgt. Luce stated he thought the plan to train them was to have some of the NH wardens come over and train some of the wardens that either patroled on Sebago Lake or around Sebago Lake. The stationary testing would probably be the one used. The operational testing had to have a course set up.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Gundersen stated he read a comment that most of the boats making all the noise were cigarette boats.

Sgt. Luce stated the performance style boats, they liked to have them loud for some reason. It seemed to be focused on Sebago and Long lakes and had been for the last several years.

Mr. Sage asked what the fine would be.

Mrs. Theriault stated it was a civil violation for the first time someone was charged and it was a $300-$500 fine.

Mr. Thurston stated he would assume the industry had dealt with the situation. Did they have something in place on Winnipesaukee and some of the other larger bodies of water? They had aftermarket kits so that somebody could retrofit their boat and make it appropriate within the decibel levels.

Sgt. Luce stated he thought most of the loud noise came from aftermarket pipes or they had cut outs on the boat so they could manually adjust. NH had a great program on Winnipesaukee. They had a cove where the state owned the land around it and they had the course set up for testing.

4. Conroy Lake open to ice fishing petition

Mr. Brautigam stated the Department received a petition to open Conroy Lake in Monticello to ice fishing. It was only 20 acres in size. The Department had received a number of requests from some of the folks living on the pond to do that over the years. The Department had not embraced those requests so a number of folks had pulled together a petition requiring the Department to hold a hearing and give it further consideration.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Oldham asked what the rationale had been for it not to have ice fishing.

Mr. Brautigam stated it was 20 acres in size and provided regionally a pretty attractive spring fishery. They got some pretty large brook trout from it. If it was opened in the winter it would affect the quality of that open water fishery that was present. That had been the driving concern was adversely impacting what was a very important quality fishery for the area.

Mr. Fortier asked if it was passed, would it start a trend for other bodies of water.

Mr. Brautigam stated staff was concerned it would lead to more requests. If it were a 200-300 acre body of water it would be different. It was 20 acres. It would be challenging to provide the same quality of fishing that existed there through the open water season which was quite a bit longer than the ice fishing season.

Mrs. Oldham asked if there were any state heritage fish issues there.

Mr. Brautigam stated it was a stocked pond. Even though there was support from some that lived on the pond he thought there would also be concerns expressed by other members of the angling community regarding the proposal.

5. Wild Trout Conservation Strategy - North Zone General Law concept

Mr. Brautigam stated this was round two of the new and improved no live fish as bait in the north zone general law proposal. We applied a more rigorous refined guidance in terms of identifying waters that would be exempted from the general law change and a real focus on identifying waters where there was more season long fishing opportunities where we had a contingent of anglers that were present. In the past it was where we had more than incidental use and where there was some tradition of fishing with live fish as bait. We also, for purposes of improving consistency since some of the public concerns with the last proposal expressed concern with regards to how regions were identifying waters, we tried to address that through a number of additional considerations. We believed the process this time was much more objective in terms of how staff looked at and identified waters. Some of the considerations were waters that were open to ice fishing would be retaining use of live fish as bait. Waters where we had fisheries that people typically targeted using live fish as bait such as stocked and wild salmon, lake trout, splake, etc. Where we had muskellunge populations, those were places that were typically fished using live fish as bait. Major rivers that were close to population centers. We had some waters where we did retain use of live fish as bait, not because of use there, but because of the drainages. If you looked at some of the drainages where you had a drainage of a number of different lakes and ponds in a system where the lakes and ponds were open to ice fishing rather than complicate the law book by saying the stretch of river between, Moose River was a good example of two lakes making that no live fish as bait didnt make any sense because fish could pretty much move from those lakes within that drainage. There were some that for law book simplification retained use of live fish as bait that probably werent really important places for people to fish with live fish as bait but made sense to do that given where the other waters were that you could use live fish as bait. The direct tributaries to heritage waters were also places where we would prevent people from using live fish as bait.

Mr. Brautigam stated if they looked at the proposal we reduced the list from the original proposal by about 84 waters, more than a 50% reduction from before. We were retaining live fish as bait in about 266 waters during the ice fishing season and about 73 waters during the open water fishing season.

V. Other Business

Mr. Cordes stated Swan Island Wildlife Management Area in Richmond had an overabundant deer population that was starting to do some habitat damage. Our island manager asked about the possibility of reducing some of the deer on the island. As part of our R3 efforts we thought it was a great opportunity to provide a learn to hunt next step program. It would take folks that had done hunter safety or had an interest in hunting but for whatever reason had a barrier to take the next step. We were using this opportunity as a pilot project to have 10 mentor/mentees out on the island. Associated with that have some next step, learn to hunt programs to be held on the island throughout the summer such as tracking and scouting, trail camera use, skinning and processing workshops that would be open to the public but also those selected for the program would get first dibs. The deer taken as part of the program would not count towards their regular bag limit as it was a management hunt. In order to facilitate some of the workshops Department staff would have to harvest a few deer to let folks get hands on skill set as part of the learn to hunt program. We expected to advertise on a small scale for the first year. There was an application and we created scoring criteria. It was a family oriented hunt and we were going to give extra points for those that lived in the Richmond area and had not harvested a deer. If you had harvested a deer, you were not eligible for the program or if you had hunted more than five times. We were targeting the millennials, the 19-35 year old range. Females were one of our drawing demographics and would receive extra points and a veterans preference was built in as well. We were not excluding anyone unless they had harvested a deer or were under 10 years of age.

Commissioner Camuso stated this did not require rulemaking.

Mr. Cordes stated we would control the spot so each hunter and mentor would have their own unique spot. Part of the program would be mandatory range days where they would become familiar with their firearm and have to qualify and a mandatory meet and greet with a mentor. For the first round only Department staff would be mentors. If it was successful we could export it to other groups that were interested or different management areas or expand beyond that.

Mr. Dudley stated that Mrs. Theriault had informed him that at the next meeting the Chapter 13 watercraft rule proposal would be skipping Step 2 and moved to Step 3 for a vote. We wanted the rule in place for upcoming boating season.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Al Cowperthwaite stated he was the Director for North Maine Woods and had been in the woods that month and went from Ashland over to Baker Lake and canoed a section of the St. John and then was in the town of Allagash and west of there and did not know when he had seen so many partridge at this time of year. They also saw about a moose a mile along the St. John. It was the first time he had attended an Advisory Council meeting, pending approval he would be a new member of the council and helping them out.

Gary Corson stated he had a couple of questions. The Conroy Lake petition, what was the process as far as the information that would be put out on the proposal. Would they see anything from the Department? When the proposal was advertised, would there be information along with the proposal.

Mrs. Orff stated the proposal showed what the petitioner had petitioned the Department for.

Gary Corson asked how someone from outside would know where the Department stood or what information had been looked at on the lake.

Commissioner Camuso stated we would have a public hearing and staff would listen to public comments. That would be formalized as part of the record and during that process we should probably articulate why it hadnt been open to ice fishing previously. That would be part of the public record.
Where it was a petition process it was almost a challenge for the Department to kind of at the same time counter it.

Gary Corson stated how could anybody counter it, especially if they did not live on the lake or was not from the area. There would be some concern because of what Mr. Fortier had stated, this opening the door for other small waters. From what he was hearing people should attend the public hearing.

Commissioner Camuso stated the Advisory Council and others would receive the minutes and they were shared if anyone requested them. They could look at ways for the Department to provide additional background information for folks that werent on the petition.

Mrs. Oldham stated that historically when the Council received proposals such as that one the Council knew what the objective or management goal was for that body of water. If the proposal seemed to be counter to Department objectives, usually the Council went along with the Department objectives.

Mr. Thurston stated they saw what the turnout was for public hearings and it was negligible at best whatever the item happened to be. Hopefully this would be well participated by the people that wanted it.

Gary Corson asked if someone could request information regards a management plan for the body of water.

Mr. Overlock stated we had goals and objectives that could be provided. We tried to be careful not to bias the process.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in Augusta

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Fortier and that was seconded by Mr. Sage to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta Wednesday, August 21, 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order - 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Conroy Lake open to ice fishing petition - Francis Brautigam

2. Wild Trout Conservation - N Zone General Law Concept - Francis Brautigam

B. Step 2

1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2020 - Francis Brautigam

C. Step 1

1. Ch. 5 Water Access Rules - Diano Circo

2. Ch. 13 Watercraft rules (permanent adoption of emergency rule) - Commissioner Camuso

V. Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports - 11:30 a.m.

VII. Pubic Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment - 12:00 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
July 10 , 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Jim Pellerin, Fisheries Biologist Region A
Frank Frost, Fisheries Biologist Region G
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Matt Lubejko, Fisheries Planner and Research Coordinator
Jason Luce, Warden Service Sargent
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Matt Thurston (Chair)
Jerry Scribner (vice-chair)
Shelby Rousseau
Brian Smith
Kristin Peet
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Larry Farrington
Lindsay Ware

Guests:

Jeff Reardon, Trout Unlimited
Fern & Sylvia Boose, Norway
Gary Corson, New Sharon


I. Call to Order

Matt Thurston, Council Chair, Called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Sage

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved. New members sustained.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Ch. 13 Watercraft rules sound level testing

Mrs. Theriault stated in statute we had a prohibition that watercraft could not be operated beyond certain decibels and the Commissioner shall establish rules to guide law enforcement officers in testing for boats operating above those noise levels. We had never put the rules in place. We had received quite a few complaints, mostly from the Sebago Lakes region in regard to the issue. We had received overwhelming support for the proposal. We mirrored New Hampshire's rules and referred to the SAE standards with a link in the rule so people could go to those standards with the testing procedure.

Sergeant Luce stated we used New Hampshires process with their permission. He was the supervisor in the Sebago Lake area and NH was very good at what they did. The loud boats had left Lake Winnipesaukee and gone to Sebago and Long Lake. They received a fair amount of complaints. It was only a handful of boats causing most of the problems. They knew the way the rules were currently written the wardens could not enforce it. The new rule would make it much easier to enforce.

Mrs. Theriault stated it had been moved up from Step 2 because we wanted to get the rule in place for the boating season. The Council could discuss the comments that had come in prior to voting if they wished.

Council member Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston stated Sebago Lake area was his backyard living in Gorham and he made it a point of discussion with a lot of anglers and others. He had not received one negative comment. He felt this was a good thing to do for that body of water.

Mr. Sage asked how the testing would be conducted.

Sergeant Luce stated there would be two methods of testing. NH had a course set up on Lake Winnipesaukee where they could do a test while the boat was in motion. That would be difficult to do in his area. The other option would be a stationary test. Both procedures were spelled out in the SAE standards. We would most likely utilize the stationary test. The boat would be held at idle speed and the microphone held so far off the back of the boat. NH had also offered to help train Maine wardens how to use the equipment. It was a statewide law, but right now the focus would be the Sebago Lake area.

A motion was made by Mr. Scribner to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the next two items under Step 2, Furbearer rules and 2019 Any-deer permit allocations, we were requesting to move to Step 3 for discussion and a vote. We were up against a deadline on the printing of the hunting lawbooks. The public comment period had ended on both proposals.

Mr. Thurston stated there wasnt a lot of feedback on either of the issues. He asked for a motion to move the proposals to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to move Furbearer rules and 2019 Any-deer permit allocations to Step 3 and that was seconded by Mr. Smith

Mr. Farrington stated he did not feel they could move the proposals because of the APA process.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the public comment period was closed and after the public comment period and after discussion the Commissioner was allowed to make changes. Where there was not any amount of comments to the negative, they could vote on the proposals. We had checked with the Attorney Generals office.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

2. Furbearer Rules

Mr. Webb stated typically every year in the spring we put forth proposed changes to furbearer hunting and trapping so they could be finalized in time to go in our hunting and trapping lawbooks. Every year we made variable changes to the rules. This year we had a number of changes that we brought forward. The most significant change was to extend the beaver season and add two additional weeks in the spring with a closure date of April 15 in southern and central Maine, WMDs 7 and 11-29. Most of those WMDs closed at the end of March and the trapping community had for several years requested that we close the season later to allow trappers time to pursue beaver in ice-out conditions so they could trap in open water and not chip through 3-4 feet of ice. Beaver populations were very robust statewide and we received a significant number of complaints. Trapper participation had been low for a number of years due to low pelt prices and other factors. We believed there was no biological concern and would provide trappers with additional opportunity to harvest the resource and help prevent some problems that usually started after ice-out such as road damage and other conflicts.

Mr. Webb stated we were also proposing to extend the muskrat trapping season to the same end date. We had a long tradition of aligning the muskrat trapping season with the beaver season because they were often pursued together. We were proposing to extend the muskrat season for those two additional weeks in the same WMDs as well. We were also proposing to require that trappers harvesting otter incidentally to beaver trapping from January 1 through the end of the beaver trapping season register those otter with the Department within 10 days of harvest. The reason for that was so we could more closely monitor the harvest of the species which due to its life history could be vulnerable to over harvest. The tighter tagging requirement would allow us to monitor the harvest throughout the season and in the future if we had a concern we could close the season on an emergency basis if needed. We were also proposing to align the tagging timeline for bobcat taken by hunting to 10 days as well. That was currently 72 hours. For simplicity, we were proposing to align that timeline with the otter timeline.

Mr. Webb stated we were also proposing to require bobcat hunters to submit a tooth and tissue sample. That was something we required trappers to do for a few years and wed like to get the same information from bobcat hunters as well. We were proposing a slight change for coyote tagging. Currently, there was no ability for a person that harvested a coyote to give that animal to a trapper to make use of the pelt without having it tagged. The change would allow a hunter that harvested a coyote to give it to a trapper with a temporary tag identifying the hunter without having to formally register it. The ownness would then be with the trapper that received it to formally register it. That would hopefully allow more use of that fur resource by the trappers.

Mr. Webb stated we had one change to the beaver closures. We closed properties and areas of the state to beaver trapping upon request from landowners. Many had been in place for a number of years. We made adjustments as requests came in from landowners either dropping the closure or adding them. This year there was one request for a closure in WMD 6. We were also proposing to amend the definition of a float for muskrat trapping. It was a clarification to ensure that the device was completely surrounded by water in a way that minimized the risk of capturing a nontarget species.

Mr. Webb stated finally, there was a law passed during the last legislative session that adjusted the start date of upland game species hunting from October 1 to the last Saturday in September. That would apply to all upland game species except woodcock which were regulated federally. The public comment period had closed. We held a public hearing on May 29, 2019 and only a handful of people attended. Those that spoke were in support of the proposed changes. We received no written comments.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Scribner stated in terms of the opening of the season the last Saturday in September, this year the following Monday after the last Saturday in September was still in September and people were asking if that day was going to be open also.

Mr. Webb stated the start of the season would be the last Saturday in September and would be continuing. The law that passed and the proposed rule started the season on that last Saturday and it would run right through to the end of the season.

Mr. Sage asked about beaver closures and asking permission to access peoples land.

Mr. Webb stated beaver trapping was an exception in that unless the land was posted otherwise or closed in rule, the trapper did not need to seek landowner permission. It was assumed as it was for hunting. That was the reason for the closures, those areas were closed to beaver trapping and it was on the trapper to understand where the closures were.

Mrs. Peet stated she knew there had been some concern about population decline in muskrat among trappers and tribal communities. What were his thoughts about extending the season.

Mr. Webb stated continent wide concern over declining muskrat populations was not a Maine issue or northeast issue. There were a number of theories about what was driving that, disease, climate, toxicology concerns, etc. There were a few large-scale research projects looking at those factors trying to understand what was happening. There was no evidence indicating that harvest played any role in those declines. There was concern about those populations and at some point there could be concerns over the sustainability of harvest. We did not have those concerns right now due to low pelt prices and low participation by trappers in general. We believed muskrat harvest was very low. Last year, there was a rule change that required mandatory harvest reporting by trappers. Muskrat was not a species that trappers had to register or tag, and on those mandatory reports ask trappers how many muskrats they harvested the previous year. We had been having conversations with the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit about potentially doing some muskrat research oriented in the northeast. In general as a basic principal we tried to avoid timing seasons when wildlife had dependent offspring. The extension would go into the breeding season, but it was not at a time of year when the kits had been born or there were any dependent offspring.

Mr. Smith asked why we didn't require muskrats to be tagged and was there any clue as to how many were harvested in Maine.

Mr. Webb stated we didnt have any recent information, that was one of the reasons we wanted to start gathering the information from the trappers. We had a handful of species that we did require tagging or registration, beaver, fisher, marten, otter; usually those were species that due to their life history and relatively low reproductive rates and vulnerability to trapping there was risk of over harvest. Many other species such as muskrat, racoon, skunk, opossum, they were much more productive and research done range wide showed that similar to upland game birds typically harvest was compensatory, not additive or something that really affected populations in any significant way.

Mr. Farrington stated if there was a concern what was the issue with having them tag?

Mr. Webb stated there was a burden on trappers to do that and it was something we would discuss. We were in the midst of a furbearer planning process. Muskrat was one of the first species they would be working on.

Mrs. Peet asked about enforcement issues if the beaver and muskrat seasons were not aligned.

Sergeant Luce stated other than incidental take or those types of issues he didnt feel it would be all that difficult.

A motion was made by Mr. Scribner to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Sage

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

3. 2019 Any-deer permit allocations

Mr. Webb stated every year the Department allocated any-deer permits as a way to manage the antlerless harvest of the deer population. We issued any-deer permits according to WMDs across the state, and the permit would allow the recipient to harvest an antlerless deer in lieu of an antlered deer. We used antlerless deer harvest as a way to manipulate and manage the deer densities. We had a big game management plan and a long history of planning for deer and other big game species in a way that tried to achieve the desires of the public as well as the hunting community for deer populations. It was a matter of balancing what the average resident of Maine wanted with what hunters would like to see and other folks that interacted with deer. We looked at hunter preferences, rates of vehicle collisions, diseases such as Lyme, crop damage, habitat damage, all those things were looked at. We used a number of pieces of information when we were recommending permit numbers. Things such as winter severity which was a big driver of deer populations in Maine and other types of mortality such as vehicle collisions, predation, etc. We used hunter success rates and buck kill index from the hunting season and looked at the age structure of the population and the sex ratios. All those factors were considered as we developed permit recommendations.

Mr. Webb stated we were proposing 68,145 antlerless deer permits distributed primarily in southern and central Maine where the deer population was highest and most productive and where other forms of mortality tended to be relatively low. Historically, we issued very few to no permits in the northern part of the state due to the impact that severe winter weather had on deer up there and the fact that in general we were trying to grow the population which had been a challenge. The past winter was very severe in northern Maine, but average in southern and central Maine. Relative to last year, we were proposing either the same number of permits in northern Maine or a reduction in permits. In southern and central Maine the permit numbers were similar to last year or slightly lower. For a number of years we were trying to bring the doe/buck ratio down to have a more balanced sex structure in the population. We achieved that last year so were able to bring the permit numbers down slightly and go to more of a maintenance mode with antlerless harvest in southern and central Maine.

Mr. Webb stated that new this year we were proposing to establish two subunits in WMDs 25 and 26. These were areas where for a number of years weve had significant concern over locally abundant deer populations at a small scale within a WMD. A cluster of towns where there were a lot of vehicle collisions, Lyme disease, complaints from the public and we hadnt felt it was appropriate to issue a large number of any-deer permits across the entire WMD to resolve that very local issue. New this year, we designated two subunits and were proposing to issue bonus antlerless permits within those subunits. A hunter that received one of the bonus permits would be allowed to harvest an additional antlerless deer within that specific area, not the entire WMD.

Mr. Webb stated a public hearing was held on the proposal on June 20 and no members of the public attended. We received a written comment in opposition to permit numbers in WMD 23, they felt the number was too high. We received a number of written comments in support of the proposal, particularly in support of the new subunits. We were not proposing any changes to the original proposal.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Scribner stated it was very evident after meeting with a group there last year that they were looking to the Department for help with their overabundance of deer and their Lyme disease issue in the Georgetown area. The comments received from that area had been very supportive and thankful. The Department should feel good about the subunit structure focusing on hot spots within the state where we had documented overabundance of deer and Lyme disease.

Mr. Farrington asked why a subunit was not created for Eastport.

Mr. Webb stated this was a new tool for the Department and we looked at a number of factors such as rates of Lyme disease, vehicle collisions, public complaints and used a harvest metrics to look at intensity of harvest within those areas as a way to objectively identify the areas in a way that was defensible based on data and information. Our goal was to roll it out in a couple of areas to see how it worked. Our criteria were conservative and if it worked well we would loosen the criteria and identify potentially more areas in the future where we could use the tool. There were other areas that fell into the same category.

Mr. Smith stated in WMDs 27 and 28 theyd had an increase in deer and as a result, an increase in ticks and Lyme disease. For the last couple of years theyd had 50 permits and that dropped to 25 in each of the zones. The tagging stations/sporting goods stores had approached him and asked why, now that there were doe permits in those zones, they couldnt have an extra week of muzzleload season in those WMDs. It would be a huge boost to the businesses. If it would not really effect the population, we were issuing permits there.

Mr. Webb stated there was some statutory framework, but it would be through rulemaking. There had been some discussion around the one vs. two-week muzzleload season. There was concern the second week of muzzleload season in northern, eastern, western Maine the deer were beginning yarding activities. Some had ethical concerns with that.

Ms. Rousseau asked why we did not allow the use of bow and arrow hunting during the first week of muzzleloader season.

Mr. Webb stated they were social issues. Typically, when those seasons were started it was because of a user group that wanted to do that activity and be the only one at that time of year. From a biological perspective he did not think we would have a concern. It was a tradition with Maine hunting for perspective user groups.

Mr. Smith stated he thought it had passed through the Fish and Wildlife Committee on crossbows during the regular archery season, but it would not be in effect for the fall.

Mr. Webb stated the law did pass and would go into effect in 2020 for 3 years and had a sunset provision. Crossbows would be allowed during the regular archery season. However, in order to harvest an antlerless deer you would be required to have an any-deer permit. Regular archery hunters in WMDs where any-deer permits were issued did not require an any-deer permit.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Smith

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

strong>B. Step 2

1. Conroy Lake open to ice fishing petition

Mr. Brautigam stated we received a public petition from Monticello Fish and Game Club to open Conroy Lake to ice fishing for smelt and brook trout. Conroy Lake was a 25-acre lake. A public hearing was held on June 13, 2019 and there were 13 public members in attendance. All the public members in attendance were supportive of moving forward with the petition. There was some discussion regarding parking issues along the pond. There were a lot of private roads around the pond and in the winter time the plowing was challenging to accommodate public use. It was also a very well developed pond. One of the property owners had a business on the pond and offered to plow an area for parking for the public and provide access to the pond. The Department had some reservations about opening the small pond to ice fishing because it would likely mean the open water season would be compromised. It would mean that probably the open water season, particularly the spring fishery would not be nearly as good for brook trout and for splake. In addition, the smelt dipping in the spring may also not be that good. After considering all the information available the Department decided to move forward in support of the proposed petition to open the water to ice fishing. We were proposing an amendment that would establish a two-line limit. That would be put in place to help distribute the catch for the winter fishing season. This was more a social issue than a biological issue. The fish in the pond aside from the smelt, the brook trout and splake were stocked. There was no wild reproduction there. It was more about managing social use opportunities.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston asked if any negative comments were received.

Mr. Brautigam stated there were none received.

Mr. Farrington asked if this would necessitate a change in the stocking program.

Mr. Brautigam stated it would. Brook trout stocked there, we did get some growth but it was stocked more as a put and take opportunity. The splake were stocked there with the intent they would grow to larger size before being harvested. With the water being open in the winter, there was no way we would be able to manage to grow splake through the winter into the next season. We were planning to likely suspend the splake stocking program, and continue with brook trout stocking and look into stocking retired brook trout to provide some size quality.

Ms. Rousseau asked how the fisheries biologists felt about opening the water.

Mr. Frost stated it was shifting opportunity from the summer, soon after ice out to the winter. The added opportunity for the winter fishing outweighed what they would lose the rest of the season. It was an active group in Monticello and the Department spoke with them each year. The issue came up each year. They were told the Department would consider a petition if they wanted to submit one.

Mr. Brautigam stated he felt there was also limited ice fishing opportunity in that area.

Mr. Scribner asked how much open water fishing occurred there.

Mr. Frost stated it was a small water and a pretty small fishery. It was mostly the local residents and would be the same people fishing in the winter.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he attended the public hearing and there were limited ice fishing opportunities for the Monticello area. It would give the kids a chance to get out in the winter time. It was a commercial campground that would keep the parking lot plowed and provide access to the water. He thought it was a great change and showed the Department was listening to the people in Aroostook County.

2. Wild Trout Conservation Strategy - North Zone General Law Concept

Mr. Brautigam stated the Department had a considerable amount of time invested in the proposal. It would change the general law structure in the north region from a situation where you could predominantly use live bait anywhere with certain exceptions identified in the law book to a situation where the general law would be reversed. The general law would be no use of live fish as bait except where we indicated you could. The focus was trying to do more to conserve the wild trout resources we had in northern Maine. The regulation was designed to not only create awareness and think about use of live fish as bait, but because introduced populations of baitfish and other fish that were sometimes associated with baitfish in the bait bucket could adversely impact our wild and native trout resources. The Legislature in 2018 had several bills before it and as part of that effort we worked with the Legislature to put together a strategy that would better conserve those wild resources in the northern part of the state. The legislation addressed state heritage fish waters and required the Department to establish the same protections that were on heritage ponds to the tributaries of those heritage ponds. The concern at the time was if we did that we would end up adding volume to our law book. We wanted to look for other strategies we could use to address the Legislatures desire to protect those heritage waters by protecting the tributaries.

Mr. Brautigam stated the Department had formed a heritage work group to work on developing the strategy which was now the proposal to provide those protections without complicating the fishing law book. In October, 2018 the Department submitted a progress report to the Legislature and the report identified eight guidelines used to develop the proposal. We had convened two public information meetings to try and generate public awareness of why we were moving forward with the proposal. One of the points that was made when looking at the range of eastern brook trout in the U.S. the range had been in decline and ran from Maine to Georgia. One of the leading factors for the cause of the decline were the introduction of new species of fish that competed with brook trout. In the proposal, we would retain use of live fish as bait fishing opportunities on all waters that were open to ice fishing. Those were the areas people had traditionally fished and we would be identifying additional waters that were open just during the open water season where there was a strong historical tradition of fishing with live fish as bait. Those two categories comprised those waters that would be exempted from the no live fish as bait general law in the north zone.

Mr. Brautigam stated the goal was to develop a balanced approach that would provide enhanced protections to native fish while trying to minimize any unintended impacts to the angling community, baitfish harvesters and our fishing law book. The initiative would not reduce the use of worms or dead bait fish, it would only affect the use of live bait fish. When trying to determine how this general law change would effect the number of special regulations in the law book we found it would significantly reduce the number of regulations which would be consistent with ongoing Department efforts to simplify and reform the fishing law book.

Mr. Brautigam stated in March 2019, we put together the initial regulation proposal and that was based on guidance we provided to regional staff in identifying waters that would be flagged as exemptions where we asked regional staff to make sure the waters identified were waters where there was evidence of angling use with live fish as bait, and that there was more than just incidental angler use on those waters. Those were the waters that would continue the use of live fish as bait. Following the public comments that were received on the first effort to advance the no live fish as bait in the north zone, there were a number of comments that were submitted expressing concerns about how the criteria was applied consistently statewide. We withdrew the proposal and further refined the criteria that would be used to identify those waters that would remain open to the use of live fish as bait. Placing more of a focus on looking at waters that provided season long fisheries and where we had a well-established angling community. In an effort to achieve statewide consistency, criteria were established. When the refined criteria was applied for the round two proposal, we reduced the total number of exceptions where bait could be used by 84 waters. We ended up with 339 waters that were currently proposed as exceptions to no live fish as bait in the northern region.

Mr. Brautigam stated under the second revised proposal we held a public hearing on June 17, 2019. Only four members of the public attended. Attendance at most of the fishing regulation public hearings over the last 3 years had been very poor. We had been struggling to figure out how to better engage the public so they were aware of our proposed regulation changes and have more opportunity to be involved. We utilized the .Gov delivery system to notify license holders. We received over 50 written comments. The public comments were positive and supportive of the proposal. There were only few that opposed the proposal with concerns that there would be some lost angling opportunity. Based on the public comments that were submitted and based on our review and application of the criteria that was used, we were proposing no additional revisions to the proposal.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington asked how many waters were going to be removed from using no live fish as bait. People in his area were questioning how many waters they were going to lose the use of live fish as bait.

Mr. Brautigam stated they would need to look at the list of exceptions and those would be the waters they could continue to use live fish as bait. Everything else they would not be allowed to use live fish as bait. We would develop an S-11 code that would represent the use of live fish as bait.




Mrs. Peet stated in the areas where they could not use live fish as bait, would they still be able to catch smelt with a hand line.




Mr. Brautigam stated they couldnt use live fish as bait, so they couldnt use them as bait. He didnt think there were many of those.

Mrs. Peet stated she reached out to a warden in Aroostook County and he stated one thing for an enforcement issue if they were still allowed to catch and keep live smelt from a water, if he saw an angler coming off the water with a cooler full of live smelt how would he know if the smelt were caught or brought in. If it was a no live fish as bait, but they could still catch smelt with a hand line it could be an enforcement issue.

Mr. Brautigam stated that would something to work through with warden service. The rule was set up as use and possession of live fish as bait, so if you were there with a fishing pole and had live bait in your possession then you would be in violation. He thought it would be different if you were targeting smelt and just fishing for smelt and keeping smelt. That was something we would need to work through.

Mr. Overlock stated it may be that many of the waters that contained smelt where there was an active hand line fishery for smelt, those may be open with the S-11 code to allow the use of live fish as bait. Most of those were probably open to ice fishing.

Mrs. Peet stated even based on all the comments that came in that included Jeff Reardon and Sally Stockwell that sent in some pretty extensive comments we were still deciding not to amend the proposal?

Mr. Brautigam stated those comments fell outside of the scope of the criteria that would apply and that staff had applied. They had also been considered in the first round of the proposal review as well.

Mr. Smith stated he noticed quite a lot of rivers and streams that were open to ice fishing. Why were they open and did people ice fish rivers and streams?

Mr. Frost stated some of the big rivers were open mainly for muskie fishing such as the St. John.

C. Step 1

1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2020

Mr. Brautigam stated the packet contained a number of different areas of interest. He would give the Council a general overview of the packet and both Frank Frost and Jim Pellerin were there to highlight waters in the packet and discuss why the Sebago proposal and Fish River thoroughfares were likely to generate some public interest and discussion. In the packet, we had five new waters we were proposing to nominate for the state heritage fish list. We were also proposing to remove three waters from the list. There was a long history in how waters were nominated to the state heritage fish list. We had developed a system to track heritage waters and the nomination process to ensure the appropriate waters were being nominated and met the criteria and maintain a history of the decision making. On the three waters we were proposing to remove, they were waters that had not been surveyed until recently. After the waters were surveyed no trout were found in any of them. As part of our efforts to provide increased protections to heritage waters we were proposing to add S-4 to tributaries of 19 heritage waters that were located in the southern region. A general law change in the southern region could not be done as we had in the northern region. Use of live fish as bait was ubiquitous and the fisheries were much different in the northern part of the state. Heritage waters in the southern part of the state had to be assigned a special S-code to those waters that had tributaries, there were 19 we were proposing to advance.

Mr. Brautigam stated during the past session the Department received rulemaking authority to extend the ice fishing season. Each time the Department moved forward with emergency rulemaking it created confusion. We decided to take a closer look at the current season structure in the north zone. If it was a water open to ice fishing it was assigned an A or B. The "B" meant it was open to fishing from January 1 - March 31. We were proposing to extend the B and allow people to ice fish from January 1 April 30. By doing that, it should eliminate the need for any future emergency ice fishing extensions. We did not feel there would be many impacts to fishery resources. Where there were, Moosehead and Chamberlain were a couple of those, we proposed modifications on both waters to preclude harvest of salmon and brook trout. This was a great opportunity to further provide more opportunity and eliminate some of the challenges associated with extending the ice fishing season. In addition, we had 18 water specific regulations in the packet, a number of them addressed challenges with trying to manage over abundant lake trout populations. Regional biologists Frank Frost and Jim Pellerin would share information regarding proposals in their area that may generate a number of comments from the public.

Mr. Frost stated he managed over 300 waters in his region with a staff of two and they spent more time on one water, Eagle Lake, than any other in the region. They received a lot of comments and suggestions over the course of a year and one of those was where could they go in the fall to fish for brook trout in streams or flowing water for salmon. In his region they had a lot of wild trout resources they were concerned about fishing in the fall, particularly in October. Bird hunters in October wanted to fish at the same time. There were a number of opportunities in lakes and ponds where they could fish in the fall, but very few in flowing waters. Over the years they had added a couple, Scopan Stream and downstream of Fish River Falls in Fort Kent. The one on the Fish River had really become popular, it was open year-round. We stocked both trout and salmon there and was unique to the region. He thought we had found a situation where they could add more opportunity and anglers could help us meet our fishery management objectives at Eagle Lake, the two thoroughfares flowed into it. Eagle Lake was a high-profile fishery. One of the focal points was the lake trout fishing was known for producing big lake trout and had come on the last few years. Another fishery was the hook and line smelting, it was a third of the total use of some of the lakes in the Fish River Chain. They were trying to maintain some opportunity for hook and line fishing. Eagle Lake was a big salmon water, it had been managed for landlocked salmon for over 100 years. Recently the average size of the salmon was low, 13 which was 3-5 smaller than the target. There was an abundant salmon population. There was a regulation there for almost 4 years where there was no bag limit on salmon under 14. That generated a lot of interest and questions with previous Advisory Council members. Eagle Lake was a general management water, we wanted people to catch salmon that were 16-18 and an occasional fish over 3lbs. The biggest concern was people fishing for wild trout in October while they were preparing to spawn.

Mr. Frost stated a couple of years ago they started a study and radio tagged brook trout in Eagle Lake that they caught in 3 trap nets associated with the two inlets and the outlet. They caught trout 12-16 and distributed the tagged fish equally among the trap nets. It was a labor-intensive project as they physically had to locate the fish and remove the tag. Eagle lake had a number of tributaries and they expected to find the fish up in the tributaries, but that was not the case. Eleven of the fifteen trout went several miles below Eagle Lake. Typically, salmon were outlet spawners in Maine and the trout were doing the same thing. A large percentage of the trout were going to a large pool. When they went to the smaller tributaries they were vulnerable to predation. It may be something they adapted to over a period of time. It answered the question of the two thoroughfares that came into Eagle Lake that there was very little trout spawning there. They felt comfortable moving forward with the rule proposal to allow for year-round fishing and harvest of salmon and help achieve management objectives in Eagle Lake.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington asked if they had stopped stocking salmon in Eagle Lake.

Mr. Frost stated they had not stocked salmon there for 20 years.

Mr. Thurston asked if the public were keeping the fish or practicing catch and release. How effective did Mr. Frost think that was with the anglers.

Mr. Frost stated they followed up and interviewed up to 380 anglers over two years and half of the people were killing everything they caught, and the other half were releasing everything they caught.Use had also declined.



Mr. Overlock stated we had discussed mechanical removal with nets by the Department. Our preference was to not do that unless we really had to. We preferred to have the fish available to anglers.

Mr. Thurston stated it seemed we had a messaging problem with respect to what our directive was. If we could have more information at boat launches about the Departments goal it would help.

Mr. Overlock stated we were still living with the messaging from the 70s and 80s when it was killing everything and then we put out the focus of catch and release. Use was declining statewide, people were not keeping fish and it was affecting health of fish in certain lakes and ponds. We were trying to make the switch but there was a messaging problem.

Mr. Pellerin stated we were proposing a regulation change on Sebago Lake. We had a management plan specifically for Sebago with about eight or ten objectives, but the three most important ones he wanted them to keep in mind as he went through his presentation. One was to sustain the abundance of smelt consistent with the lakes carrying capacity. We wanted to have enough forage to be able to support the lake trout and salmon. We also wanted to sustain high salmon growth rates while considering the need to maintain acceptable salmon catch rates. The third was to reduce the competing lake trout population. Sebago was the second largest lake in Maine and was very popular. In the summer there were probably 30,000 50,000 angler trips per year. In the winter 5,000 10,000 angler trips. Lake trout were stocked from 1972 1982. They did not originally exist in the lake. The population became self-sustaining and by the early 1990s it was clear they were impacting the salmon fishery. Not only did they impact salmon, we saw impacts on other fish species. Around 2001, we started liberalizing the lake trout regulations. We had size quality objectives for salmon and we still werent getting there. In 2012 a new lake trout regulation was implemented, no size or bag limit under 23 and a 23-33 protective slot on lake trout, and only one over 33. It was an experimental regulation that was based on work done in Idaho which suggested if we shifted the size quality of lake trout to larger fish, they would predate on themselves. The goal of the regulation was to improve lake trout size quality and also reduce their abundance and the forage pressure they were putting on smelt by top down control which would ultimately improve the salmon size quality.

Mr. Pellerin stated shortly thereafter we were trying to evaluate the lake trout population. We implemented a new assessment tool, Summer Profundal Index Netting (SPIN) developed by the Ontario Aquatic Science Unit. We used the tool in 2016 and 2017 and received data on the lake trout. It shifted the size quality of the lake trout, they improved so that part of the regulation was successful. Lake trout were slow growing and matured at about 8-10 years of age. It took them 14 years to reach the slot size. To reduce the lake trout population, we needed to have about 50% mortality, and we were not close to that. Some of the information we could get from SPIN was a population estimate and a density estimate. In 2016 it was 39,200 and in 2017 it was 43,649. It could suggest the population was growing or just be annual variation. Using other modeling software it suggested we were recruiting about 3,000-5,000 fish per year. We wanted to reduce the population, but it appeared to be growing. The physical characteristics of the lake was providing protection for 75% of the population during the open water season.

Mr. Pellerin stated angler attitudes and perceptions had changed and the catch and release ethic had grown. In the 1970s 100% of legal fish were being kept. Today, about 68% of legal salmon were being released and 52% of lake trout. If people werent harvesting fish the regulation was discounted by 50%. Climate change was also an issue at Sebago. There were shorter ice fishing seasons, there was ice on the lake for a shorter period of time. Five out of nine years the lake was not totally frozen. Winter anglers tended to harvest more fish. In 2019 a creel survey was conducted on the ice and we saw a lot of small togue. There were big fish too, the lake trout fishing was great. In the fall of 2018 we collected salmon data on the spawning run on the Jordan River. Salmon condition had plummeted which indicated a forage issue. In early 2019 we received reports there was a mass exodus of landlocked alewives which was a secondary forage on Sebago. We had seen few baitfish during the creel survey in the winter. K factors were the third worst wed seen in the last 45 years.

Mr. Pellerin stated the salmon catch rates had plummeted since 2013. Data and observations suggested lake trout size quality improved under the protective slot. There had been a substantial decline in salmon catch rates. The current situation we believed we were stockpiling lake trout, the forage base (smelts) had collapsed and we lost the alewives. We also believed the changes in salmon catch rates were directly related to the top down control theory. The large lake trout would shift from smelt and look for bigger food and that was the salmon. Now that the Ks and forage were so low we would start seeing less survival. The proposal was to remove the protective slot on lake trout, no minimum length on lake trout and no bag limit on lake trout less than 26, only 1 over 26.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston asked how we would manage for the bait crisis.

Mr. Pellerin stated we would explore that. To move smelt was quite a process and he did not have those resources in his region. He would reach out to other regions.

Mr. Brautigam stated he felt the regulation change set the stage, but without other efforts and creating incentives for people to keep lake trout and more messaging we were not going to be successful.

Mr. Thurston asked how they arrived at the 1 over 26 regulation proposal.

Mr. Pellerin stated we had a focus group in the Sebago Lake fishing community and presented them with the data. When it was presented to the regulations committee the 1 over was suggested as some protection for the big fish for the lake trout anglers that preferred the larger lake trout.

Mr. Brautigam stated a lot of the fish that were recruited into the old slot would have been about 26 so by setting the new benchmark at 26 we were allowing for the harvest of the fish from the old slot.

V. Other Business

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the Council had received their handbooks. At their next meeting lunch would be provided and an orientation to go over any items they had questions on. They would also talk more about the rulemaking process and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Jeff Reardon stated most of his comments were about the relatively few areas where there was still disagreement. The disagreement went back to what the set of criteria was and they would have liked to see watershed connectivity be one of the things considered. They were supportive of the rule and thought it was step in the right direction.

Fern Bosse stated he agreed with what Mr. Reardon had stated about the meeting and the heritage fish. It was a giant step and the crew was doing a wonderful job.

Gary Corson stated he also agreed with what Mr. Reardon had said. He had submitted written comments and was pretty much in support.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the public hearing for the fishing regulations proposal would be held on July 31, 2019 at IFW. Due to low attendance at public hearings we were trying something new.

Mr. Overlock stated we traditionally held 4 or 5 public hearings across the state and we were not getting the public turnout. We were changing the format and encouraged people to send written comments. We wanted to hear from people, but in a more appropriate way that would not strain our resources.

Mr. Sage asked about live feed for hearings, people could ask questions online.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in Augusta

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Smith and that was seconded by Mr. Sage to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta Tuesday, October 1, 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order - 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2020 - Francis Brautigam

2. Ch. 13 Watercraft Rules (permanent adoption of emergency rule) - Commissioner Camuso

B. Step 2.

1. Ch. 5 Water Access Rules

C. Step 1.

1. Ch. 2 Bass Tournaments - Francis Brautigam

2. Captive Wildlife rules - Christl Theriault

V. Other Business

1. Recovering America's Wildlife Act (RAWA) - Charlie Todd

2. E&T species listing/Essential habitat - process & Council's role - Charlie Todd

VI. Councilor Reports - 11:30 a.m.

VII. Pubic Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment - 12:00 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
July 10 , 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Jim Pellerin, Fisheries Biologist Region A
Frank Frost, Fisheries Biologist Region G
Matt Lubejko, Fisheries Planner and Research Coordinator
Jason Luce, Warden Service Sargent
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Matt Thurston (Chair)
Jerry Scribner (Vice-chair)
Shelby Rousseau
Brian Smith
Kristin Peet
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Larry Farrington
Lindsay Ware

Guests:

Jeff Reardon, Trout Unlimited
Fern & Sylvia Bosse, Norway
Gary Corson, New Sharon


I. Call to Order

Matt Thurston Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Sage

Vote: Unanimous - minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Ch. 13 Watercraft rules and sound level testing

Mrs. Theriault stated in statute we had a prohibition that watercraft could not be operated beyond certain decibels and the Commissioner shall establish rules to guide law enforcement officers in testing for boats operating above those noise levels. We had never put the rules in place. We had received quite a few complaints, mostly from the Sebago Lakes region in regard to the issue. We had received overwhelming support for the proposal. We mirrored New Hampshire's rules and referred to the SAE standards with a link in the rule so people could go to those standards with the testing procedure.

Sergeant Luce stated we used New Hampshires process with their permission. He was the supervisor in the Sebago Lake area and NH was very good at what they did. The loud boats had left Lake Winnipesaukee and gone to Sebago and Long Lake. They received a fair amount of complaints. It was only a handful of boats causing most of the problems. They knew the way the rules were currently written the wardens could not enforce it. The new rule would make it much easier to enforce.

Mrs. Theriault stated it had been moved up from Step 2 because we wanted to get the rule in place for the boating season. The Council could discuss the comments that had come in prior to voting if they wished.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston stated Sebago Lake area was his backyard living in Gorham and he made it a point of discussion with a lot of anglers and others. He had not received one negative comment. He felt this was a good thing to do for that body of water.

Mr. Sage asked how the testing would be conducted.

Sergeant Luce stated there would be two methods of testing. NH had a course set up on Lake Winnipesaukee where they could do a test while the boat was in motion. That would be difficult to do in his area. The other option would be a stationary test. Both procedures were spelled out in the SAE standards. We would most likely utilize the stationary test. The boat would be held at idle speed and the microphone held so far off the back of the boat. NH had also offered to help train Maine wardens how to use the equipment. It was a statewide law, but right now the focus would be the Sebago Lake area.>/p>

A motion was made by Mr. Scribner to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the next two items under Step 2, Furbearer rules and 2019 Any-deer permit allocations, we were requesting to move to Step 3 for discussion and a vote. We were up against a deadline on the printing of the hunting lawbooks. The public comment period had ended on both proposals.

Mr. Thurston stated there wasnt a lot of feedback on either of the issues. He asked for a motion to move the proposals to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to move Furbearer rules and 2019 Any-deer permit allocations to Step 3 and that was seconded by Mr. Smith

Mr. Farrington stated he did not feel they could move the proposals because of the APA process.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the public comment period was closed and after the public comment period and after discussion the Commissioner was allowed to make changes. Where there was not any amount of comments to the negative, they could vote on the proposals. We had checked with the Attorney Generals office.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed

2. Furbearer Rules

Mr. Webb stated typically every year in the spring we put forth proposed changes to furbearer hunting and trapping so they could be finalized in time to go in our hunting and trapping lawbooks. Every year we made variable changes to the rules. This year we had a number of changes that we brought forward. The most significant change was to extend the beaver season and add two additional weeks in the spring with a closure date of April 15 in southern and central Maine, WMDs 7 and 11-29. Most of those WMDs closed at the end of March and the trapping community had for several years requested that we close the season later to allow trappers time to pursue beaver in ice-out conditions so they could trap in open water and not chip through 3-4 feet of ice. Beaver populations were very robust statewide and we received a significant number of complaints. Trapper participation had been low for a number of years due to low pelt prices and other factors. We believed there was no biological concern and would provide trappers with additional opportunity to harvest the resource and help prevent some problems that usually started after ice-out such as road damage and other conflicts.

Mr. Webb stated we were also proposing to extend the muskrat trapping season to the same end date. We had a long tradition of aligning the muskrat trapping season with the beaver season because they were often pursued together. We were proposing to extend the muskrat season for those two additional weeks in the same WMDs as well. We were also proposing to require that trappers harvesting otter incidentally to beaver trapping from January 1 through the end of the beaver trapping season register those otter with the Department within 10 days of harvest. The reason for that was so we could more closely monitor the harvest of the species which due to its life history could be vulnerable to over harvest. The tighter tagging requirement would allow us to monitor the harvest throughout the season and in the future if we had a concern we could close the season on an emergency basis if needed. We were also proposing to align the tagging timeline for bobcat taken by hunting to 10 days as well. That was currently 72 hours. For simplicity, we were proposing to align that timeline with the otter timeline.

Mr. Webb stated we were also proposing to require bobcat hunters to submit a tooth and tissue sample. That was something we required trappers to do for a few years and wed like to get the same information from bobcat hunters as well. We were proposing a slight change for coyote tagging. Currently, there was no ability for a person that harvested a coyote to give that animal to a trapper to make use of the pelt without having it tagged. The change would allow a hunter that harvested a coyote to give it to a trapper with a temporary tag identifying the hunter without having to formally register it. The ownness would then be with the trapper that received it to formally register it. That would hopefully allow more use of that fur resource by the trappers.

Mr. Webb stated we had one change to the beaver closures. We closed properties and areas of the state to beaver trapping upon request from landowners. Many had been in place for a number of years. We made adjustments as requests came in from landowners either dropping the closure or adding them. This year there was one request for a closure in WMD 6. We were also proposing to amend the definition of a float for muskrat trapping. It was a clarification to ensure that the device was completely surrounded by water in a way that minimized the risk of capturing a nontarget species.

Mr. Webb stated finally, there was a law passed during the last legislative session that adjusted the start date of upland game species hunting from October 1 to the last Saturday in September. That would apply to all upland game species except woodcock which were regulated federally. The public comment period had closed. We held a public hearing on May 29, 2019 and only a handful of people attended. Those that spoke were in support of the proposed changes. We received no written comments.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Scribner stated in terms of the opening of the season the last Saturday in September, this year the following Monday after the last Saturday in September was still in September and people were asking if that day was going to be open also.

Mr. Webb stated the start of the season would be the last Saturday in September and would be continuing. The law that passed and the proposed rule started the season on that last Saturday and it would run right through to the end of the season.

Mr. Sage asked about beaver closures and asking permission to access peoples land.

Mr. Webb stated beaver trapping was an exception in that unless the land was posted otherwise or closed in rule, the trapper did not need to seek landowner permission. It was assumed as it was for hunting. That was the reason for the closures, those areas were closed to beaver trapping and it was on the trapper to understand where the closures were.

Mrs. Peet stated she knew there had been some concern about population decline in muskrat among trappers and tribal communities. What were his thoughts about extending the season.

Mr. Webb stated continent wide concern over declining muskrat populations was not a Maine issue or northeast issue. There were a number of theories about what was driving that, disease, climate, toxicology concerns, etc. There were a few large-scale research projects looking at those factors trying to understand what was happening. There was no evidence indicating that harvest played any role in those declines. There was concern about those populations and at some point there could be concerns over the sustainability of harvest. We did not have those concerns right now due to low pelt prices and low participation by trappers in general. We believed muskrat harvest was very low. Last year, there was a rule change that required mandatory harvest reporting by trappers. Muskrat was not a species that trappers had to register or tag, and on those mandatory reports ask trappers how many muskrats they harvested the previous year. We had been having conversations with the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit about potentially doing some muskrat research oriented in the northeast. In general as a basic principal we tried to avoid timing seasons when wildlife had dependent offspring. The extension would go into the breeding season, but it was not at a time of year when the kits had been born or there were any dependent offspring.

Mr. Smith asked why we didnt require muskrats to be tagged and was there any clue as to how many were harvested in Maine per year.

Mr. Webb stated we didnt have any recent information, that was one of the reasons we wanted to start gathering the information from the trappers. We had a handful of species that we did require tagging or registration, beaver, fisher, marten, otter; usually those were species that due to their life history and relatively low reproductive rates and vulnerability to trapping there was risk of over harvest. Many other species such as muskrat, racoon, skunk, opossum, they were much more productive and research done range wide showed that similar to upland game birds typically harvest was compensatory, not additive or something that really affected populations in any significant way.

Mr. Farrington stated if there was a concern what was the issue with having them tag?

Mr. Webb stated there was a burden on trappers to do that and it was something we would discuss. We were in the midst of a furbearer planning process. Muskrat was one of the first species they would be working on.

Mrs. Peet asked about enforcement issues if the beaver and muskrat seasons were not aligned.

Sergeant Luce stated other than incidental take or those types of issues he didnt feel it would be all that difficult.

A motion was made by Mr. Scribner to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

3. 2019 Any-deer permit allocations

Mr. Webb stated every year the Department allocated any-deer permits as a way to manage the antlerless harvest of the deer population. We issued any-deer permits according to WMDs across the state, and the permit would allow the recipient to harvest an antlerless deer in lieu of an antlered deer. We used antlerless deer harvest as a way to manipulate and manage the deer densities. We had a big game management plan and a long history of planning for deer and other big game species in a way that tried to achieve the desires of the public as well as the hunting community for deer populations. It was a matter of balancing what the average resident of Maine wanted with what hunters would like to see and other folks that interacted with deer. We looked at hunter preferences, rates of vehicle collisions, diseases such as Lyme, crop damage, habitat damage, all those things were looked at. We used a number of pieces of information when we were recommending permit numbers. Things such as winter severity which was a big driver of deer populations in Maine and other types of mortality such as vehicle collisions, predation, etc. We used hunter success rates and buck kill index from the hunting season and looked at the age structure of the population and the sex ratios. All those factors were considered as we developed permit recommendations.

Mr. Webb stated we were proposing 68,145 antlerless deer permits distributed primarily in southern and central Maine where the deer population was highest and most productive and where other forms of mortality tended to be relatively low. Historically, we issued very few to no permits in the northern part of the state due to the impact that severe winter weather had on deer up there and the fact that in general we were trying to grow the population which had been a challenge. The past winter was very severe in northern Maine, but average in southern and central Maine. Relative to last year, we were proposing either the same number of permits in northern Maine or a reduction in permits. In southern and central Maine the permit numbers were similar to last year or slightly lower. For a number of years we were trying to bring the doe/buck ratio down to have a more balanced sex structure in the population. We achieved that last year so were able to bring the permit numbers down slightly and go to more of a maintenance mode with antlerless harvest in southern and central Maine.

Mr. Webb stated that new this year we were proposing to establish two subunits in WMDs 25 and 26. These were areas where for a number of years weve had significant concern over locally abundant deer populations at a small scale within a WMD. A cluster of towns where there were a lot of vehicle collisions, Lyme disease, complaints from the public and we hadnt felt it was appropriate to issue a large number of any-deer permits across the entire WMD to resolve that very local issue. New this year, we designated two subunits and were proposing to issue bonus antlerless permits within those subunits. A hunter that received one of the bonus permits would be allowed to harvest an additional antlerless deer within that specific area, not the entire WMD.

Mr. Webb stated a public hearing was held on the proposal on June 20 and no members of the public attended. We received a written comment in opposition to permit numbers in WMD 23, they felt the number was too high. We received a number of written comments in support of the proposal, particularly in support of the new subunits. We were not proposing any changes to the original proposal.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Scribner stated it was very evident after meeting with a group there last year that they were looking to the Department for help with their overabundance of deer and their Lyme disease issue in the Georgetown area. The comments received from that area had been very supportive and thankful. The Department should feel good about the subunit structure focusing on hot spots within the state where we had documented overabundance of deer and Lyme disease.

Mr. Farrington asked why a subunit was not created for Eastport.

Mr. Webb stated this was a new tool for the Department and we looked at a number of factors such as rates of Lyme disease, vehicle collisions, public complaints and used a harvest metrics to look at intensity of harvest within those areas as a way to objectively identify the areas in a way that was defensible based on data and information. Our goal was to roll it out in a couple of areas to see how it worked. Our criteria were conservative and if it worked well we would loosen the criteria and identify potentially more areas in the future where we could use the tool. There were other areas that fell into the same category.

Mr. Smith stated in WMDs 27 and 28 theyd had an increase in deer and as a result, an increase in ticks and Lyme disease. For the last couple of years theyd had 50 permits and that dropped to 25 in each of the zones. The tagging stations/sporting goods stores had approached him and asked why, now that there were doe permits in those zones, they couldnt have an extra week of muzzleload season in those WMDs. It would be a huge boost to the businesses. If it would not really effect the population, we were issuing permits there.

Mr. Webb stated there was some statutory framework, but it would be through rulemaking. There had been some discussion around the one vs. two-week muzzleload season. There was concern the second week of muzzleload season in northern, eastern, western Maine the deer were beginning yarding activities. Some had ethical concerns with that.

Ms. Rousseau asked why we did not allow the use of bow and arrow hunting during the first week of muzzleloader season.

Mr. Webb stated they were social issues. Typically, when those seasons were started it was because of a user group that wanted to do that activity and be the only one at that time of year. From a biological perspective he did not think we would have a concern. It was a tradition with Maine hunting for perspective user groups.

Mr. Smith stated he thought it had passed through the Fish and Wildlife Committee on crossbows during the regular archery season, but it would not be in effect for the fall.

Mr. Webb stated the law did pass and would go into effect in 2020 for 3 years and had a sunset provision. Crossbows would be allowed during the regular archery season. However, in order to harvest an antlerless deer you would be required to have an any-deer permit. Regular archery hunters in WMDs where any-deer permits were issued did not require an any-deer permit.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Smith

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

B. Step 2

1. Conroy Lake open to ice fishing petition

Mr. Brautigam stated we received a public petition from Monticello Fish and Game Club to open Conroy Lake to ice fishing for smelt and brook trout. Conroy Lake was a 25-acre lake. A public hearing was held on June 13, 2019 and there were 13 public members in attendance. All the public members in attendance were supportive of moving forward with the petition. There was some discussion regarding parking issues along the pond. There were a lot of private roads around the pond and in the winter time the plowing was challenging to accommodate public use. It was also a very well developed pond. One of the property owners had a business on the pond and offered to plow an area for parking for the public and provide access to the pond. The Department had some reservations about opening the small pond to ice fishing because it would likely mean the open water season would be compromised. It would mean that probably the open water season, particularly the spring fishery would not be nearly as good for brook trout and for splake. In addition, the smelt dipping in the spring may also not be that good. After considering all the information available the Department decided to move forward in support of the proposed petition to open the water to ice fishing. We were proposing an amendment that would establish a two-line limit. That would be put in place to help distribute the catch for the winter fishing season. This was more a social issue than a biological issue. The fish in the pond aside from the smelt, the brook trout and splake were stocked. There was no wild reproduction there. It was more about managing social use opportunities.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston asked if any negative comments were received.

Mr. Brautigam stated there were none received.

Mr. Farrington asked if this would necessitate a change in the stocking program.

Mr. Brautigam stated it would. Brook trout stocked there, we did get some growth but it was stocked more as a put and take opportunity. The splake were stocked there with the intent they would grow to larger size before being harvested. With the water being open in the winter, there was no way we would be able to manage to grow splake through the winter into the next season. We were planning to likely suspend the splake stocking program, and continue with brook trout stocking and look into stocking retired brook trout to provide some size quality.

Mr. Brautigam stated he felt there was also limited ice fishing opportunity in that area.

Mr. Scribner asked how much open water fishing occurred there.

Mr. Frost stated it was a small water and a pretty small fishery. It was mostly the local residents and would be the same people fishing in the winter.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he attended the public hearing and there were limited ice fishing opportunities for the Monticello area. It would give the kids a chance to get out in the winter time. It was a commercial campground that would keep the parking lot plowed and provide access to the water. He thought it was a great change and showed the Department was listening to the people in Aroostook County.

2. Wild Trout Conservation Strategy - North Zone General Law Concept

Mr. Brautigam stated the Department had a considerable amount of time invested in the proposal. It would change the general law structure in the north region from a situation where you could predominantly use live bait anywhere with certain exceptions identified in the law book to a situation where the general law would be reversed. The general law would be no use of live fish as bait except where we indicated you could. The focus was trying to do more to conserve the wild trout resources we had in northern Maine. The regulation was designed to not only create awareness and think about use of live fish as bait, but because introduced populations of baitfish and other fish that were sometimes associated with baitfish in the bait bucket could adversely impact our wild and native trout resources. The Legislature in 2018 had several bills before it and as part of that effort we worked with the Legislature to put together a strategy that would better conserve those wild resources in the northern part of the state. The legislation addressed state heritage fish waters and required the Department to establish the same protections that were on heritage ponds to the tributaries of those heritage ponds. The concern at the time was if we did that we would end up adding volume to our law book. We wanted to look for other strategies we could use to address the Legislatures desire to protect those heritage waters by protecting the tributaries.

Mr. Brautigam stated the Department had formed a heritage work group to work on developing the strategy which was now the proposal to provide those protections without complicating the fishing law book. In October, 2018 the Department submitted a progress report to the Legislature and the report identified eight guidelines used to develop the proposal. We had convened two public information meetings to try and generate public awareness of why we were moving forward with the proposal. One of the points that was made when looking at the range of eastern brook trout in the U.S. the range had been in decline and ran from Maine to Georgia. One of the leading factors for the cause of the decline were the introduction of new species of fish that competed with brook trout. In the proposal, we would retain use of live fish as bait fishing opportunities on all waters that were open to ice fishing. Those were the areas people had traditionally fished and we would be identifying additional waters that were open just during the open water season where there was a strong historical tradition of fishing with live fish as bait. Those two categories comprised those waters that would be exempted from the no live fish as bait general law in the north zone.

Mr. Brautigam stated the goal was to develop a balanced approach that would provide enhanced protections to native fish while trying to minimize any unintended impacts to the angling community, baitfish harvesters and our fishing law book. The initiative would not reduce the use of worms or dead bait fish, it would only affect the use of live bait fish. When trying to determine how this general law change would effect the number of special regulations in the law book we found it would significantly reduce the number of regulations which would be consistent with ongoing Department efforts to simplify and reform the fishing law book.

Mr. Brautigam stated in March 2019, we put together the initial regulation proposal and that was based on guidance we provided to regional staff in identifying waters that would be flagged as exemptions where we asked regional staff to make sure the waters identified were waters where there was evidence of angling use with live fish as bait, and that there was more than just incidental angler use on those waters. Those were the waters that would continue the use of live fish as bait. Following the public comments that were received on the first effort to advance the no live fish as bait in the north zone, there were a number of comments that were submitted expressing concerns about how the criteria was applied consistently statewide. We withdrew the proposal and further refined the criteria that would be used to identify those waters that would remain open to the use of live fish as bait. Placing more of a focus on looking at waters that provided season long fisheries and where we had a well-established angling community. In an effort to achieve statewide consistency, criteria were established. When the refined criteria was applied for the round two proposal, we reduced the total number of exceptions where bait could be used by 84 waters. We ended up with 339 waters that were currently proposed as exceptions to no live fish as bait in the northern region.

Mr. Brautigam stated under the second revised proposal we held a public hearing on June 17, 2019. Only four members of the public attended. Attendance at most of the fishing regulation public hearings over the last 3 years had been very poor. We had been struggling to figure out how to better engage the public so they were aware of our proposed regulation changes and have more opportunity to be involved. We utilized the .Gov delivery system to notify license holders. We received over 50 written comments. The public comments were positive and supportive of the proposal. There were only few that opposed the proposal with concerns that there would be some lost angling opportunity. Based on the public comments that were submitted and based on our review and application of the criteria that was used, we were proposing no additional revisions to the proposal.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington asked how many waters were going to be removed from using no live fish as bait. People in his area were questioning how many waters they were going to lose the use of live fish as bait.

Mr. Brautigam stated they would need to look at the list of exceptions and those would be the waters they could continue to use live fish as bait. Everything else they would not be allowed to use live fish as bait. We would develop an S-11 code that would represent the use of live fish as bait.

Mrs. Peet stated in the areas where they could not use live fish as bait, would they still be able to catch smelt with a hand line.

Mr. Brautigam stated they couldnt use live fish as bait, so they couldnt use them as bait. He didnt think there were many of those.

Mrs. Peet stated she reached out to a warden in Aroostook County and he stated one thing for an enforcement issue if they were still allowed to catch and keep live smelt from a water, if he saw an angler coming off the water with a cooler full of live smelt how would he know if the smelt were caught or brought in. If it was a no live fish as bait, but they could still catch smelt with a hand line it could be an enforcement issue.

Mr. Brautigam stated that would something to work through with warden service. The rule was set up as use and possession of live fish as bait, so if you were there with a fishing pole and had live bait in your possession then you would be in violation. He thought it would be different if you were targeting smelt and just fishing for smelt and keeping smelt. That was something we would need to work through.

Mr. Overlock stated it may be that many of the waters that contained smelt where there was an active hand line fishery for smelt, those may be open with the S-11 code to allow the use of live fish as bait. Most of those were probably open to ice fishing.

Mrs. Peet stated even based on all the comments that came in that included Jeff Reardon and Sally Stockwell that sent in some pretty extensive comments we were still deciding not to amend the proposal?

Mr. Brautigam stated those comments fell outside of the scope of the criteria that would apply and that staff had applied. They had also been considered in the first round of the proposal review as well.

Mr. Smith stated he noticed quite a lot of rivers and streams that were open to ice fishing. Why were they open and did people ice fish rivers and streams?

Mr. Frost stated some of the big rivers were open mainly for muskie fishing such as the St. John.

C. Step 1

1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2020

Mr. Brautigam stated the packet contained a number of different areas of interest. He would give the Council a general overview of the packet and both Frank Frost and Jim Pellerin were there to highlight waters in the packet and discuss why the Sebago proposal and Fish River thoroughfares were likely to generate some public interest and discussion. In the packet, we had five new waters we were proposing to nominate for the state heritage fish list. We were also proposing to remove three waters from the list. There was a long history in how waters were nominated to the state heritage fish list. We had developed a system to track heritage waters and the nomination process to ensure the appropriate waters were being nominated and met the criteria and maintain a history of the decision making. On the three waters we were proposing to remove, they were waters that had not been surveyed until recently. After the waters were surveyed no trout were found in any of them. As part of our efforts to provide increased protections to heritage waters we were proposing to add S-4 to tributaries of 19 heritage waters that were located in the southern region. A general law change in the southern region could not be done as we had in the northern region. Use of live fish as bait was ubiquitous and the fisheries were much different in the northern part of the state. Heritage waters in the southern part of the state had to be assigned a special S-code to those waters that had tributaries, there were 19 we were proposing to advance.

Mr. Brautigam stated during the past session the Department received rulemaking authority to extend the ice fishing season. Each time the Department moved forward with emergency rulemaking it created confusion. We decided to take a closer look at the current season structure in the north zone. If it was a water open to ice fishing it was assigned an A or B. The "B" meant it was open to fishing from January 1 - March 31. We were proposing to extend the B and allow people to ice fish from January 1 April 30. By doing that, it should eliminate the need for any future emergency ice fishing extensions. We did not feel there would be many impacts to fishery resources. Where there were, Moosehead and Chamberlain were a couple of those, we proposed modifications on both waters to preclude harvest of salmon and brook trout. This was a great opportunity to further provide more opportunity and eliminate some of the challenges associated with extending the ice fishing season. In addition, we had 18 water specific regulations in the packet, a number of them addressed challenges with trying to manage over abundant lake trout populations. Regional biologists Frank Frost and Jim Pellerin would share information regarding proposals in their area that may generate a number of comments from the public.

Mr. Frost stated he managed over 300 waters in his region with a staff of two and they spent more time on one water, Eagle Lake, than any other in the region. They received a lot of comments and suggestions over the course of a year and one of those was where could they go in the fall to fish for brook trout in streams or flowing water for salmon. In his region they had a lot of wild trout resources they were concerned about fishing in the fall, particularly in October. Bird hunters in October wanted to fish at the same time. There were a number of opportunities in lakes and ponds where they could fish in the fall, but very few in flowing waters. Over the years they had added a couple, Scopan Stream and downstream of Fish River Falls in Fort Kent. The one on the Fish River had really become popular, it was open year-round. We stocked both trout and salmon there and was unique to the region. He thought we had found a situation where they could add more opportunity and anglers could help us meet our fishery management objectives at Eagle Lake, the two thoroughfares flowed into it. Eagle Lake was a high-profile fishery. One of the focal points was the lake trout fishing was known for producing big lake trout and had come on the last few years. Another fishery was the hook and line smelting, it was a third of the total use of some of the lakes in the Fish River Chain. They were trying to maintain some opportunity for hook and line fishing. Eagle Lake was a big salmon water, it had been managed for landlocked salmon for over 100 years. Recently the average size of the salmon was low, 13 which was 3-5 smaller than the target. There was an abundant salmon population. There was a regulation there for almost 4 years where there was no bag limit on salmon under 14. That generated a lot of interest and questions with previous Advisory Council members. Eagle Lake was a general management water, we wanted people to catch salmon that were 16-18 and an occasional fish over 3lbs. The biggest concern was people fishing for wild trout in October while they were preparing to spawn.

Mr. Frost stated a couple of years ago they started a study and radio tagged brook trout in Eagle Lake that they caught in 3 trap nets associated with the two inlets and the outlet. They caught trout 12-16 and distributed the tagged fish equally among the trap nets. It was a labor-intensive project as they physically had to locate the fish and remove the tag. Eagle lake had a number of tributaries and they expected to find the fish up in the tributaries, but that was not the case. Eleven of the fifteen trout went several miles below Eagle Lake. Typically, salmon were outlet spawners in Maine and the trout were doing the same thing. A large percentage of the trout were going to a large pool. When they went to the smaller tributaries they were vulnerable to predation. It may be something they adapted to over a period of time. It answered the question of the two thoroughfares that came into Eagle Lake that there was very little trout spawning there. They felt comfortable moving forward with the rule proposal to allow for year-round fishing and harvest of salmon and help achieve management objectives in Eagle Lake.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington asked if they had stopped stocking salmon in Eagle Lake.

Mr. Frost stated they had not stocked salmon there for 20 years.

Mr. Thurston asked if the public were keeping the fish or practicing catch and release. How effective did Mr. Frost think that was with the anglers.

Mr. Frost stated they followed up and interviewed up to 380 anglers over two years and half of the people were killing everything they caught, and the other half were releasing everything they caught. Use had also declined.

Mr. Overlock stated we had discussed mechanical removal with nets by the Department. Our preference was to not do that unless we really had to. We preferred to have the fish available to anglers.

Mr. Thurston stated it seemed we had a messaging problem with respect to what our directive was. If we could have more information at boat launches about the Departments goal it would help.

Mr. Overlock stated we were still living with the messaging from the 70s and 80s when it was killing everything and then we put out the focus of catch and release. Use was declining statewide, people were not keeping fish and it was affecting health of fish in certain lakes and ponds. We were trying to make the switch but there was a messaging problem.

Mr. Pellerin stated we were proposing a regulation change on Sebago Lake. We had a management plan specifically for Sebago with about eight or ten objectives, but the three most important ones he wanted them to keep in mind as he went through his presentation. One was to sustain the abundance of smelt consistent with the lakes carrying capacity. We wanted to have enough forage to be able to support the lake trout and salmon. We also wanted to sustain high salmon growth rates while considering the need to maintain acceptable salmon catch rates. The third was to reduce the competing lake trout population. Sebago was the second largest lake in Maine and was very popular. In the summer there were probably 30,000 50,000 angler trips per year. In the winter 5,000 10,000 angler trips. Lake trout were stocked from 1972 1982. They did not originally exist in the lake. The population became self-sustaining and by the early 1990s it was clear they were impacting the salmon fishery. Not only did they impact salmon, we saw impacts on other fish species. Around 2001, we started liberalizing the lake trout regulations. We had size quality objectives for salmon and we still werent getting there. In 2012 a new lake trout regulation was implemented, no size or bag limit under 23 and a 23-33 protective slot on lake trout, and only one over 33. It was an experimental regulation that was based on work done in Idaho which suggested if we shifted the size quality of lake trout to larger fish, they would predate on themselves. The goal of the regulation was to improve lake trout size quality and also reduce their abundance and the forage pressure they were putting on smelt by top down control which would ultimately improve the salmon size quality.

Mr. Pellerin stated shortly thereafter we were trying to evaluate the lake trout population. We implemented a new assessment tool, Summer Profundal Index Netting (SPIN) developed by the Ontario Aquatic Science Unit. We used the tool in 2016 and 2017 and received data on the lake trout. It shifted the size quality of the lake trout, they improved so that part of the regulation was successful. Lake trout were slow growing and matured at about 8-10 years of age. It took them 14 years to reach the slot size. To reduce the lake trout population, we needed to have about 50% mortality, and we were not close to that. Some of the information we could get from SPIN was a population estimate and a density estimate. In 2016 it was 39,200 and in 2017 it was 43,649. It could suggest the population was growing or just be annual variation. Using other modeling software it suggested we were recruiting about 3,000-5,000 fish per year. We wanted to reduce the population, but it appeared to be growing. The physical characteristics of the lake was providing protection for 75% of the population during the open water season.

Mr. Pellerin stated angler attitudes and perceptions had changed and the catch and release ethic had grown. In the 1970s 100% of legal fish were being kept. Today, about 68% of legal salmon were being released and 52% of lake trout. If people werent harvesting fish the regulation was discounted by 50%. Climate change was also an issue at Sebago. There were shorter ice fishing seasons, there was ice on the lake for a shorter period of time. Five out of nine years the lake was not totally frozen. Winter anglers tended to harvest more fish. In 2019 a creel survey was conducted on the ice and we saw a lot of small togue. There were big fish too, the lake trout fishing was great. In the fall of 2018 we collected salmon data on the spawning run on the Jordan River. Salmon condition had plummeted which indicated a forage issue. In early 2019 we received reports there was a mass exodus of landlocked alewives which was a secondary forage on Sebago. We had seen few baitfish during the creel survey in the winter. K factors were the third worst wed seen in the last 45 years.

Mr. Pellerin stated the salmon catch rates had plummeted since 2013. Data and observations suggested lake trout size quality improved under the protective slot. There had been a substantial decline in salmon catch rates. The current situation we believed we were stockpiling lake trout, the forage base (smelts) had collapsed and we lost the alewives. We also believed the changes in salmon catch rates were directly related to the top down control theory. The large lake trout would shift from smelt and look for bigger food and that was the salmon. Now that the Ks and forage were so low we would start seeing less survival. The proposal was to remove the protective slot on lake trout, no minimum length on lake trout and no bag limit on lake trout less than 26, only 1 over 26.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston asked how we would manage for the bait crisis.

Mr. Pellerin stated we would explore that. To move smelt was quite a process and he did not have those resources in his region. He would reach out to other regions.

Mr. Brautigam stated he felt the regulation change set the stage, but without other efforts and creating incentives for people to keep lake trout and more messaging we were not going to be successful.

Mr. Thurston asked how they arrived at the 1 over 26 regulation proposal.

Mr. Pellerin stated we had a focus group in the Sebago Lake fishing community and presented them with the data. When it was presented to the regulations committee the 1 over was suggested as some protection for the big fish for the lake trout anglers that preferred the larger lake trout.

Mr. Brautigam stated a lot of the fish that were recruited into the old slot would have been about 26 so by setting the new benchmark at 26 we were allowing for the harvest of the fish from the old slot.

V. Other Business

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the Council had received their handbooks. At their next meeting lunch would be provided and an orientation to go over any items they had questions on. They would also talk more about the rulemaking process and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Jeff Reardon stated most of his comments were about the relatively few areas where there was still disagreement. The disagreement went back to what the set of criteria was and they would have liked to see watershed connectivity be one of the things considered. They were supportive of the rule and thought it was step in the right direction.

Fern Bosse stated he agreed with what Mr. Reardon had stated about the meeting and the heritage fish. It was a giant step and the crew was doing a wonderful job.

Gary Corson stated he also agreed with what Mr. Reardon had said. He had submitted written comments and was pretty much in support.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the public hearing for the fishing regulations proposal would be held on July 31, 2019 at IFW. Due to low attendance at public hearings we were trying something new.

Mr. Overlock stated we traditionally held 4 or 5 public hearings across the state and we were not getting the public turnout. We were changing the format and encouraged people to send written comments. We wanted to hear from people, but in a more appropriate way that would not strain our resources.

Mr. Sage asked about live feed for hearings, people could ask questions online.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Smith and that was seconded by Mr. Sage to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

Advisory Council Meeting
August 21 , 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Diano Circo, Chief Planner
Dave Chabot, Landowner Relations
Steve Allarie, Warden Service Corporal

Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Matt Thurston (Chair)
Jerry Scribner (Vice-chair)
Shelby Rousseau
Brian Smith
Kristin Peet
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Larry Farrington
Lindsay Ware
Bob Duchesne

Guests:

Fern & Sylvia Bosse, Norway
Gary Corson, New Sharon
Jeff Reardon, Trout Unlimited
Matt Scott, Belgrade
Mrs. Smith


I. Call to Order

Matt Thurston Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Sage

Vote: Unanimous - minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3.

1. Conroy Lake open to ice fishing petition

Mr. Brautigam stated this was a water we received a petition to open to ice fishing in the winter months. It was a small, 25-acre pond and initially we had some reservations because of the small size and considering the management of the water. A public hearing was held in June and 13 public members attended speaking in support to open the water up to ice fishing. The Department was supportive of the proposal after hearing that parking issues there had been resolved. One of the camp owners there that owned a small business had graciously allowed the public to park there. A management summary had been provided. It was managed as a stocked fishery. There were not any wild fish resources there other than smelt. The Department was proposing to amend the proposal by adding a 2-line limit to spread out the catch over the course of the winter months. The petitioner had been informed of the change and he was supportive.

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to adopt the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

2. Wild Trout Conservation Strategy - N Zone General Law Concept

Mr. Brautigam stated we held an initial public hearing in February and based on public comment received, there were concerns about how the Department consistently applied the criteria to identify exceptions between all the regions. The regulation proposal was pulled back, and the criteria was refined to provide consistency throughout the state. A second public hearing was held in June and at that meeting we had support for the proposal in general. The refined proposal reduced the number of exemptions by 84 waters bringing it to 339 waters that would retain the use of live fish as bait in the north zone. There were no changes to the original proposal being proposed.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

B. Step 2.

1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2020.

Mr. Brautigam stated the packet contained a number of different initiatives. We were proposing to add five additional waters to the state heritage fish list; remove three waters from the list; add the no live fish as bait initiative to tributaries of all heritage waters in the south zone; and proposing to extend the ice fishing season in the north region by one month as a strategy to avoid the need for further emergency rulemaking as in past winters. There were eighteen water specific rule proposals. A public hearing was held on July 31, 2019 with only four public members attending. Overall, comments were supportive. About 20 written comments had been received. A summary of public concerns had been compiled with agency responses. There appeared to be three areas that warranted additional discussion. The extension of the ice fishing season, Grand Lake Stream proposal and the Fish River thoroughfare had all generated some debate.

Mr. Brautigam stated the last few years we'd had long ice fishing seasons and early starts to open water fishing season, and we had been going through emergency rulemaking to either extend the ice fishing season or start the open water fishing season earlier. It created confusion with the public and the past winter, we had businesses wanting to know how long the season would be extended so they would know how much bait to carry. We had bait dealers wanting to know how much bait they should be collecting to hold for the extended season. We decided is was worth looking at whether we could extend the season by one month to capture the potential of any season extension and determine if that would have any impact on the resource. We looked at where we had resource concerns where there were brook trout populations and salmon fisheries that could potentially be affected by an extended season on an annual basis. We determined the only places we had resource concerns were in waters where we had low populations of brook trout or low populations of salmon and places where we had elevated levels of use. Ice fishing in Maine in any given season started out with heavy use and tapered off and by March people couldnt wait till spring. We did provide, this past winter, the opportunity to fish during the extended ice fishing season and did not see a lot of use. We evaluated use during the extended season in Region F and about 62% of the waters that we had conducted aerial angler counts we saw no use during the extended season. There were three waters where we saw some use pretty much only on the weekends. Looking at the amount of use on those three waters, Schoodic was less than 1% of the total season; Sebois the extended season provided 6.3% use; Upper Jo Mary we saw 3.5% use occurring during the extended season. The pressure was low, harvest potential was low and it was not a concern from a resource standpoint. In April, in northern Maine, the woods roads were starting to break up, the conditions were poor for travel and would further restrict where anglers could and couldnt go. Many of the waters open to ice fishing in the north zone were places where we had abundant populations of brook trout and many of the waters were stocked. We didnt believe there were any resource issues or concerns. We would continue to monitor if we found waters where we saw more harvest than we would like we could advance special regulations to address those issues.

Council Member Questions and Comments

Mr. Sage asked if there were any benefits for the fish to have that break between the seasons.

Mr. Brautigam stated he felt there was inherent break that occurred just with declining use over the course of the ice fishing season. The remote waters would probably receive no pressure. At Moosehead and Chamberlain we implemented a catch and release during the extended season to protect those resources.

Mr. Farrington stated as an advocate for Moosehead Lake, there was a very small percentage of people that would be out fishing. Were those people worth the chance for the increase in mortality that would happen to the salmon and brook trout. Although the regulation stated not to bring the fish out of the hole, we didnt have enough wardens to watch them to make sure nobody brought the fish out of the hole. People would bring them out to take photos on the ice and then try to put them back down the hole. The regulation would not stop people and would not help the resource. There also was a safety issue for people going on Moosehead in April. There were places that did not freeze all winter.

Mr. Brautigam stated we had the same safety issues in southern Maine. Most places there you could fish 24/7, 365 days a year. People had to exercise personal accountability. We had pulled a number of safety related regulations from the book a few years ago. In the past you could not fish at night except on certain cusk waters. We were not developing regulations specifically to focus on public safety. With regard to additional harvest on Moosehead, if we felt down the road that the extension was having any impacts on the resources we could shut that down.

Mr. Farrington stated looking at the extended season, how long had it been an issue, three years out of the last 150? Was it really an issue? We had always ended the season on March 31 and that seemed to work. He did not see a reason to extend another month for 25 people.

Ms. Rousseau stated she had been hearing the same kind of concerns on the Fish River thoroughfare area regarding the extended season for ice fishing.

Warden Allarie stated southern Maine where he patrolled was totally different than the north so he couldnt comment on that. It was 24/7 that you could fish in southern Maine. He saw their points on the extended season, it would push the envelope concerning safety at some point but where did we draw the line.

Mr. Scribner stated he was part of the small minority that took advantage of the extended ice fishing season in April. He was fishing Porter two weeks into the season and there was still 22 inches of ice. The resource should be the overriding factor. He thought probably when the Department first came out with the January 1 - March 31 ice fishing season there was a safety factor that was considered and built into that. With the changing weather patterns we had now it seemed the Department was backing away from safety and putting the responsibility where it belonged, on the fisherman vs. trying to legislate safety. At Moosehead, if there was a legitimate concern regarding fish being taken out of the hole, if there could be a modification there so the resource got the additional protections, if needed, then so be it.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he lived in Houlton next to the lake which was a popular ice fishing destination until about March 20. On a weekend in January or February there might be 20-30 parties in front of his house, but towards mid-March it died off. They had an ice out contest and generally the ice didnt go out until after May 1. For Aroostook County he felt it would provide a little bit of opportunity for some people. He did not feel a lot of people took advantage of it. He did not feel we should not allow people to fish because they might get hurt or go in the water. Moosehead may be an exception, but he was in favor of extending the season until the end of April. Bait was an issue during the extended season that year however.

Mr. Brautigam stated Grand Lake Stream was nationally renowned for its salmon fishing and supported one of the four indigenous populations of landlocked salmon in Maine. There was a long history there. What was interesting about Grand Lake Stream was before everything was dammed up in the St. Croix there was a lot of spawning habitat there for salmon. After the flowages were freed it lost a lot of spawning habitat. That resulted in the constructions of Grand Lake Stream hatchery and it was the hatchery and our stocking that maintained the viability of the strain in the drainage. There was very little natural reproduction there. We used that strain in about 80% of our statewide stocking for salmon. About a year ago, the Department received a request from the Grand Lake Stream guides association to explore opportunities to extend fall fishing there. Currently, we had an extended season that allowed for fishing in Grand Lake Stream until the 20th. They suggested the fish had just not been coming into Grand Lake Stream as they had in the past. It was not because they were spawning later, we had spawning records. The flows had not been there, wed had drought like conditions in the fall and the fish had not been moving into Grand Lake Stream. It was effecting local business for the Guides and others so they were looking to explore if we could extend the fishing there by another five days.

Commissioner Camuso asked when the fish spawned.

Mr. Brautigam stated the salmon were typically spawning there by October 28. The fishing season was currently open until the 20th. We were proposing to extend the season until the 25th while the fish were moving in from both West Grand and Big Lake, and they were spawning. It really represented a small percentage of either fishery. West Grand represented about 5% of the total fishery. 95% of the fishery was sustained by stocked fish, but they were spawning and contributing. He thought that was where some of the public comments were coming from, they thought they were wild fish and needed protecting. In light of the changing conditions we seemed to be experiencing, he did not believe there would be any impact on our management of the resource if we extended the season an additional 5 days. It would help support a small economy there that was pretty dependent on the fishery.

Mr. Farrington asked why the 20th was originally chosen as the cutoff date.

Mr. Brautigam stated he thought it had been earlier and there was a compromise made a number of years ago with the Grand Lake Stream guides because they were interested in extending the fishing opportunity as they were now.

Mr. Farrington stated he still felt fishing over a wild fish hatchery during spawning season, even if it was only 5-10 percent of the fishery, that was fish being killed. He thought it was Dave Boucher that wrote the book stating any fish caught during spawning season had potential to reduce production by at least 50% even if it was released. If the guides were dependent on five more days to stay in business, they probably should get into a different business.

Mr. Sage stated it sounded like the decision was being made for businesses not what was best for the resource.

Mr. Brautigam stated we wouldnt propose it if we felt there was going to be an adverse impact on our ability to manage the resource. What it meant was, were we willing to give up a small percentage of that wild recruitment piece in order to provide some additional use opportunity and support the local businesses in the area.

Mr. Thurston asked of the comments, how many were in favor of the extension and how many were opposed.

Mr. Overlock stated it was a close split.

Mr. Thurston stated he would like to follow up on two things. Was the statistic of the book Mr. Farrington cited, they could reduce their spawning by 50%, was that a realistic number in Mr. Brautigams mind. Most of the gentleman there were severely catch and release and very well focused. The last thing they would want to do is harm a fish.

Mr. Brautigam stated from a management standpoint if we needed that reproduction there to maintain the population we would not extend the fishing opportunity.

Mr. Duchesne stated whenever he went to Grand Lake Stream he thought about how difficult it was for the people to stay in business. Most of the sporting camps had been on the market for years and it was really hardscrabble right now. If there was not a lot of pressure on the resource and there was an opportunity to make a little more money and stay in business, he would tend to side that way.

Mr. Brautigam stated the Fish River thoroughfares was really two thoroughfares between Eagle Lake and Square and Eagle Lake and St. Froid. The two thoroughfares provided very high-quality spawning habitat for salmon and some for brook trout but not nearly as good. Brook trout were not using the thoroughfares for spawning they were using the outlet. There was an 8-9 mile outlet that was high quality brook trout and salmon spawning. There was an overabundance of salmon in the lower system. There were some comments suggesting there was occasionally a big fish caught in one of the thoroughfares and that occasionally did happen. The residents that were fishing there, the prospects were not very good the fish were between 10"- 12. It was a poor-quality fishery and was not experiencing the level of use that it could. The proposal was an effort to increase harvest opportunity and reduce spawning success and recruitment of the wild fish. It was proposed in two tributaries where we had abundant salmon spawning habitat, but not abundant brook trout spawning habitat.

Mr. Brautigam stated the proposal was to go year-round with unlimited salmon under 14 and 2 over 14. The reality was, we currently had the rule in place from April September. Going to the rule year-round was providing additional opportunity to harvest in October and November. It would be adding a couple of months for people to harvest fish that we wanted removed from the system. If we could not come up with a system for anglers to harvest the fish, another mechanism would have to be developed to reduce the abundance of salmon there. It provided a unique opportunity for additional angling at that time of year in a place that did not have much opportunity for fishing in the fall.

Ms. Rousseau stated she did not know the area but had been getting the responses on the proposal. A couple of individuals that lived in the area had constant communication with her. She wanted to make sure their concerns were expressed. One of them was concerned about the extension of the season, he cared less about the extension for ice fishing but into the fall he was very concerned because it was an area with a lot of bird and deer hunting and he was concerned about lack of available law enforcement. He was also concerned about the gene pool. He also thought harvesting fish over reds was unethical. Another concern was it seemed the area was putting too much precedence on opportunity for anglers vs. better science.

Mr. Thurston asked what progress had been made there?

Mr. Overlock stated we were close to where it had always been. The liberal regulation on the lake had been there for about four years. We felt we needed to do more to effect change there in a timely manner.

Mr. Thurston asked if we felt we could get to where we wanted to be there with just this process alone? Messaging was huge in getting people to start keeping those fish.

Mr. Brautigam stated it was a step to get where we wanted to be. We probably needed to be more aggressive in trying to reduce the population.

Mr. Farrington asked what the regulation was on the lake that supported the thoroughfares as far as removal of salmon. What about the stream? That was a reproduction area where they would be hooking spawning fish.

Mr. Brautigam stated on the two thoroughfares you could have unlimited salmon under 14 and 2 over 14. We were good with them catching the spawning salmon we would like to reduce population whether it was the small or big ones.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he was in support of the proposal, he felt the Department had done a good job trying to create opportunity for the anglers and removing the fish could only help the entire population.

Mr. Duchesne stated when he thought of the area he thought of the hunting that went on in the area and they couldnt do it on Sunday. To be able to have a resource they could aggressively go after on Sunday to him suited the economys needs well.

C. Step 1

1. Ch. 5 Water Access Rules

Mr. Circo stated our water access program started in 1984. We had never had specific rules for our water access sites. There was a period of time the Department assumed the Wildlife Management Area rules could apply to our water access sites. We talked to the Attorney General and that was not true. The proposed rule would clarify that issue. We utilized the existing rules being used by Parks and Lands and modified them to fit our needs.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Sage asked why it included shooting ranges.

Mr. Circo stated that was the text for shooting ranges that already existed in rule. There were some places where water access sites were added. We did not change anything for shooting ranges.

Mr. Circo stated that was the text for shooting ranges that already existed in rule. There were some places where water access sites were added. We did not change anything for shooting ranges.

Mr. Sage asked if those were state owned shooting ranges.

Mr. Circo replied, correct. Once of the reasons the rule was put together was some enforcement challenges wed had in the past. Without rules in place it put wardens in a difficult position. Without the rules in place the only charge we had if the site was posted, we could go through a criminal process which was difficult and the state did not like to process a criminal charge for some of the things we were seeing. The rule would allow the charge to be a misdemeanor and simpler for the wardens to administer in the field.

Mr. Farrington asked the purpose of the power boat loading? Anyone that had a pontoon boat or most of them drove them onto a trailer, would that be considered power boat loading.

Mr. Circo stated that was power loading. The issue was where our ramps extended out into the water, often if you were power loading you were creating quite a bit of cavitation underneath the water which would blow out the sediment and any of the subsurface substrate that was around the planks. It would blow a hole in the bottom behind where the planks were so someone backing in a trailer would drop into a hole. It also blew material from around the concrete planks and over time cause them to shift. Power loading was something we tried to prevent. It was an issue with high horsepower boats. When we reconstructed sites we tried to extend the ramp to try and limit that where we had the depth to do so.

2. Ch. 13 Watercraft rules (permanent adoption of emergency rule)

Commissioner Camuso stated this was a regulation the Council voted on previously. This was a rule to allow the Department to enforce noise on watercraft. When the rule was sent for adoption we realized the rule inadvertently limited the authority to inland waters. DMR also used our watercraft rules as well and we had removed their authority. The Secretary of State held that rule and we passed an emergency rule that eliminated the inland only restriction. Because emergency rules were only in effect for 90-days we had to go through the process of permanently adopting the corrected rule.

V. Other Business

There were no items under Other Business.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) was holding a public meeting in Danforth regarding the Forest City Dam. Woodland Pulp filed to surrender their license to the dam. When you surrendered a license you either locked the gates or pulled the gates. It was pretty controversial and it was a big deal that they were coming to gather information from the public. The meeting was scheduled for August 28, 2019 at 3:30pm at Danforth High School. There would be a panel discussion where Mr. Brautigam would be available for fisheries issues. It would affect water levels through Orient. Also, the Governor had formed an ATV Task Force to study ATV trail use issues. The first meeting had been scheduled for September 5, 2019. The scope of work was to look at landowners and ATV users and how they interacted and try to come up with a resolution for use of private lands and appropriate trails.

Gary Corson stated he would like to comment on the Fish River thoroughfares. He supported what the Department was proposing. If we wanted all the salmon removed we should look at the stocking in the watershed. There was three feet of elevation between them. To think you could stock one of the lakes with salmon and not have that effect a lake that was three feet in elevation difference, we needed to look at that especially on waters with regulations where we wanted to reduce the populations.

Jeff Reardon stated he was pleased to see the no live fish as bait proposal come through to the end. He did not have an issue with removal of salmon out of the Fish River chain. He also did not have concern with extending the ice fishing season in terms of impacts on the fishery. He was concerned with the unintended consequences on brook trout that were also in those systems and werent in the same biological state. His concern with the Fish River chain, he suspected based on telemetry studies they had seen elsewhere that brook trout moved around in the system particularly early in the spring and late in the fall they were concentrated in limited areas. When people found those areas they may become very popular fisheries. If they became popular in the Fish River chain, some may ask why they could not fish post spawn brook trout in Rapid River. There were lots of short salmon elsewhere as well. A policy should be in place for where and when the regulation was used and monitor for unintended consequences.

Mrs. Smith stated she had concerns with the turkey population. They were not seeing as many turkeys in their area.

Commissioner Camuso stated the Governor had called the Legislature back in session to vote on bond issues. The land bond issue would be one of those. There would be four bond packages for them to vote on. The Land for Maines Future program (LMF) was the land bond issue that the Governor was requesting a $20 million bond to reinstate LMF funding. The program was currently below $1 million that hadnt been obligated for projects. The LMF program had been historically overwhelmingly popular with the public and a successful program for wildlife habitat conservation. No more than $10 million per year could be spent according to the bond language. There were many opportunities to provide acquisitions. Her personal preference would be that some of that money be used in proximity to population centers rather than a four-hour drive for people. People wanted access to hunting and fishing near to where they lived.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next Advisory Council meeting was Scheduled for Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Farrington and that was seconded by Mr. Smith to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta Tuesday, December 10, 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order - 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Ch.5 Water Access Rules - Diano Circo

B. Step 2.

1. Ch. 2 Bass Tournaments - Francis Brautigam

2. Captive Wildlife rules - Christl Theriault

C. Step 1

1.

V. Other Business

1. R3 presentation - Bob Cordes

2. Harvest Statistics 2018 vs. 2019 - Nate Webb

3. RAWA letter of support - Charlie Todd

VI. Councilor Reports - 11:30 A.M.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

Advisory Council Meeting
October 1 , 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Charlie Todd, E&T Species Coordinator
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Diano Circo, Chief Planner
Dan Scott, Acting Colonel Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Matt Thurston (Chair)
Jerry Scribner (Vice-chair)
Shelby Rousseau
Brian Smith
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Larry Farrington
Bob Duchesne

Guests:

Gary Corson, New Sharon
Joyce Smith
Helene Marsh-Harrower
Karen Coker
Emily Bastain
Eliza Donahue
Katie Hansberry


I. Call to Order

Matt Thurston, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2020

Mr. Brautigam stated the packet included the addition of five new heritage waters as well as the removal of three that did not contain brook trout. The packet also included the addition of no live fish as bait to tributaries to nineteen heritage waters in the southern part of the state and included extending the ice fishing season in the north zone by one month. It also included eighteen water specific rulemaking proposals. There had been good discussion and a summary of the public comment had been distributed. The Department was not proposing any additional revisions or amendments to the packet.

Ms. Rousseau stated there was a lot to vote on with one vote, the proposals couldn't be voted on individually. It was all or nothing.

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to adopt the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: seven(7) in favor; one(1) opposed (Mr. Farrington) - motion passed.

2. Ch. 13 Watercraft rules (permanent adoption of emergency rule)

Commissioner Camuso stated this was the final adoption of the emergency rule the Council adopted to correct the inadvertent change in the scope of the rule.

Mr. Sage asked if Marine Patrol used our regulations.

Commissioner Camuso stated yes.

Mr. Farrington stated the comments regarding Mere Point boat launch, the main concern for a lot of those people was the noise of the airboats. If the emergency rule was approved, it should address that issue.

Commissioner Camuso stated the rule addressed testing of a marine engine, and with the airboats the noise was not coming from a marine engine it was the propeller. We would be looking for a path forward to address those noise issues.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we had met with the Town of Freeport, Brunswick, Harpswell and committed we would go back to rulemaking. We were doing research and would come back with a proposal to address those comments.

Mr. Thurston stated he visited the Mere Point launch and took video of an airboat taking off. Some airboats were better than others, it was fairly loud when it took off.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Smith

Vote: unanimous - motion passed.

B. Step 2

1. Ch 5. Water Access Rules

Mr. Circo stated the Department had 147 water access sites across the state. The rules would apply to all of those water access sites. Most of the public comment received on the proposal was around one particular site, Mere Point. There were two specific rules in the proposal that applied to Mere Point, there was a lot of history there. The basic issues were at Mere Point boats over 24 feet were not allowed a the facility and overnight parking was not allowed at the facility. The public comment came from two different perspectives, there were some that did commercial work at the facility and they would like to see the restriction on the use of commercial boats at the facility removed so that commercial boats could use the facility without any impediment and the length limit be removed. There was another group that lived near Mere Point that had serious concerns about boats over 24 feet and had serious concerns about commercial use at the facility.

Council member comments and questions

Mr. Duchesne stated it was a beautiful boat launch and that Land for Maines Future (LMF) money funded some of the improvements.

Mr. Circo stated LMF money funded some of the acquisition costs.

Mr. Duchesne stated a lot of what LMF did was working waterfronts. If it was just recreational boats that was really not working waterfront and he was thinking commercial use by clam diggers, etc. How did we square the two?

Mr. Circo stated he believed the LMF funds came from the water access program, not the working waterfront program so there were slightly different missions. The commercial use issue there was one that was difficult for the Department in a couple of ways. The Department received the funds it used to purchase and build the facility, it was about a $2 million facility. The federal funds used came from the sport fish restoration program at the USFWS so it was the excise tax on fishing equipment. One of the restrictions on those federal funds that we used to acquire or build property was that the primary use of the facility had to be for the general public for sport fishing and recreational use, not commercial use. Where commercial use started to infringe on that public use, then the Department became in a grey area where we had to make sure the general public use was the primary purpose. So far, the commercial use of the facility we did not think had infringed in a heavy way on public use but we were seeing increased commercial use of the facility over time. We were trying to moderate for that.

Mr. Sage asked what constituted commercial use.

Mr. Circo stated it was a bit of a grey area. A lot of it was up to interpretation. We currently allowed commercial use at Mere Point as long as it was not impeding the publics general use of the facility we allowed it. It was typically clammers or wormers going in and out of the facility, but they were not allowed to sell product at the facility or take up parking spaces to store gear, etc. They were allowed to launch and retrieve boats.

Commissioner Camuso stated given the complexity of the issue and the number of comments it had been recommended to pull the Mere Point component out of the proposal and meet with the town. A lot of the issues associated with the 24-foot limit in particular were issues we addressed with the town. It probable did make sense to begin a series of meetings with the town and community to try and figure out the best path forward.

Mr. Thurston stated he thought that would allow the Department to move forward with 95% of the proposal and deal with the Mere Point issue independently. It had generated many comments. Mr. Thurston, Mrs. Peet and Mr. Sage had visited the facility. They witnessed commercial activity in and out and they also witnessed a lot of kayak activity. The kayakers were not as timely and efficient at the launch. They saw commercial operators, they wanted to get and get out. The people they met with were predominantly not in favor of enforcement of the 24 foot and commercial rule proposal.

Mr. Sage stated off the facility there were a lot of islands that were open to camping and that was when the overnight parking was an issue.

Mr. Thurston stated those they spoke with were open to having a system where it didnt impede on the recreational boaters where they could have access early in the morning. Many of the residents there had larger boats and needed a commercial hauler to get them in and out. It was the best facility for that person to get his boat out. He was in once in the spring and out in the fall, and there were others like that. It had become common place at the launch with 26-foot boats, sailboats, commercial rigs, heavy haulers, etc. and it hadnt been enforced.

Mr. Scribner stated enforcement seemed to be one of the biggest issues. Whatever rules were proposed needed to somehow be enforced. What was developed with the town had not been enforced.

Mr. Circo stated it would take some time to work with Brunswick. It was a complicated issue. There were design implications of how the site was engineered that we would have to look at to see what could be accommodated without causing issues with the facility that cost a lot of money and was expensive to maintain.

Mr. Duchesne stated you could certainly get a bigger boat in there, but there were two ramps and when big boats tried to get in together that was when it looked to become complicated.

Mr. Circo stated the 24-foot length was based on a 45-foot rig length. The engineer designed the ramp approach so if you had a rig larger than 45-feet you really couldnt make the turn. The weight limit of the ramp itself and the floats were all based on boats that were relatively that size.

Mr. Sage stated they also needed to look at the kayak launch, it was dangerous.

Mr. Circo stated we were looking at other locations in the region where we could distribute use where possible.

C. Step 1

1. Ch. 2 Bass Tournaments

Mr. Brautigam stated bass fishing in Maine had grown tremendously in popularity. It was the number two most preferred sport fish next to brook trout. A lot of the organized bass fishing clubs had also increased in popularity. We had a lot of clubs trying to enjoy their sport on our lakes and ponds. A lot of the water access sites were never developed to accommodate the level of use typically associated with a lot of the bass tournaments. Most of our sites were able to accommodate up to 15 rigs. Mr. Brautigam was approached by the bass fishing community and they wanted to be able to have increased participation during their club bass fishing events. Currently, they were restricted to limiting the number of boats to 15 for a single bass tournament event. One of the common complaints from the public not affiliated with the tournament was there was no place to park. Most of the clubs were pretty good and left spaces open for the public as a good will gesture. Because some of the clubs had grown, many had more than 15 members and they had asked if there was a way to convene club events for up to 20 boats. Given concerns with existing limitations at water access sites, we would accommodate club events up to 20 boats on waters that were 1,000 acres or larger in size providing they utilized off site parking. That would take those events away from public water access sites, they would utilize a private access site and it would create an incentive for them to be able to have their event and free up access for those not affiliated with the bass tournament events. The proposal was to go from 15 to 20 boats per club event where the water was in excess of 1,000 acres and where they could find their own offsite parking.

Council Member comments and questions

Mr. Sage stated that was just clubs, not nationwide tournaments?

Mr. Brautigam stated they were open events and could accommodate upwards of 100 boats, but those could only occur on certain waters around the state.

Mr. Thurston stated there was recently a tournament on Sebago Lake with over 250 boats. It was an economic generator for Maine. The proposal was for local clubs wanting to have in house tournaments amongst themselves?

Mr. Brautigam stated yes.

Mr. Farrington stated when they had tournaments on Cobbossee and they had inspectors, was that going to preclude them from going through a site where their boat had to be inspected before entering the water?

Mr. Brautigam stated it was a permit condition that their boats be inspected before and after the event. We required that clubs received certified training in inspections.

Mr. Smith asked if there were other tournaments besides bass tournaments.

Mr. Brautigam stated we had derbies which were catch and kill events. The only tournaments we had were targeting bass. We had catch and release events or catch, weigh and release events. The permit allowed them to hold fish in excess of their bag limit alive during the event. We had special provisions in place to ensure the fish had the proper conditions.

Captive Wildlife rules

Mrs. Theriault stated this came about from a bill that was introduced during the last legislative session. It was before the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (ACF) committee and the bill came from a constituent who had an exhibition permit. Their concern was they wanted to be able to use a type of sheep for agritourism. Because of the activity they wanted to use it for, they wanted to be exempt from getting a captive wildlife permit from IFW. IFW and ACF were both concerned about this creating a loophole for people to bring in domestically raised or wildlife that could be considered domestic because they would be using them for farming and wouldnt need an exhibition permit or general possession permit or abide by standards for keeping them in captivity. Both agencies testified, and the issues were discussed. The ACF committee sent a letter to IFW and ACF asking both agencies to modify their rules and to be very explicit about agency responsibilities and that there continued to be a review process for any type of animals a person might request to have for agritourism.

Mrs. Theriault stated in Chapter 7 under the scope there were parameters. The one stating, "any domestically raised, hybridized or genetically altered wildlife specifically held for agriculture production" were the type of species being dealt with. We were proposing to add language, if they were held for agriculture production, including for farming and ranching pursuant to Title 7 and when a species is intended to be used for the production of agricultural products pursuant to Title 7, but it is ordinarily considered wild by nature an agent of the Commissioner shall consult with the state veterinarian on the use and risk of disease to both domestic and wild animals and, if necessary, consult with the IFW captive wildlife technical committee to determine which agency regulates the species in question. Agritourism as it relates to the exhibition of exotic wildlife will continue to be regulated by IFW pursuant to Title 12 and this rule chapter. In 2017 IFW went through extensive rulemaking and legislative changes dealing with captive wildlife rules and thousands of species were reviewed and some added to the unrestricted list. The wildlife technical committee was revamped so there was a committee and process in place if someone had an issue with an animal they wanted to bring into Maine. The committee could make recommendations to the Commissioner to either put it on the unrestricted list or have ACF review it.

Council Member comments and questions

Mr. Duchesne asked what the Department would have preferred the Legislature had done.

Mrs. Theriault stated it was a grey area and we wanted people to know which agency they needed to contact. The species that was in question was a Barbary sheep which was native to Africa and were a captive bred species. The person wanted to possess them for agritourism and not have to have an exhibitor permit.

V. Other Business

1. Recovering America's Wildlife Act (RAWA)

Mr. Todd stated there was in a bill in Congress that would change funding mechanisms between federal agencies and state agencies to do a better job with species at risk. For twenty years, wildlife action plans were developed by the agency on a once every decade cycle. The USFWS expected directs Maine, 49 other states and 4 territories to identify species of greatest conservation need = species Things that were trending badly and likely to end up on the endangered or threatened species list federally if proactive conservation wasnt done. Mr. Todd had worked his whole career in endangered species and we had to wait until legal jeopardy set in for a species before we started to prepare the long road back. The better way was to look ahead for what was trending badly and apply management for it. State wildlife agencies had never been funded to do that. The proposal would bring in significant stable funding. Currently, we earned million dollars annually in discretionary spending, we did not know never knew if it would be available next year. It was a year to year decision and it was difficult to conduct a program. RAWA would allocate $1.3 billion nationally as an alternative, but stable funding mechanism each year. Also, nearly $100 million would be available to tribal governments. It would be a sub-account under the Pittman Robertson federal aid program. The current proposal was in the US House of Representatives with 124 bi-partisan cosponsors and there was every reason to expect it would go to a public hearing before the Natural Resources Committee later that month. Many states had taken a proactive approach to promoting the act. Governor Mills had written a letter of support to the Maine delegation. A but there was a large nationwide campaign going on was underway.

Commissioner Camuso asked what the $1.3 billion allocation nationally would mean for the State of Maine.

Mr. Todd stated $11.3 million annually for Maine.

Commissioner Camuso stated that was more than all our other federal funding combined.

Mr. Todd stated it was big investment. The Wildlife Action Plan was on its second generation and he would estimate they were only doing no more than 5% of the work outlined because of capacity. He did not feel it would change the agency the way some people thought, we did not have the capacity to match that amount and there would be a lot of partnerships with other conservation partners to target It was about species of greatest conservation need. A previous version went to Congress last year and did not make it out of committee. Twenty-seven states had their commissions adopt resolutions in support of RAWA, and others had written a letter of support.

Mr. Smith stated in Canada they had many lynx and hunted lynx, but in northern Maine we had lynx but they were endangered. Why was that? Eastern cottontail, other states had plenty and they were hunted but they were an endangered species in southern Maine.

Mr. Todd stated the New England cottontail was not abundant anywhere and its range was strictly east of the Hudson to southern Maine. Only six states had them. Eastern cottontail was part of the problem, it had outcompeted the native rabbit. Canada lynx was different, it was not state listed but it was federally listed because of the courts. Between Atlantic salmon and Canada lynx Maine had more of its statewide area in critical habitat under the ESA than any state in the nation. Part of the approach was to rely more on state generated conservation to prevent things from escalating to a federal problem. In the case of something like lynx, the USFWS had since changed their regulations and probably would not list a species like lynx again because most if its range was primarily elsewhere out of its jurisdiction. They were on the fringe and we could not change that. States like Maine had done an incredible job finding a way to do the work without significant funding. This would potentially lead to investments in habitat management and conservation that benefitted all citizens. A recent survey showed that 84% of Maine citizens strongly supported endangered species conservation.

Commissioner Camuso stated she recently attended the National Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency meeting where representatives from state agencies were there and she was pleased to hear Governor Mills called out in the Maine convention as taking a leadership role in trying to help facilitate RAWA through Congress. She was the chair of the Natural Resource Committee and was trying to get other governors to also write letters. Commissioner Camuso stated she would be supportive if the Council wanted to write a letter or encourage any partners to do so.

Mr. Thurston stated the Commissioner and staff could help facilitate the writing of a letter and they could review it at the next meeting.

2. E&T species listing/Essential habitat - process & Council's role

Mr. Todd distributed copies of the current list of Maines endangered and threatened species. The list was revised in 2015 and 51 species were currently included, 26 were endangered and 25 were threatened. Listing species as endangered or threatened was a legal classification. It always came through the Advisory Council. Beginning in 1984, Maine made periodic changes to the list that would go through the Advisory Council. Beginning in the mid-90s that was not the end of the process. Staff would review the list periodically, develop a proposal, bring it to the Council at Step 1; public hearing and public comment at Step 2, but and Step 3 was different. The Councils approval was meaningful but that was no longer the final step, we would then send it as a bill to the Legislature and the species were adopted not in rule but statute. He felt part of the problem with the ESA was sometimes government could be bureaucratic and inefficient and when they were, outside forces petitioned us federal agencies. The fact that the dual roles by executive branch of government and legislative branch of Maine government action had confused people on how to interfere with the process was very unique and likely deterred petitions. As long as we did a good job of keeping the list current and meaningful we had enjoyed freedom from forces at large external pressures. This was remained a high-profile subject. Currently, in By Department rules, the list was adopted in 2007, we were required to review the list at least once every 8 years. By 2023 there would need to be a bill in the Legislature, so by 2022 there would be a proposal before the Council.

Mr. Todd stated they would begin the periodic review and see if changes were warranted. The federal endangered species act listings were driven very often by threats and inadequacies of regulations, that was old style ESA that was a lot often based on subjective arguments. Maine used biological concepts wed adopted and in regulations. Low abundance, bad population trends, fragmented populations, endemic species, limited distribution, those were things that made a species vulnerable. We had guidelines to support those status reviews with thresholds when something dropped below a certain number it was considered. It was very objective and science data driven not speculation rather than subjective arguments. Conversely, it burdened In practice, the Department to must get the information in advance so the Council had what they needed to move forward.

Mr. Todd stated many did not understand when the federal list did not jive with the state list. The federal list was looking at all 50 states, and the standard for listing was, all or a significant portion of the range. It may or may not be a good fit for Maine such as Canada lynx. More often than not there was overlap between the federal and state listings. In the early years, Maine, like most states, automatically gave recognition to a federally listed species but Maine moved away from that in 1995. That was why we went through the Legislature now, it was the threat of the Atlantic salmon listing during that period. We had maintained a cooperative agreement with USFWS to uphold some implications protections for federally listed species and how we earned our funding for that part of the program.

Mr. Todd stated there was a provision under the Maine ESA created to give the agency an optional tool to use when necessary to protect species called the essential habitat rule. Very analogues to the federal rule of critical habitat. The federal rule only applied when there was a federal permit, license, funding or federal agency involved. The business about most of That nexus was infrequent in Maine being in despite critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and Canada lynx did not change Maine as we knew it in the last 15 years. When we did something as essential habitat, we mapped an area, developed protection guidelines for the species so there was transparency and predictability in public policy and then it was binding on actions that were permitted, licensed, funded or carried out with any state agency or municipality. It was created because of problems inconsistent decisions in the late 80s with eagle guidancenests. We had experience to help communities, but they did not have a legal reason to listen to us. For 19 years we regulated eagle nests. Bald eagles came off the threatened species list in 2009 in Maine, so the essential habitat rule went away. It was a special tool and we had only used it on four species from the long list over time. One of the species that was currently regulated was the roseate tern, a state endangered sea bird that was only living on a few of the islands. At the time of the rules development in 1993, it was the only listed sea bird on Maines endangered and threatened species list. Now, there were four others that overlapped in part with the same islands. We wanted to revisit the rule, update it and bundle it with the other nesting sea birds and have one rule that covered five species. That appeared to be the first essential habitat rule change that would be coming over the course of the next year or so.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Helene Harrower stated she was one of the owners of Pauls Marina which was located near the public boat launch on Mere Point. She felt like she represented several groups of people. As a commercial interest, they liked to have access, but their business didnt use it very much because they had a crane that lifted boats out of the water. For emergency purposes it would be nice to use if the crane was being worked on. Sometimes weather dictated, for example, that day they had a lot of big boats going out and there were high winds and it would be nice if some of the boats could be hauled down there because they would lose water where they hauled them on a regular basis. They pulled big boats at high tide, but wind was always a factor. It would be nice if they could launch in the spring and come out in the fall. They hired a hauler to come and take out their big boats. They also had customers that used the launch. There were lots of people that had boats over 24 feet and they put them in in the spring and took them out in the fall. It was the ocean and usually required a bigger boat. The restriction of 24 feet was a little tight. She thought the technology was different now. The haulers were fast, they were in and out. Most of the haulers would be happy to register with the state or pay a fee to use the ramp. She also felt like she represented the small commercial businesses that were in and out of there. Regards the clammers and oyster harvesters she had never seen anything left there. The site looked good all the time. The lobstermen really didnt use it unless it was to pick up someone going out with them for the day. Most of them were part of a co-op so didnt use the launch. She was happy we would let the town permit overnight parking. Public parking was a necessity when people wanted to go to the Maine Coast Heritage Trust sites that had designated camping and they needed someplace to park. They had people come to the marina and ask to park, but they couldnt take people on the weekends because they were limited to 140 spaces. She felt comfortable that the Department would be reviewing the launch further and working with the town. She also requested that Department public hearings should be posted on Facebook, we may get more public reaction if people were notified there.

Eliza Donahue stated she was the Director of Staff Advocacy and Policy for Maine Audubon. She had come to listen to the Councils perception of Mr. Todds presentation of RAWA. This was something Maine Audubon was a big supporter of and working to garner more support from Maines congressional delegation for that act. It was currently a House bill. Representative Jarrod Golden was a co-sponsor and they were hoping to secure Chellie Pingree. Maine Audubon was committed to using their network to elevate the work of the agency and if the Council decided to express their support for the act that was something Audubon would want to work to share more broadly to send a strong statement. What was exciting to Maine Audubon about the act generally was not just what it did, but the diversity of people who supported it.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the State of Maine, hopefully in concert with New Brunswick, would be filing comments with FERC on Forest City dam. Once that was filed with FERC and was on the service list it would be forwarded to the Council. The ATV task force was on its third meeting. The website had a section for the Governors task force with meeting information, etc. We were also collecting public information through a survey off the website. The task force decided not to hold public hearings around the state. There was a very aggressive group at the table representing landowners and ATV users. They felt they had a good understanding of the issues, so they were taking public comment electronically. The meetings were open to the public.

Mr. Circo stated the water access program was reconstructing the Damariscotta Lake launch in Jefferson and that would be completed on October 15 and would be a fully ADA accessible facility when it was completed. The access at Pemaquid Pond was being rebuilt and would also be fully ADA accessible. A separate hand carry launch was being constructed at Pemaquid away from the trailered launch so they would have a place to go dedicated just for them. We were in the planning stages for three big projects in the spring; Annabessacook Lake, Togus Pond, and Sandy Pond.

Karen Coker stated she directed a wildlife advocacy group WildWatch Maine. Their goal was to see ethics and science come together in wildlife policy in Maine. She wanted to talk about lead fragments in wild game. After more than three years there was finally a statement on the IFW website about the risk of lead fragments when lead ammo was used to kill game animals. Based on what she had learned the warnings for consumers were not as strong as they needed to be. She wanted to draw attention to one line she found troubling, To date there have not been any cases of human illnesses linked to lead particles in hunter harvested venison or game meat. The statement was misleading because it was unknowable how much lead contamination there had been from lead ammunition fragments. Lead poisoning was very hard to detect. She would strongly suggest that sentence be removed. She wanted to bring attention to a couple of studies from Europe, one published in 2018 conducted at the recommendation of the German government to look at lead content in game meat and its connection to consumer health. Their recommendation was that particularly children up to age 7, pregnant women and women of child bearing age should abstain from eating game meat that had been hunted with lead ammo due to the specific sensitivity to the toxic affects of lead. Another study published in Sweden stated tens of thousands of children in the EU may be consuming game contaminated with ammunition derived lead frequently enough to cause significant effects on their cognitive development. IFWs interest in recruiting women and children to the ranks of hunters to keep the enterprise going was probably the reason some of the risks had been buried for so long. It was troubling to her to see media focused on encouraging women and children to hunt when there was no mention of the risk of exposure. She thought it was past time for this to get more attention. We had a game meat donation program in Maine and last time she checked none of the meat was getting scanned for lead fragments. We should use our programs to advertise the threat, not hide the risk because of the larger need to encourage the sports.

Katie Hansberry stated she was with the HSUS. They recognized the impact that cats and outdoor cats had on birds and other numerous issues. It was an issue they were working on and in her role as President of the Maine Federation of the Humane Societies they had partnered with the Sewell Foundation and had a trailer that had been doing most of its work in Washington County. It supported towns and local groups that were doing trap, neuter, vaccinate and return (TNR) work. They had a location where they could do a high-volume clinic and allowed a place for the animals to recover. It had been very effective in the areas they had been focused on. It was a solution to the problem, research showed when it was done effectively through targeted TNR work it could be extremely effective on getting the number of outdoor cats down.

Mr. Brautigam stated the Fisheries and Hatcheries division was embarking on a long-term strategic planning process. They had formed eight technical committees that would be convening throughout the winter trying to get additional input in the development of the strategic plan. It was a new planning process that included some elements of wildlife divisions approach but also included provisions that would result in regions convening water specific stakeholder groups to develop lake specific management plans as one element of the plan. This would get a lot more decision making at the local level and how we managed fish resources in Maine.

Mrs. Theriault stated she had been asked to pass along some concerns from northern Maine. She had been through one of the North Woods gates and the gate attendant expressed concern with the law change to open the small game hunting early. The moose hunters that had not been successful were competing with other hunters in the woods and there were a number of people that took advantage of the change in the date making it earlier. It was a competing interest. We knew that may be a conflict when the Legislature brought the bill forward.

Mr. Thurston stated that was some of the conflict when we had seasons before that we didnt want them to be overlapping. The September season for moose hunting was the best experience.

Commissioner Camuso stated the October season had been overlapping. It would be an adjustment period. When surveyed, the moose hunting public indicated the October hunt was the most popular and we believed it was because they could also bird hunt.

Lieutenant Scott stated they had received training for online tagging of furbearing animals. They were in the middle of a hiring process to bring on five new wardens. We were an aging agency and many would be eligible for retirement in the next three years, we wanted to ensure we could replace them with quality people. Nationwide, hiring for law enforcement was in a slump. During the last hiring process we received approximately 70 applications compared to in the past when we could receive an average of 2,000.

Mr. Cordes stated the Department owned two shooting areas, one in Fryeburg and one in Summerhaven. The Summerhaven range had been under construction was a completely modern facility. We also had plans to upgrade the Fryeburg facility as well.

Mr. Farrington asked what the new range used for a lead recovery process.

Mr. Cordes stated underneath the drip lines and firing berms was a water collection system treated with lime and it ran off to a collection pool that was lined with lime and the lime would make it so the lead was not transportable or bind it up and not allow it in the water. After a certain time we would go through the firing berms and recover the lead and replace the material.

Karen Coker asked about the lead ammo, if there were any restrictions or guidelines especially since it was family friendly.

Mr. Cordes stated at the Summerhaven facility the lead was collected in the berms and the water was treated. It was open air and plenty of ventilation and wipes were provided that would take metal and lead off hands when exiting the facility. We did not allow any food or water on the range.

Joyce Smith stated she enjoyed bear hunting. She was very impressed with the health of the bears she had seen.

Commissioner Camuso stated we were looking to build a new facility. The facility at 284 State Street was leased and we paid substantial rent. The current conference space could not accommodate many people. The new facility would be more fish and wildlife oriented and would be able to house a host of programs.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Smith and that was seconded by Mr. Sage to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta Tuesday, February 4, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order - 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Ch. 2 Bass Tournaments - Francis Brautigam

2. Captive Wildlife rules - Christl Theriault

B. Step 2

There are no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. Migratory bird season 2020-2021 - Kelsey Sullivan

Other Business

1. ATV Task Force report - Deputy Commissioner Peabody

2. Mere Point update - Deputy Commissioner Peabody

Deer Feeding - Nate Webb

Lead ammunition - Nate Webb

VI. Councilor Reports - 11:30 A.M.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

Advisory Council Meeting
December 10 , 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Craig McLaughlin, WRAS Supervisor
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Charlie Todd, E&T Species Coordinator
Amanda Cross, Wildlife Planner
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Lauren McPherson, Wildlife Promotional Coordinator
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Diano Circo, Chief Planner
Bill Swan, Director of Licensing and Registration
Dan Scott, Acting Colonel Warden Service

Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

Council Members:


Matt Thurston (Chair)
Jerry Scribner (Vice-chair)
Shelby Rousseau - by phone
Brian Smith
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Bob Duchesne
Kristin Peet
Lindsay Ware

Guests:

Joyce Smith
Jeff Reardon, TU

I. Call to Order

Matt Thurston, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Sage

Vote: seven(7) un favor; two(2) abstained (Mrs. Peet and Ms. Ware were not in attendance at the last meeting) - minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Ch. 5 Water Access Rules

Mr. Circo stated these were rules that would apply statewide for our water access sites. We had 150 of them across the state. The original proposal included two specific rules for Mere Point and those had been removed from the final proposal. We had set up a meeting to discuss Mere Point with the town and residents on January 9, 2020 at Brunswick City Hall.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated it would be an information gathering session, it would not be part of the official rulemaking process. We would be gathering information from the public to help craft the rule.

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to adopt the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous - motion passed

B. Step 2

1. Ch. 2 Bass Tournaments

Mr. Brautigam stated this was an effort to provide more opportunity for organized bass fishing tournaments to increase the number of participants at club events. Currently, they were allowed up to 15 boats and we were proposing to increase that to 20, but only on waters that were 1,000 acres or larger in size where the clubs were utilizing off site parking. The hope was that would reduce some of the concerns with congestion at existing boat launches. No public hearing was held and only 3 written comments were received. Two were in support and one was not germane to the subject matter. We were proposing a slight clarification to the language. There were questions from the organized bass fishing community about whether or not only 5 of the boats would have to find off-site parking. We were trying to relocate parking associated with the entire event to off-site parking. The additional language accomplished that.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Sage asked about the increase to 20 members, was that to help with congestion at the boat ramp?

Mr. Brautigam stated the clubs had been advocating for an increase in the number. Bass fishing had become popular and the clubs were growing. It would provide the clubs additional opportunity for full participation. Many of our boat launches were small and could accommodate 15+ boats. We were trying to manage the social aspect while trying to provide opportunity for the growing clubs.

2. Captive Wildlife rules

Mrs. Theriault stated we were making a small change to section 7.18, we would be including any species native to Maine as a Category 1 restricted species. This was never clear in rule. If something was a native species to Maine we wouldn't allow someone to possess that without a Category 1 permit. The second proposal was more in depth and stemmed from a bill in the last legislative session, LD 355 - An Act To Exclude Domesticated Species Used for Agricultural Purposes from the Laws Governing Permits To Possess Wildlife in Captivity. We had a constituent that wanted to keep some domestically raised, wild animals in agritourism and wanted to go through the DACF for permits and not get an exhibitors permit through IFW. The bill sponsor felt it was unclear in our rule as to which agency someone would work with for the correct permits. The bill did not move forward and the Department agreed to go through rulemaking to clarify the language.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Peet asked for an example of a species used for agricultural products that would fall into this category.




Mr. Webb stated Barbary sheep. It was a wild species native to Africa that was pretty common in Texas. Some people were starting to farm them, but it was a wild species.

Mrs. Theriault stated she thought Water Buffalo was included. It would be considered wildlife but used for farming purposes. There was some question as to depending on what the purpose was what kind of permit they needed and which agency to deal with.

Mr. Sage asked if the warden service oversaw the facilities to ensure the species would not be escaping.

Mr. Webb stated that was what the rule would help clarify. There were certain species, were they to be imported into Maine, that did present risk of disease transmission or becoming established in the wild as an invasive species. The language required IFW and the state veterinarian and ACF to make sure the risks were considered before there was a determination as to which agency regulated that importation and management of the animal. In the case of Agriculture, the warden service did not deal with those. If it was an exhibitor or some other type of captive wildlife facility, then staff worked with warden service to ensure they were following the regulations.

Mrs. Theriault stated if there was a type of animal someone wanted to use for agritourism and it was something not already listed as prohibited or restricted or unrestricted they could request a review of that species.

Acting Colonel Scott stated for the species, it really depended on the use. If it was for exhibition we would regulate that, but the same species may be used strictly for farming and that would be agriculture. Some might be both. Thats what the clarification was, it was the activity associated with the species.

Mr. Sage stated we were bringing these animals in and what if the farm animals escaped. Who took care of that for agriculture?

Commissioner Camuso stated most of those having exhibitors permits had one or two animals that were being exhibited, as opposed to farming which generally had a herd or large volume of animals. We would work with the state vet to determine what the use and permit need was. We did not want the warden service or the regional biologist inspecting farms. The Dept. of Agriculture had inspectors that worked with wildlife services and had contract staff by county. This was for all their agricultural purview.

Mr. Thurston stated he had heard there were domestic feral hogs in a Maine community. They were an epidemic across the country.

Commissioner Camuso stated the state had a feral swine working group that met quarterly to discuss any reports of wild boar being released on the landscape. If there was a swine detected lose the farmer had a time frame to retrieve the animal or it would be dispatched.

Mr. Webb stated the same applied for captive cervids as well. We had the strictest captive wildlife regulations in the country.

C. Step 1

There were no items under Step 1.

V. Other Business

1. R3 Presentation

Mr. Cordes gave a PowerPoint presentation to the group. For a copy of the presentation please contact becky.orff@maine.gov.

R3 was a nationwide effort for the recruitment, retention and re-activation of outdoor partners or participation. It followed the outdoor recreation adoption model and was broken up into phases.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Scribner stated he had attended the furbearer informational meeting, and looking back on the big game management plans, there was a lot of reliance on survey data. Did we have any way of assuring that the action we were taking was matching up with what was getting in the way of folks participating whether it be ideology, cost, support, etc. Did we have a database that provided that type of information.

Mr. Cordes stated part of the effort was to survey participants. Anytime we had an event we would follow up with a survey and that included hunter education or other safety programs. We were working on an online system to enter that. One of the standard questions was barriers, or what other programs people would like to see. Related to the mentored deer hunt on Swan Island, prior to that we did a survey of hunter education participants that never followed up with buying a license and surveyed them to see what the barrier was.

Commissioner Camuso stated for most of the state agencies the license sales were the cornerstone of how the agency was funded. The surveys had been done on national scale. We were trying to not duplicate those surveys that had been conducted across the country but learn from those. We would continue to do follow up surveys.

Mr. Thurston stated one of the barriers at least in his area was where to go. People were much more apt in highly residential areas to have bowhunters or things of that nature in their backyard. They felt safer and not as impacted. We could look at each specific thing and try to drive participation into those certain areas. Access had become a real challenge in the southern part of the state.

Mr. Cordes stated one of the online resources being worked on was an application to drive people to locations. We would be able to email people to let them know there were hunting or fishing locations were in their area. We were hoping to develop a trip planner so people could pick their preferences and find a location.

2. Harvest Statistics 2018 vs. 2019

Mr. Webb stated the numbers in the handouts were preliminary numbers. We would have the final numbers much earlier than before with the new web-based system. The deer season numbers were on track with about 28,000. That was about 4,000 less deer harvested than last year which was in line pre-season projections. We issued about 16,000 fewer any-deer permits which was the primary explanation for the reduction in harvest. In the northern part of the state due to the severity of the winter last year we were seeing a lower harvest there.

Mr. Webb stated for moose, the September season was warm and the weather did impact the success rate. It was low relative to what we typically saw at 66%. Typically, we saw success rates of 80% in the September season. October was more in line with what we typically saw. For that season the overall success rate was 70%. We were continuing to see low submission rates for ovaries for antlerless moose that was a critical piece of information that allowed us to assess pregnancy rates as well as twinning rates which were both key metrics in establishing permit numbers. A compliance rate of 30% was pretty low and it was now mandatory. We were discussing how to increase compliance. We did a good job with outreach to moose hunters on a variety of subjects, but on this particular issue we ramped it up even more with repeated email contact. We had also put together videos so instruct someone how to remove them. Hunters could also bring the entire uterus or parts they thought contained the ovaries and the biologist would locate them.

Mr. Smith stated he didnt remember in years past the rut continuing so late in WMDs 27 and 28, were we looking at different dates for seasons?

Mr. Webb stated typically there was one week between the first and second season, this year because of the calendar there were two weeks between seasons. The second season this year was late relative to what it usually was. We had received some feedback it was too late, but the success rate was good. We heard comments that they were still able to call in bulls. It was a recommendation of the big game plan to look at the issue. The general perspective of staff was anytime we might hold a moose season there was risk of warm weather. Certainly, the risk was higher the earlier the season. There were good ways even on very warm days to properly care for the moose. It was a cultural thing and Maine people were used to bringing animals out whole, not skinning and quartering in the field which was common practice in many other states.

Mr. Webb stated the wild turkey hunting season opened two weeks earlier than it had in the past. We had an increased bag limit from 2 to 5 birds in certain WMDs. Despite the changes, the harvest was on par with what we had seen in similar years with similar conditions. There were just over 1,900 birds harvested. The number of hunters that tagged more than two birds was just under 150. There were 29 that tagged 5 birds which was the maximum. The mast crops were universally high across the majority of the state and when that occurred, we tend to see a lower turkey harvest.

Mr. Webb stated there was a low bear harvest in 2019. We predicted a low harvest and it was a record low year. Their natural food was plentiful, and they were not coming to the baits. There was a bill carried over in the Legislature that would give the Department more authority to set season dates and bag limits in the fall. It would not give the Department authority to establish a spring season. If the bill were passed we would go through the rulemaking process in terms of potentially increasing the bag limit and minor adjustments to season dates. What we really had was a participation problem with bear hunters. We had about 5,000 Maine residents that pursued black bears out of 160,000 licensed big game hunters. There was very limited participation by resident Maine hunters in pursuing bear. Recruiting more hunters into bear hunting would be a more impactful and long-lasting solution. It also tied into R3.

Mrs. Peet asked if the Department had considered a second bear permit?

Mr. Webb stated if the bill passed in its current form it would allow us to do that. Currently, the statute only allowed one bear by hunting and one by trapping.

Mr. Sage asked how many bears would we like harvested each year to keep the population stable?

Mr. Webb stated about 15%, we had approximately 40,000 bear; our goal was to exceed 4,000. As part of our big game planning effort we did ask on the surveys hunters that hunted other species but not bear why they did not hunt bear and there were a variety of reasons. For some it was purely economical or practical; most hunters lived in place where they would have to travel a fair distance for the opportunity to harvest a bear. There was also a wide spread perspective among hunters that bear meat was not good to eat. That was unfortunate.

Mr. Cordes stated it was almost 30% that answered that way. That was a huge barrier and one of our goals in R3 was to get people to try properly handled bear meat.

Commissioner Camuso stated the legislative proposal did propose a reduction in the resident permit fee from $27 to $5. We did see a decline in the number of people buying permits when the fee was raised from $5 to $27. We were hoping that might help recruit more people. We still wanted to track the number of people participating. We knew that overwhelmingly people did not support a spring bear hunt, and we were not going to bring forward a proposal for a spring bear hunt unless it was something the public wanted.

3. RAWA letter of support

Mr. Todd stated Recovering Americas Wildlife Act (RAWA) was growing in support in the House of Representatives; there were currently 162 co-sponsors in the House. A public hearing had been held on the bill and later in October the bill was voted out of Committee and was on the floor of the House of Representatives. The Council packet included a funding vision for Maine which laid out a concept for how the funding would be used. The idea was the money was ear marked for species of greatest conservation need which were identified in the action plan. If we were to average out current funding and divide it by the number of species of greatest conservation need in Maine wed have about $1,200 per year to spend on species conservation projects to keep them from becoming threatened or endangered. RAWA would multiply those funds by 25. Over the course of the development of the bill several states had taken the step of having their commissions a.k.a. Advisory Council offer up formal resolutions for RAWA. It was one thing for the Commissioner or Governor to acknowledge the potential funds, but when a citizens oversight committee said the same thing, it was quite powerful. A resolution had been drafted with an emphasis on Maine. He was not sure how to describe what might happen next in Washington, D.C. with the bill. The vote out of Committee, just like the volume of co-sponsors for RAWA was highly bi-partisan and he thought the vote in the Natural Resources Committee was 26-6 in favor.

Commissioner Camuso stated the total funding allocation for this would be $15.2 million annually. That would be 1/3 of the current annual budget. We would have an additional 30% of funding that would be dedicated to species of greatest conservation need. We had a tentative outline of how we would utilize the funding; managing species of greatest conservation need, land acquisition and management and outreach and education.

Mr. Duchesne stated there was a survey released that summer that stated millions of birds were disappearing from the continent. A lot of those birds were common birds. Blue jays had dropped by to 1/3. We kept looking at endangered species because we were already late on those, we were seeing a lot of other species that were going endangered. Barn swallows in Nova Scotia were now on the endangered species list. Things were getting bad and we needed to take a holistic view on what was going wrong and how to fix it.

Mr. Smith stated a few years ago Pittman Robertson funds had skyrocketed, were they stable or declining?

Mr. Circo stated Pittman Robertson was down slightly and Dingle Johnson had seen a small increase.

Commissioner Camuso stated the money came from the sales tax on hunting and sporting equipment, but about 80% of the money came from shooting sports, guns and ammunition.

Mr. Thurston stated if Maines portion of the funding was 11.4 million and if we had to match it to get to the 15 million, what was the total expenditure of the bill across the country?

Mr. Todd stated the money flowing out was 1.4 billion. Federal aid administered the money, but it was state money and that was different. Currently, the only pathway from having a species in trouble and having support from other sources was to federally list it. We were caught in a vicious cycle of identifying what was at risk and coming back to the courtroom.

Commissioner Camuso stated the concept was initiated by business with their approach being it was less expensive to prevent listing than to have to deal with the listing regulations. When they were trying to do their work and they had listed species on their property or nearby it was onerous to deal with the regulations and they would prefer to do the work and prevent the listing.

Mr. Webb stated we did a lot with our Pittman Robertson funding such as nongame conservation, i.e. bald eagle recovery. If the bill were to pass it would allow us to fund some of those programs with the new funding source and do more with Pittman Robertson funds.

Mr. Todd stated both the Commissioner and Governor had submitted their support through the Maine Delegation. The resolution signed by the Council would also be forwarded to the traditional Maine focused contacts. The National Alliance, there was one document that was produced by them which was the coalition of all the conservation organizations and sportsmans groups and business leaders that supported it. They would like a copy of the resolution.

Mr. Thurston asked if the steering committee and things of that nature determined where on a yearly basis we were going to spend the incoming money, or how was it determined where the money would be spent.

Commissioner Camuso stated that would be a budget discussion within the agency. We would probably have a committee of people working on a budget of that level. There had been a request in the past for a group of people to consult with to help determine priorities for non-game species. The budget went before the Legislature for a full public review.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Mr. Smith asked about auto-renew for licenses.

Mr. Swan stated it was being called "easy renew" and when you bought an online license you would have the opportunity to opt in. You could specify a date the following year and an email would be sent to you automatically as a reminder to purchase your license. When you clicked the provided link, it would take you 1/3 of the way through the process with your information and license added to the cart. You would be able to make updates if needed. You would also be signing up for the Department to retain your credit card information. If you did not need make any changes you could easily purchase your license in one minute or less.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next Advisory Council Meeting was scheduled for Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW Augusta

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Smith and that was seconded by Mr. Sage to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (participation by call-in number only)
284 State Street, Augusta Thursday, March 26, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.

NOTICE: Due to the state of emergency that has been declared by the Governor, this meeting is now closed to the public physically attending. If you would like to participate by conference call, please contact Becky Orff at 207-287-5202 or becky.orff@maine.gov for details. Thank you for your understanding while we are experiencing this state of emergency.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order - 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

There are no items under Step 3

B. Step 2

1. Migratory bird season 2020-2021 - Jim Connolly

C. Step 1

1. Moose permit allocations 2020 - Lee Kantar

V. Other Business

1.Ch. 24 Licensed Guide rules - Christl Theriault

VI. Councilor Reports - 11:30 A.M.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (participation by call-in number only)
284 State Street, Augusta Wednesday, May 20, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.

NOTICE: NOTICE: Due to the state of emergency that has been declared by the Governor, this meeting is now closed to the public physically attending. If you would like to participate in the virtual meeting online or by conference call, please contact Becky Orff at 207-287-5202 or becky.orff@maine.gov by close of business on May 19, 2020 for details. Thank you for your understanding while we are experiencing this state of emergency.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order - 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

III-A Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Moose permit allocations 2020 - Nate Webb

B. Step 2

1. There are no items at Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. Ch. 24 Licensed Guide rules - Christl Theriault

2. Bear feeding rule petition - Commissioner Camuso

3. 2020 Any-deer permit allocations - Nathan Bieber

4. Expanded archery zones - Nate Webb

5. Ch. 16 Crossbow and misc. rule clarifications - Christl Theriault

6. Furbearer rules - Shevenell Webb

7. Wild Turkey Fall hunting season WMD 6 - Kelsey Sullivan

V. Other Business

1.Covid-19 update - Commissioner Camuso

VI. Councilor Reports - 11:30 A.M.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
March 26, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
(This council meeting was held during Governor Mill’s State of Emergency due to Covid-19 limiting the ability to hold public meetings. Participation was by teleconference - TEAMS meeting)

 

Attending: Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Lee Kantar, Wildlife Biologist
Emily MacCabe, Director of Information and Education
Steve Allarie, Game Warden Corporal
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Jerry Scribner (vice-chair)
Shelby Rousseau
Brian Smith
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Kristin Peet
Lindsay Ware
Bob Duchesne

GUESTS
John Glowa
Don Kleiner, MPGA

I. Call to Order

Commissioner Camuso called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

• Step 3

 

There were no items under Step 3.

• Step 2

 

1. Migratory Bird Season 2020-2021

Commissioner Camuso stated she had reviewed the calendar and this particular item; the public hearing had been held and the comment period had closed so it could be moved to Step 3 and adopted. There were no comments in opposition, the only real change was to the Brant season.

Ms. Orff stated no written comments had been received on the proposal. There were some comments at the public hearing but nothing that stood out as recommending changes.

Commissioner Camuso stated the rulemaking schedule as it pertained to moose permits, we could not meet at Step 2 until after May 1st. In order to enact the migratory bird rules, the council needed to meet before then. If the council was willing to move the proposal to Step 3 the next meeting would be after the end of the comment period for moose.

Commissioner Camuso asked the council if they were in favor of moving the proposal to Step 3 and the council voted unanimously in favor.

Mr. Webb stated the migratory bird rules were adjusted annually for calendar dates and to fit the seasons within the federal framework. There was a minor change to the framework that we proposed starting the coastal waterfowl zone hunting season on November 6th in order to include an additional weekend that would otherwise have been lost if the hunt started on November 9th. That was the only change out of the norm and it was just a couple of days and gave the coastal zone waterfowl hunters an additional weekend. There was a public hearing on March 10th and there was general support. The only additional change since the initial proposal was advertised was a minor adjustment to the brant season dates.

Mr. Duschene stated a constituent had asked him a few years ago why there was still a rail season. Did anyone hunt rails any longer and was 25 a good bag limit?

Commissioner Camuso stated it was a good question and had come up many times in the past. There were still people that hunted rail in Maine. It was not as popular or common as many other migratory bird seasons, but there were a small number that still hunted rail and there was no evidence to suggest that the bag limit was inappropriate or in any way impacting the bird population. The bag limit was consistent with the federal framework and supportive of rail populations based on the data the USFWS reviewed. Short of any evidence that the season should be closed or reduced, we did not have any indication that was warranted.

Commissioner Camuso stated she would entertain a motion for the migratory bird proposal.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: each council member participating voted separately verbally in favor unanimous, motion passed.

C. Step 1

1. Moose Permit Allocations 2020

Mr. Kantar stated we were dealing with a new management plan from 2017 to 2027 and the big change was that instead of managing for some moose density based on a management district we were really looking at moose health. We defined moose health as looking at cow productivity over time, survival rates over time with cows and calves and looking at the overall health of the population. In a healthy moose population we’d see animals with less instances of parasite burdens, whether that was winter tick or meningeal worm and seen improvements over time. The concept was different than in the past management horizon. The broad management goals and the most important one for the issuance of permits was the idea of moose goal number one which was maintaining a healthy, sustainable moose population while providing hunting and viewing opportunities. One of the driving factors we knew about for moose was the dynamic with winter tick. We were in the seventh year of a significant GPS collar research project and we continued working with the University of New Hampshire and also with the University of Maine in Orono on a quantitative research part of looking at winter tick itself and winter tick as it related to moose.

Mr. Kantar stated last fall the moose hunt was similar to past years where the weather itself drove success rates. Last fall the September season opened with a poor hunting day, it was mild and raining. It was a challenge for moose hunters and moose may or may not be moving around as much which affected success rates. We had high success rates in Maine and when we hit a bump it didn’t really mean much when looking at population dynamics. Also, along with the fall weather when doing research on moose and ticks we saw that when we got early or normal fall weather, early snow precipitation or freezing rain, that could shut down the time period when ticks were getting on moose. We had those conditions the previous year, but also had so much snow the winter extended into the spring which could also affect the energetics of calves.

Mr. Kantar stated overall last year we had about a 69% success rate across all the WMDs. When we looked at permit levels with moose, if we were issuing 2,820 moose permits, the expectation was we would harvest that many moose. It was very different from the deer management system where we knew to harvest a certain number of female does we had to have an expansion rate because people preferred to shoot a buck. We did not do that with moose. When we looked at success rates as high as they were and if we had a 70% success rate, there was an expectation in the harvest that we would fill the entire harvest. When we talked about hunting mortality that was something important to realize, and we had not built that into our permit system over time to compensate by providing more permits to provide more opportunity. Regarding the allocation of permits, last year we divided the moose WMDs into two different areas. One, we acknowledged that in central Maine units and some of the southwestern and downeast units we did not have a lot of information and we allocated permits based on permits per square mile and the amount of available moose habitat. There were not a lot of permits in those areas but it provided hunting opportunity and was certainly a sustainable way to approach moose hunting in those areas. In the core range, which was WMDs 1-11 and 19, we had a very significant data set over the last decade. We had one of the best data sets of any jurisdiction. Mr. Kantar was heavily involved in the North American Moose Conference which was the global entity and moose range for moose management and research. They could compare and contrast states and provinces and what they collected for information. Maine was in a very positive space for what we knew about moose. The Province of Quebec, which was similar to Maine’s moose, had a new provincial biologist out of Quebec City and last summer at the moose conference they communicated and what was happening across the border in Quebec and Maine where the population of moose was the same was very appropriate and relevant to what we did. It was very positive to be able to communicate and share data as they were launching a moose research project very similar to Maine and New Hampshire’s.

Mr. Kantar stated in WMDs 7-28 it was the status quo and moose permit allocations last year in the peripheral range which was WMDs 12-18, those all stayed the same. The Moosehead area WMDs 7-9, status quo, we were advocating for changes there that we’re still consulting with the public on. The changes in permit numbers were in WMDs 1-6, we had a recommended incremental increase in bull permits in WMDs 1-6 and cow permits in WMDs 1-5. He viewed the recommendations as a bare minimum for permit levels because we were operating in moose winter tick system where because of having such high densities of moose that culminated in the late 90’s we reached densities that few saw in many jurisdictions and that followed suit by having an increase in the winter tick. With climate changing it had enabled winter tick to do well and resulted in moderate to high overwintering calf mortality that was unprecedented on an annual basis. To many people, increasing hunting was counter intuitive and we understood that, the Department was continuing outreach and education. In the core range of moose our moose densities were still at a level where cow reproduction was depressed, and overwinter calf survival was low. These were all due to infestations and impacts by winter tick. Again, it was counter intuitive, why would we want to harvest more animals when reproduction was depressed, and calving losses were moderate to high? It was because we were losing animals at some level every year, we had a population that in terms of health in some areas with GPS collars some of the animals were not healthy and it was affected by ticks. There needed to be less hosts (moose) to reduce the impact of the winter tick so we were not incurring this type of mortality on calves. This was the concept of density dependence. The other concept that was challenging was that in Maine, hunting mortality had not affected our population growth or decline over time. This was difficult and challenging for everyone to understand. All the information was supported by quantifiable data we had collected over the last decade.

Council Member Questions and Comments

Mr. Duchesne asked if he were questioned, would it be fair to say that winter tick had affected our carrying capacity?

Mr. Kantar stated that was a great way to look at it. When we did our aerial surveys and cow/calf ratios there was a lot of variability depending where you flew, and they were not very good. That was before we lost calves in the spring. Our reproductive rates that we got from aerial surveys, ovary information and from looking at survival rates with our cow/calf study if you did not see ticks at all and looked at all the factors you would say we had a carrying capacity problem meaning we had too many moose for the amount of food on the landscape. It was similar to that, but it was not the food that was limiting our moose it was that they had this parasite that was removing so much blood that not only did it result in calves dying before they became a year old but it also put stress on our cows such that they were losing body condition and weight but were still going to carry their calf to term in May that would likely not make it through the first three weeks. It was a similar concept but driven by winter tick.

Mr. Scribner stated in his last Safari Club International newsletter there was an interesting article about Vermont. The Vermont study seemed to be pretty much aligned with Maine and they probably could learn more from Maine. Were Maine biologists taking with Vermont about their study and the direction they were going regarding higher harvest in high density areas?

Mr. Kantar stated yes. Vermont was part of our capture efforts for several years. Our survival work started between New Hampshire and Maine in 2014 as a partnership between the two states and a couple years later Vermont joined, and we cost shared the capture team. We had a close relationship with the other states. We were going to propose an adaptive management unit that was basically along the same line as what Vermont was trying to do.

Commissioner Camuso stated we were going to have Mr. Kantar give a more in-depth discussion on an adaptive management proposal but thought that would be easier done in person rather than over a Teams meeting. Mr. Kantar would discuss the concept of a more aggressive adaptive program in one of the WMDs at another time.

Mr. Webb stated that would not be something that would happen this coming fall so it did not have bearing on the current proposal.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he was supportive of the numbers being proposed and thought they were extremely conservative. North Maine Woods had a group of foresters that met in January to discuss moose and a lot of the foresters in WMDs 1, 2 and 4 were seeing a tremendous amount of moose in their harvest operations and were having a hard time in some townships growing hardwood trees because of the over browsing that was taking place in addition to the health of the moose due to the tick loads. He felt the proposal was extremely conservative relative to what was occurring in our forests when we weren’t even taking 1% of the population through hunting and the animals were suffering as well as some of our forestry species.

V. Other Business

1. Ch. 24 Licensed Guide Rules

Mrs. Theriault stated the proposal had been in the works for about a year. She gave a brief update on the formatting adjustments. There was a consolidation of the qualifications to apply for a guide license to one section rather than having them throughout the rule. A new addition was the requirement for a background check that was now in statute. Some of the substantive changes included a proposal for first time applicants that would allow anyone testing for their hunting or fishing classification to pay the $100 exam fee and also test for the recreational classification at the same time. This would be implemented January 1, 2021 to allow staff time to create new tests. It would also require that IFW create two new tests, one that covered both the fishing and recreational exam and the second would cover both the hunting and recreational exam.

Mrs. Theriault stated there would be several modifications to explain how the current testing process was for the oral and written exams. Persons wishing to take their oral and written exam on the same day may choose to do so. In the past, we would have required them to pass the oral exam and then reschedule to take the written at a later date. This would be much more efficient. Also, a person that took their test and failed one of the three portions of the oral exam or all of the written exam would be notified that day so they no longer had to wait for mailed notification. If someone failed the oral exam they would still be able to continue and take the written exam that same day rather than wait to retake the oral exam and then the written on a different day.

Mrs. Theriault stated another section of the rule was removed which dealt with testing and grandfathering of master Maine guides. We no longer did a testing procedure for master guides and the language was outdated. Currently, if someone wanted the master guide designation would apply and the guide advisory board and the chair would review the application and determine if the person qualified. Another substantive change was a new section that was constructed to list standards of competency and ethics for guides. Within statute the Commissioner had authority to establish standards of competency and ethics to direct when a licensed guide may be subject to a license revocation. We reviewed other state laws and guide association standards for competency and ethics to help create the proposal.

Council Member Questions and Comments

Mrs. Rousseau stated in reference to those reapplying for their license, there didn’t seem to be any standard for them to have CPR or first aid qualifications.

Mrs. Theriault stated she did not feel that was addressed in the proposal and was something they would review before it went to public comment.

Warden Allarie stated the whitewater guides, the applicant and license guides were required to have first aid and CPR. Some consistency on both sides would be helpful.

Ms. Ware stated regarding the new structure where they could test for the hunting and recreational or fishing and recreational at the same time, was that still pass/fail separately or could they pass one and fail the other?

Mrs. Theriault stated that was detailed in the rule so people would understand if they chose to apply for both classifications and test the same day it would be a complete pass or fail. If they failed they would have to come back and retake both.

Don Kleiner stated the MPGA had not been made aware of adding first aid and CPR for renewals. They were different from whitewater guides as whitewater guides did not require a background check. There was already a pretty significant difference in the law.

Mrs. Theriault asked if MPGA was not in favor of having a required CPR and first aid.

Don Kleiner stated they had not discussed it. His caution would be as a small business owner of the additional cost of doing business.

Mrs. Theriault stated if we were to include renewal applicants having to be required to have current first aid and CPR in order to renew Mr. Kleiner’s concern was that it would take additional time?

Don Kleiner stated to book a course it was $100 and two days time. His day rate was $700, it would be $1400 plus the $100, that was a $1500 cost. He worried in light of what he saw the economy was going to be in the next two years about extra costs. They would need to see an actual proposal to react to as it was nothing they had discussed to date.

Commissioner Camuso stated it had come up at the Legislature during the session and a pretty significant critique of the guide process and the renewal process, that was really the first time it had been discussed. The proposed rules were not shared until it went to the Advisory Council. They could be discussed but we couldn’t share the rule with stakeholders until it was part of the rulemaking process.

Commissioner Camuso stated she had a few updates where we were working from a civil state of emergency. The fishing season had been opened up a week early and released the requirement to have a fishing license until the end of April in an effort to try and get people outside. Most people were staying at home and we wanted to give people an opportunity to be outdoors and recreating in many of the activities that we managed. We viewed recreational fishing as an opportunity where people could be outside and be physically distanced from each other and meeting the Governor’s request that people socially distance themselves and maintain more than 6 feet from each other. We felt we could offer that and still maintain public health and safety and give people an opportunity to get outside. There had been some confusion around Commissioner Keliher shutting down the elver season, and it was important to know the two activities happened very differently. The elver season was very congested and there were 100’s of people on one river at the same time in a very small area so that was why the elver season was handled differently than the general recreational fishing season.

Commissioner Camuso stated we also had discussion around the turkey season, requests to open the season early as well as some rumors we were closing the season entirely. Neither were being proposed. The start of the turkey season was of much debate and had been for several years. Mr. Sullivan was still convinced and committed to the phonology of turkeys as timed more to photo period than weather conditions and turkeys had always started fanning out and displaying in February. Not to say we might not consider in the future an earlier opening when we had data to show that the birds were actually breeding earlier than they were. The goal of the turkey season timing was so the majority of females had already been bred and were on the nest. People were sometimes critical because they thought the birds were already nesting, and that was the goal. The purpose of the spring turkey season was to not interrupt the breeding of the females. It was timed so the majority of the hens were already sitting on eggs and not impacted by the spring hunt.

Commissioner Camuso stated given the requirement for boat registrations, those typically ended December 30, with many municipalities being closed down or not being readily accessible to the public we had requested to extend the date by which people had to get their boats registered until April 30, 2020. That would give the Department time to work with the towns to make sure we had a system in place so that everyone could effectively get their boat registered and adhere to the challenges we had around not having public interface right now. We were also requesting for the guides that were in the process of renewing their license that we extend their license. The renewal process required a background check and the third-party vendor that did them was not performing those. Applicants had no ability to get the necessary background check, so we were extending those people who were in the process of renewing by one year. We had suspended new applicant testing for the foreseeable future. We did not have the capacity to appropriately socially distance people and still perform the tests. Likewise, we had a number of people signed up for the mandatory ethics course. Those were typically taught in groups of 10-25 people at one time. We had extended the timeframe in which those customers had to take the ethics course so they would be able to participate in activities and have an additional year to take the mandatory ethics course. Those were all requests, they had not been written up as executive orders as of yet.

Commissioner Camuso stated we would be talking about ways to address the smelt season. Smelting was not quite as condensed as the elver season, but some of the smelt brooks when smelt were running could have more than what was allowable for the number of people on a brook or stream. We were meeting with DMR to discuss ways we could still allow smelting to occur while maintaining physical separation between the smelters. We did not want to have to shut down the smelt season but needed to come up with a way to do it safely so the public was spread apart. States across the country were handling things differently. California and Washington both had shut down state parks because there were too many people and the parks couldn’t handle the congestion of people on the landscape. Other states like Maine and Connecticut had opened up free fishing to try and spread people out. There would be a joint message going out from IFW and Parks and Lands encouraging people to go outside but to do it safely and spread themselves apart. We were trying to make sure that we had places for people to go outside so they could continue to be safe, but we were recognizing at the same time that the state parks were at their summer season levels with virtually no staff on site and no bathroom facilities. There was a struggle if the parks could manage that number of people without anybody on site or facilities to accommodate them.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

John Glowa stated he had submitted three petitions for rule changes. The first one involved coyotes and would end predator killing contests and would place additional restrictions on the killing of coyotes primarily to protect wolves in the state. The second one would ban recreational coyote trapping and the third one would end Maine’s bear feeding program. The statute did not define bear baiting. The proposed rule would phase out feeding bears over a 10-year period and it would continue to allow the use of bait as long as the bears could not access it to eat it. Recent indications the he read showed that Maine’s bear population was approaching 45,000 animals and that was nearly double what it was in 2004 when we had the first bear referendum. It was very obvious that IFW’s bear management program was not effective. He thought evidence showed bears were reproducing more and that could well be because they were getting all kinds of supplemental food. He thought we needed to phase that out over a 10-year period to accommodate the industry and help the bear population get back to natural levels.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

Ms. Orff stated the Council would be notified at a later time of the next meeting date.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Scribner and that was seconded by Mr. Sage to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
February 4, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta

Attending: Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Chris Cloutier, Warden Service Major
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Matt Thurston (chair)
Jerry Scribner (vice-chair)
Shelby Rousseau - by phone
Brian Smith
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Kristin Peet (by phone)
Lindsay Ware

GUESTS
Joyce Smith
Don Kleiner, MPGA

I. Call to Order

Matt Thurston, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

• Step 3

 

1. Ch. 2 Bass Tournaments
Mr. Brautigam stated the rule change allowed organized bass clubs to increase the number of participants at club events from 15 to 20, only where they were able to relocate parking. They could have their event with larger club attendance while minimizing user conflicts at water access sites. This would allow them to holder larger events to be held off site and free up available parking for other anglers to use at water access sites. One minor clarification was made from the original proposal to clarify that all of the club participants needed to park off site. There were three public comments received. One was not relevant and two were in support.

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to adopt the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous motion passed.

2. Captive Wildlife Rules

Mr. Connolly stated a couple of years ago we went through rulemaking to clarify what people could have and not have for species. By streamlining and clarifying the categories and listing species we decreased work, as well as making hedgehogs unrestricted. Within the rules there was a section 7.19 which had been removed, and we tried to be consistent in terms of clarifying what existing regulation applied to the topic we were talking about. When the rules were enacted we wanted to clarify we weren’t reaching into agriculture and regulating anything that was covered by agriculture. Agriculture included a definition that was broad enough to allow people to exhibit animals as part of their agricultural operation and have that be considered agriculture. There was a local orchard in Levant that had goats and a petting zoo when you went there to pick apples in the fall, and they were allowed to do that because that was an exhibition of animals associated with their agriculture. The Department’s challenge was there were people interested in bringing exotic wildlife in and exhibiting it in addition to their agricultural enterprise. We did not want to have that crossover where we would lose track of exotic wildlife when people were having a roadside zoo.

Mr. Connolly stated by taking the definition out and instead referencing when exotic wildlife was used for agriculture, like bison, water buffalo, emus, etc. that there would be a discussion between IFW and Agriculture to determine whether it was being used for agriculture or as a pet. The change came about as an effort to clarify between IFW and Agriculture with exotic wildlife that we still maintained control unless the species became mainstream in agriculture. The change was brought about as the result of a bill in the Legislature trying to change the Department’s authority. The compromise was that we would clarify when things when were agricultural and when they were exotic wildlife. We would maintain authority for exhibitions of exotic wildlife.

Mr. Connolly stated there was a change from the original proposal. 7.18 species lists (D.) there was a reference to any species native to Maine. When we checked with the Attorney General they advised that by classifying them we were making them eligible for people to have them. By classifying any animal the discussion switched from should they have it, to are they capable of having it. If we had any species native to Maine as a Category 1 species any licensed exhibitor in Maine just had to show they were capable of being an exhibitor, not whether they should have the animal. We didn’t want native wildlife routinely brought into captivity in Maine for any purpose other than the limited purposes of research and science. By taking that out and not having it listed we didn’t have to have those discussions.

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to adopt the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous motion passed.

B. Step 2

There were no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. Migratory Bird Season 2020-2021
Mr. Sullivan stated there were a lot of sections and dates in the proposal that 95% were only adjusted for the calendar year. In section B. Sea Ducks and section C. Ducks regular, the starting date for the sea duck season was November 9 and the starting date for the coastal zone was November 6. Traditionally we started the sea duck season and the coastal zone at the same time, because the coastal zone was pretty much where the sea duck season was. There was a balance between people that wanted to hunt sea ducks as far into January as they could, and others that wanted to go earlier. We had a balance that with the third week of January as the ending of the sea duck season. The coastal zone was proposed to start on November 6 to maximize Saturdays.

Mr. Sullivan stated in section G. we were proposing to maintain the mallard bag limit which was reduced last year to a 2-bird limit. That was a change across the Atlantic flyway and was a Federal guideline. Based on mallard population trends the recommendation from USFWS was to maintain the 2-bird limit.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Scribner stated the waterfowl survey that some received, there was a question related to boundaries. Did that fit into the proposal in terms of boundary changes?

Mr. Sullivan stated the survey responses indicated the current boundaries balanced those desires. There wasn’t any resounding support to make any changes to the boundaries or season dates.

Commissioner Camuso asked if there was a limit with USFWS as to when boundary changes could take place.

Mr. Sullivan stated we did the survey to get ahead of that, 2021 was the next opportunity to make changes. Every 5 years we could make a change to the zone boundaries. The biggest question was the north and south boundary line and moving the line. The survey indicated 78% wanted to maintain the status quo.

Mr. Connolly stated one of the things we tried to do in our public interactions was to better assess what the public was really saying and who was speaking. Sometimes public hearings attracted people that had the most interest in seeing the change or the most they perceived to lose, but didn’t really give the middle and how big the middle was. We got the most vocal, but that may not be representative of everything. That was part of all of our planning efforts to better engage the public in a wider manner.

Mr. Smith asked how the eider and woodcock populations were.

Mr. Sullivan stated the eider population, there had been evidence that there had been declining breeding populations south of New Brunswick. North of New Brunswick they were pretty robust. We may see some changes to the eider season in the next few years because of that. Canada just reduced their season down to 60-days from 80 to 107. The bag limit was reduced to 2 from 6.

Commissioner Camuso asked how much of the decline was predation or as a result of the decline in mussels that they ate.

Mr. Sullivan stated he thought it was an ecosystem response. It was the food resources, they were not retaining the number of adults to maintain the nesting populations. Predation was a big part of it also.
The woodcock population, in a range wide general trend they had a slow steady decline. We did not see a lot of harvest on woodcock. The implications of harvest were pretty negligible so there had not been any changes to the season or bag limit.

Mr. Thurston asked how we chose the participants of the survey and how many were there?

Mr. Sullivan stated if someone had an email address tied to their MOSES and purchased a duck stamp they received the survey. It went out to 8,000 people and we received 1,000 responses.

V. Other Business

1. ATV Task Force report
Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there was a 15-member task force and they wanted to get public information into the task force. As they already knew what the issues were, they didn’t want to go to public hearings around the state, so a website was developed off the IFW ATV homepage. A survey monkey link was used and we received 1,077 responses even though the link was not advertised. Through social media word was quickly spread to comment to the task force. The questions asked were open ended. When reviewing the comments, the motorcycle/dirt bike people basically carpet bombed the survey questions. They answered the objective questions with minimal words, but commented with long paragraphs about how great dirt bikes were. About 300 of the 1,000 responses were related to dirt bikes. It showed how groups of interested parties could affect comments coming in on any particular issue. Looking at the structure of the report, he had received positive comments on the layout. The report in its entirety can be viewed at: https://www.maine.gov/ifw/atv-snowmobile/atv/governorstaskforce.html

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston stated 65” and 2,000 pounds was basically what was permitted on the trails. What percentage of the sales market in respect to the units was excluded from their opportunity to sell to the general public that could be ridden in Maine?

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated in 2019 we had roughly 300 machines over 65” registered in Maine out of 70,000. Talking about the scale, it was a non-issue. They were $25,000 - $30,000 machines. It was concerning to some of the dealers and others that those machines be grandfathered. The task force recommendation was to grandfather the 300 machines over 65” that were currently registered. Grandfathered, meaning they could ride off their own property on someone else’s property with permission, but not allowed on the ATV trails. The task force recommended, if you chose to purchase a 70” machine if the law passed, the only place you could ride would be on your own land, or on the ice. The landowners were very clear, they did not want them in Maine. The concern was, the industry would not stop, so we were going to stop the industry by saying not to ship them to Maine. They would be allowed on a frozen body of water or on private land, but they would not be able to register them.

Mrs. Rousseau stated in front of her office in Rangeley she felt like the big machines were going by constantly. Rangeley allowed the bigger machines to be used on Rt. 4 and there had been vehicle collisions because of them.

Mr. Smith asked how wide the bridges were on the trails, he thought they were 60”.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated American Forest Management had a company policy and they were 60”. The company was agreeable to go to 65”. There had been a huge compromise with the major landowners, they were at 60” and collectively they agreed to move forward with the concept at 65”.

Mr. Sage asked if something similar would be happening with snowmobiles? Some of the trails were intermingled.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the trails would never be wide enough to pass two 65” rigs. People would have to ride accordingly. ACF would be going through rulemaking and would have the trail standards. We were not recommending a trail width. There would be some places you could pass two 65” rigs, but that would not be the necessary standard to build to. The task force report included a page on the role of the state program and the ATV clubs and that was the current program under ACF. Only 15% of the current registered owners belonged to clubs, they wanted to increase the interest in clubs. Objective #2 in the report was having a set of standards for the trails. ACF had a Maine motorized trail construction and maintenance manual. The task force recommended that be adopted as a standard for all trail construction and maintenance in Maine.

Mr. Thurston asked if they did not build to that standard, did they not get any of the grant money that was available?

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated above and beyond that they would not get the money and trail would be closed. If a trail was not built to the standard or maintained to the standard the trail would be closed until it was brought to that standard.

Mr. Scribner stated there were a lot of multi-use trails in the Eustis area. What occurred last year was the Eustis ATV club did a lot of ditching, etc. without letting the landowners know. There needed to be conversations between the landowners and the ATV clubs if they were going to maintain trails to a standard.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated that was included in Objective #4 of the report for outreach and education. The task force heard it clearly that the landowners had a club member come to them and ask if they could put a trail on their land, they agreed to it, then there was zero communication beyond that. The landowners wanted to be kept in the loop. Other objectives in the report were discussed.

Mr. Thurston stated he had a question about Objective #2 to amend the current ATV landowner permission law to give landowners the ability to restrict the types of ATVs allowed on their trails on their properties. Independent landowners might choose not to have a 65” rig on their trail?

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the basis for that, the current landowner permission law in Maine said if there was a state ATV trail on the property that it’s permissive use for anything defined as an ATV. It was aimed at the dirt bike issue. Landowners wanted to make it clear if they had permissive use for all ATVs and a dirt bike was registered as an ATV, that they should be always allowed on the trails. The landowners wanted to make it clear that they may want to eliminate a certain type of vehicle on their property and they would have the right to do that. Items for further consideration on page 29 of the report were discussed.

Mr. Sage asked if the task force was continuing to meet. How would they work on the items that were tabled?

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we would need a mechanism to bring up the issues. We would work with the IFW Legislative Committee on what should be done with the items. There would probably be bills in the next legislative session relative to some of the topics.

2. Mere Point update

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we went through rulemaking last fall on the boat launches, and the section for Mere Point had been removed from that rulemaking. In January 2019 an informational meeting was held. There was a large turnout of people that came to express their views. Related to the boat launch itself, we heard from people that wanted to launch bigger boats than what it was intended for and we heard from people in and around Mere Point that they wanted to restrict the size. We were looking at what the next steps would be. Mr. Circo was reviewing use agreements with the City of Brunswick to determine what was needed in rule and what could be done with a use agreement with Brunswick. Typically, our boat launches were not size restrictive. Some of the complexities had to be figured out such as what could be done without damaging the existing boat launch. We needed to focus on those things and whether they needed to be in rule or in an agreement with Brunswick.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated commercial use was discussed at the meeting, mostly by clam diggers. The intent of the construction of the boat launch was to serve the marine industry, the commercial as well as recreational use. LMF money was used and the application stated the clam diggers and other marine uses were appropriate uses of the boat launch. That brought up some of the air boat concerns which would be discussed at another time. We were still working on what would be before the Council as a proposed rule.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Thurston asked if Brunswick would modify the existing site. The existing site was for under 24’.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated that was what we needed to work with them on. What was the original intent of the launch site? The other site had been closed to commercial operators due to eel grass and use was moved to Mere Point. What was the foundation of the agreement with Brunswick, and etc.

Mr. Scribner stated it was obvious when public comments had come in about Mere Point that enforcement was definitely a primary concern in that there seemed to be a bias in terms of who had been deemed responsible for enforcing the regulations that had been in put in place and agreed to at Mere Point. It needed to be made clear who was responsible for enforcing and that they were going to enforce.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated that was the reason for the rulemaking, because we didn’t have the enforcement tool. The regulations were under an agreement with Brunswick that they were going to do the enforcement. The warden service really couldn’t enforce a town ordinance. The rulemaking was to open up enforcement by wardens and marine patrol.

3. Deer Feeding

Mr. Webb stated last winter there were a few bills in the Legislature related to deer feeding, baiting, mineral licks and related activities. The Committee held over two of the bills, one related to a potential expansion of the timeframe when mineral licks would have been allowed to be placed. The other bill was a concept draft regarding the baiting of deer that didn’t have any specific language. There were a number of concerns expressed by the bill sponsor and some of the Committee members. The fact that baiting wasn’t legal in Maine and was in other states, there were some perspectives in the hunting community that would be a nice option to have in Maine. There was also some concern expressed over equity and fairness between those that had the means to establish food plots as compared to those that did not have those means and couldn’t put out bait or bucket of apples. The Committee carried over the two bills and asked the Department to report back to them with a series of recommendations on how to move forward. They requested we consult with stakeholders, hold internal conversations within the agency and also review the scientific literature on all the issues and make recommendations. A number of internal conversations took place with the wildlife division and warden service to get a sense from the perspective of the staff distributed across the state what was going on on the landscape and what some of the concerns and issues were. We held a meeting with stakeholder groups in October 2019 that was well attended. We also contracted with a professor at the University of Maine in developing a public survey on deer feeding and baiting. A very similar survey was recently completed in New Brunswick and we were able to modify the questions for Maine and gather some prospectus from the general public. The information was compiled, and a report submitted to the Legislature.

Mr. Webb stated what we heard unanimously from stakeholders was there was no interest in legalizing deer baiting or expanding the use of mineral licks. There was no support for prohibiting food plots or requiring permits for food plots or fees for food plots, all of which were ideas that were discussed by the Committee. Scientific literature was pretty clear on some of the risks that a lot of the activities posed with regard to vehicle collisions, disease transmission and habitat degradation. Our recommendations to the Committee were that they not move forward with any changes to the current requirements and statutory language. We recommended the Department start educating the public on the issues. It was something that had been done in the past but probably not to the level that we would have liked to do with the resources we had available. We now had more staff and a revamped information and education division. Messaging may have been mixed in the past particularly with regard to feeding. We had some significant concerns with feeding but it was legal. The public survey demonstrated there was a lot of support for it under certain circumstances. We recognize and heard from stakeholders that we needed to tackle more from an outreach perspective before we could consider moving forward with any changes to regulations or statute. We also recommended to the Committee that the Department pursue working with some current feeding operators to collaboratively change the way they were feeding in a manner that minimized risk. As an example, there were significant feeding operations that were run by towns or individuals or organizations that were feeding 100’s of deer all at one spot. What we were considering was trying to identify one or two of the individuals and working with them to move their feeding operation to an area where there was quality winter shelter for deer that was away from the road, making sure they were feeding an appropriate type of feed in a way that spread the feed out on the landscape and minimized risk of direct nose to nose contact that could occur currently at some of the sites. We would basically be working with a willing partner to demonstrate ways to feed deer that minimized the risks.

Mr. Webb stated we also thought it was important for the Committee to hear more about chronic wasting disease (CWD). We were able to bring in Dr. Krysten Schuler of Cornell University, an internationally renowned expert on CWD. She gave a presentation to the Committee about the disease and what the risks were and what it could mean to Maine if we got it, what we needed to do to hopefully prevent getting it, and the response if we did get it. The Committee discussed the two bills and whether or not to move forward with some legalization of baiting for deer hunting. In the end, they voted unanimously ought not to pass the bill that would have expanded the use of mineral licks. The concept draft bill on baiting for deer which had no language, they recommended the bill pass unanimously, but the change would be a slight adjustment to the penalty for baiting deer for the first offense. The issue kept coming up and there were bills each session. Dr. Schuler also gave a public presentation on CWD and there was a very different perspective from members of the public.

Mr. Thurston stated to understand the capacity of CWD and the discussion around prions and what it did to the piece of dirt the deer were on. He had a food plot, what information was there about bringing prions into the state through the seed source that he used.

Mr. Webb stated what Dr. Schuler tried to reinforce was there was a lot more we did not know about the disease. Her message was that we needed to be cautious. There was evidence that plants that were growing in area where the soil was contaminated by prions could uptake those prions into the plant tissues. In theory, he did not believe it had been demonstrated to actually occur, the prions could be spread by moving the plant material which could include the seeds to another location. At this point that was a theoretical risk that we did not know if it was actually legitimate. CWD could spread just by wild deer moving across the landscape. It did spread that way but was very slow. In some cases it jumped, it had jumped across the Atlantic Ocean into Norway. The vast majority of jumps had been traced back to movement of captive cervids. There were some where we did not know how it moved, there was no indication it was captive cervids. The potential to move prions was being looked at. The best theory for how it moved to Norway was urine-based lures but they did not know.

Mr. Thurston stated we did not allow captive whitetails in Maine. It seemed a lot of the disease started with captive herds. Were captive cervids behind double fencing?

Mr. Webb stated not currently. He thought there were about 27 captive cervid facilities in Maine. There were new fencing standards, however, the majority were grandfathered and had inadequate fencing. The best practice was double fencing of 10’ or 12’ high. The captive cervid program was managed by ACF and they were doing the best they could with the resources they had. We worked very closely with them. Some of the facilities were very large.

Commissioner Camuso stated there was progress a few years ago and limited the number of the kind of cervids that could be brought in legally and where any live cervids could be brought in from. We didn’t really have live cervids coming in, most of the time they were bringing in gametes from New Zealand for breeding. Most of the facilities we had were just a few animals. There were only 10 that had more than a dozen animals.

Mr. Webb stated a peer review paper had been published demonstrating that prions were in reproductive material. Whether that was a realistic risk or not, he didn’t think we knew.

Mr. Smith stated he also had a food plot. He heard that some of the big seed production places tested for the prions.

Mr. Webb stated he felt the conversation around that was for urine-based lures. Two of the bigger companies that produced those had their own internal certification program. Eighteen states had banned urine-based lures. There were synthetic based alternatives.

Commissioner Camuso stated the Committee had been hung up on the fact that we did not have CWD and didn’t need to worry about it. The presentation showed how quickly it could spread and how it could jump across the country. The only chance we had of saving our deer hunt was to keep it out of Maine. In 2005 WI spent $17.5 million in the first year of dealing with it. It would decimate our ability to do anything.

Mr. Webb stated in Quebec in a captive facility they had one detection and they spent $2 million to deal with it. That was basically the annual budget for the Wildlife Division. Our best course of action was prevention. There had been some cases such as NY, a portion of MN, a portion of IL, where they detected it and implemented an aggressive control program. Basically, it was a radius and it was a scourged policy for deer, and they were able to eradicate it.

Mr. Thurston stated he found the discussion around taxidermy at the presentation to be interesting. He felt we probably had a lot of animals coming back that weren’t caped out properly. We needed to educate more on proper handling.

Mr. Webb stated we had reached out to taxidermists and meat cutters to make sure they understood the regulations and if they had animals coming in from out of state that didn’t meet the new rule that went into effect in 2018 to contact the Department. Border patrol had also been brought into conversations.

Mr. Scribner stated in terms of prevention, he felt that was where we needed to put our biggest effort. In Dr. Schuler’s presentation in NY the vast majority of hunters supported elimination of urine-based lures. He felt it Maine it probably wasn’t a big step to make the assumption that Maine hunters would also support that. That would be a simple win on the prevention side of things that we could have right away. Was that a legislative process?

Mr. Webb stated in NY they had the benefit of having a positive case, they had a control program and they believed they eradicated it. The hunters were aware of that, so he felt that helped with support from the public and hunting community in NY. CWD was not high on the awareness for most hunters in Maine.

Commissioner Camuso stated the CDC had changed their recommendation 2 years ago so that they recommended you did not eat any meat from a CWD positive animal.

Mrs. Rousseau stated she came from an area with a lot of people feeding deer. She lived in an area with a triangle of deer feeding stations on both sides of the road. Deer/vehicle collisions were happening there, she had hit a deer right after a log truck had also hit a deer. She had seen 9 deer be hit and killed there. There were deer feeding stations popping up intermittently, they were not even regularly feeding. She felt those were the ones most problematic. It was socially irresponsible. CWD was in Quebec and she lived 20 miles from the Canadian border.

Mr. Webb stated what we heard in situations like that was they would rather have diseased deer with CWD, than no deer which is what would happen if they stopped feeding. That was the sentiment we heard from those feeding in northern Maine.

Mrs. Rousseau stated it was a generation of people that were primarily feeding the deer. She thought it was a social thing for them. She wished those same folks would go with her along the Magalloway River and see the dead deer lying there. Their bellies were full of grain. The Town of Wilsons Mills allocated $15,000 each year of tax dollars to feed deer.

Mr. Webb stated the Aroostook County Conservation Association had recognized the issue and had taken a proactive approach and were working with landowners and existing feeders and they were buying alfalfa in big round bales and taking them in away from the roads into good quality deer wintering habitat. If people were going to feed deer that was the responsible way to do it.

Mr. Scribner stated in terms of specific feeding operations where they were near roads, deer were being hit, etc. it was his understanding the warden service did have the ability to shut down those types of feeding operations.

Commissioner Camuso stated they could issue a summons, but some people did not care and would not stop.

4. Lead ammunition

Mr. Webb stated he wanted to brief the Council on lead ammunition. There had been some media coverage of bald eagles and the idea that most likely those cases were due to consumption of meat that had been harvested with lead ammunition. The Department was part of the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (NEAFWA) and the Commissioner was our representative on the group at the Director level. The association had recently passed a resolution with regard to non-lead ammunition and joined the North American non-lead partnership and basically it permitted the association and our agency to start working proactively on public outreach and education on the benefits of using non-lead ammunition when hunting and harvesting wildlife. The concerns over toxicity of lead obviously to humans was well known and documented. There had been major steps to address that and that was the case as well for wildlife with requiring non-lead ammunition for hunting waterfowl and non-lead tackle. It was not a new issue for the state or the agency, however, using non-lead ammunition for hunting big game was something we hadn’t really tackled to a large extent but we were planning to. Mr. Webb stated he had been using copper bullets for about 10-12 years and they performed unbelievably well. They were slightly more expensive. A typical box of copper ammunition was about $30, cheaper lead ammo was about $20. Many purchased copper ammunition for hunting and would target practice at a range with lead ammunition. Ranges were designed to capture and deal with lead.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Sage stated they were not looking to ban the lead ammo, just change over?

Commissioner Camuso stated no bans, just promoting non-lead. Promotion of a superior product.

Mr. Smith asked if it was just CA that had ban. What about national wildlife refuges?

Mr. Webb stated CA had a statewide ban for lead; there was an executive order at the end of the Obama administration that required non-lead ammo for hunting in wildlife refuges which was rescinded when the administration changed.

Mr. Scribner stated he thought we could learn a lot from CA, even though we were proposing that hunters make this choice, he was afraid from an availability perspective there were 100’s of calibers out there. It may be hard to get non-lead ammo for certain calibers.

Mr. Webb stated with buying stuff online it was pretty easy to search for things, there were 342 center fire options in a whole range of calibers. Those were all widely available commercially produced. The other option, there were also boutique ammunition companies that would so special loads. He did not believe there were any calibers where a non-lead bullet wasn’t produced.

Commissioner Camuso stated we were looking to have a portion of the website dedicated to promoting non-lead alternatives with some testimonials from people that used non-lead and also list places where you could go to get it.

 

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

There were no public comments or questions.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next Advisory Council meetings were scheduled for Thursday, March 26, 2020 and Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW Augusta.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Sage and that was seconded by Mr. Smith to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Virtual TEAMS meeting
(contact Becky Orff at 287-5202 or becky.orff@maine.gov by
close of business on 7/6 for details on how to participate)
Tuesday, July 7, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.

AMENDED AGENDA

I. Call to Order - 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

1. Step 3
   1. Ch. 24 Licensed Guide rules - Christl Theriault
   2. 2020 Any-deer permit allocations - Nate Webb
   3. Expanded archery zones - Nate Webb
   4. Wild Turkey Fall hunting season WMD 6 - Nate Webb
2. Step 2
   1. Ch. 16 Crossbow and misc. rule clarifications - Christl Theriault
   2. Furbearer rules - Nate Webb
   3. 2020 Any-deer permit allocations - Nate Webb
3. Step 1
   1. Bear feeding rule petition - Commissioner Camuso

V. Other Business
1. Moose project update - Lee Kantar

VI. Councilor Reports - 11:30 A.M.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment - 12:00 P.M.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Virtual TEAMS Meeting
(contact Becky Orff at 287-5202 or becky.orff@maine.gov by close of business on 7/6 for details on how to participate) Tuesday, July 7, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.

AMENDED AGENDA

I. Call to Order - 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Ch. 24 Licensed Guide rules - Christl Theriault

2. Expanded archery zones - Nate Webb

3. Wild Turkey Fall hunting season WMD 6 - Nate Webb

B. Step 2

1. Ch. 16 Crossbow and misc. rule clarifications - Christl Theriault

2. Furbearer rule - Nate Webb

3. 2020 Any-deer permit allocations - Nate Webb

C. Step 1

1. Bear feeding rule petition - Commissioner Camuso

V. Other Business

1.Moose project update - Commissioner Camuso

VI. Councilor Reports - 11:30 A.M.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING

May 20, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

(This council meeting was held during Governor Mill's State of Emergency due to Covid-19 limiting the ability to hold public meetings. Participation was by video conference - Microsoft TEAMS meeting)

Attending: Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Craig McLaughlin, WRAS Supervisor
Nathan Bieber, Deer Biologist
Jenn Vashon, Black Bear and Lynx Biologist
Shevenell Webb, Furbearer Biologist
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Emily MacCabe, Director of Information and Education
Dan Scott, Warden Service Colonel
Chris Cloutier, Warden Service Major
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Matt Thurston (Chair)
Jerry Scribner (Vice-Chair)
Shelby Rousseau
Brian Smith
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Kristin Peet
Lindsay Ware
Larry Farrington
GUESTS
Don Kleiner, MPGA
Don Dudley
Fern & Sylvia Bosse
James Cote, MTA
Katie Hansberry, HSUS
Mark Randlett, Assistant Attorney General
Claire Perry
Several other unidentified participants

I. Call to Order

Council Chair, Matt Thurston called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: 5 in favor; 4 abstained (Mr. Farrington and Mr. Thurston were not present at the previous meeting; Mrs. Rousseau and Mrs. Peet did not attend the entire meeting) minutes approved.

III-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

Commissioner Camuso stated it would be her recommendation that Matt Thurston remain as Council Chair and Jerry Scribner as Vice-Chair.

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to nominate Mr. Thurston for an additional term as Council Chair and Mr. Scribner for an additional term as Council Vice-Chair and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous: motion passed.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Moose Permit Allocations 2020

Mr. Webb stated we were proposing a slight increase in moose permits for the upcoming fall hunting season, an increase of 315 permits. The increases were focused in WMDs 1-6 in the northern part of the state where the moose population was most robust. The recommendations were based on our intensive aerial survey work as well as ongoing research and radio telemetry work which was showing in that part of the state the moose population was quite robust and we were confident those districts could sustain an additional harvest without any decline. We provided the opportunity for a virtual public hearing on April 21, 2020 and had no requests from members of the public to attend. We received three written comments, one in support and two opposed. One of the comments in opposition called into question our authority to proceed with rulemaking on moose permits. We had received over 65,000 moose permit applications which was a record. Based on the public feedback and the Departments moose work we were not recommending any changes to the original proposal.

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: Unanimous motion passed.

B. Step 2

There were no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. Ch. 24 Licensed Guide Rules Mrs. Theriault stated the changes were introduced at the last meeting. We had focused on updating antiquated processes for guide testing so that the language followed what we were doing currently. We also included a list of competency standards that spoke to what should be developed in rule. There was a section in statute that spoke to the Department having competency standards for guides. Rule language was also developed based on recent law changes. Written comments that were received on the proposal included one from a gentleman that wanted us to define the act of guiding and further expand what was allowed for guiding to be able to prepare and get his hours towards the master guide status. We were not looking to make that change currently. There were also concerns raised over guides who renewed their license not having to maintain and show proof of first aid or CPR certification and their upgrades as they did when they initially applied for their guide license. Comments were that was a requirement of whitewater guides and they would like some consistency. On the opposing side, a regular guide who renews had to go through a background check every 5 years so they had some higher standards that whitewater guides did not have to adhere to. There was also a comment made that the experience required to become a guide didnt involve professional apprenticeship for one year. The person was a master electrician or plumber and felt the apprenticeship program they had to go through to become licensed should be something we implement for guides. It would be burdensome administratively. The last comment received, there was support in making a modification to the rule. In the list of standards of competency and ethics we looked at requiring guides to have to report a violation they saw whether it was fish and game or other type of violation. It became clear that requirement would be more expansive than what was in statute. We were looking to modify the proposal so they would be required to report violations that a client engaged in. The Council may see the proposal at Step 3 at the next meeting as the comment period would have ended and there had been opportunity for discussion.

2. Bear Feeding Rule Petition

Commissioner Camuso stated the Department had received 3 citizens petitions. The rulemaking proposal was a result of the petition process and would eliminate the term baiting when referencing bear hunting and replaced it with feeding. It would also require those wanting to hunt using food to get a permit from the Department for each of the sites where they were going to place food and there would be limits on the sort of food that could be placed. The proposal also outlined that each year the number of permits given out would decrease by 10% so that in 10 years there would be no more feeding permits given out. The public comment period was open until June 5th. Biologist Jen Vashon was organizing and summarizing the comments in a spreadsheet that would be available to Council at Step 2.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Sage stated reading a lot of the comments, was there any scientific proof that using bear baiting/feeding actually increased the population of bears in Maine.

Mr. Webb stated that was something we could provide more detail on at Step 2. It was a question that had been raised over the years and it became a point of contention during the 2014 referendum. We were fortunate in Maine that we had been researching and monitoring the black bear population for decades (since 1975) with telemetry and den visits and monitoring survival, cub production, yearling survival, etc. The weight of evidence we had collected over the years indicated very strongly that the presence and placement of bait before hunting was not leading to an increase in the bear population. There were a lot of reasons we felt strongly that was the case. However, we were in the process of starting work with an independent research team to explore the question specifically using archived hair samples we collected from research bears over the years. It would be done by a world-renowned research lab looking at the hair samples and a contribution of anthropogenic food to the diets of bears in Maine. We expected that would provide some additional clarity on the issue and would be done through an independent metric that the Department had not looked at previously.

Mr. Scribner stated in the latest big game management plan, under the section related to black bear under research and monitoring #3 it talked to publishing existing data and as necessary conducting additional research on the impacts of bait on bear health, behavior and population dynamics and it was listed as something new with a high priority. He assumed what Mr. Webb just described related to that.

Mr. Webb stated that was the project that was resulting from the recommendation action item in the big game plan.

Mr. Sage asked if there was any historical data on black bear hunting before the use of bait to compare. He knew it was a valuable tool for the biologists to control the number of bear in Maine. Was there a time before that we had numbers for when we didnt use bait that we could compare to. He knew we were not harvesting enough bears.

Mr. Webb stated the use of bait had become more common in the past few decades and we had information on the bear population prior to that period. We could ask Jen Vashon to be prepared to speak in more detail at the next meeting. Over time, hunting methods evolved and changed as did the bear population. The more significant change from the Departments perspective had been the dramatic change to the Maine landscape in terms of habitat. We had seen major change in the north woods where the majority of the bear population lived. Even though there had been some decline in some food types such as beech nuts, overall there had been a great increase in food sources for bears in the northern Maine landscape due to forest management practices. That coupled with relatively low hunter harvest was what we believed was driving the population increase.

Mr. Scribner stated in the rulemaking proposal the description spoke to impact on municipalities or counties and it stated no fiscal impact was anticipated. They were getting inundated with fiscal concerns from communities and black bear guide outfitters. He was not sure how we could state no fiscal impact was anticipated.

Mr. Webb stated he felt that indicated the fiscal impact to the Department revenues.

Mr. Scribner stated it indicated municipalities or counties.

Ms. Orff stated we generally just took comments for the record if people felt there would be a fiscal impact. We put the rule forward for the petitioner and did not anticipate anything.

Commissioner Camuso stated given the public comment period was still open we were currently listening to what the public said and it was a challenge for us to respond to questions while the comment period was open. Questions should be held until Step 2 when the Department could present the suite of public comments and answer questions if the Council agreed.

Mr. Thurston stated he felt that was appropriate. The proposal had generated a lot of input and they should get all the input before discussing the details.

3. 2020 Any-deer Permit Allocations

Mr. Bieber stated we were looking at very high recommendations this year for any-permit numbers, just short of 110,000 permits with the goal of achieving a doe harvest objective of just over 13,000 does. Statewide increases were being proposed other than the two sub-units. Looking at historical trends we were recommending a record high of 109,890 any-deer permits. Our previous record high was in 2018 when we recommended 84,745 permits. The primary justification was that we had continuously under harvested does statewide, with one exception in 2018 when we issued a then record of 84,745 permits. We had been typically 20-25% below the doe harvest objectives. It was a snowball effect when you continually failed to meet doe harvest objectives the population continued to grow, not stabilize, and you had to compensate by trying to remove more does. The past winter we had very mild winter conditions pretty much statewide, even in the western mountains and some of the southern reaches of region G we had what we would consider to be a moderate winter and though the far northern reaches of the state experienced what we would call a severe winter, that compared to last year was very mild. We didnt really have accumulating snows but we had a lot of rain statewide in December that melted the snow. Snow totals ended up being under average. Looking at winter mortality rates, last winter compared to this winter, we saw as in WMD 1 for example we estimated we lost 10% of the over wintering deer population less this winter than compared to last.

Mr. Bieber stated we were also starting to see, particularly in some of our higher deer density areas of the state, elevated sex ratios. It was not necessarily a bad thing to have 2 or 3 adult does per adult buck, but in areas of the state where the goal was to stabilize or reduce deer numbers, in most cases we would want to bring the sex ratios down. When looking at allocations for the year we looked at our estimated current sex ratio but we also looked at what the sex ratio ought to be and the population that was not growing or stable. Looking at WMD 16, we estimated that in that WMD the population that was not growing was going to have 2 adult does per adult buck and we were currently seeing it at about 3 to 1. In a WMD like WMD 25 if the population were stable and not growing it would be around 1.7 adult does per adult buck, but it was currently about 2.6 to 1.

Mr. Bieber stated to summarize, we were looking at large increases in permits in most of central and southern Maine. This was largely due to the fact that wed been consistently under harvesting does, about 20-25% under objective over the last decade or so. Compounding that, very mild winter conditions throughout most of the state and in some of the higher density areas we were seeing elevated sex ratios which needed to be lower if our goal was to stabilize or decrease deer numbers in those areas.

Mr. Bieber stated in the north and western mountains we were looking at smaller numbers of permits. Largely due to mild winter conditions and to address some pockets of locally overabundant deer. We may need to explore in the future some other methods of incentivizing doe harvest if just issuing more permits was not going to get us where we wanted to be in terms of doe harvest. He was hopeful, as we saw in 2018 with the then record number of permits, we would be able to reach our doe harvest objective with the very high level of permits being proposed this year.

Mr. Bieber stated the subunits were newly put in place last year to target areas with locally abundant deer and a lot of deer/human conflict issues. We put in place two subunits last year, 25a subunit consisted of the towns of Georgetown and Arrowsic and the 26a subunit had portions of Brewer, Bucksport, Castine, Dedham and Holden. Looking at 25a, the towns within 25a between 2018 and 2019 there was a 1% total harvest increase and 4.7% decrease in doe harvest. However, looking at adjacent towns, the total harvest was down 3.6% and the doe harvest was down 21.5%. There was a harvest decline, but of a much lesser magnitude within the subunit than without it. Looking at 26a, the towns within the subunit saw a total harvest increase of 14.4% and an increase in doe harvest of 34.5% comparing that to adjacent towns the total harvest was up just 6.8% and doe harvest was up just 21.6%. Increases across the board but of a higher magnitude within the subunit suggesting that the increased harvest opportunity we provided there was able to produce some results. For 2020 we were recommending in 25a, 225 bonus permits, and 26a, 145 bonus permits. These were more conservative allocations than last year given that the WMD level allocations were already going to be very high so we went with a conservative recommendation for the subunits.

Mr. Bieber stated we were looking at methods to adapt the system for northern Maine to deal with issues that were highly impacted by supplemental feeding. It was something we may want to implement in the future. We were not looking at any new units for 2020. Given the high WMD level allocations we felt the problems might be addressed by the district level permits and there wouldnt be a need for additional subunits. There seemed to be some confusion, especially in WMD 26 where bonus permits had not been a thing in the past, about what a bonus permit was and what it allowed a hunter to take. We would be looking to improve and increase messaging on that so people would know what the permits were good for.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Farrington asked if there had been any consideration in just giving people a hunting license and letting them shoot either sex as we used to. If we had so many does, why not just give them a hunting license and let them shoot what they wanted?

Mr. Bieber stated there had been discussion on different methods. Some states used what was called "earn a buck", there was some literature about voluntary benefits on passing on young bucks that might incentivize people to harvest does, some areas either sex hunting might be appropriate. We hadnt necessarily reached a point where we needed to do something different. If we found continuing to issue record numbers of permits wasnt getting us where we wanted to be we may look at those other options more seriously.

Mr. Farrington stated the number of hunting licenses sold, would that effect the doe population? Most of the hunters that received doe permits would look for a buck the first portion of the season and closer to the end they would shoot a doe. If we had that many extra does why didnt we just go back to what it was prior to doe permits.

Mr. Bieber stated he felt there were some areas where that would be more appropriate than others. He wasnt sure we wanted to take a step that would be kind of hard to step back from. He felt there were some districts where functionally we were issuing so many permits that it was basically either sex hunting at this point.

4. Expanded Archery Zones

Mr. Bieber stated we went through a process that year of looking at existing expanded archery areas. It had been awhile since a thorough revision of those areas took place. Staff met and looked at aerial imagery to look at changes in development and since the boundaries were originally created. They also looked a firearms discharge ordinances in the impacted areas and whether or not our current boundaries were fully encompassing those discharge areas. They looked at increased development over the last 15 years, areas of high deer/human conflict and also areas we had issues getting hunters access to deer and areas where we wanted to reduce deer numbers around developed areas. It could be challenging to find a place to hunt in a lot of the areas around cities. They reviewed language for all expanded archery areas and the boundaries for them and there were only four that they wanted to propose tweaks to. The first would be the Augusta expanded archery area. We were looking to incorporate more land to the northeast particularly on Riverside Drive where there was currently a discharge ordinance, but it was not currently covered by existing expanded archery boundaries. There were also a lot of inlet roads into the Augusta area where high levels of deer/vehicle collisions were experienced. It was generally hard to get land access around cities so this offered quite a bit more opportunity to reduce deer densities in the Augusta area, especially around some of the major roads leading into the city and along Riverside Drive where there was a discharge ordinance. One of the regional biologists expressed he had some contact with Augusta Police Department who on several occasions asked for help reducing deer densities in the Augusta area. We proposed an expansion pushing the boundaries out in the northeastern corner of the current zone.

Mr. Bieber stated in the Camden area we were proposing a very small inclusion. He was unable to find a physical map, just boundary description of the Camden discharge ordinances. We were proposing a small addition to the north to include areas under the discharge ordinance. The Lewiston area, the city had a two-tiered discharge ordinance and part of it you could not discharge at all and the other part, which was the majority, you had to get written landowner permission. Warden Service offered feedback that most of the hunters in the area were reluctant to go the extra step and pursue written permission. The utilization of the existing zone, one of the discharge ordinances in the Lewiston area was pretty low. We were proposing to expand the area outward to include more of the zone as well as some areas where they routinely issued depredation permits. It was a more developed agricultural area of Lewiston with a couple of prominent farms there and issues with crop damage.

Mr. Bieber stated in the final area, WMD 24, we were proposing two additions. One portion was originally in the expanded archery boundaries and was changed in early 2000. There was concern by the hunting public that having what was a pretty big chunk of woods be expanded archery, archery hunters would be removing too many deer such that firearms hunters would not have access to the animals. Given that we were persistently under harvesting does, and given we had a hard time in WMD 24 achieving total harvest levels, and also given that regional biologists blocked a good portion of the area as having very prominent habitat degradation associated with over abundant deer, we were proposing to reincorporate it into the expanded archery area for WMD 24. We also looked at adding a triangular shaped piece of property by Kennebunk. It was pretty heavily developed and not currently covered by our expanded archery boundaries. Hunting was legal in the wooded lots but it was not desirable given the proximity to subdivisions. It would incorporate the Rachel Carson Refuge.

There were no Council member comments or questions.

5. Ch. 16 Crossbow and Misc. Rule Clarifications

Mrs. Theriault stated we had three law changes during the last session, and we needed to provide consistency in the rule. They dealt with the use of crossbows, the definition of antlerless moose, and supervision of junior hunters. The title of the supervisor of a junior hunter changed so within all the youth hunt days the modification had to be made. We had Public Law 2019 Chapter 355 that changed the definition of an antlerless moose and we were updating the definition in rule. The new definition of a supervisor for a junior hunter was now called a junior hunter supervisor. It had previously been the adult supervisor. The change was being made in the rule language for the deer, bear, spring and fall turkey youth day hunts as well as migratory waterfowl youth hunting day. The set of changes were due to the crossbow laws that passed that would allow crossbow hunting during the October archery season and some modifications to allow hunters over 65 years of age and hunters with a permanent physical disability permit to be able to hunt either sex deer during the October archery season with their crossbow and not have to have an antlerless deer permit. A crossbow hunting fact sheet had been distributed to the Council and legislative committee.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Sage stated for clarification, crossbows would be allowed during the October archery season but not during the expanded archery season, correct?

Mrs. Theriault stated that was correct except if you were over 65 years of age or had a permanent disability permit. The new law would sunset after three years and we would have to report back to the Legislature on findings from the season.

6. Furbearer Rules

Mrs. Webb stated the changes were mostly minor tweaks as well as more substantial changes. The topics ranged from visible attractor, changes for beaver, muskrat and otter, the annual trapper survey, and changes that would affect marten and fisher. The first proposed change was related to visible attractor. Currently, we had no definition for visible attractor, but it was something we had during the early fox season that trappers were not allowed to use visible attractors to prevent from attracting lynx and other non-targets to a trap site location. We were proposing to add a new definition for visible attractor. It was basically any object that would be hung or placed at a trap site that served as a visual cue to attract an animal to the trap. A visible attractor would include, but not be limited to: flagging, CD disc, tin can cover, tinsel, foil, feathers, mechanical devices or any like items.

Mrs. Webb stated for the beaver season dates they typically changed annually, and we were proposing a similar timeline to previous years. We were also taking landowner requests for any portions of towns that would like to be closed to beaver trapping. We had one new request for closure in Woolwich. We were proposing that colony traps be set, placed and tended so they remained under water. The language was similar to the beaver trapping rule and simply allowed for natural water fluctuation to occur. We were also proposing muskrat could be taken incidental to beaver trapping. Currently, the dates did not line up for all the WMDs, muskrat trapping started earlier in some of the WMDs before beaver trapping started. Currently, trappers could keep muskrat that were taken and continue to trap for muskrat in those WMDs that were open after the close of the general trapping season. We were trying to align that and allow muskrat to be taken during the beaver trapping season.

Mrs. Webb stated for otter, we currently had in rule that otter could be taken incidental to beaver or muskrat trapping so we were proposing a reorganization of that information in rule so it was cleaner. The annual trapper survey came into play last year. It was mandatory for trappers to complete the annual surveys, there was a fall report and a spring report. We were proposing to have an age limit on reporting so trappers ages 16 and older must complete and submit the survey. We had approximately 4% of kids that had lifetime trapping licenses and some of those were infants so it was not reasonable for them to be completing the trapper surveys. Currently the furbearers with bag limits (marten and fisher) had temporary transportation tags. As soon as a trapper checked a trap and had a fisher or marten they filled out the temporary transportation tag and placed it on the animal. When they took the animal to the fur tagging station, the temp tag was removed and permanent tag was placed on the animal. We were proposing to simplify rules and remove the requirement for the temp transportation tags. We felt the new web-based fur registration system allowed us to monitor the harvest for enforcement purposes.

Mrs. Webb stated the final topic was the fisher bag limit. We were proposing an increase in the fisher bag limit from 10 to 25 fisher per trapper per year. The fisher bag limit was put into place in 2008 and there was a perceived decline in the fisher population at that time based on how fisher trapper success was declining since the early 2000s and trappers on the landscape were seeing fewer fisher. There was a bag limit put in place in 2008 and the bag limit for marten was 25 marten per trapper each year. Traditionally, those two species probably did not overlap widely but as we saw fisher expand across the state into northern Maine and places that were traditionally core marten habitat, wed seen a high overlap between marten and fisher in northern Maine. Currently, trappers could only take 10 fisher. There was a bit of a disjunct between the fisher and marten bag limit. We knew there had been substantial changes in trapping regulations that had affected fisher trapping success. That was related to the rules in place to protect Canada lynx. We also had larger things happening affecting trapper effort overall with fewer trappers trapping. We had seen a 60% decline in the total fisher harvested each year in Maine since 2006. We had seen a similar percent of decline in the number of trappers catching fisher. From our trapper surveys wed seen approximately 35% of trappers that were targeting fisher in a given town caught zero in 2018. Wed also seen similar trends for last fall. We knew that trappers were having a difficult time catching fisher given some of the new regulations such as lynx exclusion devices and we knew a lot of trappers simply werent trapping for fisher because of the low bag limit.

Mrs. Webb discussed some of the history of fisher trapping. 2008 was when the fisher bag limit was put in place. There had been a lot of changes that had affected the ability to interpret fisher trapping success over time. We now had a web-based fur registration system similar to big game. Furbearers, like fisher, were registered and tagged so we had good data on where the animals were coming from, which month they were harvested, we were collecting tooth samples from all the fisher harvested so we had age and sex structure of the harvest and we were also getting catch per unit effort information from the mandatory trapper surveys. In 2017 we started a camera study that was focused on marten and fisher and that study was in cooperation with the University of Maine. The study area was focused on the northern half of the state. Preliminary results from the study showed that fisher were just as common as marten in a lot of areas and more common in others. We felt there was strong evidence that the fisher bag limit could be increased to be consistent with marten so that would go from 10 to 25 fisher per trapper per year. We also had other ways to monitor the harvest very closely and evaluate if any changes to that bag limit needed to occur.

There were no Council member comments or questions.

7. Wild Turkey Fall Hunting Season WMD 6

Mr. Sullivan stated looking back in the records, the trap and transfer to Region G, which included WMD 6 started in early 2000. Turkeys had been there more than a decade from trap and transfer. More recently, we had a spring season there since 2015. The last few years we had observations from regional biologists and nuisance complaints were starting to arise. There were a few flocks there at greater than 100. It seemed it was time to start looking at fall season opportunity based on what appeared to be a good level of birds. The fall season was one way to try to keep a turkey population in check. The past winter biologists Shawn Haskell and Amanda DeMusz led a citizen science online survey asking for observations in WMD 6 and other areas in Region G. There were 153 responses that folks saw turkeys and 127 provided a number of what they saw.

Mr. Sullivan stated the proposal was to open WMD 6 in the fall to one bird of either sex. Over the course of the last five years of spring hunting there wed seen a stable trend. In 2015 the total harvest was 39, it was lower in 2016 and 2018 and 2019 were higher by almost 50. We had harvest information, but also wanted to get observations and try to come up with some kind of baseline number to have an idea of how many turkeys were there. The online survey was filtered for duplicates and the survey reported observations in 17 different towns within WMD 6 all within suitable turkey habitat. Of the online survey there was nothing reported around Rt. 11 or anything in Easton. Over the years, the biologists and warden service had observed and received a nuisance complaint in Easton a couple of years ago, so we knew there were birds there. It appeared no one participated in the survey from that area to provide observations. We estimated there were at least a minimum of 20 wild turkey flocks that were greater than 15 turkeys in size. The observations ranged from 15 to over 200 and from this winter for flocks greater than 15 there were 687 individual turkeys reported. There were three large flocks, one in Perham with over 100; Mapleton had over 100; Houlton was estimated between 200 and 300 on any given year. On top of those greater than 15 turkey observations there was another 42 separate observations that ranged between 1 and 14 birds in size and that was another 317 individuals. There were at least 1000 turkeys in WMD 6. Not all turkeys likely were observed so there were probably greater than 1500 turkeys in the wintertime. The observation period was January -March. Thinking there would be recruitment and reproduction, turkey numbers would be much greater than what we saw in the wintertime because we had young of the year that were part of the turkey population. We were also seeing flocks deep in the north Maine woods. That was suggestive of either dispersing from the stronghold in Aroostook County or from Canada, they were both sort of equal distance between each other in the north Maine woods. More recently there had been some turkey nuisance complaints. As turkey populations increased and grew in an area we would start to get complaints and that was indicative of a growing population. With our big game management plan one thing that was identified was trying to balance hunting resource with social carrying capacity. As we had seen in areas that were highly dense some of that social carrying capacity or human tolerance was starting to drive requests and sponsored bills to reduce the population. The Department was trying to be proactive and one tool would be to start a conservative fall season.

There were no Council member comments or questions.

V. Other Business

1. Covid-19 Update

Commissioner Camuso stated she wanted to give a brief update on some of the ongoings on the Covid virus. They had cabinet meetings daily to meet with Commissioners and the head of the CDC and MEMA and get updates on where things were at, what the case reports were, if there were any new outbreaks, etc. The Governors regular daily meetings with Dr. Shah did a pretty good job of updating people. We did get a lot of feedback from the public on the way the situation had been handled. The pandemic had presented the Department with a number of challenges we hadnt anticipated. We had been working trying to make sure the programs we managed were still functioning and moving forward. We opened up free fishing and relaxed the need for boat registrations, but we were back in a place where people needed to have a fishing license and register their boat, ATV, etc. The application period for the moose lottery had closed and we had a higher than projected number of people apply. We had seen an increase in outdoor activities in general both on our management areas and boating and ATVing. We would be working with the Governors office and DECD and sending out a document to guides to help them on some guidelines on how they could function while maneuvering through the pandemic. She would be hosting a panel discussion with several guides, along with the Department of Tourism, to try and promote guiding to in state residents given we still had a requirement for people coming in from out of state to quarantine for two weeks. We were trying to help Maine residents who were looking to get into hunting or fishing that didnt know how to help them understand what guides did and how they might be of service to them. This would help the guide industry and also help some of the new interests we had in hunting and angling.

Commissioner Camuso asked Deputy Commissioner Peabody to provide an update on the progress with Forest City.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated this primarily pertained to Brian Smith and Al Cowperthwaite because they dealt directly with East Grand Lake and the St. Croix River. The State of Maine filed information with FERC as an update to a meeting in August 2019. We contracted to remodel the flow data coming out of Forest City Dam. That was submitted last week, along with a letter from Governor Mills explaining her interest in resolving it and her partnership with the Province of New Brunswick Premiere Blaine Higgs. The next steps were to discuss potentially a third party owner for the dam.

Mr. Cowperthwaite asked if we had any proposals for a third party owner on the table.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we were discussing with Premiere Higgs office that afternoon and would come up with a plan between Maine and New Brunswick to explore some owners.

Mr. Smith asked if there was the possibility for a public hearing on the bear issue.

Commissioner Camuso stated we offered the petitioner that we could either hold off and have a normal public hearing or we could move forward with the petition without a public hearing. He elected to move forward without a public hearing. However, if enough people requested a hearing we would hold one but it would be a virtual hearing. We would not have an in-person public hearing.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he was new to the process. Was this a voting process where the more comments on one side or the other would provide the rule outcome?

Commissioner Camuso stated we did not have to have public hearings for any rulemaking proposal. It was a choice, the Department could hold a public hearing or we could not hold one. Many of the proposals we had brought forward to the Council over the years did not involve a public hearing. The public hearing was just another format to offer the public opportunity to provide input or feedback on a rule. In this petition process, the petitioner brings forward a proposed rule change and the Department opens it for public comment. We could have a public hearing but were not required to. The Council would vote on the proposal as they did any other proposal. It was still the regular rulemaking process even though the Department did not bring forward the proposal. At the next meeting the Department would provide our input once the public comment period was closed.

Mr. Smith referenced the expanded hunt in Islesboro, and saw that crossbows were not allowed. Was that something that had to be handled at the local level in Islesboro or something through the Department to at some point allow handicapped or older people to use crossbows on Islesboro.

Mrs. Theriault stated Islesboro was different as were several other special hunt areas where the town or municipality had some authority in statute to be able to set the methods that could be used.

Mr. Smith stated if you under 65 and hunting in October during the regular archery season in a WMD that had antlerless deer permits, could you shoot an antlerless deer with a crossbow?

Mrs. Theriault stated yes, if you had an antlerless deer permit.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

Mr. Farrington announced he had to tell everyone he served with on the Council that it had been an educational experience, but as of that afternoon he would be sending in his letter of resignation from the Council for a number of reasons.

Commissioner Camuso and members of the Council thanked Mr. Farrington for his service to the Council. Commissioner Camuso stated she would like to thank Larry for all his work and dedication and time to help the Department and Council over the past several years. We appreciated all his good thoughts and service to the agency.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

Don Dudley stated he would be sending in written comments on a couple of the proposals.

Claire Perry stated when we did the tallys for harvested bear and deer, was there any way we could also record wounded ones where the people that worked with dogs try to recover wounded animals and they werent successful.

Mr. Webb stated although we didnt officially record those cases to the registration system, which had a very specific purpose and function to document those animals that were actually harvested and apply towards an individuals bag limit or hunting authority, we did factor in those losses through our management systems and recommendations. They were part of the evaluation that we underwent each year to estimate the total mortality and overall trend in the populations for the various wildlife species. Although we did not directly capture those individual circumstances, we did factor in that source of mortality as well as other sources such as winter mortality when we were managing wildlife.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, July 7th at 9:30 a.m.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Smith and that was seconded by Mr. Sage to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Virtual TEAMS meeting
(contact Becky Orff at 287-5202 or becky.orff@maine.gov by
close of business on 7/6 for details on how to participate)
Wednesday, August 12, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.

AMENDED AGENDA

I. Call to Order - 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

1. Step 3
   1. Ch. 16 crossbow and misc. rule clarifications - Christl Theriault
   2. Furbearer Rules - Nate Webb
   3. 2020 Any-deer permit allocations - Nate Webb
2. Step 2
   1. Bear feeding rule petition - Commissioner Camuso

3. Step 1
   1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2021 - Jim Connolly

V. Other Business


VI. Councilor Reports - 11:30 A.M.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment - 12:00 P.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING July 7, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m. Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
(This council meeting was held during Governor Mill's State of Emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic limiting the ability to hold public meetings. Participation was by video conference - Microsoft TEAMS meeting)

ATTENDING:
Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Craig McLaughlin, WRAS Supervisor
Lee Kantar, Moose Biologist
Nathan Bieber, Deer Biologist
Jen Vashon, Black Bear and Lynx Biologist
Shevenell Webb, Furbearer Biologist
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Bill Swan, Director of Licensing and Registration
Dan Scott, Warden Service Colonel
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder



COUNCIL MEMBERS
Jerry Scribner (Vice-Chair)
Brian Smith
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Kristin Peet
Lindsay Ware
Bob Duchesne
Vacancy in Piscataquis/Somerset Cty


GUESTS
Don Kleiner
Fern & Sylvia Bosse
James Cote, MTA
Katie Hansberry, HSUS
Claire Perry
Gary Corson, New Sharon
Deirdre Fleming, Portland Press Herald
John Glowa, South China
Bob Parker, Wilton



I. Call to Order

Council Vice-Chair, Jerry Scribner called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: 6 in favor; 1 abstained (Mr. Duschene was not present at the previous meeting) minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Ch. 24 Licensed Guide rules

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the only change was in section 24.08 Standards of Competency and Ethics under A.5. The statute, Section 12858 (B) stated a person licensed as a guide who has knowledge that a client has violated the provisions of this Part shall within 24 hours inform a person authorized to enforce this Part. This Part was Part 13 of Title 12 which was all of our fish and wildlife laws. It clarified in rule as a requirement of a guide to report a client that violated a fish and wildlife law. It was originally written in the rule that they would report all violations of law and it was pointed out that was more strict than the statute. That was the only change from the original proposal.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to accept the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: Unanimous motion passed.

1. Expanded Archery Zones

Mr. Webb stated the proposal reflected changes to road names for some of the expanded archery zones and also proposed additions to four of the expanded archery areas; WMD 24, the Augusta area, the Camden area and the Lewiston area. We provided the opportunity for a public hearing on June 17th and no members of the public indicated a desire to participate, so the hearing was not launched. The comment deadline closed on June 29th and we received one written comment. The comment was specific to the proposed addition to the Lewiston area and expressed some concern that the landowners in the proposed expansion area werent amendable to allowing hunters on their property. The Department reached out to local staff in the area including game wardens. They indicated the landowners did carefully screen hunters prior to giving permission on their property but did allow hunting. Staff indicated they felt the addition in the Lewiston area would help manage the deer situation locally. Based on that, no changes were being proposed to the original proposal.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: Unanimous motion passed.

1. Wild Turkey Fall Hunting Season WMD 6

Mr. Webb stated the proposal was to add WMD 6 to the WMDs with a fall season with a bag limit of one turkey of either sex beginning that fall. All other rules for fall turkey hunting would apply. We did not offer a public hearing on the proposal, and no comments were received to hold one. The public comment period ended on June 26th and we received one written comment. The comment was quite thorough, and the points raised were carefully reviewed. Mr. Sullivan was available if the Council had questions on the data used to help inform the proposal.

Mr. Webb stated he would go through the points raised in the public comment and the Departments perspective on the concerns. The first point, he thought there was a bit of a misconception the proposal was focused on addressing nuisance issues in WMD 6, and although we did consider nuisance complaints when making a recommendation to open a turkey season such as this one, they were not put in place specifically to address those issues. That was a source of data we considered. We were not proposing a change to address the nuisance issues in Houlton, we believed it could play a role in helping address some nuisance complaints that came in from the Houlton area, but it was not specifically to try to resolve that issue. The numbers we used to inform the proposal were from the past winter. The public comment questioned whether the numbers were from two winters ago when the population statewide was higher. We agreed statewide we were seeing fewer birds in the state as compared to two summers ago and that was typical for turkeys. Their populations could fluctuate pretty dramatically from year to year and that did make it challenging to inform proposals. What we did to address that was look at a longer period of data. If we looked at one year alone, that might cause us to reach a very different conclusion about the status of the population as opposed to looking at multiple years of data and a longer term. The proposal was informed by a long-term trend in increasing numbers of wild turkeys in WMD 6 as well as an expansion of their range in that part of the state. Based on all those factors we felt confident that opening WMD 6 to a limited fall hunt with a one turkey bag limit was appropriate. We were not recommending any changes to the proposal as presented.

Mr. Smith stated he reviewed the written comment and spoke with some turkey hunting friends from WMD 6 and they expressed the same concerns, they had seen less birds in the spring to hunt. WMD 27 anecdotally the kill seemed to be down on spring gobblers and friends had only shot one bird or did not shoot any because of a reduction in population. Also, he was not getting any reports of spring polts in his area or in WMD 6. He did have those concerns.

Mr. Webb asked Mr. Sullivan to comment on preliminary projections for the 2020 nesting season based on weather patterns we had been experiencing.

Mr. Sullivan stated for this spring and production based on our telemetry we had nesting success which was not high anyway; 25%-30% of our hens were with polts which was right in line with the last couple of years. It varied based on conditions. The spring conditions in the telemetry zones which included Greenville and Kokadjo, Bangor area and a southern Maine zone, all of those areas were in line with what we expected as pretty good or on average. Maybe even a little better nesting success. In the Greenville unit we had seven birds that nested and five of those were with polts. Based on the dry conditions during the critical period had been pretty favorable. He was not surprised polts hadnt been seen up north yet, they were a little later to hatch and were small. He expected a better time to gauge reproductive success in regard to measuring polts would be later in the summer when they were larger and visible.

Mr. Webb stated one of the challenges with the fall turkey hunt was that we were going through the process to recommend changes for the upcoming fall. Due to the timing of when rulemaking needed to happen and when the lawbook came out and when we needed to inform hunters what the rules were, a lot could change with regard to the status of the turkey population in an area between the spring season and the fall season. We had a nesting season to go through which was what really drove the fall population size. That was why it was important for the Department to rely on a longer-term assessment of the data. If we were to try to react to seasonal within year changes and turkey numbers, it would be extremely challenging to manage the hunting seasons and bag limits in a way that was responsive to what was happening currently with regard to turkey production and nesting and brood success.

A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: Unanimous motion passed.

B. Step 2

1. Ch. 16 Crossbow and Misc. Rule Clarifications

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated all the changes in the proposal resulted from statutory changes done by the Legislature in 2019 and 2020. There were three components to the proposal. One dealt with expanded use of crossbows, one dealt with the change in definition of antlerless moose and the third change was the change in definition dealing with supervision of juvenile hunters and trappers. Section 16.07 dealt with the changes in archery season with the use of crossbows. In 2019 the Legislature expanded the use of crossbows to anybody to hunt during the regular archery season. They could not take an antlerless deer without an antlerless permit. That was for seasons 2020, 2021 and 2022. Once the law passed the Department realized hunters age 65 and over and those with disability permits that were allowed to take an antlerless deer previously, now could not take an antlerless deer when the Legislature passed the law in 2019. We went back in 2020 and made the correction. The proposal included changes that were necessary in rule to implement the statute that the Legislature passed.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated under section 16.07, (D) (2. and 3.) were the first two examples how we were changing referencing adult supervision of junior hunters. There were several places in statute that we used adult supervisor with a different definition. The proposal was the result of a statutory change but was meant to clarify what an adult supervisor was. The first example was a junior hunter supervisor. Rather than calling them an adult supervisor, we were calling them a junior hunter supervisor.

Mrs. Theriault stated to clarify on the supervisors, there had been a mix up at the Legislature the previous year. There was some confusion between the apprentice hunter supervisor and the junior hunter supervisor title. The change really set them apart. The last portion of the proposal was the change in definition of the antlerless moose. We had to make that consistent with the statutory change.

Mr. Scribner asked what drove the change in the antlerless moose definition?

Mrs. Theriault stated it was an IFW proposal due to some people harvesting animals they werent necessarily permitted for in terms of them thinking it was a cow moose but it was actually a small bull. The antlers were close to the size of the ears, but werent quite and they werent identifying the moose properly and they were harvesting a moose they didnt have a permit for. By making the change, the person had to absolutely identify that it had no antlers whatsoever.

Mr. Webb stated the proposal was the outcome of the big game planning process and essentially the issue was that previously an antlerless permit included a moose with antlers shorter than the ears. In a significant number of cases it would make a yearling bull moose legal or very close to legal. That came in through Warden Service that were involved in the planning effort that they were encountering hunters with an antlerless moose tag that were intentionally seeking out small bulls and trying to judge whether the antlers might be shorter than the ears. It created an enforcement challenge and also a biological one in that the intent of those permits was to harvest cow and calf moose not young bulls. The change clarifies that those antlerless permits were truly valid for moose without antlers and not yearling bulls.

There were no further questions or comments.

1. Furbearer Rules

Mr. Webb stated the proposal did a number of things to clean up and simplify furbearer trapping rules. It would update beaver season dates and closures, clarify placement of muskrat traps, address incidental take of both muskrat and otter, remove the requirement for temporary transportation tags for both fisher and marten, amend the annual trapper survey requirement to only apply to those trappers age 16 or older, and also would increase the annual bag limit for fisher from 10 to 25. A public hearing was held on the proposal on June 16, 2020. There was one participant that spoke and provided input. The public comment period ended June 26, 2020 and we received two written comments. The first comment was focusing on the fisher bag limit portion of the proposal and expressed general support for the increase and support for the concept that fisher populations seemed to be doing very well statewide and seemed to have increased in the north in particular. The comment questioned whether or not a quota system might be more effective. We had discussed that approach in the past. There would be a statewide or regional harvest limit for fisher and once that limit was reached, the season would close. That was a viable harvest management tool that was appropriate in some circumstances for some species. Mr. Webb thought the challenge for this scenario was that would require trappers to register their fisher throughout the season as they were being harvested so we could monitor that level of harvest in relation to the quota established. It would also require trappers to pay close attention to when that season might be closed. If it were to close they would have to pull their traps immediately. From a trappers satisfaction and logistical perspective, the Department didnt view that as a good approach in this scenario.

Mr. Webb stated the second written comment we received was from the Maine Trappers Association (MTA) which was generally supportive of the proposal. They did raise some questions about the new definition of visible attractor, in particular with regard to flagging which many trappers like to use to mark the location of their trap. We would like to take some time and work with Warden Service on some potential adjustments to the language for that piece for the Council to consider to make sure that trappers had some reasonable means of marking their trap in a way that didnt create an attractant to wildlife for which the season wasnt open. The other piece we would like to look closer at with regard to the language for visible attractor were cubby sets. The current definition as proposed didnt clarify whether cubby sets would constitute a visible attractor or not. That had been an enforcement challenge. Other than that, we were not recommending any changes to the proposal.

Mr. Scribner stated he was glad the issue was brought forward the MTA raised on flagging. Reading the input, he thought that was a very legitimate concern and it sounded like that would be considered prior to moving to Step 3.

Mr. Webb stated there were some nuances to it because visible attractor was a key component to the ITP for lynx so we needed to be very careful how we framed the issue to make sure we were not running counter to the permit we had with USFWS for the trapping program.

1. 2020 Any-deer Permit Allocations

Mr. Webb stated the proposal would set any-deer numbers for the fall 2020 hunting season in our 29 WMDs as well as two sub-units. A public hearing was held on June 15th and there was one participant at the hearing. The comment deadline closed on June 25th and we received two written comments. One of the comments was generally opposed with the deer management framework. It wasnt specifically focused on the permit numbers per se and was really addressing the way in which we managed deer to address things such as Lyme disease, deer/vehicle collisions and nuisance complaints. The second comment was from Mr. Cowperthwaite. He proposed a modest increase in permit numbers in WMDs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated that winter he met with members of the Aroostook County Conservation Association they held a banquet each year to raise thousands of dollars to buy food for the deer and due to the coronavirus, they were unable to do that. Gerry McLaughlin looked at the number of any-deer permits because they were not going to be able to feed them. Unfortunately, Mr. Cowperthwaite knew the Department was not big on feeding deer, but the reality was they were not going to be able to provide the food that they would on a regular year. He also met with the Aroostook chapter of the Maine Trappers Association and again, their concern was with the number of deer and starvation. He spoke with folks in Allagash. It was an important issue for Aroostook county residents and he only proposed bumping the number of permits up by 25 in the WMDs within their communities and 50 in WMD 6. It was only a little over 100 permits, there were 110,000 any-deer permits statewide so he didnt feel it was a substantial request.

Mr. Webb stated based on the request the Department was comfortable with the changes. It was a relatively minor increase from what we proposed and fit within the variation in the biological data we collected and used to inform permit recommendations. The one WMD where we would be concerned was WMD 5 and that WMD was one in which our management system and the biological and weather data we collected indicated no permits for 2020 based on the status of the deer population in that district. Based on that, the Departments recommendation would be to not add permits to that WMD. One of the reasons was that in adding any-deer permits, it also opened up hunting of antlerless deer to archery hunters and youth hunters. That could substantially increase the overall effort directed at antlerless deer in a situation like that. Other than some concern over WMD 5, the Department was comfortable with the slight increases that Mr. Cowperthwaite suggested.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he was comfortable with no permits for WMD 5.

There were no further questions or comments.

C. Step 1

1. Bear Feeding Rule Petition

Commissioner Camuso stated we would have been at Step 2 for the bear rule proposal, but we had five individuals request a public hearing. Under the APA we were required to hold a public hearing which would be held via TEAMS. Anyone that had submitted comments, those would still be considered. This would give people an additional opportunity to comment and hear more about the request. The comment period would end ten days after the hearing. The petition would be before the Council at Step 2 at the next meeting.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Sage stated at the last meeting, Mr. Webb had discussed a scientific study that was being conducted by a separate party. What was the status?

Mr. Webb stated the contract was in place with Perdue University to look at the issue. That was a recommendation from the big game plan to use the existing information that we had collected over the past decades from the bear research project to look at the question regarding the potential impacts of bait on bear body condition, reproductive success, etc. That question had been raised with regard to hunting with bait in Maine for the past number of years. The project was underway, and they were using hair samples that we provided to look at the contribution of anthropogenic foods to the diet of bears in Maine. There was also a component where they were gathering both natural foods in Maine as well as different types of bait to allow the evaluation to occur. Once the analysis was completed regarding the contribution of anthropogenic foods to the diets of the research bears, they were going to link that to the data we collected from the bears in our radio telemetry work. Body condition, reproductive success, those types of parameters to determine if there was any relationship between the consumption of human foods and those factors.

Mr. Sage asked when the project would be finished.

Mrs. Vashon stated Covid-19 had impacted things. The proposal was approved before Covid-19 and then businesses were closed. They just started their work so we extended the grant through December 2021.

Mr. Sage stated they would have to make their decision on the proposal before they had all the true science to go by.

Mr. Webb stated the project would take some time, it was fairly involved.

Mr. Smith asked about the impact on municipalities and counties, the fiscal impact and none was anticipated. Obviously, it would be tremendous fiscal impact on both. He did not think he heard the answer clearly at the last meeting why that was listed in the proposal.

Mr. Webb stated his recollection was that again, this was a petition that the Department received. Through that petition there was no impact indicated. The issue was something the public was welcome to comment on and we had received many related to that issue.

Mr. Smith stated while it was listed in the proposal as no fiscal impact anticipated, was that accurate? It was hard for him to understand that.

Mr. Duchesne asked if it was appropriate for any members of the Council to weigh-in on an issue at a public hearing or was that something they should refrain from.

Commissioner Camuso stated in general, the Council when they attended public hearings, and it was encouraged, they were mostly there to hear what the public was saying and to absorb the comments from the public rather than engaging. It was mostly an opportunity to listen and hear from the public on the proposal.

There were no further questions or comments.

V. Other Business

1. Moose Project Update

Mr. Kantar gave a PowerPoint presentation on Moose and Winter Tick and discussed the Moose Survival Study. For a copy of the presentation please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Sage asked if this approach had been tried with other states with moose populations and winter tick issues and what were their results showing.

Mr. Kantar stated to create an adaptive approach he was not sure if that had been used. The situation in the Northeast was really unique when you talked about winter ticks impacting moose. Other jurisdictions that had seen issues with declining or stagnant moose populations saw a whole host of things going on. Looking at Wyoming they pointed to carotid artery worm and habitat loss. It was very challenging to compare the Northeast with any kind of western state because of the dynamics of animals out there. We were really the leaders in what was going on with moose research with seven years of data and there was evidence that moose at low densities did not have the level of external or internal parasites that we saw with too many in Maine. Many of the parasites had the root cause of having too many animals. High densities of animals that were all together could create a lot of problems. Our densities were not ones you commonly saw in other states and provinces. Things worked really well for a long time in Maine because the winter tick was not impacting us, but as climate got more mild and falls were shorter and things were better for the winter tick it had just gotten worse in the last several years. This was a new approach, but fairly straightforward dynamic as to how somebody would approach an adaptive unit.

Mr. Sage asked if we were going to reduce the moose numbers permanently to try to combat the ticks. Would we keep the numbers low to try to prevent the ticks from exploding back?

Mr. Kantar stated step one, which we had done, was identify the area we thought this would be best done and most acceptable. The scientific approach was that wed measured the moose density in these areas, the moose composition, we had a good hold on survival and reproduction in the area; now we would go in and this was just half of one WMD and we took that half of the unit and increased the cow harvest over time. Every year we would fly the areas so we could monitor the change in the abundance of moose in that one area over time. We measured reproduction in the area as well, we collared moose calves in the area to look at survival over time and as the population hopefully decreased, we were also measuring winter tick loads. After monitoring for a number of years the approach was to look at it and see if it was having an affect or not. If there was no change, then it would have to be decided where to go from there. The starting point was to implement the hunt and to follow it over time and use the science to drive where we went on an annual basis.

Mr. Duchesne stated he was always curious about habitat changes as well. Different landowners had different forestry practices in terms of their goals and outcomes. Was there any possibility of assessing between landowner shifts when the landscape was different to measure what the impact on moose was or how would you measure that?

Mr. Kantar stated one of the debates that tended to occur when talking about a population that had depressed reproduction, and talking about density dependence where you had a lot of animals in an area that was affecting their overall health most people would talk about habitat and problems with habitat. One of the things that came out of research in conjunction with UNH and NH Fish & Game, one of the grad students looked at the harvest information on our bulls from 1980 2014 this was a proxy to the condition of the bull moose which was a proxy for was there enough habitat to keep the moose at the same level over time. The conclusion of the data was that there were no changes in the bulls over time. If bull moose were not changing as far as their size and attributes, then it would suggest there was enough food out there no matter what the changes on the landscape had been.

Mr. Smith stated Mr. Kantar had mentioned that Maine had a conservative season compared to Quebec and New Brunswick. Could he share what their seasons and bag limits were?

Mr. Kantar stated he was not suggesting we adopt Quebecs moose management. They managed moose very similar to how we would manage deer. Everyone could hunt every year over the counter. The border of Quebec that bordered Maine, every year their dynamic had been you could go get your permit and hunt a bull or a calf. Depending on the unit, every other year or every third year you could shoot a bull, a cow or a calf. In 2017 Mr. Kantar looked at WMD 4 and the Quebec unit directly across the boundary, it was the same size unit about 2,000 square miles. In that one unit they shot over 2,000 moose. Half of those were antlerless moose. He was not suggesting this was what we should do, we were worried about having the right amount of moose so that people could view moose, we understood the aesthetic value of moose, the economic, cultural values that we were trying to balance. What we had now that was unprecedented was winter tick that was taking away from the whole population of moose with depressing reproduction and having over wintering calves suffering a pretty horrible death. There was room to increase moose harvest and one of the best ways to inform that process and where we should be was to implement an adaptive unit that we could scientifically learn from.

Mr. Webb stated understandably there was a great deal of public interest in this approach as we continued to talk about it and develop plans. We had been doing a lot of work with our information and education division to get the message out to the general public about the idea. There was still a lot of work to be done. When the plan came to fruition the Council would have to consider a rulemaking proposal to put in place the additional permits and establish the framework for the experimental hunt. We wanted to make sure the Council was aware of the path we were hoping to go down and had an opportunity to weigh in and ask questions as we got closer to bringing the proposal forward.

There were no further questions or comments.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

John Glowa stated he had a few issues he wanted to talk about. He took exception to the statement by the Council member that said the petition was an attempt to ban bear hunting, it was anything but that. The Departments comment that the fiscal impact in the document that the Department put out in response to the petition, that no fiscal impact was his viewpoint; that was a false statement. The Department was required by law to address the fiscal impact issue and the fiscal impact issue was actually on municipalities for implementing the rule. Since the municipalities were not implementing the rule, there was no fiscal impact. It had nothing to do with fiscal impact, the Department had nothing to do with fiscal impact. There was a widespread misconception about what the fiscal impact issue was. As far as moose were concerned, he just sent the Council an email. He submitted to court a petition for a judicial review of an agency rule. The agency rule was Maines 2020 moose hunting seasons. Hed asked to court to declare the rule to be null and void and have no legal affect. The reason for that was because the Department violated numerous requirements in the issuance of the rule. He also submitted to the court a motion for preliminary injunction that would shut down Maines moose hunt for 2020 until the court decided on his petition.

There were no further comments or questions.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

There would be a meeting in August, and the Council would be notified at a later time of the date.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Sage and that was seconded by Mr. Smith to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Virtual TEAMS meeting
(contact Becky Orff at 287-5202 or becky.orff@maine.gov by
close of business on 9/16 for details on how to participate)
Thursday, September 17, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.

AMENDED AGENDA

I. Call to Order - 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

1. Step 3
   1. Bear feeding petition - Commissioner Camuso
2. Step 2
   1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2021 - Francis Brautigam
   
   
3. Step 1
   1. Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition - Commissioner Camuso
   2. Predator Killing Contests prohibition petition - Commissioner Camuso
   3. Coyote trapping prohibition petition - Commissioner Camuso

V. Other Business


VI. Councilor Reports - 11:30 A.M.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment - 12:00 P.M.

Advisory Council Meeting
August 12, 2019 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife ((This council meeting was held during Governor Mill's State of Emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic limiting the ability to hold public meetings. Participation was by video conference - Microsoft TEAMS meeting))


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Jen Vashon, Black Bear and Lynx Biologist
Matt Lubejko, Fisheries Planner and Research Coord
Tim Obrey, Regional Fisheries Biologist
Frank Frost, Regional Fisheries Biologist
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Matt Thurston (Chair)
Jerry Scribner (Vice-Chair)
Brian Smith
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Kristin Peet
Lindsay Ware
Bob Duchesne
Shelby Rousseau
Vacancy in Piscataquis/Somerset Cty

GUESTS


I. Call to Order

Council Chair, Matt Thurston called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: unanimous minutes approved.

IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Ch. 16 Crossbow and Misc. Rule Clarifications

Mrs. Theriault stated there were three portions to the rules that were modified creating consistency between rule and law. The first was modifying the definition of antlerless moose. The statute was changed the previous year and the language needed to be cleaned up in rule to be consistent. The title of adult supervisor was changed to junior hunter supervisor to describe the person supervising a junior hunter within all the youth hunt days in rule. Modifications were made to crossbow hunting because of the new expansion in crossbow hunting over the next three years. Only two public comments were received, one was a formatting error that was corrected and the other was questioning the antlerless moose definition change.

There were no further questions or comments. A motion was made by Mr. Sage to accept the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: Unanimous motion passed.

2. Furbearer Rules

Mr. Webb stated the proposal would make a number of changes to the furbearer trapping rules to increase simplification and add clarification and a few substantial adjustments. The rule change would create a definition for visible attractor. There currently was not a definition for visible attractor in rule or statute. It would also update beaver season trapping dates and beaver trapping closures. It would clarify requirements for muskrat trap placements and also add some clarity regarding incidental capture of mink, muskrat and otter while trapping for beaver and muskrat. It would increase the annual fisher bag limit from 10 to 25 statewide; remove the temporary transportation tag requirement for marten and fisher; and amend the annual trapper survey requirements to only require those surveys be submitted by trappers age 16 and older. In the amended version of the proposal there were a couple of wording changes to the definition of visible attractor. The changes were identified in red in the updated version that was circulated. The first change was to clarify that fruits and vegetables used for muskrat trapping would not be considered a visible attractor. That was a clarification we thought was important. The items were used in muskrat trapping and there was no intent to prohibit those. We also clarified that small pieces of flagging could be used to mark trap site locations. That issue was raised during the public comment period. Other than the two small language changes to the definition, there were no other changes being proposed.

There were no further questions or comments. A motion was made by Mr. Sage to accept the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: Unanimous motion passed.

3. 2020 Any-deer Permit Allocations

Mr. Webb stated this was the annual permit allocation. The numbers were set each year in rule based on biological data and our deer management plan. We discussed some relatively minor adjustments to the original proposal at the last Council meeting based on feedback from northern Maine. The amended proposal had an increase of 25 permits in WMD 2 and 3, and an increase of 50 permits in WMD 6 as compared to the original proposal for a total increase of 100 permits. Just under 110,000 permits statewide including a number of permits in two subunits were being proposed.

There were no further questions or comments. A motion was made by Mr. Sage to accept the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: Unanimous motion passed.

B. Step 2

1. Bear Feeding Rule Petition

Commissioner Camuso stated this was a petition brought to the Department by John Glowa. A public hearing was held on July 8, 2020 and the comment period closed on July 20, 2020. The Department compiled all public comments as well as provided some background information on the petition and the Departments approach. She asked Jen Vashon the State bear biologist to describe what had been received by the Council.

Mrs. Vashon stated the Council had been provided with a packet of information beginning with the spreadsheet. There were five tabs organized by comments in support, opposed or those that were neither in support or opposition. The comments were also organized by those that were most prevalent and area of topic. Many of the comments were in a similar theme. There were only 8 received neither in support or opposition so those were not organized in any particular order. The category was provided because even though many of the comments received were similar to comments we received in support or opposed, the individual didnt clearly articulate whether they were in support or opposition and based on the way the letter was written it was difficult to determine their position. The first tab in the document was support by most prevalent. We received 85 comments in support of the proposed petition. Of those comments, they covered 38 different topics. The majority fell in three categories; it was ethically wrong to hunt black bears with the use of bait or by feeding them, or that feeding or baiting bears caused the population to grow and could cause more problems with black bears. When organized by topic areas in different categories we had 8 that just mentioned general support but didnt give any specifics. Comments were also received from those in support that collecting information on bait would be helpful through permitting bait sites; some had general concern about how feeding or baiting might be impacting the bear population for conflicts; some about phasing out hunting over bait; some just in general opposition about bear hunting with bait or feeding bears; and some miscellaneous comments that were difficult to categorize. Those were the comments received in support of the petition.

Mr. Duchesne stated he reviewed all the comments that came in. The claim seemed to be that the population of bears was increasing and there was only one possible explanation and that was bear baiting and therefore they didnt need to prove it just assume that was true. Did anyone submit anything that was scientific? Any research from other states, or information that would support their theory that bear baiting was causing the increase in population.

Mrs. Vashon stated we received 4 comments that sited papers on the impacts of feeding supplemental food on increasing health and reproductive success. The majority of those were papers or articles that were focused on feeding whitetailed deer and just briefly spoke about impacts on other wildlife including black bears.

Mr. Duchesne asked if there was anything in the literature that suggested why there was an increase in state bear populations where there was no bear baiting?

Mrs. Vashon stated no, many of the papers didnt provide data just suggestions that it was going on and it was an area of concern. We received 164 comments in opposition to the proposed rule change. There were 75 different concerns raised by people that provided public comments. The most prevalent of those were 73 stating leave management to the wildlife professionals; 56 concerned about economic impacts; 42 concerned this was an anti-hunting agenda designed to phase out baiting and or hunting; 40 that the population was well managed and any restrictions would be in direct conflict with recommendations. Comments were also received that the issue had been voted on twice and that we needed to continue to support voters decisions. There were 37 comments that it was difficult to hunt bear in Maine even with bait, bait was the most effective method. Other comments had concern if the proposal was enacted that it would end bear hunting with bait. There were a significant number of comments covering other areas that were summarized by topic.

Mrs. Vashon stated in addition to providing the spreadsheet to the Council we also provided a response on the most prevalent comments in support of the proposed rule change. There were three topic areas that received the most public comments in support; hunting with bait or feeding bears was unethical or violated fair chase, hunting with bait or feeding bears increased bear numbers; hunting with bait or feeding bears habituates bears to people and caused more conflicts. The Departments response to those comments that hunting with bait was unethical or violated fair chase was as follows: fair chase means that the animal always has a fair chance of escaping and the hunter does not have an unfair advantage during the hunt. Maines thick forests makes it difficult to hunt bears by stalk and spot methods. Even with bait only 1 in 3 hunters in Maine were successful. This was a much lower success rate than hunts for many other wildlife species in Maine. Hunting over bait allowed hunters to get close to bears, provide an opportunity to view bears allowing them to avoid shooting bears with cubs and allowing better shot placement. All these aspects of hunting over bait provided for an ethical hunt.
Mrs. Vashon stated in response to concern that hunting with bait increased bear numbers, most studies had found relationship between the consumption of human foods and bear body condition and reproduction were in areas where bears had unlimited access to garbage. Maines long-term monitoring program indicated that natural food, not bait, drove bear reproduction. Maine bears produced fewer cubs and weighed less than bears that lived in areas where a large amount of human food was available throughout the year. For example, PA bears were heavier, gave birth to cubs as early as 2 years of age and produced litters of 4 cubs more commonly than in Maine. Conversely, bears in Maine also didnt produce cubs until between the age of 4 and 6 and typically averaged 2 to 3 cubs per litter. Another factor to consider was throughout the eastern U.S. bear populations were increasing, even in areas without hunting. Sixteen eastern states that did not allow bear hunting or hunting with bait reported an increasing bear population in 2019.

Mr. Duchesne stated he was always interested in what the actual science was. When he saw a claim stating the population had gone up, and that was the only factor that explained it, that conflicted with his experience. In his experience over the years the forests had changed. We had spruce budworm which thinned out the forest quite a bit and we had the forest practices act which eliminated large blocks of clear cutting but also did selective tree harvesting. As a result, there was just more sunshine producing, he thought, more food. Increased mast crop, etc. That seemed to be happening at the same time the bear population was increasing and could be an explanation if not the driving force. Did the Department have any science or knew of any that addressed that?

Mrs. Vashon stated yes. The Department had provided a lot of information over the years in relation to that. We had been monitoring black bears in Maine for 45 years. By equipping bears with radio collars we had extensive data. What we had seen was that natural foods were really driving bear numbers. Even with the constant presence of bait on the landscape, in years when natural foods were poor we saw that reflected in our bear population. The 2018 season was a very poor food year, and that year we saw low yearling rates. In our northern Maine study area we saw low cub survival and that was in the presence of baiting. In 2019 which was an exceptionally good food year, during den checks the yearlings were the heaviest in a long time averaging close to 70 lbs. In 2018 yearling weights averaged about 25 lbs. During 2018 and 2019 there was really probably no difference in the amount of bait that was on the landscape.

Mrs. Vashon stated despite the evidence we had that hunting was not increasing the bear population, we had heard multiple concerns and we were working with Purdue University and they would be looking at the role of anthropogenic foods, including bait, on Maines bear population. The grant was awarded in December 2019 and due to Covid there was a delay. Field work and lab analysis started in June 2020 and we expected a final report in 2022.

Mrs. Vashon stated the third most common concern that was expressed by supporters was that bait habituated bears to humans and caused more conflict. Although it may be a reasonable assumption, the data really didnt support the claim. Despite Maine having the largest black bear population in the eastern U.S., Maine had fewer bear complaints than most eastern states including those didnt allow bait. If bait was causing conflicts to rise or causing bears to be habituated to people, we would anticipate that Maine would have some of the highest incidents of bear complaints. What we actually saw in the eastern U.S. was that Maine ranked 17th in the number of bear complaints. Eight of the top ten states with bear complaints did not allow hunting with bait or hunting at all. The state with the highest incidents of bear complaints was FL with over 6,000 bear complaints over the last five years and that was in the absence of hunting.

Mrs. Vashon stated that bait could act as diversionary feeding bringing bears away from backyards and back into the woods particularly when natural foods were limited, so baiting could actually reduce conflicts and it also could potentially reduce conflicts because hunting with bait also tended to remove the bold and aggressive bears from the population as those bears were more likely to visit a bait site during daylight hours and be harvested by hunters. For those reasons, the Department was not in support of the proposed rule change. Management of Maines bear population was driven by science and public input. In 2017 Maines big game plan was guided by 45 years of monitoring radio collared black bears, monitoring conflict and harvest levels and included a variety of options to obtain public input. Bear management in Maine over the next 10 years was a public process. Bears were found nearly statewide, but most common in northern and eastern Maine where there was less development and lower human population densities. Maines bear population had increased since 2005 in response to declining hunter participation and harvest which was down an average of 13,000 bear hunters between 1999 and 2004 so less than 10,000 hunters in recent years. As a result, harvest had declined from an average of nearly 4,000 bears to 3,000 bears since 2005. Based on decades of monitoring the states bear population harvest models indicated that Maines bear population had been increasing due to lower hunter harvest. It currently exceeded 35,000. The low harvest had contributed to greater survival of female black bears and that was what was spurring population growth. By more females surviving the fall hunt, they were available to produce cubs the following winter. Although the population had been increasing, it still remained below both the state social and biological carrying capacity. However, the population was slowly starting to expand into areas of higher human density. For the Department to stabilize the bear population and meet objectives slowing the growth into southern Maine, we needed to harvest more than 5,000 bears annually. Currently, hunters were harvesting about 3,000. The bear management plan identified the need to increase harvest to meet harvest objectives and by increasing participation and opportunity for Maine hunters.

Mrs. Vashon stated the Department was opposed to the proposed rule change because it was in direct conflict with the goals and objectives of Maines bear management plan. State law currently prohibited substances that were harmful to bears. There was no precise estimate on the number of baits making it difficult to phase out bait using a formula based on 2019 levels. Finally, a permit system would be costly to administer and impossible to implement by 2020.

Mr. Smith stated it was two to one opposed for comments and the number one majority in the opposed comments was to leave wildlife management to the professionals. Mr. Smith asked who would be paying for the bear diet study which he thought was around $50,000.

Mrs. Vashon stated the Department had a bear research fund and she believed a lot of the funding was coming from that which was based on the sale of bear permits that the Legislature enacted in 2008.

Mr. Webb stated it was a combination of funds from the bear research fund and our annual allocation from the USFWS of Pittman Robertson fund dollars which were excise taxes on sporting equipment.

Mr. Sage asked Mrs. Vashon for the record if she had ever been ordered to document numbers or anything just for the fact of money? He was sick and tired of hearing that it was all just because the Department wanted more money.

Mrs. Vashon stated she had never done that or been asked to do that. She thought the concern from that was recognizing the Department was getting the funds and without license sales that would reduce funding for the agency, she thought that was where it was coming from. She described some of her education and stated that black bears were something she had always been passionate about and most people that studied black bears were passionate about bears.

C. Step 1

1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2021

Mr. Connolly stated everyone though of fisheries in terms of the waters they fished, the water they lived on and what we were doing for them. It was sometimes challenging because they did not have statewide perspective and expected fisheries biologists to fix the problem where they cared about it, and sometimes not in a broader realization of what was going on in the world. Fisheries biology was challenging, and rulemaking was especially difficult. Biologists spent a lot of time out on the water doing their job, they recreated as fisheries biologists and they never really left it behind. One of the things Mr. Brautigam had done was bringing them together and looking at things statewide and explain the fisheries changes from the perspective of an overview or themes in terms of areas that we were trying to address to get people to recognize there was a general reason why statewide we would be concerned about something and the reason behind that. The Department had started presenting proposals in themes in areas so people could see the consistency across the state in terms of the issue, but recognize it was being implemented locally based on the information we collected such as anglers, water chemistry, fisheries population and things effecting the fisheries resource.

Mr. Connolly stated one of the ways it had helped us look at that was our digital regulation mapper, the FLOAT system. We started spatially laying out the regulations and recognizing sometimes in water sheds or water bodies in streams and systems there had been some inconsistencies. Some of the regulation changes were because when laid on the face of the land and the water there were connections between them, and fisheries was looking at those and trying to make sure there was consistency in approaches across the water bodies. There would be three presentations in terms of what we were trying to do. We were also asking for some changes in the state heritage waters. Those were based on information the fisheries division had collected. We were proposing one water for addition and because we had new and more definitive information on two waters, we were asking for the removal of those from the heritage waters list. There was an ongoing effort to assess the information and incorporate it and make it better.

Mr. Lubejko stated he would introduce the PowerPoint presentation (for a copy of the presentation please contact becky.orff@maine.gov). They were going to review a few notable proposals from the packet. The first would be Tim Obreys Moosehead Lake proposal, then Frank Frost would introduce the Big Reed Pond proposal and Mr. Lubejko would finish with the review of the theme errors, conflict and confusion.

Mr. Obrey stated at Moosehead Lake they had the development of a trophy fishery over the last few years. A lot of fish were showing up in the 3-7 lb. range. It was something they had not seen before. We wanted to protect what we had and had learned a little bit about the fish and they were under a little bit of stress and he didnt feel what was happening at Moosehead was sustainable. The proposals were to protect what we had. First, he wanted to discuss where the trophy brook trout they had came from. There were two factors, the biggest was the extensive removal of lake trout that began in 2008 where we implemented some very liberal regulations to thin the togue population. Nearly 100,000 fish were removed in about 3 years. The smelt population rebounded, and we were able to document improvements in growth and survival for all the game species after the togue population was thinned. The goal at Moosehead was to have catch rates for lake trout over 18" the same as the catch rate for lake trout under 18. The catch rates generally reflected the population density. In the mid 90s the number of small togue went through the roof and we struggled to get it under control. In 2008 the liberal regulations were implemented and in 2013 the lake trout were under control with catch rates where we wanted them to be and smelt were responding as we had hoped.

Mr. Obrey stated another change in 2006 we went from a 12 length limit to 14 on brook trout and we had the 12 length limit from 1987 to 2006 and we knew we would protect about 30% of the fish that were being harvested at that time and that would probably increase the population. Those two factors had really played a role in the development of the trophy brook trout fishery at Moosehead. The percentage of brook trout over 20 in the winter harvest back from 1969 when the Moosehead project started until 2007 we struggled to have around 3% of harvest over 20. Now the 20 fish were averaging about 3 lbs. The last few years the percentage of big fish had increased. The last two years it had been over 30% of the fish being 20 over 3 lbs. They had learned these big fish were not what they would call a typical Moosehead brook trout. Most of the brook trout there spawned in September or October and went to places like the Roach River or the Moose River and spawned. These big fish were spawning on the shoreline of Moosehead. They did not come in until mid-November as opposed to the typical brook trout which spawned in October. There was evidence the fish were still spawning in January when the ice fishing was going on. The problem with fish spawning in January, there was fishing going on and the fish were very vulnerable. The anglers had found them in Lily Bay and there was a very high harvest rate. It represented a disruption in the spawning activity, so they were at high risk.

Mrs. Theriault asked if they had seen brook trout spawn that late in other lakes?

Mr. Obrey stated they saw it in trout ponds, places like Thistle Pond they would spawn in deer season, but they had never been able to document it on Moosehead. One of the problems they had with studying the fish, it was so late in the year places iced in about a week after the fish came. They were able to get radio tags in some of the fish and they had learned quite a bit. They had been able to radio tag about 25 of the fish over the last two years to try to evaluate what was going on. The fish were staying in one spot under the ice until around Christmas and a week later people were fishing in those areas and the fish were still hanging around. People could not fish over the limited number of trophy fish while they were spawning. It would disrupt it and be the end of them and we wanted to protect those fish. Fish were concentrated in Lily Bay and still spawning. They typically took stomachs from the fish they saw in the winter time, and one was a brook trout that had fed on brook trout eggs the last week of January. Angler reports and photos also indicated brook trout full of eggs in January. They typically flew over Moosehead in the winter to count anglers and Lily Bay split areas two and three. Areas two and three represented about 25% of the annual use on Moosehead. Historically, use had been around 12,000 angler days in the winter, around 3,000 angler days in the Lily Bay area. The last few years the fishermen had found the large fish and they were seeing 45-50% of the total use was in Lily Bay and use had doubled to 10,000 angler days almost all focused in one area trying to catch the big trout.

Mr. Obrey stated our first priority was to protect the late shore spawning brook trout in the narrows of Lily Bay. The current harvest was not sustainable. The precedent had already been set on Moosehead, Spencer Bay was already closed for that purpose because there were post spawning fish that congregated there after they came out of the Roach River. We needed to develop a regulation that would protect the fish from all fishing. We were proposing to close off an area of that. We looked at measures to go further to protect the trophy fishery that had developed lake wide. The area we were proposing close went from Sugar Island to Laker Point which was southeast of Two Mile Island; from the property line for the state park over to Sugar Island just southwest of Dollar Island. We looked at pros and cons and wanted to come up with a regulation that was easy for the public to understand and for Warden Service to interpret and enforce. We didnt want to pit ice fishermen vs. summer fishermen.

Commissioner Camuso asked if the fish were spawning from October all the way into January or were they just spawning in January?

Mr. Obrey stated in the Lily Bay area they were probably coming in sometime in mid-November and done by the end of January. Back to the regulation, we focused on slot limits because they could be modified to do exactly what we wanted. An 18-22 protective slot was selected summer and winter. People could still take home a fish to put on the wall and there were a lot of anglers that still wanted to take home a fish to eat. There would be some hooking mortality, but we knew about 30% of the brook trout harvested for the last 3 years were in the protective slot. The population of trout in Moosehead was very healthy and there were a lot of 12-13 fish and about 5% of the catch were 22-24. Those were the fish people would be able to keep a trophy in. The proposed slot limit would be applied to the Moose River, east outlet because the brook trout in Moosehead would go up and down the tributaries and the outlet. It allowed people to keep a small fish to eat or a trophy, a 5 lb. trout. He had a focus group that dealt just with Moosehead and their support was unanimous.

Mr. Smith asked with respect to slot limits, was there a greater increase of injury to the fish being handled to be measured for the 18-22 slot limit vs. a later opening during ice fishing season or shutting it down November-December.

Mr. Obrey stated as a rule, we generally figured that there would be around 30% mortality in the winter time from fish released because they were hooked with bait. In the summer it was probably closer to 10 -15%. The mortality would be at a lower rate than what we were currently seeing with the harvest.

Mr. Thurston asked if the success on the big trout was only during a certain period of time during the winter or were they available during the summer season for catch.

Mr. Obrey stated anglers caught a lot of them in the summertime. It was concentrated in the winter in January mostly at Lily Bay.

Ms. Ware stated there was a possibility this was happening at other bodies of water as well because there had been some reports of females with eggs. How did they keep that apart for other bodies of water as well, that it was just not females retaining eggs well past the spawning time.

Mr. Obrey stated the information he received from other bodies of water, he had two independent anglers focus in on a specific spot. They would go there in mid-November and put in trap nets to try and capture some of the fish and radio tag them to find out what they were doing.

Mr. Frost stated the proposal for Big Reed was to revert back to before the restoration project that began in 2007. Currently, the rule on Big Reed was fairly restrictive with fly fishing only and arctic charr must be released, and a 2-fish bag limit on brook trout with the general law length limit of 6. That was a precautionary measure put in place at the beginning of the restoration project. The proposal signified the success of the project. The first six years was really the work on the ground and the seven years since we had been monitoring the population. We had a fairly small number of charr in Maine. It was a very important resource culturally and genetically. We put a lot of time into managing a few populations that had problems in recent years. Charr looked quite different from brook trout, in some populations the males would be a neon orange. Within populations and between populations the variations were incredible. The goals of the restoration project were to eradicate invasive smelt. They were documented in 1991 at Big Reed and the goals were to restore the ecosystem function. We wanted charr, trout and a dace system which we thought was the historical fish group there. The second priority was to restore the sport fishery. The planning team, the Bradford Camps and the Nature Conservancy and Maine DEP as well as the University of Maine were very important partners in the project over a number of years. The Nature Conservancy owned the entire watershed in a reserve and most of the watershed had not been harvested for timber, about 4,000 acres.

Mr. Frost stated the problem at Big Reed, they had a number of invasive fish, most notably smelt, that caused the issues. There was a severe decline in both Arctic charr and brook trout, both fish were important genetically and culturally. In this case, there was an overlap in diet. The smelt would overlap with young charr. After 2005 we saw almost no recruitment of young fish. There were very few adult fish in the pond. From 2007-2010 we captured charr and trout and held them in a hatchery. The Department contracted with Gary Picard at Mountain Springs Trout Farm in Frenchville working closely with Gary to culture the fish and maintain and increase the numbers, so we had fish of the same genetic stock to restore the population after the reclamation. The reclamation was in October of 2010 and for three years reintroduced charr and trout in a staged manner. In 1989 and 1993 we felt the population there was fairly healthy. Smelt were confirmed in 1991 and we didnt feel they had a negative effect at that point. The 1993 data point there was a population estimate at that time based on catch, mark and release study and the estimate at the time was 600 charr of catchable size in Big Reed. In 2004 to 2010 the population was low based on an intensive effort to catch charr to move to the hatchery. In that block of 6 years it was a total effort of over 600 gill nets set. We had been back several times since the reintroduction started in 2011and in 2017 we documented at least three age classes of charr by scale samples. We found that charr had spawned the very first year we reintroduced them in 2011. It was a big milestone to reach and the numbers had rebounded to the late 80s or early 90s. In 2019 we did 10-15 gill net sets and the population had rebounded nicely. That was the basis for the rule proposal to go back to allowing harvest of Arctic charr and also allowing people to use artificial lures only. We would not keep the length restrictions that we had prior to the restoration project, that was a 10 minimum length.

Mr. Lubejko stated he had one final presentation with an overview of the errors, conflict and confusion theme that was included in the packet. It was conflicting regulations, inconsistencies, inadvertent omissions, errors and confusing regulations. Most of these were identified through our FLOAT mapping process. Through that process we had to look at each line of each special, and he thought at the time there were about 1,700 in the lawbook and really make sure the language made sense and also look at them spatially and see if there was any overlap. Once we noticed an issue we looked through the other regulations within the lawbook to see if that issue persisted. In the 64 specials that were included in the theme there were some similar themes within the theme. It was also in line with our effort to simplify and clean up the lawbook where we were striving to reduce the number of specials. In the last 5 years we had seen a reduction of nearly 300 special regulations. In the current proposed packet we would see an additional reduction of 6 more regulations. We were also striving for consistent language and making the specials easier to interpret as part of the simplification effort.

Mr. Lubejko gave some examples discussing Moxie Pond "and tributaries and extensions for fall fishing; Moccasin Pond and outlet; and Aroostook River. The Aroostook River drainage (ARD) was a unique regulation within Maine where all landlocked salmon in the entire watershed must be released alive at once. This was enacted in the mid-90s in response to a public request for more catch and release opportunities in the area. However, it was not currently consistent with management goals and objectives and a huge burden on the FLOAT tool. The ARD was about 7% of Maines total area but accounted for about 30% of all the map features in our FLOAT tool, about 5,500 records. We had to create a new field in the database to manage it. It appeared to be over regulated compared to the rest of the state. Looking at the drainage and isolating the records that were only flowing waters in the drainage closed to the taking of salmon vs. the rest of the special regulations in the drainage, we were proposing to eliminate the catch and release on salmon and that would reduce much of the issue there. There were still special regulations that needed to stay in place within the drainage, but the regulations within the drainage would conform with current management goals and objectives and also free up storage space in the mapping tool. All of the changes within the theme were really to address more spring-cleaning type of things, things that did not make sense in the lawbook. The regions had been consulted to ensure the proposals were in line with current management goals and objectives. This was an ongoing effort to clean up the lawbook as time went on.

V. Other Business

Commissioner Camuso stated she thought members of the Council were aware there was a motion to try and stop the 2020 moose hunting season. We received note that the Superior Court dismissed the appeal of the moose rules and also denied the motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the 2020 moose hunting season. The formal court decision would be forwarded to the Council so they would have that for their records.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

There were no public comments or questions.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Sage and that was seconded by Mrs. Peet to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Virtual TEAMS meeting
(contact Becky Orff at 287-5202 or becky.orff@maine.gov by close of business on 10/19 for details on how to participate)
Tuesday, October 20, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order - 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions




III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

1. Step 3
   1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2021 - Francis Brautigam
2. Step 2
   1. There are no items under Step 2.
3. Step 1
   1. Ch. 6 Educational and Scientific Collection permit rules - Christl Theriault
   2. Ch. 7 Wildlife Rehabilitation Rules - Jim Connolly
   3. Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition - Commissioner Camuso
   4. Predator Killing Contests prohibition petition - Commissioner Camuso
   5. Coyote trapping prohibition petition - Commissioner Camuso

V. Other Business


VI. Councilor Reports - 11:30 A.M.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment - 12:00 P.M.

Advisory Council Meeting
September 17, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife ((This council meeting was held during Governor Mill's State of Emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic limiting the ability to hold public meetings. Participation was by video conference - Microsoft TEAMS meeting))


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries Division Director
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Matt Thurston (Chair)
Jerry Scribner (Vice-Chair)
Brian Smith
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Kristin Peet
Lindsay Ware
Shelby Rousseau
Vacancy in Piscataquis/Somerset Cty


GUESTS
34 additional Department staff and members of the public




I. Call to Order

Council Chair, Matt Thurston called the meeting to order.


II. Introductions

Introductions were made.


III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

Amotion was made by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: unanimous - minutes approved.


IV. Rulemaking


A. Step 3

1. Bear Feeding Rule Petition

Commissioner Camuso stated the Department gave a thorough overview of our opinion on the proposal at Step . Jen Vashon gave a review of public comments as well as the Department's considerations and why we did not support the petitioner's request.

A motion was made by Mr. Thurston that the proposed rule change ought not to pass and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: The seven (7) members present voted unanimously ought not to pass. (Mr. Cowperthwaite was not present at the time of the vote.)


B. Step 2

1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2021

Mr. Brautigam stated as part of the Department's commitment to make the public more aware of our rulemaking process we utilized .Gov delivery with an email blast on August 12, 2020 that went to about 147,000 members of the public. In addition, we reached over 20,000 individuals through a Facebook post. Public comment closed on September 10, 2020 and we received 75 written comments. Many of the comments gravitated towards one of three areas, Cushman Pond, Moosehead Lake and Big Reed. The public hearing that was held had three members of the public participating and all three submitted testimony. Overall, public input had been positive but there were always areas of individual water concerns. We also received comments that were not germane to the proposal, but something for future consideration. We also responded to public questions regarding the rule packet. Sometimes there was misinformation or misunderstanding about what was being proposed and we were diligent in trying to provide information back to the public so they were more accurately aware of what we were trying to accomplish. The theme bundling used for the proposals seemed well received and helped the public orient to what was in the packet and better clarify what the intent of the rule bundles were.

Mr. Brautigam stated on Moosehead Lake, the public comments were overall very supportive. The ones that werent suggested alternative strategies that the Department had previously considered. There wasnt any additional information that came in through public comment that represented information the Department had not considered in the development of its rule proposal. What Tim Obrey put together and developed in the draft proposal represented an appropriate balance between resource interests while also providing meaningful angling opportunities. There were a number of comments suggesting we had not gone far enough. Mr. Brautigam felt the proposal struck the right balance there.

Mr. Brautigam stated on Big Reed Pond, the comments that came in expressed some concern. The concern was mostly uncertainty regarding whether the charr population had actually recovered to a point that we could reestablish a rule regimen that was historically in place. If you looked at some of the earlier planning that went on with Big Reed the plan was to reestablish those rules once we had an established restored population. There were some that had concerns with reallowing some of the terminal tackle restrictions that were allowed under artificial lures only (ALO). There was a general recognition that use on Big Reed Pond, because it was a remote pond, was very low. Most of the use was supported by a couple of guides that worked the water and managed their clients there. They would have an influence, ultimately on what was harvested or gear type used. A strong sentiment was expressed by some of the public that the rules that we were proposing at Big Reed did not align with the agencys commitment to conservation there. Mr. Brautigam stated he took exception to that perspective. While the rules were not necessarily focused on conservation, they were consistent with our long-term planning and management of the resource. The comment was made more the perception of optics, how did it look in a water with a high value resource that we were now allowing people the opportunity potentially to harvest. Was that sending the wrong message? The Departments perspective, one of the challenges we had in a statewide context was that people had gotten to a point where they felt releasing fish was a good thing and they were doing it so much now it had created some challenges in our ability to create harvest and to help managers to improve the quality of the fisheries in the state.

Mr. Brautigam stated it was mentioned the proposal at Big Reed was born out of a public request. One of the outfitters, Bradford Camps, had reached out to regional biologist Frank Frost expressing concern that his clients were not able to have successful fishing trips later in the season. He was looking to explore the prospect of a liberalized terminal gear provision that would allow people that may be less skilled to have the opportunity to catch a charr which were very deep dwelling later in the season. There was another guide, Matt Libby, who had guides that were very proficient at catching charr with a fly rod. Other guides were not as proficient. So, there were some that were very happy keeping things the way they were for FFO because they had figured out how to catch the fish and their clients were happy. Other clients were struggling and they would like some of the same success. It had always been the Departments plan, even from the onset of rebuilding the population at Big Reed to reestablish reasonable opportunities for limited harvest. The proposal was very consistent with Department plans and certainly supported interest by at least one of the two prominent guides on the water.

Mr. Brautigam stated there were a couple of comments related to the integrity of the data that was used to make a determination that the charr population had recovered there. We had previously conducted telemetry work on the pond in an effort to identify where Arctic charr were spawning. That was to facilitate collections and private culture of the fish for restocking. None of the work using telemetry equipment in any way had any benefit or influence on our status sampling that we did there to determine whether or not a recovery had been realized. Status assessment we conducted was done with gill nets during the summertime, not in the fall. Information on where the charr were in the fall in no way biased any of the sampling that was conducted during the summer months. There was no way he or staff would advance any rule proposals that would undermine the integrity and health of the Arctic charr population. We were committed to conserving the resource into the future and provide a variety of use opportunities in managing that resource. Looking at the other Arctic charr waters, we did allow harvest. There were a few where we did not such as Floods Pond because it was a water district pond and closed to fishing. We currently did not allow harvest on Big Reed and Wadleigh Ponds. We did not allow harvest at Wadleigh because the charr population was still in recovery and we hadnt made an assessment in determining whether the population had recovered. When it was determined the population had recovered we would revisit the regulations that should be in place to manage the resource into the future. By practice, we did allow some limited harvest on all our Arctic charr populations in support of recreational fishing and to provide recreational anglers with a diversity of opportunities including harvesting a fish.

Mr. Brautigam stated the bulk of the comments received on the rule packet pertained to Cushman Pond. It had been the focus of a nearly 20-year milfoil eradication effort. It never had very heavy infestations of milfoil, but it was present and the local community had been working diligently to remove and eradicate milfoil from that water. It appeared they were successful based on recent reports. There was a perception that milfoil was established in that water as the result of bait harvesting. It could not be confirmed, but maybe possible. Many of the commercial harvesters were using gear type that was more difficult to clean and disinfect, primarily sweep seines. Nets remained wet, there were a lot of folds and surface area that allowed for material to become entangled and unless there were deliberate actions to sort through and dry out the nets there were opportunities for plants to be moved inadvertently by transferring nets to different water bodies. It was for that reason the Department had really looked at the commercial and recreational harvest of bait fish very closely. We determined that using sweep seines was a high-risk gear type for translocating invasive plants. We looked at use of bait traps which were much smaller and made of non-porous materials which could be easily inspected and cleaned. We looked at the use of bait traps as a low risk gear type for transporting and translocating invasive plants. In the mid-2000s we established a policy as it related to commercial harvest of baitfish on waters that were infested with invasive plants. On waters that had established populations of invasive plants, we prohibited the use of sweep seines because of the higher risk of translocation. We did allow the use of bait traps because we viewed that as a low risk gear type that could be fished with minimum risk for translocating invasive plants. In Maine we were fortunate to have well established baitfish populations that supported long traditions of people fishing with baitfish. There was an important economy that revolved around commercial harvest and retail sale of baitfish. We wanted to ensure that we maintained baitfishing opportunities and had a strong local source of clean baitfish. If there were reduced opportunities and ability to satisfy the retail baitfish market in Maine, it would create strong incentives for baitfish to come in from outside the state. Even though it was illegal to import from outside the state, that didnt preclude people from taking advantage of financial incentives to bring fish from outside the state into Maine. Along with fish that came in from outside the state were other things that accompanied them including invertebrates and mollusks.

Mr. Brautigam stated at Cushman Pond a lot of misinformation had been circulated as it related to what we were proposing. Two years ago, we had opened Cushman Pond to harvest using bait traps for commercial harvest which was consistent with what we allowed on all the other waters that were infested with invasive milfoil. We had a rule in place on Cushman Pond that prohibited recreational harvest. The proposed change was to create consistency between commercial and recreational interests. We were trying to understand how allowing recreational anglers to harvest bait would impact ongoing efforts to eradicate milfoil and we had not received a good answer. Mr. Brautigam thought a lot of the concerns the public had on Cushman Pond was more related to the perception that it was the bait dealers that brought in the milfoil to begin with and if we allowed people to continue to harvest with gear types including traps that might create a low risk of reestablishing milfoil back into the waterway. At a recent meeting that Jim Pellerin conducted with the local community it was very productive and generated some very constructive comments for recommendations. Some of the recommendations were not related to the rule proposal but were related to additional efforts the Department should consider to better manage commercial bait harvest including the development of some biosecurity protocols and expectations, maybe license conditions, in terms of what the bait dealers should be expected to do in terms of cleaning and gear inspections between water types. The Department supported that and planned to move forward with the recommendation. They had also requested additional messaging in the lawbook. Adding some increased awareness regarding moving gear types between waters was valid and something we would explore further.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Scribner stated he thought the public comments by and large had been very complimentary. From a biological perspective, it was his opinion they had done a wonderful job even with Cushman Pond and Big Reed Pond questions. His concern moving forward was, we had the biological end of the discussion and from an Advisory Council perspective, there was also a responsibility on their part to understand and hear the public comments. In terms of Cushman Pond, they had been inundated with input against the proposal. Going forward to Step 3, he wondered if this wasnt a situation whereby recognizing the publics concern regarding Cushman Pond if we were not losing something. We needed the public support going forward with any of the proposals and given the body of work was so welcomed by the public he hoped when they went to Step 3 that we were able to balance the public comments with the biological reasoning and responses and see whether or not we wanted to make any edits to the proposal based on one or two bodies of water going forward.

Mrs. Peet stated we all had bodies of water that we loved in the state and she would be devastated if the lake she loved became infested with milfoil so she felt for the community and folks that worked so diligently to remove the milfoil from Cushman Pond. She also heard Mr. Brautigams comments about baitfish and did not want to see anything imported from out of state. She wondered if this one pond would make a significant difference in the bait dealers. Did we know how many bait dealers were working out of Cushman Pond?

Mr. Brautigam stated it was a small water. The proposal would only allow recreational anglers to harvest for personal use. We were already allowing commercial harvest on the water, that was not in play. The only proposal in play was whether or not we also allow recreational anglers to put in a bait trap to collect bait for personal use. There were probably a few local people that would use the pond on occasion to harvest for personal use.

Mrs. Peet asked if they were required to use box traps as opposed to nets.

Mr. Brautigam stated the only group of people in Maine that could use any kind of nets were commercial fisherman. Recreational fishermen could only use the rigid bait traps. At Cushman Pond even though the pond was open to commercial harvest, it was only open to commercial using bait traps. We viewed the nets as being a high risk of translocation which was why we did not allow their use on any of the waters that had milfoil.

Mr. Smith asked how many acres the pond was and what types of baitfish were there.

Mr. Brautigam stated it was approximately 50 acres and there were golden shiners there. It historically was a reclaimed trout pond and now there were suckers, bullheads and a pretty good mix of other things that had ended up in the waterway. It was predominantly golden shiners. Mr. Sage stated on Big Reed, what was the capacity of fish allowed to be harvested without effecting all the hard work that had been done there.

Mr. Brautigam stated looking back prior to 2008 when we did allow harvest, now with the current catch and release ethic and the fact this was a remote pond most people were coming in with a guide and they were probably going to continue to advocate for catch and release. There wouldnt be much harvest opportunity occurring. Charr were a difficult fish to catch especially later in the season even if we allowed ALO which was what we had prior to 2008. He could not give a specific number of fish that would have to come out to affect the integrity of the fishery. Under the new strategic plan that was being drafted, we were going to be monitoring Arctic charr waters on a more regular basis.

Mr. Sage asked if it were possible to set up a permitting system or lottery for a set number of fish to be removed. He assumed they would need guides to get set up to fish there and there would be more control. He assumed Arctic charr were a trophy fish and hard to catch similar to moose.

Mr. Brautigam stated he felt a lottery would be challenging to implement on a small water when looking at the scope of our management responsibilities statewide. He didnt feel there were a lot of people that would harvest fish there. Some may want to try one to eat or there may be a situation where they felt the fish they caught would not survive because of water temperature or the way it was hooked. It provided the opportunity for some harvest, but there would not be any meaningful harvest that would occur by reestablishing the rules that we previously had in place that did maintain a good viable population.

Ms. Ware stated Mr. Brautigam mentioned a meeting with the local community and getting some constructive feedback. She was curious when they were talking to people if there was an understanding of the explanations having to do with the bait traps being a lower risk way of trapping bait. The Council understood, but they wanted to make sure the people that were having concerns were also understanding. They saw the comments but were not always sure there was an understanding in return of the explanation and clarification. Some people were confused as to what the proposal really was, a lot of the comments were on commercial trapping.

Mr. Brautigam stated Jim Pellerin conducted the meeting on behalf of the Department. The meeting addressed a number of misunderstandings that were floating around. Anything that could bring in a plant, that was something they viewed as unacceptable. There were a lot of people that were not aware there were different gear types that were in play. We were able to provide some clarity in distinguishing the risk levels with the different gear types. The people that lived on the water and made the investments they had were very committed to maintaining a water that was free of milfoil and we certainly wanted to see the same outcome and supported those efforts. We were trying to balance risk and benefit in all user groups, this was a public water of the state not a private pond.

Ms. Ware stated she just wanted to know once they were provided with more information if there was understanding or if they were still opposed even with the low risk.

Mr. Brautigam stated they would like the Department to delay implementing the rule change to allow recreational harvest for personal use for 10 years. He could not justify or explain why the delay would be meaningful, but it was requested.

Ms. Ware asked if we felt a lot of the local community missed when it was changed for commercial harvest. The comments indicated a lot of people were unaware that happened.

Mr. Brautigam stated the effort that was changed involved changing lists that we manage that currently did not go through a rulemaking process.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated his experience with Big Reed Pond and the access difficulties to get there and the two guides that fished it, he was comfortable with what the Department had proposed.

Mr. Thurston stated with Moosehead Lake he got the sense we hadnt gone far enough, but the Department going forward with the proposal and protecting a wonderful natural resource that was growing trophy fish was a step in the right direction. Most people he spoke with wanted to protect it even more. It was a wonderful thing when there was so much support and they felt passionate about protecting that resource. On Big Reed Pond, he thought Mr. Cowperthwaites comments held a lot of perspective because he was very familiar with that. Catch and release, and he used the example of lake trout on Sebago Lake, they had a hard time getting people to support them to eliminate some of the lake trout. Catch and release was huge and he felt the Department was accurate saying that most individuals that caught an Arctic charr would be more apt to let the fish go. People were very concerned about the resource because it was a prize or a trophy and they loved the opportunity to catch one. Nothing hurt an angler more than when you put a fish back in the water and knew it would die and not be able to bring it home, the opportunity to do that seemed right. On Cushman Pond, he represented Cumberland County and had a couple of high-profile bait dealers that lived in the district and contacted him regularly about the state limiting their ability to harvest bait. He thought consistency was the answer. Last year, some bait dealers in the Sebago region had a bait shortage. They were going all over the state to try to meet the demands. It was a lot of kids and was part of the R3 initiative, the kids loved to go out and recreate and if we couldnt provide them ample opportunity for bait and things of that nature, we were going to be in trouble. We needed to utilize all resources of Maine especially if they were public resources. Mr. Thurston asked Mr. Brautigam if Cushman Pond had a public boat launch.

Mr. Brautigam stated he believed it was town owned. The water was closed to motorboats.

Mr. Thurston stated that was important to know, some of the small ponds had an observer there to go over the boat trailer for inspection. With some information to the recreational people that would be taking bait, which he thought was a pretty small group of people. He would like to know if there were any commercial bait fishermen there within the last two years since the change.

Mr. Brautigam stated he thought one of Mr. Thurstons constituents had been there. He put in a few bait traps, he was a commercial license holder, while he was in the area deer hunting. There was little use on the commercial side there.

There were no further questions or comments.


C. Step 1

1. Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition

Commissioner Camuso stated the Department received a valid petition. The proposal would be advertised and open for public comment beginning September 23, 2020. There would be a public hearing on October 15, 2020. It was a request to add Notched Pond in Gray to limit it to watercraft with motors 10 horsepower or less. Along with their petition they listed reasons why they thought it was important for the Department to consider. It was a small pond so their feeling was watercraft with greater than 10 horsepower compromised safety of people swimming, using small watercraft, destroyed the natural shoreline, caused destruction, loss of property, decreased property value, decreased water quality and cleanliness, etc. The petition was brought forward to the Department by residents in the area looking to limit the horsepower on the body of water.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Rousseau asked how many acres the pond was and what was the average depth of the deepest part.

Commissioner Camuso stated it was 77 acres and 21 feet at its deepest.

Mr. Brautigam stated there was no public access to the pond, it was privately accessed. It was interesting the regulation request came forward it appeared they were policing themselves.

Mr. Thurston stated probably someone had a big boat on the lake and others were not happy.

Mr. Brautigam stated Notched Pond was a water that did not have public access, there were no real opportunities unless you knew someone on the water to get access. On parts of the pond some of the roads were gated. It was just the people on the water that were going to be affected by the proposal.

Mrs. Rousseau asked if the fishery was managed by the Department.

Mr. Brautigam stated because there was no public access the Department did not actively manage the fishery. It predominantly supported warm water species.

There were no further questions or comments.

1. Predator killing contests prohibition petition

Commissioner Camuso stated this was a petition brought forward to the Department. The public hearing was scheduled for October 6, 2020 via Teams. The comment period was open, and we had received comments. The petition included more than just predator hunting, and she asked Nate Webb to give an overview.

Mr. Webb stated the proposal would make a number of changes regarding coyote hunting and management in general. It would establish a definition in rule for coyote as a hybrid between coyotes, wolves and domestic dogs. It would also establish a definition for predator hunting contests and then prohibit those contests. The proposed rule would require that coyotes taken during the hunting season be registered in the manner similar to other big game species at registration stations; adjust coyote hunting season dates from what was currently a year round season to one that was closed from March through August for hunting during the day; it would establish a daily bag limit on coyotes of one animal and possession limit of five; prohibit the harvest of any coyote equal to or greater than 40 pounds, and prohibit the use of bait for hunting coyotes.

Mr. Sage asked how they were supposed to determine if the canine was below 40 pounds? Were they supposed to weigh them before harvesting them?

Commissioner Camuso stated it was a petition that was brought forward. We would have Shevenell Webb give an overview to the Council after the comment period closed and give the Departments perspective on how any of the items might be implemented.

Colonel Scott stated it would be a challenge. Hunters, the first time they encountered bear or coyote which they did not often see, they found it typical that people under or over estimated the size of an animal. That would be something they would need to explore further if it were to move forward as to how someone would determine a coyote was 34 pounds or 41 pounds prior to shooting it.

Mrs. Peet asked if Maine allowed predator killing contests or competitions.

Mr. Webb stated there was no prohibition on contests, fishing derbies, big buck contests, etc. There were a number of different contests to reward or promote otherwise legal activities. This would fall in that category currently.

Mr. Thurston stated he did not believe the Department sanctioned or sponsored the events. The events usually took place as a purpose for a store or some other fish and game club. They were used to drive incentive to hunt a particular animal and receive some recognition after the fact on who shoots the biggest. It was not an IFW sponsored thing, it happened outside in the sporting community. It was a contest, you were out doing the thing you loved to do and that was some recognition for being successful doing what you love to do. Obviously, it was different with coyotes but some of the perspective of the sportsmen engaged in the contests was they believed they were doing a stroke of business for yarding deer in some areas or things of that nature.

Mr. Smith asked if it had been definitively decided that coyotes were an invasive species, and would the Department put out a position paper on the petition similar to what they received on the bear feeding proposal.

Mr. Webb stated we would go through the public comment period and based on feedback and perspectives on the petition and the management of coyotes we would present the Council with Department recommendations and our position on the petition. Regarding coyotes and whether or not they were invasive, that was a challenging question. Coyotes were native to Western North America, they expanded into Eastern North America after wolves were extirpated and in doing so interbred to some degree with both wolves and domestic dogs. The animal here now came here on its own, it wasnt transported into the state by humans, but the latest research showed it was a genetic mixture of western coyote, wolves and domestic dog, primarily coyote. It was a challenging issue, biologically the genetics there was constant debate over eastern wolves, coyotes, western wolves and where the line was between those different animals. From a policy perspective, nationally, wolf genetics was very complicated and subject to a great deal of debate and there were significant implications for that discussion because of the fact wolves had been listed under the Endangered Species Act. The animals we had that we referred to as coyotes, did come here on its own. Whether it was considered an invasive species, that was subject to each individuals perspective.

Mr. Scribner asked if the Departments response during Step 2 was going to delineate IFWs position on predation and its impact on managed hunting species such as whitetailed deer.

Mr. Webb stated would could incorporate that.

Mr. Scribner stated another item that should be discussed when the Department gave their response to the petition was whether or not there was a belief that by designating coyotes as a distinct species whether that would open the door to Federal protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. Webb stated there was no Federal protection for coyotes. He did not feel that would be an issue in regard to the petition.

There were no further comments or questions.

1. Coyote trapping prohibition petition

Commissioner Camuso stated this was a petition that was brought forward to the Department to prohibit coyote trapping. The comment period was open and a public hearing was scheduled for October 7, 2020 via Microsoft Teams. The furbearer biologist, Shevenell Webb would be at the Step 2 meeting to give an overview of the petition and the Departments perspective once the comment period was closed.

Mr. Webb stated this would remove coyotes from both the statewide general trapping season and the early fox and coyote season. It would prohibit trapping for coyotes in Maine.

Mr. Thurston asked if this was a group or individual that brought the petitions forward.

Commissioner Camuso stated the two coyote petitions were brought forward by John Glowa from China, Maine.

Mr. Thurston stated basically it appeared they were attributing the coyote as a wolf. He asked if they had done that at a Federal level in any other state or set precedent?

Mr. Webb stated as he understood it, there were currently no states that regulated the management of coyote due to concerns over the fact that wolves were listed Federally in portions of the country.


V. Other Business

Commissioner Camuso stated she would like to make the Council aware the Department's podcast, Fish & Game Changers, was recognized by Downeast Magazine as one of the best Maine 2020 which was quite amazing.


VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.


VII. Public Comments & Questions

Tom Johnson stated he was representing the Maine Native Fish Coalition. They had submitted a detailed written response to the fisheries rulemaking packet and would like to take the opportunity to reiterate and elaborate on their concerns about the changes proposed for Big Reed Pond. The proposal would remove the catch and release mandate on Arctic charr and replace it with a two fish limit to include both brook trout and Arctic charr and remove the fly fishing only restriction and replace it with an artificial lures only restriction. Big Reed Pond was chemically reclaimed in 2011 to remove non-native baitfish that were threatening Big Reeds rare Arctic charr population. They did not believe enough time had lapsed since the reclamation to declare Big Reed as fully recovered. Reinstituting terminal gear and harvest restrictions consistent with the pre-registration regulation seemed premature and unnecessary considering what was at risk. The Native Fish Coalition was concerned that the removal of the FFO restriction in favor of ALO would result in an increase in incidental mortality due to the use of treble hooks, multi hook lures, lead to use of synthetic bait as well as trolling which made targeting Arctic charr that much easier. ALO also put them one step closer to the illegal use of live fish as bait which could result in reestablishment of non-native invasive minnows in Big Reed Pond. There was also no reason to allow any harvest of Arctic charr, the rarest salmonid east of the Rocky Mountains especially in a water that was still recovering from a recent chemical reclamation. They were also concerned that those seeking regulation changes were initiated by a public request appeared to come from a private business, rather than a biological need. They were concerned with the precedent it set. Utmost caution should be exercised when the recovery of one of only twelve wild native Arctic charr populations in the contiguous United States was at risk. There seemed to be an increasing amount of outdoor activity with the virus going on and an increase in recreational dam construction in the rivers and streams and that seemed to be growing. The Department should be aware of the possibility that it would prevent fish from moving in those waters.

Claire Perry stated she would encourage everybody to consider and be clear about the coyote status as an invasive species. She was 99.9% sure they were not an animal to be considered an invasive species in Maine especially in the lower half where they really needed them for many reasons from overpopulation of deer to Lyme disease problems. Coyotes were helpful in that regard. To be killing them indiscriminately was causing problems for them. The predator contests were worth considering, personally she thought the 40-pound weight limit was ridiculous. The predator killing contests for keystone species were not beneficial for the majority of the state. In Aroostook County they were having considerations for trying to bring their deer herd back, but there was more to Maine than up there and they were appreciating the coyotes where she was in the lower half.


VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. via Microsoft Teams.


IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Sage and that was seconded by Mr. Smith to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Virtual TEAMS meeting
(contact Becky Orff at 287-5202 or becky.orff@maine.gov by close of business on 11/18 for details on how to participate)
Tuesday, November 19, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order - 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions




III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

1. Step 3
   1. There are no items under Step 3.
2. Step 2
   1. Ch. 6 Educational and Scientific Collection permit rules - Christl Theriault
   2. Ch. 7 Wildlife Rehabilitation Rules - Jim Connolly
   3. Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition - Commissioner Camuso
   4. Predator Killing Contests prohibition petition - Commissioner Camuso
   5. Coyote trapping prohibition petition - Commissioner Camuso
3. Step 1
   1. Long Pond horsepower restriction petition - Commissioner Camuso
   2. Airboat noise rules - Colonel Dan Scott

V. Other Business


VI. Councilor Reports - 11:30 A.M.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment - 12:00 P.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
October 20, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (This council meeting was held during Governor Mill's State of Emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic limiting the ability to hold public meetings. Participation was by video conference - Microsoft TEAMS meeting)


Attending:

Attending: Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries Division Director
Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Matt Thurston (Chair)
Jerry Scribner (Vice-Chair)
Brian Smith
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Kristin Peet
Lindsay Ware
Shelby Rousseau
Bob Duchesne
Vacancy in Piscataquis/Somerset Cty


GUESTS
12 additional Department staff and members of the public




I. Call to Order Matt Thurston, Council Chair called the meeting to order.


II. Introductions Introductions were made.


III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting A motion was made by Mr. Sage to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: unanimous minutes approved.


IV. Rulemaking


A. Step 3 1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2021

Mr. Brautigam stated we had made a strong effort at trying to increase both internal and external scrutiny and outreach supporting the 142 fishing regulation proposals. At Step 1 we invited key staff to provide presentations on proposals we anticipated would generate a lot of public interest. Moosehead Lake was amongst them; on Moosehead Lake we not only provided a series of written articles in local papers but also blog releases related to the proposal. In addition, Tim Obrey had done a lot of work communicating to stakeholders about what was involved in the development of the proposal. We utilized a Gov delivery email blast that allowed us to reach out to 147,000 of our customers making them aware of the rule packet. We also applied a theme based bundling of the rules that we hoped would make the process easier to digest by the Council and public. On August 31, 2020 we held a virtual public hearing, and there were 3 public members that participated. The comment period closed on September 10, 2020 and we received 75 written comments. Many of the comments were germane to the proposals that were pending. Overall, public feedback was supportive of the packet including the approach that was used in bundling the regulations. Moosehead Lake, Big Reed Pond and Cushman Pond generated most of the public dialog.

Mr. Brautigam stated on September 17, 2020 we convened Step 2 with the Advisory Council and provided a 4-page summary of the public comments that were received and provided agency insight on some of the more popular proposals. During Step 2, the focus of the council largely revolved around the numerous comments that came in on Cushman Pond. The Cushman Pond proposal would allow for recreational harvest of bait fish using bait traps. The Department considered bait traps to be low risk for transportation of invasive milfoil that was believed to be present in Cushman Pond. Waters where commercial fishing was allowed, commercial fishermen may not use sweep seines which were considered a much higher risk of translocating milfoil. We believed the proposed rule would create statewide consistency in gear type that was allowed on milfoil waters statewide and would also create consistency between commercial and recreational harvesters at Cushman Pond. Also underlying was the concern and need to maintain local sources of baitfish so as to discourage illegal importation and associated invasive concerns.

Mr. Brautigam stated some of the local concerns at Cushman Pond were largely rooted in speculation that bait harvesters had established the invasive milfoil there. If there were truth to that it was likely that it was commercial harvest using seines that would have likely contributed to that and not use of bait traps. As we became aware of the local concern regarding the pending proposal, we did reach out to the local community to convene a public informational meeting that was convened on September 13, 2020. The meeting was intended to convey awareness of the rule proposal and listen to the local community regarding their concerns. There were a number of constructive recommendations that were offered to the Department as it related to additional outreach to support not only commercial, but recreational harvest. The recommendations were being implemented and we were working on changes to messaging in the upcoming lawbook and the packet that was handed out to commercial anglers. The people at Cushman Pond had requested a second meeting because there were many that could not attend the first meeting. We were in the process of setting up a second meeting to ensure that there was a good exchange of information and the public understood why we proposed what we did. The public response at Cushman Pond reinforced the need within the Fisheries Division to continue efforts on improving outreach associated with rulemaking.

Mr. Brautigam stated allowing recreational harvest on Cushman Pond using what we considered to be low risk gear types created consistency in managing baitfish commercial harvest, as well as recreational harvest statewide while maintaining local sources of bait. The proposed rule provided a good balance in addressing the statewide issues of concern. We had considered the local risks and adopted additional measures based on recommendations provided by the local community. As a result, we had not proposed any changes to the rulemaking packet.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to adopt the proposal as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: In favor - unanimous. Motion passed.


B. Step 2 There were no items under Step 2.


C. Step 1

1. Ch. 6 Educational and Scientific Collection Permit Rules

Mrs. Theriault stated this was addressing a small change in the educational and scientific collection permit rule which was Chapter 6. We were trying to provide consistency with a statutory change that occurred a couple of years ago. Under scope of rules we were changing the term to "wildlife" instead of wild animals and wild birds. It would be more encompassing. Wildlife as defined by Title 12 included all species of the animal kingdom except fish so by making the change it allowed us to provide permits for people to collect reptiles and amphibians in addition to mammals and birds. There was also a small change under transfer of permits and instead of providing a letter to the permittee we would provide a written authorization.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Ch. 7 Wildlife Rehabilitation Rules

Mr. Connolly stated the proposed changes reflected the Departments effort to not only simplify laws and regulations, but also create more consistency between the sections of the rules. In the past, we had focused on enabling the activity but not managing the individuals that were participating in it for wildlife rehab. We authorized it and had people volunteer. For the most part, they had been supportive of the Departments efforts. There had been some challenges in accountability but also discerning between people that were qualified and participating in a way that was consistent with what the Departments objectives were and their own particular desires. In order to begin to separate out those issues we needed to have a clear accountability and standard for the selection of the individuals where there was an awareness of what they had to do to be a part of it and also how we could manage their interactions with the Department. There was a section in the rule about the selection of wildlife rehabbers based on the Departments needs. In order for the Department to turn someone down, because when we created a license or a permit we were essentially allowing anyone who met the standard that was defined the ability to get it. In order to begin to separate who got it or who didnt, we had to give a clear description of the criteria and qualifications so there was an awareness of that. If you wanted to be able to remove someone you had to set out the criteria for their behavior and give them a chance to understand what it was you expected them to do.

Mr. Connolly stated the Department would like to begin to identify those individuals that best met the Departments needs for wildlife rehab care. Beyond that, there were people that were looking to have individuals help them. We had identified three categories of helpers that were set up in statute. There were regular permitted wildlife rehabbers and volunteers. People that could go to a facility and under the direction of the licensed rehabber, volunteer. They couldnt take animals home, but they could care for animals at the facility as long as the licensed rehabber was there to watch them. We were also looking at establishing subpermittees that would have a little more authority. They could care for the animals in the absence of the licensed permittee and they could also for some situations take animals home. Sometimes with baby birds, young squirrels, etc. some of those animals needed 24-hour care which was difficult to administer from a facility. We wanted the animals cared for responsibly, so they did not become habituated to people. Anyone that had that ability to oversee the facility in the absence of the licensed rehabber, or take animals home, we wanted to recognize as a subpermittee, so we had control over who they were, where they were and under what conditions they had animals.

Mr. Connolly stated the last piece we looked at was asking that people be trained in order to become a wildlife rehabber. We wanted to recognize those that had a standard of excellence in interactions with the animals that was appropriate, and they would be authorized to serve as mentors for new people coming in. The hours under that individual could be credited towards a person becoming certified as a wildlife rehabber. We were trying to create consistency and accountability the same as we did with tagging stations, wildlife in captivity and animal damage control agents. It was to define what the Department wanted, who should be doing it and under what standard they would be allowed to do it and how they would be held accountable for it.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Rousseau asked how many wildlife rehabbers we had currently and if they were throughout all the counties.

Mr. Connolly stated they were spread around the state. He did not have an exact number. They were more focused in southern Maine. There were some that were run with a board of directors such as Avian Haven. There were some that were more focused on caring for squirrels in a local area or baby birds. That assisted the Department in a lot of ways in terms of the publics concern. Our challenge came with people that were less interested in releasing the animal after it was raised or rehabilitated.

There were no further questions or comments.

3. Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition

Commissioner Camuso stated the comment period was still open. This was a petition to prohibit motorboats with greater than 10 horsepower. A public hearing was held and everyone in attendance spoke in favor of the petition. The comment period did not close until October 26, 2020. She planned to visit the pond; it was referred to as small with an island in the middle. She wanted to see the pond before making a recommendation.

Council Member Questions and Comments

Mr. Duchesne stated he had studied the pond on Google earth, and it looked shallow. He also referenced Representative Fayes letter to the Department supporting the petition and she pointed out that much of the pond was only 500 feet wide, and with the 200-foot headway speed there was not a lot of room to move a big boat. Those two observations merited a visit to the pond.

Commissioner Camuso stated several people spoke about how they swam the length of the pond for exercise. It seemed to get a lot of non-motorized use from the local residents.

4. Predator killing contests prohibition petition & 5. Coyote trapping prohibition petition

Commissioner Camuso stated both of the items were being held at Step 1. There had been an abundance of comments and staff were assembling the comments. At the next meeting, Shevenell Webb the furbearer biologist would give a presentation to the group similar to what Jen Vashon did with the bear petition. Comments had come in on varying levels, some were very broad, some were specific or addressing multiple points. The Department would provide an overview at the next meeting.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Duchesne stated it would come back to the science for him. They could talk about ethical judgements about what was appropriate, but he would be very curious about the science. He remembered some of the sporting history of the past where Hawk Mountain in Pennsylvania used to be a place where hunters went to shoot every hawk out of the sky and now its a sanctuary. Contests where they were killing as much as possible hadnt always been good. On the other hand, we tried to limit the number of togue in Moosehead Lake and we had contests to eliminate the significant number of predators in order to manage the habitat and species involved. The more science they could get out of it the better.

Mr. Thurston stated he also looked at it in a broader species perspective where we tried to not let the species itself become its own worst enemy with tick propagation with respect to moose, etc. Bringing the species expert in would let them ask their questions.

Mr. Sage asked if it were to pass, it was only for predator killing contests not fishing derbies, biggest deer contests, etc.?

Commissioner Camuso stated we would have to consult with the Attorney Generals office to get clarification. As it was written it was for coyotes, but she would want to consult with the Attorney General.

Mr. Sage asked if they were allowed to respond to comments.

Commissioner Camuso stated our job was to listen to the public input and use it in consideration for making a recommendation on a vote. She would ask that they not engage in a back and forth. If people had questions regarding a council members vote, she felt they could address that but just in the general comments. Her expectation was the Department was there for all the citizens and we would listen to everyones opinion and not engage in a debate on the petition. We would hear from the biologists and then make a recommendation.

Ms. Ware asked if the next meeting would be more appropriate if she had questions about specifics on coyote contests if we had information about how common they were and things of that nature.

Commissioner Camuso stated if she could forward the specific questions, Shevenell could find answers for the next meeting.

Mr. Scribner stated he would caution the council to definitely dig into the details and really read the changes in both petitions. He wanted to stress to them to get past the title and to really look at the details that were being proposed.

Mr. Duchesne stated one of the things that was always a challenge for him was when the council had to make ethical judgements and then have those judgements go out to the sporting community. His ethics may be different than someone elses and he was very hesitant to make general broad decisions on what the ethical reality should be in Maine with the sporting community. He was most interested in the science, sorting out what was ethical and what wasnt, and then applying it to the entire sporting community was always going to be a challenge.

Mr. Smith stated he was appalled at the disparaging comments against the Department the he had read in a lot of the emails and comments criticizing the trained biologists and science as well as criticizing the Advisory Council which he knew from experience was a very deliberate body that looked at every aspect of an issue before making a decision. He wanted it on record that it bothered him to see those comments.

There were no further questions or comments.


V. Other Business There were no items under Other Business.


VI. Councilor Reports Councilors gave reports.


VII. Public Comments & Questions There were no public comments or questions.


VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date of Next Meeting The next two meetings were scheduled for Thursday, November 19, 2020 and Wednesday, December 16, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. via Microsoft Teams.


IX. Adjournment A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne and that was seconded by Mr. Sage to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Virtual TEAMS meeting
(contact Becky Orff at 287-5202 or becky.orff@maine.gov by close of business on 12/15 for details on how to participate)

Wednesday, December 16, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition...... Commissioner Camuso

2. Predator Killing Contests prohibition petitionCommissioner Camuso

3. Coyote trapping prohibition petition.. Commissioner Camuso

B. Step 2

1. Ch. 7 Wildlife Rehabilitation RulesJim Connolly

2. Long Pond horsepower restriction petition Commissioner Camuso

3. Airboat noise rules..Commissioner Camuso

C. Step 1

There are no items under Step 1.

V. Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 A.M.

VII. Public Comments & Questions




VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting




IX. Adjournment 12:00 P.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
November 19, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (This council meeting was held during Governor Mill's State of Emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic limiting the ability to hold public meetings. Participation was by video conference - Microsoft TEAMS meeting)


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Shevenell Webb, Furbearer Biologist
Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Matt Thurston (Chair)
Jerry Scribner (Vice-Chair)
Brian Smith
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Kristin Peet
Shelby Rousseau
Vacancy in Piscataquis/Somerset Cty


GUESTS
18 additional Department staff and members of the public




I. Call to Order Matt Thurston, Council Chair called the meeting to order.


II. Introductions

Introductions were made.


III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting A motion was made by Mr. Sage to accept the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous minutes approved.


IV. Rulemaking


A. Step 3 There were no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2 1. Ch. 6 Educational and Scientific Collection Permit Rules

Mrs. Theriault stated we received no public comment on the proposal. The rule would align with current statute. There was a legislative change a couple of years ago, and the rule in its entirety would allow the Department to permit organizations or individuals for collection of species when there was a scientific or educational endeavor. The law was changed from mammals and birds to include all wildlife so we could allow people to have permits to collect reptiles and amphibians. In order to make the rule consistent with the statute we were referencing wildlife. The comment deadline was November 13th and no public comments were received. The Department was ready to move forward with the proposed rule as written if the Council had no further questions or comments. The Council had no further comments or questions and a motion was made to move the proposal to Step 3 for a vote.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to move the rule as presented to Step 3 for a vote and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: unanimous motion passed; item moved to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to approve the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: unanimous motion passed.

2. Ch. 7 Wildlife Rehabilitation Rules

Mr. Connolly stated the comment period was open until November 20, 2020. We were adding four sections to the wildlife rehabilitation rules to establish that the Department could determine when and where wildlife rehab occurred within the state. That was to give the Department the ability to manage the permitting process going forward. It was not intended to go back and limit current permit holders. They could continue as long as they abided by the rules. There was a clear process if someone was not complying with the rules in terms of how they were noticed and how the permit would be revoked and did have rights to an appeal. We were also establishing a definition for what a volunteer was at a facility; we were creating a relationship where an approved facility could be designated as a training facility and begin to train additional individuals to become wildlife rehabbers and become subpermittees which would allow them more authority and ability to take care of animals as licensed rehabilitators, but working under an existing permitted individual. A public hearing was held on November 10, 2020 with 13 members of the public participating. They were very interested in understanding the rule and overall support with some questions. They were very anxious to continue working with the Department to strengthen the effectiveness of the program and ensure they were able to continue to participate and help the Department and care for wildlife.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Peet stated she attended the public hearing and it was great to hear the comments. Her impression was that the wildlife rehabbers kind of freaked out when they saw the rule proposal, but then realized the intention was not to crack down but to help clarify. There were some comments asking for slight changes in time periods or clarifying certain aspects and she wondered what the Departments response was to those questions.

Mr. Connolly stated during the public comment period we did not react and engage with the public. Once the comment period was closed, we would review them and develop a response if we were either in support of the change or explaining why it was that way. We did express at the hearing the way the rule was constructed for the Department to work with the rehabilitators to design specific criteria. A number of things in the rule were set up that the rehabber came to the Department with a plan and there had been some interest expressed by the wildlife rehabilitation community to join together to identify the plans and proposals as to what would be acceptable and help provide guidance to the Department.

Mrs. Peet stated it seemed the rehabbers were excited about the additional engagement with IFW. The response from IFW, was that a collective response that was put out as a statement or did IFW typically respond to each comment.

Commissioner Camuso stated they would get staff together and decide if any of the comments warranted a change in the rule proposal. If it was a minor change, then we could move forward with that. More than a minor change, we would have to readvertise the rule. Whatever rule was passed, we had to acknowledge all of the comments and what our response to those comments were. We did not necessarily have to explain it to the person but did have to make it clear when adopting the rule why we did or did not move forward with requested changes.

There were no further questions or comments.

3. Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition

Commissioner Camuso stated a public hearing was held and all the comments were in support of the proposal. She and Mr. Thurston did a site visit and looked at the pond and the public access point or where people might try to access the pond. They did not really find any public access. The Department did not have a current recommendation. It was a very small water body; you could practically canoe it in the time it would take to get the canoe off the car. She could appreciate the desire to have a horsepower limitation to a smaller engine size on the water body but was also sensitive to restricting access or homeowners or camp owners there that already had boats. She was sensitive to both sides of the issue and the precedent it would set for other water bodies. It was a complicated matter.

Mr. Thurston stated it was small and not very deep. From doing some research and being local to the area, there seemed to be an isolated issue with one particular individual. The individual had not commented which was unfortunate. What Commissioner Camuso had stated was true, and there was already another horsepower restriction petition up for discussion on that days agenda. They could see the publics concern that lived on the pond.

There were no further questions or comments.

4. Predator killing contests prohibition petition

Commissioner Camuso stated we received a number of comments on the proposal as well as the next proposal. The comment period had closed the day before the last Council meeting, so it was held at Step 2 in order to compile all the comments. A packet was provided with a summary of all the comments and the Departments recommendation. Furbearer biologist Shevenell Webb would walk them through the comments and Department recommendations.

Shevenell Webb gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Departments response to the coyote rule petitions beginning with the hunting petition. (Please contact becky.orff@maine.gov to request a copy of the presentation or comment summary.)

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Sage asked if the petition passed, would it effect other sporting contests such as fishing derbies, biggest deer contests, etc.

Commissioner Camuso stated we did not believe that it would.

Mr. Scribner stated as mentioned in Mrs. Webbs thorough and information presentation the public input received were very evenly split between opposition and support of the petition. By his count, approximately 60 of the comments in support focused solely on the emotional issue of killing contests. That was the title of the petition, killing contests, etc. and where the majority of people in support focused. If the petition only prohibited killing contests, it might have merited a different discussion. Whether or not the good of the contests outweighed the negative emotional response of some members of the public had was very debatable. Focusing on that aspect of the petition that was included in the title, in his opinion, was akin to having a petition entitled Columbus Day, etc. and disregarding that in the content, Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter and July 4th were also impacted. In his opinion, the details of the petition would effectively restrict coyote hunting as a wildlife management tool. Coyote hunting over bait was the most effective method of harvesting the predator in the habitat in Maine. A bag limit of one per day would be established. Coyotes frequently hunted in pairs. Would it make sense to limit a hunter to one, if two responded in an area that the Department believed required additional coyote harvesting to protect wintering deer. Coyote hunting season would end February 28th. During March and early April whitetailed deer were weakest and therefore more vulnerable to predation and yet hunting coyotes during that period would not be lawful. Finally, as Mrs. Webb stated, limiting coyote harvest based on weigh was not practical. That detail by itself would effectively end coyote hunting by the lawful hunter. There was also a direct connection between hunting coyotes where required by wildlife management goals and support of healthy ecosystems. As Mrs. Webb stated, coyotes were an important predator of deer accounting for approximately 70% of the collared deer killed by predators. Coyote predation accounted for 30-40% of winter deer mortality in our northern big woods habitat. Those statistics could not be restated or emphasized enough. In 2020 there were 13 WMDs northern western mountains and downeast areas that were allocated 0 to 100 any deer permits. He assumed those permit numbers reflected the low whitetailed deer populations in those areas. Sustained year after year coyote control within deer wintering areas would support whitetailed deer numbers in those areas. An increase in whitetailed deer population in those traditional Maine hunting destinations would result in a likely increase in nonresident deer hunter numbers and the associated increase in hunter license revenue. Not only did that align with the objectives of the R3 program which the Department supported, but the increased revenue supported management of both game and nongame species in Maine.

Mrs. Rousseau asked why 40 pounds was the magic number. Was that a significant age class?

Commissioner Camuso stated that was the petitioners request. She was guessing the petitioner was trying to protect an older age class, but we did not know for sure.

Mr. Thurston stated we focused on deer and a lot of things, but the species had a lot of impact in southern Maine with nongame species, whether it be birds or domestic animals. If the population didnt stay in control they could move their range to new territory and that would be challenging.

Mr. Smith stated the report did not mention fawn mortality, because there may not have been a study on that in Maine, but it had been done in other provinces or states. Was Mrs. Webb aware of any fawn mortality by coyotes studies?

Mrs. Webb stated Nathan Bieber would probably be the best person to answer that. We knew a range of predators did prey on fawns and neonates.

Mr. Bieber stated he could not give an exact percent, but his experience working in Wisconsin on a similar collaring study, the majority of the young fawn mortality they saw was associated with not only coyotes, but also wolves and black bears. He would suspect black bears took quite a lot of neonate deer as did coyotes.

There were no further questions or comments.

5. Coyote trapping prohibition petition

Mrs. Webb continued with the Powerpoint presentation regards the coyote trapping petition. Please contact becky.orff@maine.gov for a copy of the presentation or comment summary.

There were no further questions or comments.


C. Step 1 1. Long Pond Horsepower Restriction Petition

Commissioner Camuso stated the Department received a petition to limit the horsepower to 25 horsepower or less on Long Pond in Hancock County. A public hearing was scheduled for December 7, 2020 and the comment period was open until December 17, 2020.

Mr. Smith stated when he worked for the fisheries division in college, they fyke netted it and there were amazing trophy brook trout there. He also fly fished it for several years and encountered the same thing. With respect to the trout population there he thought it might be beneficial.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Airboat Noise Rules

Mr. Thurston stated he had done a site visit there and there was a strong group of people that had put in a lot of comments with respect to it.

Colonel Scott stated the 129th Legislature enacted Public Law 2019 Ch. 662, an act to address decibel limits of airboats. The law prohibited the use of airboats which exceeded the noise level limits as established by the Commissioner in IFW rule, so the proposal was trying to establish those rules. In the past, airboat noise levels were included in the statue that addressed noise level limits for marine engines on conventional motorboats as per Title 12, Section 13068-A. The inability to separate the noise of the engine and the fan of an airboat with the noise of just the engine resulted in a change in statutory language which removed airboats from the definition of motorboat. The objective of PL Ch. 662 was to set maximum decibel limits plateable to airboats in rule similar to the rules for motorboats. The law directed IFW and DMR to jointly collect information regarding airboats including but no limited to information regarding the use of airboats; noise levels and complaints and suggestions for reducing complaints regarding the use of airboats; input from interested parties including but not limited to harbor masters, town clerks, residents of coastal towns, and airboat users themselves.

Colonel Scott stated on January 9, 2020 IFW staff conducted a meeting regarding the Mere Point boat launch. The topic of airboats quickly arose, and staff heard from over a dozen interested individuals regarding the use of airboats. There were approximately 48 people in attendance at the meeting. Warden Service staff later consulted with Sensenich Propeller Company in Plant City, FL to determine if there was a way to quiet an airboat by changing to a different style or model of prop. Sensenich Propeller Company had intended to quiet the noise emitted from an airboat by designing different blades with limited success. Warden Service had two of their props currently on our boats. Warden Service staff also consulted with Diamondback Airboats in Cocoa, FL to determine if there was a way to quiet an airboat. We were advised by the owner of Diamondback Airboats they had put 6" downspouts on the through hull mufflers on large touring airboats they had built in an attempt to quiet the engine. Diamondback advised it did not have a great effect on making an airboat quieter. Warden Service owned two Diamondback airboats. They contacted a captain of the Florida Fish and Game for the purpose of getting information on laws governing airboat use in FL. Florida Fish and Game stated they only had noise laws unique to airboats as it pertained to the exhaust system. Florida law required airboats to have an exhaust system with a motor vehicle type muffler and they did not differentiate noise levels of airboats. Noise limits for all vessels was 90db at 50 feet.

Colonel Scott stated to further gather information regarding noise levels of airboats Warden Service and Marine Patrol began testing a number of airboats in order to measure noise limits at a variety of RPMs. Staff tested 13 airboats belonging to municipalities, government agencies and commercial fishermen. The boats ranged in age from 1984 to 2019. Noise levels emitted from 13 airboats were measured using a calibrated quest sound detector. Two separate tests were performed on each boat, a stationary test and a modified version of the moving test. While performing the stationary test on each boat it was determined that the average noise emitted was 86db. The actual test ranged from 80db to 96db, the average being 86db. The stationary test was performed from approximately 3 feet from the rear corner of the boat while the engine was idling. The second test, the modified moving test was tested at three different RPMs - 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000. At 2,000 RPMs the average decibel reading was 84db with a range from 72-99. At 3,000 RPMs the average decibel reading was 92db with a range from 83-106. At 4,000 RPMs the average decibel reading was 98db with a range of 91-106. The modified moving test was performed 50 feet from the boat at an angle of 70 degrees. The boat was stationary during the test which was how the test was modified from the procedure currently in rule due to the fact the tests occurred in the winter and the procedure required two boats with a series of buoy systems and measurements. The airboat was placed on a trailer and the operator ran the boat at various RPMs. On an airboat you couldnt disengage the prop. As the throttle was engaged the prop would spin and the boat would move. It was tested on the trailers at various RPMs measured at 50 feet. If they were on the water and passing by this was the rule required of conventional motorboats.

Colonel Scott stated the test reports supported there were two factors that intensified the noise limits of an airboat. One was poor engine maintenance, specifically the exhaust system similar to a regular motorboat or a motor vehicle, and the pitch of the prop. The number of blades did not appear to be a factor. The higher the pitch of the prop, the more noise generated by the airboat. The greater the degree of the pitch, the more noise was emitted. The prop pitch was not able to be determined for all the boats tested, however, the boats that had a 12-degree pitch were easily recognized as the blades had a noticeable aggressive angle. During the stationary test, four of the boats that tested over 90db had either an inadequate muffler or 12-degree pitch prop. The other nine boats that tested below the 90db level had well maintained exhaust systems and a lower degree pitch prop.

Colonel Scott stated there was a seasonal residence near the Mere Point boat launch and the resident had filed noise complaints in the past with DMR regarding the noise of passing airboats. On February 2, 2020 Warden Service and DMR staff performed a noise test to determine the noise levels which were being reported. A test was conducted by measuring the sound emitted from two airboats as they independently of each other operated past the seasonal residence. The two airboats tested were ones that had generated noise complaints in the past. During the test both airboats operated in the manner in which they would be operating when harvesting. Sound measurements were recorded while in the complaintants front yard. The boats operated to and from the boat launch at RPMs of 4,200, the distance from the residence was unknown as the levels were recorded but was the actual distance which the boats typically traveled when harvesting. One of the boats had a maximum decibel reading of 73db, the second boat had a maximum decibel reading of 77db. The decibel reading from both boats was consistently in the 60db range. After each boat reached the maximum decibel reading the noise level emitted decreased rapidly. The current rule proposed procedures for measuring decibels of stationary airboats as well as airboats under operation. Procedures for testing each of the circumstance were the same procedure currently used to measure decibel levels of conventional motorboats. The rule proposed noise level limits specific to airboats including a maximum noise level of 90db when subject to a stationary test or a maximum noise level of 100db when subject to an operational test.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Sage asked if in the proposal, if a person continued to complain about the noise after testing showed the sound was within the limits of the proposal was there something there to stop the harassment to the law enforcement and the clammers.

Colonel Scott stated there was nothing in the rule. It would be a situation where they would explain to the citizens that it was not a violation and there may be nothing they could do. There were harassment laws in place if it rose to that level.

Mr. Scribner stated FL had a 90db level at 50 feet, how did that compare with what Maine was proposing.

Colonel Scott stated the proposed moving test was at 50 feet for conventional motorboats and 75db. For the airboats, because of the increased noise with the fan and motor we were proposing the moving 50 foot test to be 100db. In Maine we had a difference between a conventional motorboat and an airboat. Florida treated them all the same.

Mr. Scribner asked why we would have different levels for motorboats in comparison to airboats? It seemed to him the driving factor would be any health issues associated with high noises as well as the distraction related to it. What drove the difference between a higher level excepted for airboats vs. motorboats?

Colonel Scott stated that was one of the driving forces, there were complaints about the noise level with airboats and it went to the Legislature. The Legislature asked what an acceptable level was, and we had to conduct testing to find a baseline. There was an average discovered after testing the 13 boats, along with outliers with aggressive prop pitches which were much louder airboats. We selected numbers that wouldnt prohibit boats that were operating as they were designed and manufactured.

Mr. Scribner stated the level we were proposing was based on current observations on what was out there available for airboats today.

Colonel Scott stated we found nationwide there was no consistency. We looked at what a typical airboat produced for noise and tried to write the rule so it would prohibit those that were outliers from that typical noise.

Mr. Scribner asked Mr. Thurston given that he had been there and observed some of the boats in operation, would he want to live on the shoreline there?

Mr. Thurston stated he understood their concerns. He thought what set up that area to be challenging was that it was a narrow neck of water or big cove so there was a lot of reverberation. He did witness the sound and toured the bay. It was loud, but they were able to have a conversation. He would like to see what the levels were when they were trying to break the mud suction on the clam flats. Was the airboat utilized because it was more efficient for the clammer or were they having more difficulty getting access to where they clammed? The Department of Marine Resources did not seem to be very involved in the process and he felt they were probably a stakeholder in the process. He was also intrigued that they didnt get any response from the clammers to get some sort of input from them. He felt that would be helpful.

Commissioner Camuso stated a meeting had been scheduled with DMR to work through some of the issues. It was within our statute so that was why the proposal was with IFW, although it was by and large DMR constituents that were using the airboats. The comment period was still open, and the proposal had been sent to DMR staff to make sure their constituents were aware of the proposal. She suspected we would hear from them.

There were no further questions or comments.


V. Other Business

Commissioner Camuso stated she would like to update the Council that we had moved to an online hunter education option. This was a fully online option. We still continued to offer the in-person field day and a hybrid approach. Since we started offering the full online courses in September, we had processed about 4,300 people which was about 30% higher than we did for all of 2019. Of those that had gone through the online portion, the majority were between the ages of 18 35 and 36% of them were women. This was part of a national trend. We would continue to offer firearms safety instruction for anyone that wanted it. We were also working to develop more mentor type programs as well. Overall, hunting license sales were up by 9%.

Mr. Sage stated the online with the field day was no longer available because when they took the online course, they completed the course in its entirety and were issued their card.

Commissioner Camuso stated it was still required for anybody 16 and under, they would need to do the skills day in person. It did seem that most who took the online course completed it, but we would still continue to offer instruction for anyone that wanted it on firearms handling.


VI. Councilor Reports Councilors gave reports.


VII. Public Comments & Questions

John Glowa stated the petitions were submitted primarily to protect wolves and to address Maines laws and rules that encouraged the killing of wolves. IFW had no response to the impact of coyote hunting and trapping on wolves and did not deny there was an impact. Therefore, based on IFWs silence on the issue he assumed IFW did not disagree that wolves were in Maine and being killed by hunters and trappers. The Maine Wolf Coalition had documented the presence of at least one wolf in Maine and science told them there were more. The statute referred to coyote and the rules referred to coyote, there were no coyotes in Maine. There was no statutory definition and no definition in rule of what a coyote was. Mrs. Webb mentioned Eastern coyote, there was no such thing in either statute or rule that defined what an Eastern coyote was. The animals were in fact hybrid animals. The use of bait, the Department was silent on the issue of lead poisoning of eagles. The Department and state refused to place limits on the use of lead ammunition, prohibiting bait for coyote hunting was basically intended not to restrict coyote hunting but to save eagles. As far as the predator hunting contests, the state provided no evidence of any benefit to the deer herd or to the ecosystem of the hunting contests. There was no such thing as coyote "control and there was no evidence that Maines coyote control program had any beneficial impacts on the deer herd.

John Glowa stated the Department did not respond to the issue of tagging all coyotes including those that were hunted. The purpose for that was to try to determine if any of the animals were wolves. The 40-pound limit was intended to discourage hunters from shooting wolves and larger canids. As Mr. Scribner pointed out, they often appeared in pairs and it was his understanding that generally the hunter would try to kill the largest animal. There was a lack of recognition he believed on the states part that deer needed natural predators and he believed the state was trying to vilify coyotes. There was a lack of understanding of the role of predators and prey and certainly a lack of appreciation and importance the predators play in the ecosystem. As far as the petition and Mr. Scribners comments about the broadness of the hunting petition, the state could modify and suggest proposed changes to any petition. The state did not have to accept or reject it as it was written. As far as the trapping rule was concerned, trapping was inhumane and cruel, it was not selective and he believed there were wolves that were being killed by trappers and therefore, opposed to trapping of those canids.

Ric Quesada stated he was from South Freeport and lived near the water. He wanted to comment on the airboat issue. They were concerned about the airboat noise. They were supportive of the working waterfront and the comings and goings of the harbor. The new technology of the airboat came along a couple of years ago and if they hadnt heard it, he recommended they go down to the South Freeport estuary and listen when they went by. It was incredible. He could only say it was similar to having a Harley Davidson hog in the driveway revving up 30 minutes at a time. It was something you had to experience before trying to make a rule. His suggestion was that the Department step back from the current rulemaking process which seemed to be getting bogged down in SAE testing limits and stationary, moving, and all that and trying to get all the airboats that exist into the criteria, throw out the outliers, and create a rule focused on the main body of existing airboats. He thought if the Department stepped back and looked at it and took testimony from a broader constituency including the DEP or DHHS or Commerce there were impacts on each one of those angles that we might want to consider. In the case of the Harraseeket River, the end story might be that the new technology of airboat was so disruptive that there was no place for it in the Harraseeket River. Was there a safe limit for airboats in the Harraseeket River? He encouraged the Department to go to the river and hear it and consider whether it was something we would want in our neighborhood.

Commissioner Camuso stated during the public hearing comments would be limited to 3 minutes to keep it manageable. She would encourage people that wanted to provide testimony on the airboat rule to hold those comments to the public hearing. If they had questions on the proposal that was fine, but the Advisory Council meeting was not a public hearing.

Deanna Arute stated she was a resident of Rockwood and through her days she had seen the unregulated hunting and killing of coyotes. She had been so disturbed. She had contacted legislators and talked to biologists and educated herself, and the bottom line was she saw what was going on and it was a hidden suffering. They had people around them that baited coyotes and killed them for the sheer thrill. Most of those animals ate small rodents, that was their main prey through her research and talking to legitimate biologists with degrees. The hunters were trying to preserve the deer for their own purposes and coyotes regulated their own populations. They did not let other coyotes into an area. By hunting and killing them they were creating a situation where the young puppies were breeding more coyotes. The horrific suffering was hidden and people like herself were coming to the table to say they didnt want this. She thought the time had come for them to step up for those animals and say the year round killing was really hurting the ecosystem on many different levels. Coyotes only took what they needed to thrive and live. The killing contests and unregulated trapping and bragging on social media was beyond what people even realized was going on. Her family was reaching out as a voice for that animal because there was a lot of unregulated hunting and killing going on. It was unacceptable.

Aaron Smith stated they ran a contest in Penobscot County and when it started, they were tagging 50 to 55 deer. Since they ran the contest, they were well over 100 to 140 deer. That was since 2009. The wolfs size and largeness of coyotes, over the years they had only one animal that weighed over 50 pounds. The average animal taken was in the 30s.

Claire Perry stated she had seen the coyotes being killed mercilessly. Where she lived in Liberty, they used to have a stable family. She was angry they no longer even heard them because of unregulated hound dogs running on her posted land. She would keep saying it until something was done. As a landowner she could not keep the dogs off her own property, and they had killed every coyote around them. They were upset. She was concerned there was no mention of the benefit of coyotes in any of the reports given by the furbearer biologist and she wanted to know why. It was a keystone species. She had done a lot of studying about them and she had lived with them for 10 years around sheep and cows and chickens and they never had a problem with their coyotes because they knew how to live with them successfully.

Commissioner Camuso stated the comment period on the rule proposal was closed and we had received her comments and they were on the record.

Claire Perry stated she had a question, why was there no mention of the benefit of the coyote being a keystone species in Maine, and why was everything painted in a negative light?

Commissioner Camuso stated Mrs. Webb was asked to present a summary of the findings, she wasnt particularly giving an overview of the natural history and some of the life history of coyotes. The Department and wildlife biologists and warden service appreciated the many benefits that coyotes had. The intention wasnt to frame it in any one way or the other but be a presentation of the proposal and the comments we received and the Departments response.

Claire Perry stated she felt it was significant to include that it was a small predator, it was a keystone species now in Maine that brought much benefit to the ecological systems and she thought that was significant when talking about regulations for coyote killing.

Commissioner Camuso stated she just wanted to clarify that she received a message from the furbearer biologist and both Deanna and Claire provided comments during the public comment period for the proposals and their comments were included in the summary that was provided.

Peter Casada stated he lived in South Freeport. It seemed to him there was a pretty serious adverse impact on marine mammals and seabirds from the airboats. He wanted to know the degree to which the Department intended to consider the impact of the noise on mammals and seabirds.

Commissioner Camuso stated noise and wildlife was something that we considered as well as harassment of wildlife. We would work with biologists to get an assessment of potential impacts, although we would work with DMR biologists on that as well.

Peter Casada asked if there would be any effort to bring in other regulatory agencies within the state?

Commissioner Camuso stated the proposal was what was within the purview of the Departments rulemaking authority. From some of the comments being received it appeared that some of the requests or suggestions were not what the Legislature would consider to be routine changes. Much of what was being asked was something she thought would need to go to the Legislature. In general, we were in consultation with DMR, but the rule for watercraft was within IFWs purview. We worked with colleagues at DEP and DHHS very regularly and we would continue to work with them but in general IFW would run the meetings and collect the information. They were probably not going to show up to provide testimony.

Thomas Haible stated he was a resident of Harpswell and lived about a mile from the mudflats of Middle Bay. Unless you lived along the shore of the intertidal areas you had no idea how noisy the boats were. He did not care about 100db it was pretty annoying especially at 4:00 a.m. when the sun had just come up and they decided to go because the tide was right. He appreciated they had to fish but the noise had been going for within the past 10 years there had been a slow increase in airboats. He asked Colonel Scott what the relationship was with DMR relative to enforcing rules.

Colonel Scott stated they had been involved in the testing process all along. Marine Patrol were the ones having primary jurisdiction in tidal waters. IFW was tasked through statute to develop the rule, but Marine Patrol could enforce our rules in full force. If it was an airboat being operated on coastal waters, they would more than likely deal with Marine Patrol officers.

Dan Walker stated they had sent in materials and planned on participating in the public comment period. He was representing some of the property owners in the Freeport area. He was an attorney of Preti Flaherty. In Section 3 of the legislation that was passed last session, LD 2065 that was directing the rulemaking, in Section 3 it talked about the Department along with DMR would collect information and stated, based on the suggestions of the Commissioner of IFW and the Commissioner of DMR may jointly submit recommended legislation to the Joint Standing Committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over IFW matters by February 1, 2021. Was that likely going to happen and what was the best method for them to work with the Departments to help with what was submitted to the Committee, if anything.

Commissioner Camuso stated she could not answer that without going through the process and getting all the feedback. If they came up with recommendations, the Governor could put forward a bill at any time. If the two agencies had a recommendation they wanted to submit legislation on, they could do that. There was no draft legislation or anything currently prepared. We would need to work through the rulemaking process first.

Dan Walker stated it seemed there was going to be a separate process to solicit information regarding airboats beyond the public comment period around the rule.

Commissioner Camuso stated for example, when someone requested to not allow airboats in the Harraseeket River, that would be something that would need to go before the Legislature. Those were not routine technical rule changes that the Department would feel comfortable with and required a statewide process at the Legislature. Some of the recommendations that had come in would not be appropriate for the Advisory Council to enact. We would be reporting back to the Legislature.

Dan Walker stated that would give the authority for the Committee to go forward with Legislation if they felt it was necessary.

Commissioner Camuso stated that was correct.

There were no further questions or comments.


VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, December 16, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. via Microsoft Teams.
IX. Adjournment A motion was made by Mr. Sage and that was seconded by Mr. Smith to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Virtual TEAMS meeting
(contact Becky Orff at 287-5202 or becky.orff@maine.gov by close of business on 02/09 for details on how to participate)

Wednesday, February 9, 2021 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Ch 7 Wildlife Rehabilitation Rules.. Jim Connolly

2. Long Pond horsepower restriction petition.. Commissioner Camuso

B. Step 2

There are no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition.. Commissioner Camuso

2. Ch. 24 Licensed Guide rules.. Christl Theriault

3. 2021/22 Migratory Game Bird rules.. Kelsey Sullivan

V. Other Business

1. Adaptive Moose Hunt.. Nate Webb

2. Airboat update.. Deputy Commissioner Peabody

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 A.M.

VII. Public Comments & Questions




VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting




IX. Adjournment 12:00 P.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
December 16, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (This council meeting was held during Governor Mill's State of Emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic limiting the ability to hold public meetings. Participation was by video conference - Microsoft TEAMS meeting)


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Ryan Robichaud, Wildlife Section Supervisor
Shevenell Webb, Furbearer Biologist
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Mark Latti, Communications Director Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Matt Thurston (Chair)
Jerry Scribner (Vice-Chair)
Brian Smith
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Lindsay Ware
Shelby Rousseau
Vacancy in Piscataquis/Somerset Cty


GUESTS
21 additional Department staff and members of the public




I. Call to Order Matt Thurston, Council Chair called the meeting to order.


II. Introductions

Introductions were made.


III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting A motion was made by Mr. Sage to accept the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous minutes approved.


A. Step 3 1. Notched Pond horsepower Restriction petition Commissioner Camuso stated we received a petition from some of the residents around Notched Pond and we had a public hearing with comments in support of the horsepower restriction. She and Mr. Thurston did a site visit and looked at the pond. It was a very small water body and she could appreciate the concerns. Having said that, she did have reservations that a horsepower restriction would resolve the issue on the pond or any pond in general. When we supported a horsepower restriction it was because of public safety and we had not had any complaints about public safety or harassment of wildlife on the pond, at least not in the past several years. We checked with Warden Service and the district game warden. She was cautious in proposing regulations to manage behavior and thought that people with a small horsepower motor could cause just as much mayhem as a larger horsepower all at the same time. Someone with a larger horsepower could behave very well and not cause any issues at all. She had reservations about horsepower restrictions in general. The horsepower restriction would eliminate the use of jetskis, which was often the biggest concern of the residents. The Department did not have the authority to eliminate the use of jetskis, that authority was with the Legislature. It could very well end up in the Legislature if the Council did not pass the proposal. She understood the frustration of the neighbors, and it was a very small pond so she could understand how folks were concerned with boats going too fast, but it seemed a canoe could almost go too fast so she was not sure a horsepower restriction was going to resolve the issue there.

Mrs. Rousseau asked Mr. Thurston to give them his observations from visiting the pond.

Mr. Thurston stated it was a very small pond with a limited amount of space in the center where people if they were using a high horsepower boat for skiing, etc.

Commissioner Camuso stated by the time you removed the canoe off the vehicle you practically could paddle the waterbody, it was quite small.

Mr. Thurston stated he owned a fishing boat with a 40-50 horsepower motor, but he wouldn't fit within the restrictions with his boat on that pond. It was very hard to guess peoples behavior; he didnt think it mattered if it was a 125 horsepower boat or an 8 horsepower boat.

Ms. Ware stated Commissioner Camuso mentioned how to ban jetskis it had to go through the Legislature. If that approach was taken at some point through the Legislature was that something that was done and supported.

Commissioner Camuso stated the Legislature would take them water body by water body and review the requests. She did not know if jetskis were an issue on Notched Pond, she was cautious the regulation would eliminate the use of jetskis on that water body. She remembered the comments being more reflective of larger boats with people skiing. The Long Pond proposal, the people at the public hearing were specifically referencing jetskis. She just wanted to make the Council aware that the Department did not have the authority to eliminate use of jetskis so the way that was often achieved was with a horsepower restriction.

Ms. Ware stated she was just trying to picture some other ways that some of the problems could be addressed on the pond.

Mr. Thurston stated they had already seen another pond in rulemaking that wanted a horsepower restriction. He thought there would be a lot more of them and they had to really consider what was before them before voting.

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to approve the proposed rule as written and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.

Vote: five (5) not in favor, two (2) in favor (Mr. Cowperthwaite and Mr. Smith) - Motion did not pass. Commissioner Camuso stated if there were people on the call from the community, she would encourage them to reach out to Warden Service if they were having problems with public safety or harassment of wildlife. The Warden Service was there to respond and could assist with that. She would encourage them to make the calls and get the district game warden there to help them.

Mr. Thurston stated if members of the public were having difficulty reaching out to a district warden in the area, they could email him and he would help facilitate that.

2. Predator Killing Contests Prohibition Petition Commissioner Camuso stated the furbearer biologist, Shevenell Webb, gave a presentation at Step 2. The Department did not support the petition as written for all the reasons outlined. Mrs. Webb was on the call if anyone had questions.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage not to accept the proposed rule and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: unanimous in favor - motion passed (proposed rule not adopted).

3. Coyote Trapping Prohibition Petition

Commissioner Camuso stated this was the second petition brought forward by a member of the public to prohibit coyote trapping. Mrs. Webb gave a presentation to the Council outlining the reasons why the Department did not support the petition.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage that proposed rule ought not to pass and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: unanimous in favor - motion passed (proposed rule not adopted).

Mr. Thurston stated Mrs. Peet was not able to participate in the meeting but did forward the following comments that she wished to be read into the record.
"I am unable to attend the Advisory Council meeting tomorrow as I have another one at the same time that I need to present at for work. Thank you for considering my comments and reading them to the rest of the Council so I may be on record (while recognizing that I may not vote while absent). 1. Notched Pond Horsepower restriction - I fully support this horsepower restriction. As someone who has spent time on large and small lakes and ponds across Maine, I have personally witnessed swimmers in a small pond almost get hit by a large motorboat whose driver couldnt see over the bow. I also agree with the wildlife concerns raised by many of the commenters. As it seems almost all of the comments were in favor of this restriction, I support the prohibition of motorboats with more than 10 horsepower on Notched Pond.
2. Predator Killing Contests - I appreciate the passion that Mr. Glowa has for the wildlife in Maine and specifically the coyote. As a wildlife biologist I am often frustrated by the pure hatred many people have for specific species. I understand how important coyotes are as a keystone species and how beneficial they can be by reducing the small rodent populations (Lyme carriers) in certain areas. However, I feel that this petition is premature with not enough science behind it. We know there is a robust coyote population in Maine and they are in no danger of being over-harvested. While Mr. Glowa provided a report that spoke to an example of scat with high amounts of wolf DNA, that is only one sample, and it appears quality may have been an issue as well. I fully support the idea of Mr. Glowa continuing his work and would be interested in seeing the results of further samples that are collected.
Additionally, I cannot support the rest of the petition for the reasons many have stated already. The 40 lb. weight limit creates an unrealistic expectation for hunters to stay within the law. Wardens would also have a very hard time enforcing such a law. There are enough issues with this petition that I feel I cannot support it as written.
3. Coyote Trapping Prohibition - As stated above, I dont believe we are in danger of over-harvesting coyotes in Maine. Again, I dont believe we have enough data to fear that we are inadvertently trapping wolves in Maine instead of coyotes. I do not support this petition as written.
I would like it noted that I do agree with Mr. Glowas concern regarding coyote bait piles and the amount of birds (namely eagles) that ingest lead on an annual basis. Dozens of eagles are brought to Avian Haven each year with lead poisoning from bait piles and many do not survive. I believe so far this year Avian Haven has received 27 eagles with elevated lead levels. I hope in the near future that MDIFW will STRONGLY encourage, and eventually mandate that hunters make the switch to non-lead ammunition (as many of us already have). Thank you for reading my comments! ~Kristin"


B. Step 2


1. Ch. 7 Wildlife Rehabilitation Rules

Mr. Webb stated the rule proposal was the result of an extensive 2-year process to update the wildlife rehabilitation program which resulted in an overhaul of the policy as well as the rule proposal. The proposal specifically addressed four different areas of the program. First, it would allow the strategic selection of wildlife rehabilitators based on geography, need, human population density and the ability of rehabbers to provide unique services or care for specific species. The proposal also laid out the parameters under which permitted wildlife rehabilitators could bring on volunteers, could work with sub-permittees and could train apprentices at their facility. The comment deadline was November 20, 2020 which was just after the last council meeting which was why the proposal was still at Step 2 to allow the Department to share a summary of the comments with the Council. A public hearing was held on November 10, 2020 which was well attended, and a number of written comments were received as well. Mr. Webb asked Mr. Cordes to give a summary of the comments that had been received.

Mr. Cordes stated there were 13 people in attendance at the public hearing and 6 people spoke. Most of the comments started out with questions on how the rule would be applied to them and to ensure there would be some grandfathering. There was also some concern with some of the language. After clarifying, the commenters were either leaning towards neutral or in favor of the changes. We also received 4 written comments. One had overall concerns about being limited in their activities as a rehabber and also had questions on how the rule would be applied. Two of the comments had concerns how the rule would be applied to them and moving into the future and the last comment was follow up after the hearing suggesting a language change to improve interpretation of the rule.

Mr. Webb stated we were still reviewing the comments and there were a couple of specific recommendations for fairly minor language changes. There was potential for some minor revisions to come before the Council at Step 3.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Long Pond Horsepower Restriction Petition

Commissioner Camuso stated this was a petition brought to the Department to restrict horsepower to 25 or less on Long Pond. A public hearing was held on December 7, 2020 which was well attended. Comments at the hearing were primarily supportive, however, there was one individual who bought property there and had a 30 horsepower boat that he was very responsible in how he used the boat and the proposed rule would unnecessarily target him. Likewise, the Board of Selectmen wrote a letter of support of the horsepower petition; one of the selectmen spoke that he did not believe the proposal would solve the issues they were experiencing on the waterbody.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Smith stated when he was in college and working for the fisheries division, they live netted brook trout in the pond as well as Rift and King, the series of three trophy brook trout waters. He went back and fished it quite a lot and at the time had a 30 horsepower motor and went slow. He could understand after reading the minutes from the public hearing and comments, the concern. He saw jetskis and bigger speed boats and understood where they were coming from. Based on what he had seen he was in favor of restricting horsepower there.

Ms. Ware stated going back to the comment from Commissioner Camuso how if it was passed by the Advisory Council it still wouldnt eliminate jetskis. With this proposal where jetskis were being discussed as more of an issue, did we know if the petitioners were aware of that aspect?

Commissioner Camuso stated the Department couldnt outlaw the use of jetskis, but by virtue of a horsepower restriction, they could achieve that. Most of the jetskis had a greater horsepower than that, so it would eliminate the use of jetskis on that waterbody. If someone came to the Department wanting to specifically ban jetskis, we did not have the authority to do that. As an agency through rulemaking we could limit horsepower, but that was often how people got at the jetski issue was by limiting the horsepower.

Mrs. Rousseau stated Mooselookmeguntic Lake in Oquossoc had a jetski ban, but there was no horsepower limit. It was unlimited horsepower but you would not see jetskis there because they were eliminated by the Legislature in 1999.

Ms. Ware asked how common that was to have a jetski ban brought forth by the Legislature.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the Great Ponds Task Force was formed by the Legislature in the late 90s to deal with banning jetskis on bodies of water in Maine. Over the time span of 2-3 years the Legislature had a process for people to have public hearings in the towns regarding those bodies of water and then go back to the Legislature with a proposal. Most of the jetski bans were formed during that time period. After that process sunsetted, the Legislature kept the authority to ban jetskis.

There were no further questions or comments.

3. Airboat Noise Rules

Commissioner Camuso stated we received over 200 written comments on the proposal. A public hearing was held on December 1, 2020, the day after a large wind storm and the towns of Brunswick and Harpswell were without power so that some folks that may have participated in the public hearing were not able to. They submitted comments in writing. There were comments on both sides, the majority being in opposition to the proposal and that it would not address any of the neighborhood concerns. The clammers that commented felt they had limited access and they couldnt manage with the restrictions that were being proposed. She felt the proposal as it was would not solve any of the issues, so we were going to withdraw the proposal. She would be meeting with Commissioner Keliher and attempt to have a new proposal in January and start the process over. They met with Representative McCreight and she had a placeholder bill at the Legislature should a solution not be made.

Mr. Scribner stated he supported that position. So many times since he had become an Advisory Council member, the Department had attempted to lead the way on proposals and sometimes he thought we were reinventing the wheel. He thought there were other states in some cases, and he thought this might be one of those. We may want to look at New Hampshire and the direction they went vs. a strict decibel limit level. He supported the action being taken by the Commissioner. He did not think the rule proposal was solving the issues. He did not see any comments supporting the proposal. The airboat operators and clammers were opposed to any restrictions and the folks that owned shorefront property were completely against it also. In many cases he thought compromise was where the solution was that could be best received and solve an issue of this nature.

Mr. Thurston stated he had a lot of constituents in the area. It was good we received input from the clammers and the shoreline community. He could understand the concerns on both sides. One thing he did gather from the landowners was there was a genuine concern for not letting them do what they do. He thought compromise was also what needed to happen, some accommodations for the landowners and some for the clammers.

Mr. Smith stated he lived on Machias Bay. Once a year an airboat came down river and it sounded like an aircraft coming. He didnt know if it was Warden Service or Marine Patrol and they went up on the flats. Sometimes it woke them up. It was neat to see, but he wouldnt want to listen to it every day. With respect to that, the clammers there didnt have an airboat when harvesting the massive flats in front of his house. They went onto the flats with their regular boats when the tide was up and let the tide drop out under the boat and clam until the tide came back and flooded it. He also served a short time as a Marine Patrol Officer in the county there so understood the clammers perspective as well. He hoped everything would be taken into consideration.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated living in Ashland or some of the rural communities in northern Maine, the log trucks started rolling around 2:00 a.m. and may not be the noise level of the airboats; folks there kind of went with the flow knowing how important the woods product industry was. From 2:00a.m. until 6:00a.m. the guys were headed to work, there were some limits on jake brake noise, but he didnt know if they were as severe as the airboats in Freeport but they kind of lived with it.


C. Step 1


There were no items under step 1.


V. Other Business
There were no items under Other Business


VI. Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports


VII. Public Comments & Questions


John Glowa stated he wanted to thank Mrs. Peet for her comments. He stated there was no quality control problem with the DNA analysis of the Eastern wolf they documented the animal as a wolf. He wanted to assure IFW they were continuing their work to identify additional wolves in Maine. Since Maine statute provided for questions and comments during the meeting, he did have a question for each Council member. Why did you vote no on the two petitions, and what role did science play in your decision?

Mr. Smith stated he based it on not only his personal experience, his environmental science degree but also all of the input he got from the Department biologists, coyote hunters and basically it would have eliminated coyote hunting in Maine.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he had great faith in the Department and the biologists that assessed the petitions and agreed with their recommendation.

Mr. Scribner stated his reasoning was pretty well documented in the minutes from the last meeting. He believed Mr. Glowa attended that meeting also and probably heard his comments. Once the minutes became available, he would appreciate it if a copy could be sent to Mr. Glowa so he could view his reasoning.

Mrs. Rousseau had left the meeting.

Ms. Ware had left the meeting.

Mr. Sage stated he believed the Department scientists more than Mr. Glowa. Also, being a trapper he understood the rules of trapping and the traps used for coyote trapping were non-kill type traps so they did not harm other species. The first rule with the coyote contests was too far reaching, he put too many things in one petition to make it even reasonable to be passed. If it was just killing contests he may have thought about it, but to do the weight limit and all the stuff. He knew Mr. Glowa was concerned we had a bunch of wolves in Maine, but Mr. Sage had not seen any scientific proof of that. That was why he voted the way he did.

Mr. Thurston stated he listened to the biologists of the State of Maine and took their recommendations seriously as he had in a lot of other different situations during his tenure as an Advisory Council member.

Claire Perry stated she had a question why anyone there would feel the petition had too much in it so everything needed to be voted down. She was really clear about that, she looked into it herself because she really was in favor of ending the killing contests. That was impactful to her where she lived. She was assured by our lawyer and by Mr. Webb and the Commissioner and her Advisory Council person that we could consider each thing in any petition in and of itself unlike a bill, and we could tweak it however we wanted if we felt something there was worthy and could be tweaked. She was not good with too much in the petition. What Mr. Sage stated concerned her and she hoped in the future he did not do that again. She would be glad to hear why any of them felt they had to take the petition as a whole.

Commissioner Camuso stated since it was a petition, the process was we would hear the entire petition and the way the entire petition was written the Department did not support any aspects of the petition. If we felt that there was a portion of the petition, and with the petitioners support, we could pull out one portion of that petition and move that forward in the process but we did not feel that any portion of the petition was written in such a way that we could support it.

Claire Perry stated she had concerns about the wildlife biologist report about coyotes that did not also have the information of what good the animals were doing. They were a keystone species and they were not that impactful to the deer herds except for benefit. Way up north where there was such a mess because of whats happened was a different story, but for the most part of the state she really felt that any biologist needed to also share with the Council and the general public the highly beneficial things the animal brought to us.


VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The Council would be notified at a later date when the next meeting would occur. The Department was awaiting the IFW legislative committee schedule and also the timing of the migratory game bird rule proposal.


IX. Adjournment


A motion was made by Mr. Sage and that was seconded by MR. Scribner to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m.

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Virtual TEAMS meeting
(contact Becky Orff at 287-5202 or becky.orff@maine.gov by close of business on 3/22 for details on how to participate)

Tuesday, March 23, 2021 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.
I-A. Moment of Silence
II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2
1. Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition..... Commissioner Camuso
2. Ch. 24 Licensed Guide rules. Christl Theriault
3. 2021/22 Migratory Game Bird rules..... Nate Webb


C. Step 1
1. Adaptive Moose Hunt (WMD 4).. Nate Webb
2. Moose permit allocations 2021. Nate Webb


V. Other Business
1. Airboat rules update.. Deputy Commissioner Peabody
2. Online hunter education Jim Connolly


VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 A.M.
VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment
12:00 P.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9, 2021 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Microsoft TEAMS meeting


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director of Resource Management
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Lee Kantar, Moose Biologist
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Dan Scott, Warden Service Colonel

Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Matt Thurston (Chair)
Brian Smith
Bob Duchesne
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Lindsay Ware
Shelby Rousseau
Vacancy in Piscataquis/Somerset County


GUESTS

11 citizens




I. Call to Order Council Chair, Matt Thurston called the meeting to order.


II. Introductions

Introductions were made.



III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: unanimous in favor - minutes approved.


IV. Rulemaking



A. Step 3
1. Ch. 7 Wildlife Rehabilitation Rules

Mr. Connolly stated Bob Cordes had been working with the wildlife rehab community to put rules in place to support their work. Wildlife rehabbers performed an amazing service for Maine in caring for injured wildlife with the goal to rehab the animals and release them back into the wild. It was an important responsibility and we wanted to support their work and provide a framework to effectively administer the program. The rule was designed to clarify who would have contact with the animals. Normally, in a rehab facility when rehabbing animals and trying to get them back into the wild they were trying to limit human contact and not have the animals become habituated. There was a need for volunteers, so the rule provided for volunteers, people who were authorized to help the permitted individual in the operation of the facility with tasks such as cleaning cages and doing routine things in support of the facility. They had to be provided oversight and training but they were semi-skilled or unskilled labor that performed functions at the facility when the permitted individual was there. We provided a few wording changes to help clarify that.

Mr. Connolly stated the next level of support at the facility was a subpermittee. They were a person that underwent some training to become able to provide more advanced skills and support for the facility and perhaps even take a baby animal home at night to care for it when there were animals that required 24-hour care. They were working under the permit holder and the permit holder was responsible for their oversight and training. We clarified that in order to have subpermittees, the wildlife rehab permit holder had to be approved. They had to be evaluated for their ability to provide the training. We would look at their record of compliance with our rules and providing reports and evaluate their fitness to provide the advanced training. That was section G of the proposal. What we asked of the permit holder in order to be qualified to train people to become subpermittees. Section H covered what the subpermittees actually did; they had to participate in an approved educational program. The training facility was qualified to do this and then submit a program to the Department for approval that outlined the education that would be provided to the subpermittees. The subpermittees would work under the permit holder, they would have to provide a report and they were accountable for that. This would allow the facilities to have the additional help they needed, volunteers that were unskilled would have limited contact with the animals but could perform functions and then if the permit holder wanted more skilled help they could become qualified to train people. They would submit an educational program and then establish subpermittees under their permit that could provide more advanced care to the animals and even take animals home that needed limited caging if they were animals such as baby birds that needed to be fed many hours and not just confined to a normal workday. In response to the questions and concerns for the rehab community we made a few wording changes to the proposal to help clarify that. We felt it addressed the concerns that were raised in the public comment period.

Council member comments and questions

Mr. Duschene stated he did not see anything that made it more difficult for volunteers to transport birds to Avian Haven. Was that correct?

Mr. Connolly stated there was a great benefit for the Department and Avian Haven to make use of volunteers to do that and we expected the volunteers would just be giving basic care to stabilize the animal or bird to get to the facility. Avian Haven had a network around the state and normally had volunteers close by to pick up injured birds to bring to them. It saved having to send a biologist or warden. We wanted to support that, and the proposal did not interfere with that.

Mr. Thurston stated there appeared to be a lot of collaboration amongst the rehabbers to help develop the rule language and that was wonderful to make it work for the community and the Department.

Mr. Connolly stated we would be working with the rehab community to outline what was an adequate educational program to make sure there was a good basic framework for an educational program that folks could use to implement at their facility.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to approve the proposed rule as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: unanimous Motion passes.

2. Long Pond Horsepower Restriction Petition

Commissioner Camuso stated this was a proposal that was brought forward through a petition to prohibit motorboats with more than 25 horsepower on Long Pond in Great Pond and Aurora Twp. in Hancock County. A public hearing was held on December 7th. The participation at the hearing was some in support of it and some with concerns about the petition. The public comment period closed December 17th. She asked Colonel Scott to give a summary of warden service complaints in the area. At the hearing for Long Pond the issue of jetskis came up several times. She felt with the increased participation particularly around the pandemic, folks were seeing more activity on some of the smaller water bodies and getting frustrated with increased use and activity close to their homes or camps. The Department did not have the authority to ban jetskis. The Colonel would give an overview of warden service response. In general, the Department's approach historically when we were looking to implement a horsepower restriction it was because of public safety concerns recognizing that people could cause a lot of mayhem with a 20-horsepower boat. We wanted to make sure if we were going to impose a horsepower restriction that we were doing it for a valid public safety reason that did not seem to be addressed otherwise.

Colonel Scott stated Long Pond was probably 2 miles long including the outlet. Traditionally, it had been a good spring fishing area and the boats that went along with that were typically smaller in size. In the last few years, we had seen an increase in traffic in the summer months more recreational type boating once fishing had gone by. He thought that was what was generating some of the complaints. As far as the records management system, we had two complaints last summer and some inquiries regarding the legality of personal watercraft on the pond and also boats of larger sizes being able to be operated. The wardens that responded were Alan Curtis and Shannon Fish on two different occasions mostly providing information around the current laws and lack of restrictions currently on the pond. The warden that primarily patrolled there was Jonathan Parker. He had spoken with a couple different residents regarding a couple of particular boats that we got complaints on regarding safety risks and operating in what camp owners felt was a manner that harassed wildlife. Mostly the activities were taking place in the summertime when staff were patrolling larger lakes in the area that had much more recreational activities. Warden Service enforcement efforts were stepped up during the recreational times. In the spring, we used Department boats to patrol there for fishermen and the boats had over 40 horsepower. They could be properly operated on the body of water as long as you were in compliance with other laws in place such as not harassing wildlife, reckless operation and headway speed laws. There were basically three complaints, one in 2019 and two in 2020, either inquiries into personal watercraft and the size of horsepower restrictions and one that was specific towards a larger watercraft they felt was operating too close to shore while towing tubers and operating within the headway speed law. There was also one call to the warden service from a concerned person that indicated they had checked into purchasing a boat with more than 40 horsepower prior to the purchase to see if there were any restrictions on the pond. Since there were none, they purchased a pontoon style boat with a large engine and they were concerned about the Department monitoring their operation.

Council member comments and questions

Mr. Sage stated he read through all the comments, and he did read the comment about the person with the pontoon boat with the larger motor. Most pontoon boats werent out there being reckless, they were just out there enjoying the pond. He was concerned if the horsepower restriction was put in place, those folks that had spent thousands of dollars on the boat, and were probably not the problem, would now not be able to use it. It seemed they would be opening a can of worms if anybody had any issues or complaints, we would have to regulate every body of water that was not already regulated in Maine. It almost seemed it should go back to legislation and let them try to figure it out. They could be at every Advisory Council meeting taking up different bodies of water for people that couldnt get along.

Mr. Smith asked what horsepower motors were on the warden service boats, and could the petitioners concern be addressed with 40 horsepower or less? Were the petitioners looking at going to the legislature to ban jetskis on the pond?

Colonel Scott stated the warden service boats ranged from 40 horsepower up to over 100. There were multiple wardens that patrolled that area and they had 40 and 60 horsepower boats. His comment around the motor size we provided to staff in patrol areas was more so demonstrating you could have a larger horsepower boat that was operated responsibly on a pond that didnt generate complaints, and you could also have a smaller horsepower boat that was operated irresponsibly.

Commissioner Camuso stated it was always an option for the petitioners to go to the Legislature, but we had not been informed of that. She did not know if there was a bill this session to address it or not.

Mr. Smith stated there was currently a list of waters with 10 horsepower or less restrictions, did previous Advisory Councils do that to restrict those ponds to 10 horsepower or how did that occur?

Commissioner Camuso stated she thought the previous ones were done through petition.

Mr. Duschene asked Colonel Scott if someone took video of unsafe operation in front of their camp and showed it to the warden service, how would warden service respond to that?

Colonel Scott stated anytime they had investigated a complaint whether it be civil or criminal, they had to prove by preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular violation occurred. Not everyone provided a cell phone video, that was really good evidence if they had that to identify the operator and a particular boat. Most situations they heard of after the fact. The person filing the complaint could register a statement for us to take action, or we also issued warnings.

Ms. Ware stated the wardens patrolling the area had submitted comments. Did we have any additional information from Warden Fish?

Colonel Scott stated the information he had from him in the system was a 2019 inquiry he documented where some folks were inquiring if jetskis were prohibited on the pond. He patrolled an area west of the pond.

Ms. Ware stated they had received the comments from the two wardens that primarily patrolled the area and it was extremely helpful, she was just inquiring if there were anymore.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne the proposed rule ought not to pass and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: unanimous Motion passes.


B. Step 2


There were no items under Step 2.


C. Step 1


1. Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition

Commissioner Camuso stated at the last meeting the council had voted the petition ought not to pass. Unfortunately, she had not been fully informed on the complaints from warden service. The presentation given to the Council indicated we had not had any complaints or public safety concerns issued with warden service for Notched Pond. After the meeting, it became clear that not all the information had been shared with the Council. Because of that, we wanted to bring it back before the Council to make sure they had all the information to inform their decision. We readvertised and started the petition at Step 1 to give the Council time to have all the information including warden service complaints. Because we held a public hearing previously, we did not intend to hold another hearing.

Council member comments and questions

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he believed there were two council members that voted in favor of the petition at the last meeting.

Mr. Sage stated there was no public access to the pond.

Commissioner Camuso stated that was correct, or none that they could find.

Mr. Brautigam stated he worked in the region for 25 years. There was no public access on Notched Pond, the access was all privately owned. He stated he was not sure what the historical use of the pond was. Obviously, the people that lived on the pond were reliant upon access sites they had developed on their own property or communally shared locations. It was not a water the Department actively managed.

Mr. Thurston stated he could go to the pond and provide a map to others if they chose to go to view the pond.

Mr. Sage stated he would like to visit the pond and then go back and review the public comments to see if there was something they could do.

Ms. Ware stated they were getting more information about complaints. She would find it helpful to get information from warden service about thoughts on the complaints and how they thought a horsepower restriction would help in mitigating those.

Commissioner Camuso stated Colonel Scott would provide that information at the next meeting at Step 2.

Mr. Sage stated there was concern with harassment of wildlife. Had any of that been documented by warden service or a biologist?

Mr. Thurston stated that would be provided in the overview at Step 2.

Mr. Duschene stated there was always a desire to limit bad behavior by limiting horsepower, but really what they were interested in was making sure that the bodies of water were safe for the horsepower that was there. At Step 2 he would be most interested in hearing about the safety factors at Notched Pond that may or may not warrant a change to the rule.

Mr. Thurston stated the increased participation in outdoor sports was going to drive people to other spots, there was going to be a huge demand on outdoor space that wasnt crowded or had a lot of already existing participation. Going forward in 2021 was going to be interesting.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Ch. 24 Licensed Guide rules

Mrs. Theriault stated a portion of the rule was dealing with the recreational classification and giving those who wanted to test for their hunting or fishing classification to also test for their recreational classification at the same time. The Departments goal was to allow that to occur and have the written exam combined so they could take the test all in one day. They would still have to pay the $100 fee for each classification. Under 24.04 we address any questions that someone might have regarding the additional classification. Staff had created written exams that focused either solely on the recreational portion or a combined hunting/rec test or fishing/rec test. We had lengthy conversations with the guide advisory board, examiners and licensing staff, etc. and everyone was on board with making the proposed changes.

Colonel Scott stated it made sense to make the adjustment for folks who currently had their guide license. There were provisions in current rule that if you were a hunting or fishing guide that you were permitted to take people camping on those trips. However, if you took the hunting or fishing aspect out then you would need a recreational guides license. We were trying to accommodate that and the proposal was good for all parties involved.

Mr. Thurston asked if we were seeing an increase in applications for people who wanted to guide. He had heard quite a few people stating they were going to get their license and there was quite a bit of interest.

3. 2021-22 Migratory Game Bird rules

Mr. Sullivan stated he would give an overview of the migratory bird season proposed for 2021-2022. Relative to the September Canada goose season, the difference between the geese that breed in Maine and the geese that migrate through Maine the populations were distinct enough and their trajectories and trends were different. The geese that breed in Maine are resident geese which were basically any geese that breed south of the 49th parallel. Those were the geese associated with a lot of nuisance issues and human safety, congregations in water sources and things like that. There was an Atlantic flyway population of over 750,000 and we were well above that. The assessment in 2015 was 1,250,000 so 500,000 above the goal. The goal was related to what was tolerable socially and health wise what we thought we could manage with different options like hunting seasons and other mitigation tools, depredation permits, etc. Periodically, he would get a request to look at the harvest rates for the September season and how that related to the effectiveness of keeping the population down. All the literature really pointed to a metric if you had a 25% harvest rate of your resident geese, you could potentially see a negative trend in your population. The birds we had banded in July, the number and rate they were harvested region wide compared to within the state which was the September season, and he broke it down between the north and south zone. The request that came up periodically was to increase the north zone bag limit. The harvest rates were much lower than the south zone and in no years except 2012 did the south zone reach above a 25% harvest rate for the resident goose population. Our harvest was not reaching the metric so other things like depredation permits and nuisance control were the tools that could be more effective than increasing the harvest rate, other than increasing the number of goose hunters which had been on the decline. He posed this to the Waterfowl Council members, we did not see a change in harvest rate so why would we not increase the bag limit. That really would change the harvest. The Waterfowl Council was more comfortable retaining the 6-bird bag limit in the north zone and not increasing it.

Mr. Sullivan stated another piece of information was the Maine duck production index. Annually, we used the USFWS breeding bird surveys to gauge waterfowl population trends. Because of the coronavirus none of the USFWS breeding surveys occurred the summer of 2020 so we did not really have a 2020 estimate of our breeding population for ducks in Maine. Another thing to look at was the duck production index which was based on surveys that were done across the states by regional biologists and in our 2006 waterfowl management system there were metrics of the proportion of the broods and the total broods counted from all duck species and for three species that were key to Maine in terms of harvest and the numbers were black ducks, wood ducks and ring necked ducks. Looking at a 3-year mean vs. any given year would give an idea of the population trend. For ring necked ducks and wood ducks we were within the realm of the goal of the proportion of that species that made up the total brood production for ducks in Maine. American black duck, the 3-year mean was below. The harvest of black ducks the bulk of it didnt occur until later in the season when migrants had come through. Looking at harvest estimates by USFWS the majority of black ducks harvested in Maine came from Canada where their population trend was pretty stable. The other thing to consider with the brood index was wetlands, they changed habitat quite a bit. They had grown up and filled in more and were less marshy like a floating bog mat. That was not preferential habitat for black ducks. We were not recommending any change to black duck bag limits in Maine given the overall range population was stable.

Mr. Sullivan went over the rule proposal with the Council and highlighted the two changes from last year. Woodcock season, the USFWS was allowing states to set their woodcock season as early as September 13th, previously it was October 1. Because our grouse season opened earlier we were proposing to match the woodcock season with the grouse season because of the same habitat and encountering birds to provide opportunity. Overall, there wasnt expected to be a real increase in woodcock harvest with the earlier season. The other change, two years ago we were allowed for all webless species to have compensatory days because we did not have Sunday hunting. For rails and snipe we were allowed 70 days for rails and 107 for snipe. Before, we would have to subtract Sundays from that and now we didnt. The change for each of those seasons would be later by 10 or 11 days. Snipe and rail, there were a limited number of people that participated in the hunt and harvest was relatively low. Extending another 11 days was not expected to have a substantial increase to harvest.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Smith stated in the proposal it stated no sea ducks can be taken in the coastal zone when the sea duck season is closed. However, sea ducks may be taken in the north zone and south zone...was that something to do federally because of declining sea duck populations?

Mr. Sullivan stated it was related to exposure days. Sea ducks were allowed 60-days of exposure to hunting, so if we had a 60-day sea duck season in the coastal zone, that used up the exposure days. The south and north zones, because they were a separate geographic area the 60-days were separate and unto themselves so that was why the language was there.

Commissioner Camuso stated the woodcock season, although she was pleased with it, she was cautious as most bird hunters she knew stopped running their dogs during the deer season. You werent going to lose many days in November even though the season closed earlier, not many bird hunters were actually hunting during that week. Was Mr. Sullivan confident the additional 5 days was not going to cause a decline for woodcock or grouse?

Mr. Sullivan stated considering the type of leaf cover that was in September and the encounter rates for woodcock were going to be a little more difficult, he was confident it was not going to equal a substantial harvest concern.

There were no further questions or comments.


V. Other Business


1. Adaptive Moose Hunt

Mr. Webb stated we were expecting to bring a rule proposal forward to the Council for consideration likely at the next meeting to move forward with the adaptive hunt that Mr. Kantar would describe in more detail. There would also be a proposal to establish the regular allocation of moose permits for the upcoming hunting season as well. We had been working on the issue of moose population status and the impacts of winter tick for quite a few years making significant investments in research, radio collaring moose, aerial surveys, etc. and that work led to the project and proposal that Mr. Kantar would describe.

Mr. Kantar gave a PowerPoint presentation to the group, an overview of moose management and the proposed adaptive moose hunt. For a copy of the presentation please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov

Council Member Comments and Questions

Commissioner Camuso stated the more we could do to educate the public on the adaptive moose hunt the better. She appreciated Mr. Duchesnes interest in using the topic for a presentation.

Mr. Thurston stated he agreed, there would need to be a lot of communication. It was counterintuitive that was the process to have a healthy moose herd based on science.

Mrs. Rousseau stated it was counterintuitive but the information they just received was outstanding. She had heard a little bit about it and received some calls from the local guides.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated with 8 moose per square mile in that part of the state (WMD 4), landowner companies couldnt grow any quality hardwood because of severe browsing on their property. The adaptive hunt would certainly help the moose population, but it would also help most of the forest in that part of the state.

Mr. Kantar stated the I&E department had grown and really focused on moose and it was impressive the work they had done. He sent letters to the outfitters and guides who operated in WMD 4 who had camps there. They had talked to the MPGA, and reached out to a lot of people. He wanted to make sure people were comfortable with what they were talking about. If winter ticks did not exist on the landscape, then we may not be having the discussion. Not only were winter ticks the operator on the landscape and the force behind the potential or not of how many moose were out there. There were a lot of moose in the north woods and the Department had done a great job talking about winter tick and the threats that were out there. It was hard to understand sometimes that populations could decline and increase, changing constantly. The good news in flying WMD 4 recently was it was a district that around 2012-2015 was really suffering and clearly impacted by winter tick. Last year, they saw a pretty decent increase and it showed that even in the face of winter tick in the north woods, the moose population could be resilient. The challenge in communication was that yes, winter tick was out there and a driver and had hit some of our populations harder than others, yet we still had other areas of the state that were stable and had a lot of moose. There needed to be more proactive management in the form of increased harvest to try to reduce moose densities in areas to show and demonstrate that we could have some kind of effect to decrease the impact of winter ticks.

Mr. Webb stated the I&E division had a communication plan they were in the process of implementing specific to the adaptive moose hunt. There was a lot of information on the website. It was an option in the lottery to apply for the hunt and there was quite a bit of information and disclaimers built in to the lottery system so that hunters knew it was a proposal, not finalized and if it did go forward there would likely be some unique aspects of the hunt including a pre-hunt briefing to help people be successful.

Commissioner Camuso stated when we did our survey for the big game plan with the public, the one thing that people consistently said was they werent as concerned with the population level of any particular wildlife species, but they really wanted healthy wildlife populations. It was going to be a challenge for some to understand that in order for us to get that healthy wildlife population that we were actually going to be trying to reduce the population.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Airboat update

Commissioner Camuso stated we had a rulemaking proposal previously to deal with decibel levels for airboats. We got to Step 2 and had so much negative feedback from both sides that we pulled the proposal back and are now moving forward with a consensus-based rulemaking approach. We gathered stakeholders together to try and come up with a proposal that we would then bring to the Advisory Council. It would be based on a consensus from representatives from both sides of the issue. The group had an initial meeting and an airboat demonstration was performed. Deputy Commissioner Peabody was the chair of the group and moving it forward.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the process was co-coordinated with DMR. Our rulemaking authority was in conjunction with DMR. He was co-chairing with Deirdre Gilbert from DMR. The group consisted of a resident from Brunswick, Freeport and Harpswell; three harvesters that operated airboats; shellfish officer from Brunswick and Freeport; a game warden and a marine patrol officer; town manager of Freeport and town official from Brunswick. The group had their first meeting and put some of the concerns on the table. There had been a request for an on the water demonstration during the last rulemaking effort, and the consensus-based group determined the time for that based on the tides. They wanted to replicate what the harvesters were doing. They had 3 airboats, then ran a prescribed route. They had 3 certified sound meter operators which were game wardens from the Department. They took readings from the three locations. They would be going over the data at their next meeting. There was also an interested party list of over 120 people, which was part of the consensus-based rulemaking process to include interested parties in the information process. However, they did not participate in the actual consensus-based meeting process. The goal was to have language for both Commissioners to review by the end of February.

Mr. Thurston stated it was a challenging issue, and most of it took place in his district in Cumberland County. There were a lot of moving parts to the demonstration, and they had an actual certified decibel meter. They did show there were some inequities between certain phone apps. He got to see airboats down in the mud, and it was surprising the boats in the mud were actually quieter than they were on the water.

There were no further questions or comments.


VI. Councilor Reports


Councilors gave reports.

Mrs. Rousseau stated she had a phone call from someone with concerns about the online hunter safety courses and the risks that they may put to private landowners.

Commissioner Camuso stated Mr. Connolly could give a presentation at the next meeting on online hunter education courses. He could give the history and some of the results not only in Maine but nationally and what the other states did.

Commissioner Camuso stated the Council would soon be hearing of an extension of the free fishing weekend to the entire week, beginning February 13 February 20, 2021.


VII. Public Comments & Questions


Shawn Higgins stated she wanted to comment on the Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition. She was one of the three main petitioners and wanted to thank the Department for revisiting the issue. Listening to some of the comments, the Council was invited to the pond and they could access from her property or probably many others. She wanted to make it clear that their main reason for the petition had always been because of safety. Unfortunately, at the last meeting in December the Council was not given the proper information and upon hearing that she made some effort to get the information for them. She spoke with Lt. Gormely who was very surprised they were given the wrong information. He did a search and came up with a fairly accurate list of complaints on Notched Pond. There were at least six complaints with four or five visits to the pond from warden service to deal with the complaints. There was a huge concern for safety. Even though the pond was about 70 acres there were really only about 50 acres of safe zone for boaters. It really wasnt a matter of trying to control behavior, even safe operation of boats posed a risk to other people on the lake. Two people she heard from directly were almost hit with, one person a boat and one a jet ski from people safely operating boats that simply did not take account of the people on the lake. Safety was an issue regardless of behavior there.

Susan Gallo stated she was the Executive Director of Maine Lakes and they listened in on the rules and regulations regarding restrictions on boats. They were very supportive of boat use, but one of the comments that caught her ear was someone on the Council was worried about opening a can of worms in opening the rule process. She wanted them to be aware the can of worms was there, it had been handed to all the people of Maine and they had the mechanism to open the can. It had been in the hands of the people for a long time since the Great Ponds Task Force, and she didnt think they would be overwhelmed with lake by lake rules. It was a tool that citizens could use, and she wanted to be sure they didnt discourage people from pursuing it.

Wayne Stewart stated he was a resident on Notched Pond and he wanted to point out something that Shawn Higgins eluded to. When you thought about the size of the water, 77 acres with about 50 usable acres for boating, but it was actually less than that. There was one area in the center of the lake where the boats could go in circles. When you thought about a boat on the water and kayakers, swimmers and wildlife there was not a lot of room for all of those things to coexist safely. If they went to the pond and saw it they would know what he was talking about. He did not currently own a boat, but did enjoy the sport. Using common sense, Notched Pond did not support use of any large watercraft or horsepower.

John Vetelino stated he was a camp owner on Long Pond. Maybe it wasnt clearly described in the petition, but the major motivation stemmed from waterskies, jet skis, people on skis being towed by boats and jet skis and violating the laws. They were dealing with a pond that was less than mile wide and probably less than a mile long and the petition had probably close to 50% of the residents in Great Pond where the navigable part of Long Pond was located. He would like some guidance and advice from the Council in terms of how to proceed. Their situation seemed to mirror the one on Notched Pond and he didnt know if the point had gotten across to the Council in terms of large boats towing skiers, jet skis, etc. on a body of water thats not really appropriate. They had several instances on Long Pond where swimmers had felt threatened by people on skis and jet skis and kids there were right along the shoreline almost hit by a jet ski and ropes towing skiers. It was a situation that was really a concern to them and they were looking for how to proceed.

Commissioner Camuso stated we could assist with increased patrols there.

Colonel Scott stated the information presented was the information known to the warden service regarding the complaints that had come in. If there were specific complaints, concerns about swimmers or personal watercraft striking them they could call their regional headquarters in Bangor and ask the camp owners to be specific about the concerns they had. If they knew who the boat operators were, the answer to many of the concerns was increased focused law enforcement in those areas to address the situations. The majority of operators on the ponds were not breaking laws or causing hazardous situations. He knew Notched Pond had made several specific complaints that were addressed by wardens giving specific operators warnings. If they could get the information to staff and be specific about dates and times and the activity and call when it was ongoing or take videos. They could address the issues with current laws that were on the books.

John Glowa stated he lived in South China and wanted to express his concern; he was in opposition to the proposed adaptive moose hunt. He fully understood the biological principles but, in his opinion, the real focus of the project was twofold. First, in the short term the Department wanted to increase moose killing opportunities. Second, the Department wanted to generate additional Pittman Robertson revenue. The project made no sense from any number of perspectives. According to the Department, moose densities were too high and calf survival was too low. The Departments proposed response was to kill more moose to lower moose densities and decrease winter ticks in order to increase calf survival and most importantly to increase moose density and hunting opportunities. Once moose densities increased and winter tick populations rebounded the Department would want to kill more moose to lower moose densities again. When moose densities decline calf survival will likely increase, as would moose density, winter ticks would increase and the Department would want to kill more moose, and on and on. There were two alternatives to what he saw as a waste of public resources. The first alternative was to do nothing, let the moose population rise and fall naturally. Let predators like wolves and bears take their share of weakened moose. Second, if the real purpose was to conduct research, work with Quebec or work in areas of Maine where moose densities were already artificially lowered. Monitor the prevalence of winter ticks in calf survival in those areas rather than killing more moose in northern Maine. He encouraged the Department to reconsider the so-called adaptive moose hunt.

There were no further questions or comments.


VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting


The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. via Microsoft Teams.


IX. Adjournment


A motion was made by Mr. Sage and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:08 p.m.

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Virtual TEAMS meeting
(contact Becky Orff at 287-5202 or becky.orff@maine.gov by close of business on 5/3 for details on how to participate)

Tuesday, May 4, 2021 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.
I-A. Moment of Silence
II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting
III-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3
1. Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition - Commissioner Camuso


B. Step 2
1. Adaptive Moose Hunt - Nate Webb
2. Moose permit allocations - Nate Webb


C. Step 1
1. Ch. 16 & 17 furbearer rules - Shevenell Webb
2. Expanded Archery areas - Nathan Bieber
3. 2021 Any-deer permit allocations - Nathan Bieber


V. Other Business


VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 A.M.
VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment
12:00 P.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
March 23, 2021 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Virtual (Microsoft TEAMS) meeting


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Lee Kantar, Moose Biologist
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Dan Scott, Warden Service Colonel
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Matt Thurston (Chair)
Brian Smith
Jerry Scribner
Kristin Peet
Bob Duchesne
Al Cowperthwaite
Shawn Sage
Lindsay Ware
Shelby Rousseau
Vacancy in Piscataquis/Somerset County


GUESTS
24 citizens & Department staff


I. Call to Order
Council Chair, Matt Thurston called the meeting to order.



II. Introductions
Introductions were made.



III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. Sage to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: Two (2) abstained (Mrs. Peet and Mr. Scribner as they did not attend the previous meeting) seven (7) in favor; none opposed - minutes approved.


IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3
There were no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2

1. Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition

Commissioner Camuso stated this was a re-review of the Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition. Colonel Scott would give a summary of Warden Service calls for service and interactions on the pond.

Colonel Scott stated they searched their records management system and since 2016 there were six (6) different calls for service at Notched Pond for operation of motorboats and personal watercraft. One was in 2016 which resulted in a summons for an unregistered boat. The complaint was a headway speed violation and harassment of loons and wildlife. The warden located the boat and it was unregistered. In order to summons a person for headway speed the caller would have to provide a statement and testify, or the warden would have to observe the behavior. It was addressed with an unregistered watercraft violation and a warning for headway speed. The other five (5) calls for service were in 2020 in the last weeks of May and June. They ranged from jetskis speeding around the pond types of complaints to some dangerous situations with motorboats operating there. Out of the five calls, wardens responded twice directly to the pond and both times issued warnings to the operators. Several of the complainants wished to remain anonymous. Without written statements providing what was seen in order to bring charges forth to the court, the wardens would need to observe or issue a warning. The other situations, the wardens receiving the calls were from a considerable distance away and spoke with the complainants and documented it in the records management system. One of the challenges was overall staffing, Notched Pond was one of thousands and they could only be so many places at once. If the warden wasn't there to observe the activity and the folks filing the complaints werent able to provide a statement and identify the boat and operator, we would often address the issues with warnings in an attempt to fix the problem.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Sage stated where the Council had heard the proposal before and some of them would be leaving the Council, could they move the proposal to Step 3 for a vote and clear it off the agenda for the new members coming in?

Commissioner Camuso stated yes.

Mr. Thurston asked if Mr. Sage was referencing the Notched Pond item, or all the items under Step 2?

Mr. Sage stated they could do all three.

Mr. Sage made a motion to move the Step 2 items to Step 3 and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: no one in opposition - motion passed.

Mr. Thurston stated they would stick with item number one which was the Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition.

Mr. Sage made a motion to approve the horsepower petition as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Ms. Ware stated she was not ready to vote on the proposal. She felt she would need to abstain from the vote.

Commissioner Camuso stated they could hold the proposal at Step 2 and vote next month.

Mr. Duchesne stated he thought they might have a discussion period before they moved to vote as well. They had a motion and went right to a vote without discussion.

Commissioner Camuso stated they would have the discussion and hold until next month.

Ms. Ware stated she would like to have additional weigh in from Warden Service about possible implications or what it would mean to enforcement if the proposed rule passed.

Colonel Scott stated it would likely be increased complaints similar to the headway speed complaints if someone observed someone on the pond operating a boat that had more than 10 horsepower. We would respond and if that was the case and it was able to move forward in the court system they could be summonsed for a violation of a Commissioners rule.

Mr. Duschene asked how many residents currently on the pond had motors greater than 10 horsepower? Just because they had a lot of horsepower didnt mean they were going to go fast. He wondered if there were unintended consequences happening if they suddenly outlawed homeowners boats that were currently on the pond.

Mr. Smith stated the warden would have the discretion for a warning for a first-time offense for educational purposes, correct?

Colonel Scott stated they always had discretion to issue a warning to someone. They had the same questions and issues on other lakes and ponds. There were a lot of people that had boats over a particular horsepower that operated them appropriately. There were other laws in place to address inappropriate or irresponsible behavior.

Mrs. Peet stated she had missed a couple of meetings, but one of the last meetings she missed she submitted comments about the proposal. She was in favor of it passing, but most of the Council was not. She was not sure what had changed. She thought the guidance from IFW was it may be an issue with one or two people and to legislate for an entire pond might not make sense. She felt a little lost and hoped someone could explain why there was a difference now in most of the Council.

Commissioner Camuso stated the Council voted on the proposal and at that time we did not have the record of complaints from Warden Service. There had been an error and the communication was not received. When that was realized, we decided in all fairness to bring the proposal back and let the Council make the decision with all the information.

Ms. Ware stated it was mentioned there were five (5) complaints in 2020. There were comments from the public about safety issues and there were complaints. Was there any additional information or discussion they could have about the safety aspect.

Colonel Scott stated the complaints that came in were on May 23rd, 25th and 29th and they all reported jetskis and power boats causing issues speeding around the pond and in some cases violating the headway speed law. Concerns about smaller bodies of water around the state were areas where you could operate a large motorboat outside the headway speed zone, but those areas were sometimes small. The complaints were around concerns with swimmer safety and also erosion. The reason for the headway speed law was to protect swimmer safety anytime there were larger boats on lakes and ponds that were speeding around.

Mr. Duchesne stated whenever the issues came up it was easy to think of the jetskis and water skiers too close to shore as the issue, but limiting of horsepower was always the recommended tool for that. He was not sure that was the appropriate tool. He came back to the example of someone with a pontoon boat that went out for a headway speed sunset cruise in the evening. He did not necessarily want to ban those people from using their own property. The same as with a bass boat with an 85-horsepower motor and an electric motor they can use and go less than 1mph. He did not want to use the wrong tool. He thought people that wanted to make complaints would be advised to take video of what was going on so they could show the wardens and maybe that would help some of the problem.

Mr. Smith asked if there was anyone on the pond opposed to the 10-horsepower restriction petition? On the ponds that were restricted to 10 horsepower, were there signs up stating that at the boat launch or somewhere conspicuous?

Colonel Scott stated in some places there were, but horsepower restrictions were published in the boating lawbook and the Department website.

Mr. Scribner stated it appeared there were 30 or so lakes and ponds that fell into the motor size restriction of 10 horsepower being prohibited, he heard the statement regarding signage. What had the Departments experience been in trying to enforce the restriction on the current waters with horsepower restrictions.

Colonel Scott stated they did not receive a lot of complaints about it. Very often, once the restriction was placed on a body of water it was pretty straightforward if you were boating there with more than the associated horsepower you would be in violation. There was legal precedence behind the statues and in many of the areas that had restrictions there was good compliance.

Mr. Scribner stated on some of the bodies of water, were there some that when the restriction was implemented landowners already possessed boats with greater than 10 horsepower and if so, what kind of ramifications did instituting the restriction cause?

Colonel Scott stated he could not speak specifically to that. In many situations the complaints were coming from people who had camps on the pond and the complaints were directed towards someone who was staying at a camp. He would surmise there were people who already owned boats that were impacted by the restriction.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he thought there was someone on the pond that had a pontoon boat with a larger horsepower motor that was opposed. If there was a shoreline speed limit and the Legislature was considering allowing them to ban personal watercraft he felt those two mechanisms would solve the problem at Notched Pond.

Ms. Orff stated she went back to the minutes from the public hearing. There were eight people that attended with five submitting testimony. They all commented in favor of the horsepower restrictions. Written comments received on the first advertisement of the proposal, we received three comments which were all in favor. Written comments on the current advertisement of the proposal, only the petitioner sent in comment regarding calls for service to warden service.

Mr. Sage stated it was the Long Pond petition proposal where the individual with the pontoon boat had commented.

Mrs. Peet asked about the calls for service to warden service. When the wardens went there, was nobody willing to put their statements in writing, or the complainants did not want to be on file?

Colonel Scott stated the notations he had of the five times things came up in 2020, at least three had notations that the complainants wished to remain anonymous. The other two were not noted one way or another.

Mr. Thurston stated the discussion was helpful and the item would be at Step 3 at the next meeting.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Ch. 24 Licensed Guide rules Mrs. Theriault stated last spring we did a major overhaul of the Chapter 24 guide rules. Part of that was to allow current hunting and fishing guide classification license holders to be able to take their recreational classification test and not have to take the entire oral board exam, just a written exam and pay the $100 fee. Somehow, the portion for renewals was omitted or those that already had their hunting and fishing classifications to be able to upgrade to get the recreational classification and that was the intent of the proposed rule. As of January 1, 2021, we had already implemented the new exams which combined a hunting and recreational classification or a fishing and recreational classification. That option was available to first time applicants. The proposal also clarified that somebody who currently had their hunting or fishing classification and came in prior to their renewal date and wanted the recreational classification could do so without having another background check. It also made it clear that the recreational test, the expiration on the classification would align with their hunting or fishing classification. We were hoping to move the item to Step 3. Only three written comments were received, and they were all in support.

Mr. Thurston asked if there were any questions or discussion before moving to Step 3?

There were no further questions or requests for discussion.

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to move the item to Step 3 and that was seconded by Mr. Scribner.

Vote: unanimous in favor; item moved to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Sage to approve the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Vote: unanimous in favor; motion passed.

3. 2021-22 Migratory Game Bird rules

Mr. Webb stated this was an annual rulemaking effort to set the bag limits and season dates for duck, geese and other migratory birds. There were two substantial changes this year one being an earlier start date for woodcock to September 25 to align the start date with grouse and other upland species. The other change was to end the season for common snipe and rails two weeks later due to a change in the way states that did not allow Sunday hunting were accommodated for in the Federal framework. The remainder of the proposal were adjustments to the season dates based on the calendar. A public hearing was held on February 9th with three participants providing comment. They were primarily related to the closing date of the coastal zone. Based on feedback and further discussion with the Waterfowl Council, the Department was moving the proposal forward as originally presented.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Smith stated he had discussion with some of the coastal zone hunters and because of the warmer weather and later closing date for regular ducks wondered if it might be better within the framework to put the closing on the same date as sea ducks on January 15th , a week later than January 3rd.

Mr. Sullivan stated there were three comments at the public hearing and some written comments related to the subject. The suggestion from those folks was to go to January 8th. The comments raised valid points but looking at the coastal zone season we set the dates in order to maximize the number of Saturdays and capture Veterans day, and also taking into account the falconry season. There was some concern with increased coastal zone hunting later into the winter on increasing stress levels especially for black ducks which headed for the marshes. Thing were getting colder and blocked up with ice and they had fewer places to go so there was more hunting pressure which could increase stress levels and effect survival fitness. Eagles were also putting more pressure on black ducks as the winter set in. Those were things we looked at with the coastal zone. He reached out to the falconers and one provided comment they were not in favor of expanding the season. Discussing the comments with the Waterfowl Council they had a vote and of the ten members Mr. Sullivan received responses from nine; five were in support of moving the coastal zone end date to January 8th; four were not in favor; one did not respond. Based on there not being a clear majority Mr. Sullivan would take the comments into consideration when planning for next years season. We did recognize that things were becoming milder in January.

Mr. Sullivan stated he wanted to clarify a portion of the proposal that Mr. Smith brought up for discussion at the last meeting. On page 3, Section B. Sea Ducks, a note was highlighted at the bottom of the sea duck season. The highlight was not a change, it had been in place for a number of years but had been omitted from the section inadvertently.

Mr. Thurston stated he would take a motion to move the item to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Smith and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne to move the proposal to Step 3 for a vote.

Vote: unanimous motion approved

A motion was made by Mr. Smith and that was seconded by Mrs. Peet to approve the proposal as presented.

Vote: unanimous motion passed

Commissioner Camuso stated Mr. Sullivan would like to give a brief update on a potential change for the 2022-2023 migratory bird season.

Mr. Sullivan stated there was a proposal at the flyway council meeting in March to eliminate the special sea duck season. With that elimination, there may be implications to regular duck season and preferences of sea duck hunters in coastal zone regular duck hunters because eliminating the special sea duck season would put sea duck hunting tied to the regular duck season dates. Any sea duck hunting or coastal zone regular duck hunting would have to be the same dates and also the same total bag limit. In 2016, they made a change at the flyway level to reduce the sea duck season to reduce harvest because of concerns with sea duck populations in general. Since that change, they had seen significant increases in harvest not decreases so the council and tech committee felt it pertinent to move forward with a proposal to eliminate the sea duck season. There would still be sea duck hunting, but within regular duck season dates. That would be voted on by the service regulations committee. Generally, recommendations from the wildlife council passed. Sea duck hunters were aware of the potential season change.

There were no further comments or questions.


C. Step 1


1. Adaptive Moose Hunt (WMD 4)

Mr. Webb stated Mr. Kantar gave an overview of the proposal and the need for the project at the previous Council meeting. A memo had been distributed that explained how the Department anticipated the adaptive hunt would operate. We would take the western half of WMD 4 in northwestern Maine, split that into a north and south subunit and issue antlerless permits in those two subunits during late October into the first week of November during three distinct hunt weeks in order to increase antlerless moose harvest. In that area we would evaluate whether or not reducing the moose density could impact or reduce the impact of winter tick on moose. Most of the laws and rules associated with the regular moose hunting season would apply other than those smaller subunits and the permits allocated specifically in the smaller areas as well as the additional hunt weeks which were in addition to the regular hunting season framework. We recommended requiring hunters that drew one of the permits to attend a pre-hunt briefing that we would offer prior to receiving their permit to give us an opportunity to go over the nuances of the hunt and make the hunt as successful as possible.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Scribner stated it was his understanding that the lottery for the adaptive moose hunt was separate from the regular lottery. If someone applied for the adaptive moose hunt and was selected, their bonus points would go to zero and they would be viewed as being successful in the lottery process, was that correct?

Mr. Webb stated it would be a new segment in the regular lottery, but the permits would be drawn after all the permits associated with the regular hunt had already been drawn. The only way a hunter would draw an adaptive unit permit was if all the regular moose permits had already been allocated. This would be the last step in the draw process. If someone indicated they would like to be put in the draw for an adaptive permit and they drew one of the permits that would zero out their bonus points. The statute was clear on how bonus points worked. We wanted to ensure hunters that were drawn for a permit were committed to participating in the hunt and putting in the effort.

Commissioner Camuso stated that was part of why we were requiring folks that were drawn for a permit to attend a briefing so we could explain to them fully before they received their permit.

Mrs. Peet asked about the statute that governed the allocation of the permits. She would like to propose that 20% of the permits (100 permits) were given to the Mic Mac and Maliseet tribes who did not currently have any trust or reservation land they were able to hunt on. That was a community that would use the permits for sustenance purposes and she thought that would be a great show of solidarity with the tribes by the State if that were able to be done.

Commissioner Camuso stated that would require a statutory change. Legislation determined the priorities given to those applying for the lotteries.

Mr. Kantar stated in reference to getting the word out on the hunt, the Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife recently released their permit recommendations. One of the interesting parts of that, even though they had very few permits and a small geographic area where the moose were, they reiterated what we had done in Maine and NH as far as research on moose density and winter tick. Based on their data they wanted to keep their moose below a moose per square mile. We would also have a feature story in May 2021 on moose and winter tick in the Natural History Magazine.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Moose Permit Allocations 2021

Mr. Webb stated we updated moose permit numbers every year. A meeting was held to review all the information available on the moose population based on research and data. Based on the information, we were recommending 345 more permits statewide from 2020. Most of those were small increases in WMDs 1-9. We were proposing 50 antlerless permits in WMD 8 which was a more substantial change. There hadnt been antlerless permits issued in that WMD in recent years, but we felt based on the research specifically in WMD 8 as well as the broader effort underway to collect information on the impact of winter tick that managing the population in that WMD through the use of an antlerless harvest was very important for the good of the resource. There were no substantial changes otherwise. The permits being proposed in the adaptive unit were in addition to the permits allocated for the regular hunt.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Scribner stated in Table 1. in the handout, in WMD 7 and 9 it spoke to, "recommending public consultation to issue cow permits for moose population health." Would that be through public hearings?

Mr. Webb stated WMDs 7-9 were in the hot zone for what we observed for impacts due to winter tick due to both the relatively high density of moose as well as those WMDs were towards the southern end of core moose range. In the past there had been fairly significant local opposition to issuing antlerless permits in the area because of the importance in that part of the state for moose viewing and tourism. We had proposed permits in WMD 9 in the past and removed the recommendation based on public feedback. We would need to hold local public meetings to help share information and the biological reasons to support managing moose to a lower density in that part of the state. We viewed the adaptive hunt as a broader effort to collect information we hoped would support that public outreach. If the hunt showed reducing moose density could improve moose health and reduce impact of winter tick, our hope was we could use that example to help with our communication with the public regarding the need to manage moose at a lower density.

Mr. Thurston stated when he looked at the cow permits for WMDs 7-9 we were proposing 50 permits in WMD 8. There were zero permits being issued in 7 or 9. We would be getting data from WMD 4 with respect to cow productivity, etc. and we were looking for more data from WMD 8 because it was regionally different, or it was a hot zone?

Mr. Webb stated we had a great deal of information from WMD 8 as it was a study area for the past few years. He asked Mr. Kantar to clarify.

Mr. Kantar stated in WMDs 7-9 he would like to have issued cow permits there years ago. WMD 8 was ground zero for winter tick impacts. Fifty cow permits across 2,000 square miles was just a start to where we should be. The permits being recommended in WMD 8 had to do with the social aspect. The biology and science was there in spades. WMD 7, there had been some communication with people who lived and guided there. There had always been questions about access around WMDs 7 and 13. There were no further recommendations at this point for WMD 7 until we could continue further discussions. WMD 8 had excellent access across the zone.

Mr. Thurston stated WMD 4 was chosen to be the adaptive zone, could Mr. Kantar give some perspective on 4 over 8.

Mr. Kantar stated looking at latitude in the state, there was a sweet spot centered around WMDs 7-9 where the elements of winter tick numbers, moose density and warmer winters or shorter winters had made that ground zero for ticks impacting moose. As you went further north into WMD 4 we believed there was a place where that continuum of impacts changed with the extreme of less effects happening into WMDs 1 and 2. There were still impacts from tick, but the worst impacts were towards WMD 8.

Mr. Thurston asked with the collared moose, were we seeing an increase with respect to mortality?

Mr. Kantar stated WMD 4 was the only unit currently where we had put in GPS collars in January, 70 collared calves. Currently we were at 10% loss and he expected the next two weeks it would increase. A recently necropsied moose had a majority of adult ticks and feeding females engorged with blood. The sample showed we were on the verge of that time of year again. We wouldnt know the relative impact of mortality in WMD 4 until the end of April.

There were no further questions or comments.


V. Other Business
1. Airboat Rules Update

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the consensus-based process was a second attempt at rulemaking. Because of the controversy on both sides of the issue it was decided to try the consensus-based process. A 12-member stakeholder group was assembled. There were 3 persons representing the citizens side from Brunswick, Freeport and Harpswell; 3 persons on the airboat side representing shellfish harvesters; 2 shellfish municipal officers from Freeport and Brunswick; a game warden and a marine patrol officer. The focus was on reaching consensus on the decibel level. Five meetings were held which lasted 2 hours each, the last meeting was 3 hours. An on the water demonstration was also conducted in Freeport with 3 different airboats. There were two proposals circulated from the citizens side primarily focused on 75db in the morning and also 75db with a shoreline decibel reading during the day. The harvesters/airboat operators put up a proposal for 75db from 7pm to 7am and 90db during the day. A counter proposal from the citizen side was 75db in the morning and 80db during the day. The Department put together language for consideration for 75db in the morning and 90db during the day with some considerations for launching and moving the boat along quietly. The last meeting day was three hours trying to reach consensus. Consensus was not reached for the decibel level so rulemaking language was not presented to the Council. We were finalizing a report to the Legislature which would include the work done to this point. Some recommendations came out of the process, to continue working with the stakeholder group and to gather more information on airboat data. The stakeholder group was challenged without having a lot of data to work with for airboats operating on the coast of Maine. We did determine there was a challenge nationwide through conversations with other law enforcement agencies across the county. There were varying decibel levels for airboats across the country and there was a lot of challenge in being successful in measuring and prosecuting the outliers.

Mr. Thurston stated the bill, if it went to the Legislature would not be particular to one geographic area but for the whole state. It could affect more than just airboats depending what happened in the Legislature.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Online Hunter Education

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated this was requested at the last meeting to have an overview. During 2020 because of the pandemic, the Commissioner determined to go to full certification with online hunter education. A lot of the in-person classes were canceled due to the pandemic and there had been internal conversations about promoting further online hunter ed opportunities. Since we went fully online for firearms, we had 6,668 individuals that took online hunter education. The gender diversity was in the mid 30% for women taking the course. The age demographic of the group was in line with our target audience to bring new participants into hunting of 18-45. The same age distribution held for bowhunters, but crossbows was an older age group taking online hunter ed. Crossbows, there had been 3,673 individuals that took the online course in the past year, and 3,186 took online bowhunting. Along with the online courses, in-person programming through volunteer instructors were severely impacted by the pandemic. There were 88 classes scheduled for 2020, 690 individuals were certified and there was a decrease of 2,800 students from the pervious year due to the pandemic. The online courses picked up a lot of the need and desire to take hunter ed when the in-person courses were hampered.

Commissioner Camuso stated when we switched over to a fully online option about 30 other states had switched over and had the option available. Since September 2020 almost all states had a fully online option. The number of women taking the online class was very important to note, our average license sales for women was up 15%, and had been slowly increasing by 12%. It was a trend they were seeing nationally. There had been a lot of feedback across the country about women feeling more comfortable taking the online course, feeling it met their schedule better. It was something that would be monitored for safety and making sure we were adhering to the standards of hunter ed. She thought most states would be, as we were, utilizing hunter ed instructors in a different capacity. We would continue to offer the hands-on firearms training and make sure we had those opportunities available for anyone that was interested. We would also broaden some of the things we offered.

Mr. Sage stated he hoped the Department would be monitoring and if the death rate went up to revisit it. They had worked really hard to keep years with zero deaths. Until hunter safety came along, it was nothing to have 30-50 deaths per year. He also asked the Department to consider legislation to make it a crime for someone else to take hunter safety classes for someone.

Mr. Smith asked about online tagging for wild turkey.

Commissioner Camuso stated we were looked at as the agency to provide the science and we had solid data to support the science. What we had seen with other states when they went to online or phone in registration was compliance with registering dropped significantly. States that harvested 230,000 deer per year could survive with 25% compliance because that was still a lot of data. We did not have that luxury in Maine, so we were not comfortable at this point moving to an online system for bear, deer or moose.

Mr. Webb stated there were a couple of bills coming up at the Legislature that dealt with online tagging, one specifically for turkey. We would be providing testimony on the bills. We viewed our system as the gold standard, it was the model by which all systems were judged. We heard routinely from other states they wished they had a system like ours. It allowed us to do the best possible job managing the species and anything less would erode that ability to some degree.

Mr. Sage asked if Mr. Cordes could give the Council a synopsis of how the R3 program was going.

Mr. Cordes stated they had been moving forward since last summer, skirting around the pandemic and testing out some curriculum development. They had a good partnership with the Ladies Adventure Club in the Portland area to test out some firearms training, fire building, shelter building skills, winter tracking, etc. They held about two workshops per month. The Department would be starting some Zoom presentations on wild turkey. We were constantly building new stuff and testing it and spreading around to the clubs.

There were no further questions or comments.


VI. Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports.


VII. Public Comments & Questions
Dan Walker stated he was one of the resident participants in the consensus-based rulemaking process from Freeport. He wanted to thank the Department and Deputy Commissioner Peabody for leading them through the rulemaking process. They did not reach consensus, they hoped to make some progress. Airboats had no decibel limit currently and they were basically unregulated other than very vague standards that were in place. During the Freeport demonstration they observed that the loudest reading that was taken from the loudest boat was 83db. He wanted to clarify that the resident group did not approve of 75db in the morning from the shoreline, it was an acceptance of what the existing decibel limits were currently which were 75db from 50 feet which was a huge difference. The proposal from the residents was 65db using a shoreline reading in the morning, and 80db during the day. They were understanding of the exception needed to get the boats up to speed and getting off the mud. They were hoping to put some parameters in place that not just every airboat could meet, but they aspired to meet. They hoped the report to the Legislature was a good road map to help the process and with some parameters that were not something the airboats were fully willing to accept because they knew their boats could achieve some of them. The study being recommended, they were supportive, and they would like the work group to continue. The study should not just look at what an airboat could and could not do, they should also be looking at what was appropriate for the amount of noise and sound in areas where there were residents and wildlife. That was a crucial part of the study going forward, it didnt have to be a study there was a lot of information out there that could be gathered. He heard a comment that it was a working waterfront issue and a slippery slope, the airboats were unique tools and uniquely loud and it was about airboats not about other things. Everybody supported the working waterfront; this was wanting to regulate something that was really loud for 1,000s of citizens. It was a statewide issue.

John Glowa stated he would like to comment on the adaptive moose hunt. It made no scientific sense for IFW to promote the killing of natural predators of moose that included wolves, coy-wolves and bears while saying there were too many moose. Stop killing the mooses natural predators. The adaptive moose hunt was a slaughter that would kill 100s of pregnant moose and would orphan and indirectly kill Maine moose calves under the guise of moose research. He would do everything in his ability to stop it.


VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. via Microsoft Teams.


IX. Adjournment
A motion was made by Mr. Sage and that was seconded by Mr. Smith to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Virtual TEAMS meeting (contact Becky Orff at 287-5202 or becky.orff@maine.gov by close of business on 7/6 for details on how to participate)

Wednesday, July 7, 2021 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3 There are no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2 1. Ch. 16 & 17 furbearer rules..... Nate Webb

2. Expanded Archery areasNate Webb
3. 2021 Any-deer permit allocations. Nate Webb


C. Step 1 1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2022. Francis Brautigam
2. Educational Trip Leader permit rulesChristl Theriault


V. Other Business 1. Overview of horsepower restrictions and concerns..Commissioner Camuso


VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 A.M.M
VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment 12:00 P.M.


ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
May 4, 2021 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Virtual (Microsoft TEAMS) meeting


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Nathan Bieber, Deer Biologist
Shevenell Webb, Furbearer Biologist
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Matt Thurston (Chair)
Brian Smith
Jerry Scribner
Kristin Peet
Bob Duchesne
Lindsay Ware
Shelby Rousseau
Vacancy in Piscataquis/Somerset County
Vacancy in York County


GUESTS
10 citizens & Department staff


I. Call to Order
Council Chair, Matt Thurston called the meeting to order.



II. Introductions
Introductions were made.



III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. Scribner to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: unanimous in favor - minutes approved.


III-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Commissioner Camuso stated nominations had been recommending Jerry Scribner as Council Chair and Kristin Peet as Vice-Chair. She stated this was the Council's vote so if anyone else wanted to step forward as Chair or Vice-Chair, this was their opportunity. She suggested that next year there be a nomination committee in February or March to have a conversation about the Chair and Vice-Chair moving forward.

There were no further nominations or comments.

A motion was made by Mrs. Rousseau to nominate Mr. Scribner as Council Chair and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: in favor (7) unanimous: motion passed.

A motion was made by Mrs. Rousseau to nominate Mrs. Peet as Council Vice-Chair and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: in favor (7) unanimous: motion passed.


IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3


1. Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition

Commissioner Camuso stated this was the second time the Council had taken up the petition to restrict the horsepower on Notched Pond in Cumberland County. The first time the Council voted, they did not have all the necessary information to make an informed decision, so it was brought back to the Council. Nothing had changed since Step 2. At the next meeting we would give an overview on horsepower concerns. At the Council and before the Legislature there had been a number of similar horsepower/watercraft responsible recreation concerns.

Mr. Thurston stated if there was some structure around horsepower restrictions going forward with the Legislature, he thought that would be good. It would become a very common item with the amount of water bodies in Maine. With the Covid transition and the amount of recreation that was taking place on trails and on the water, there needed to be a process. He wanted to comment on behalf of Mr. Cowperthwaite as well who was not able to attend the meeting. Although he could not vote as he was not in attendance, he did want everyone on the Council to know he was still in favor of the Notched Pond horsepower restriction petition.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Peet stated she reached out to the Biodiversity Research Institute, she knew a number of the comments that came in were related to loon safety and nest destruction due to wake issues. The data they had showed successful nesting of two chicks hatched in 2016 and two chicks hatched in 2020 on Notched Pond.

Mr. Duchesne stated he was not quite clear on the difference between statute and rule, putting this in rule. There were some bodies of water that were in statute and apparently they could also do it by rule and not go through the Legislature?

Commissioner Camuso stated the difference was the Advisory Council could address horsepower restrictions only. There had been some proposals at the Legislature to ban personal watercraft. To ban an entire segment of watercraft, specifically personal watercraft, that had to go before the Legislature as the Department did not have that rulemaking authority. The outcome of a bill that was before the IFW Committee directed the Department to bring together a group and come back during the next session and make recommendations on how to handle horsepower restrictions, personal watercraft, etc.

Mr. Duchesne stated he had his own decision maker having dealt with this kind of issue multiple times in the past. His first instinct was if somebody was misbehaving, the answer to that was not to ban everybody else's behavior, it was to enforce whatever boating safety laws needed enforcement. The choice of putting a body of water off limits to horsepower was not the choice of those who lived around the lake. They did not own the water, the public did, and he was always going to be uncomfortable telling the public they could not use a body of water restricting there ability by horsepower unless there was a good reason for it. There were two reasons he would approach this and say he could support it. The first was the size of the pond which was in fact pretty small. He went to Google Earth and reviewed some of the ponds that were in statute in the Bridgeton area and there were two or three other ponds roughly the same size that did have a 10-horsepower restriction. What he found persuasive was going on the satellite view he did not see a single large boat in anybodys yard. He thought the residents had made the judgement that it was not a good body of water for any significant watercraft. The other thing that would sway him in a direction was whether law enforcement could actually be effective on the body of water. He thought the residents had complained and filed comments and complaints before and the warden service was not able to respond in a timely fashion to enforce it. He had raised questions if they could take cell phone videos and if that was sufficient evidence. He did not know what type of evidence was really needed for the Department to act if they could not be there in person when an offense was being committed. He was on the fence regarding his decision and was interested in seeing what the rest of the Council had to say before making a final decision.

Mr. Thurston stated he hated to see denying the people that recreated responsibly and were not creating conflict and found it unfortunate that they were boxed in like that. He too was looking for more input with respect to the situation.

Ms. Ware stated she was having some difficulty with the issue. She thought a lot of what Mr. Duchesne had said really rang true with where she was thinking about things. The biggest concern she had was some of the comments from people that were supporting the petition about behavior, and illegal behavior. It made her uncomfortable because it gave her the impression that people were trying to use the petition process for horsepower restriction in a way it was not intended. It was also important to note that it wasnt everybody that was making comments and there were some pretty detailed comments that very specifically stated that even legally operated larger watercraft were not safe given the size of the pond. That was really the issue there, they had to think of it in terms of legally operated larger watercraft, was that still a safety issue to the humans and the wildlife on the pond. For her personally, she was putting her discomfort for some of the comments where she was getting the impression that people were trying to use the rule change as a way to take away the bigger boats from the people that were not following the rules. She did go back and look at some of the other information about legitimate safety concerns, wildlife concerns, the size of the pond and in relation to whether or not it was actually appropriate for larger watercraft.

Mr. Smith stated he had been supportive of the petition since the start, and in light of the information that had surfaced he still was in support. He saw there were eleven other ponds that had the 10-horsepower restriction. This was the way to do it through the rulemaking process. Unless it had changed since the last meeting, there was no one opposed to it as far as camp owners on the lake. His family camp was on a lake that the Legislature had banned jetskis and it became a lot quieter and more palatable to be on the lake. He was in support.

Mr. Thurston stated when he and Commissioner Camuso had visited the pond, what made it very challenging was where you could operate a ski boat or anything of that nature was a very consolidated area within the pond. The constituents had said there was only a certain amount of area where you could safely do that and if more people were out there and didnt have the proper tools, there could be other issues as well.

Mr. Scribner stated it was a shame that for the folks that had higher horsepower boats that used them appropriately, it was too bad to restrict them, but looking at it from a consistency perspective they had 40 or so bodies of water currently on the books where horsepower was restricted. To him, it seemed like maybe there was a better way to tackle the issue because there was legitimacy on both sides. This was the current means that the landowners on a body of water had to address a situation. Given that, unless they got to some point where under a certain size water body was restricted to a certain horsepower limit, then he thought the onus was on them to listen to what might be the majority of the landowners.

Mr. Duchesne asked how Warden Service felt about being able to enforce bad behavior?

Colonel Scott stated there were over a dozen boating regulations which addressed behavior. Several of the concerns on Notched Pond were around headway speed violations. Since 2018, statewide, they had addressed several dozen headway speed violations. In 2019 he thought there were more than 55 or so. They actively enforced boating laws during the course of the season. The Department registered over 100,000 boats, and something the Council also needed to realize was looking at the entire state and looking at similar bodies of water there were thousands that were in the same size range across the state. He did not think Notched Pond stood out as any more additional complaints than other similar small bodies of water. It was always a challenge to manage boating complaints because the boating season was jammed into three or four months and everyone was out on the same weekend days and on any given day we had 30 or 40 game wardens in the field. To think we would be able to be on every one of the small ponds was unreasonable and we did rely on the public to provide us with information and good statements. If a case was to go to trial typically the complainant would need to be there, they often reported their complaints anonymously or did not want to go through the judicial process. It was enforceable, we had issued one summons and multiple warnings on Notched Pond over the last several years. Notched Pond was not anymore or less enforceable than all the other lakes and ponds that were out there, however, it really came down to the function of staffing and amount of boating activity that was present.

A motion was made by Mr. Smith to approve the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: in favor (7) unanimous - motion passed


B. Step 2


1. Adaptive Moose Hunt (WMD 4

Mr. Thurston stated the public comment period had ended and if the Council wished, the agenda item could be moved to Step 3 for a vote.

Commissioner Camuso stated the public comment period was closed and Mr. Webb would give an overview of the comments and a summary of the proposal. If the Council wished to hold off on Step 3 until next month, we would need to convene another meeting of the Council in early June prior to the moose lottery. Their options were for someone to make a motion and the Council approve to move to Step 3 or they could consider it and we would have another meeting in early June.

Mr. Thurston stated they would have Mr. Webb discuss the adaptive moose hunt and the moose permit allocations and then make their decision after they had that information.

Mr. Webb stated the adaptive moose hunt proposal, the hunt was intended to occur in the western half of WMD 4 in northwestern Maine. The proposal would split that western portion of the WMD into a northern and southern portion. There would be a total of 550 antlerless moose permits issued evenly across the two subunits and distributed across three different hunt weeks in order to spread out the hunting pressure and hopefully ensure a quality hunting experience for all the participants. Any hunters that were to acquire a permit in the lottery would have to attend a training session that we would be hosting prior to receiving their permit. Beyond that, all other laws and rules associated with the regular moose hunt would apply in terms of ovary submission and registration and subpermittees requirements. The proposal was advertised March 31st, the public comment period ended April 30th. A public hearing was held on April 20th and there were seven members of the public that attended with two providing testimony in opposition to the proposal. In terms of written comments, we received a total of eleven comments in opposition to the adaptive hunt proposal. An additional comment was leaning towards opposition, but it wasnt clear what their position was. Some of the comments were also directed towards the regular moose hunt permit allocations. Based on the input we received questions on potential impacts to calf survival for cow moose that might be harvested that had calves. There were questions about other options to control ticks such as pesticides and other things which had been discussed with the Council in the past. Some of the comments expressed a preference to just let nature take its course. There were one or two comments expressing concern about the impact on tourism and moose viewing and a comment that felt the proposal might lead to continued moose population declines in that part of the state. Based on the feedback we were not recommending any changes to the proposal.

Mr. Thurston stated in the past with cows they had tried to get some of the data and scientific information from the animals and it was probably haphazard or was it not super successful with respect to what they were looking for. A big proponent of the proposal was that there would be some actual training so that we could collect more data and more information with respect to the cows and really try to bring an end solution of how we mitigate some of the climate change and the tick problem we had especially in WMD 8 and 4, 7 and some of the southern zones.

Mr. Duchesne stated he really accepted the science on this. Also, some of the comments suggested the Department was rushing the proposal to satisfy the sporting community. His experience over the last few years was the Department had been a little hesitant to go down this road until there were no other options, so he did not believe we were rushing it at all. We had been studying and gotten as much data as possible and settled on this as probably the only workable solution aside from not doing anything. He was pretty comfortable with where the rule was.

Ms. Ware stated the Council was familiar with the publics frequent concerns such as why we couldnt just treat the moose for ticks, etc. She was curious, she knew there had been efforts to address some of the frequently brought up concerns and questions and to also try to educate on the science side and why it was more complicated because we would be taking more cows in that specific area that it was not necessarily going to directly cause a decline in the population. How successful had we been in getting information out to people, had they been participating in opportunities to learn more about it? Some of the people responding seemed like they hadnt heard much about it, it was the first time they heard about it, so they were bringing up things that Council members had been hearing about for a long time. She was curious how it was going out to the public as far as people engaging with it and trying to find out more information.

Mr. Webb stated we shared a .pdf with the Council with the types of public outreach we had done on the issue over the past few years and it was pretty extensive. Mr. Kantar, coupled with staff from Information and Education had made this a priority in terms of public outreach. A lot of the outreach over the past year due to the pandemic had been digital communication, but we also had worked with various parties including Mr. Duchesne to include articles in various print media as well. We had given a number of TV interviews on the subject; we had reached a lot of people. We sent the information directly to our email distribution list which was extensive. We had put a lot of information out there, certainly we hadnt reached everyone. He was personally surprised at the relatively small number of comments we received given the scope and nature of the proposal. He thought our outreach had been generally pretty successful. We hadnt gotten a lot of negative feedback on the proposal over the past six months to a year as we talked about it more openly. We had answers to most of the questions on our website.

Mrs. Rousseau stated she was surprised at the low number of responses in opposition by both written format and at the public hearing. She was surprised there were only seven participants. She thought we would have been overwhelmed with comments. She thought these decisions were not taken lightly and their jobs were to listen to everyones comments both written and verbal. She had received phone calls on them, but nothing negative. The information was available and based on science. They were hard decisions to make but she thought what was there was the right thing to do.

Mrs. Peet stated she agreed as a wildlife biologist and someone who worked with moose for 13 years with the tribes in Maine, this was not new science. There were a lot of studies that supported this decision, so she was fine with voting on the proposal and moving it forward. She was also surprised at the low number of public comments.

Ms. Ware stated she had been seeing all the information that was out there, and her impression was there was a big effort to get the information out there to people. She was curious about the level of engagement. When people showed up to the hearings or sent in comments that was what the Advisory Council saw and heard so it was sometimes hard to remember there was a lot of information that went out but they did not get that confirmation, they just got back comments where people either didnt see the information or still had other concerns.

Mr. Webb stated the lottery application process had been open for a few weeks and during the application process people were informed and cautioned about a potential interest in applying for the adaptive moose hunt to help ensure those that indicated they wanted to apply for it understood the parameters. We were anticipating quite a bit of negative feedback from the applicants and that never materialized.

A motion was made by Mrs. Rousseau to move the adaptive hunt proposal to Step 3 and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: in favor (7) unanimous - motion passed.

A motion was made by Mrs. Rousseau to approve the adaptive moose hunt proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: in favor (7) unanimous - motion passed.

2. Moose Permit Allocations 2021

Mr. Webb stated the process paralleled the adaptive proposal in terms of the timeline. There were three written comments in opposition to the proposal. The comments overlapped with the adaptive hunt. This was the annual allocation of moose permits, we were recommending a total of 3,480 permits in order to meet our moose harvest objectives. There were 2,630 antlered permits and 10 antlerless and 40 any-moose permits which was an increase of 345 from 2020. Based on the feedback we were not recommending any changes to the proposal.

There were no further questions or comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Scribner to move the adaptive moose hunt proposal to Step 3 and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau/

Vote: in favor (7) unanimous - motion passed.

A motion was made by Mr. Scribner to approve the adaptive moose hunt proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: in favor (7) unanimous - motion passed.


C. Step 1


1. Ch.16 & 17 Furbearer Rules

Mrs. Webb stated the first change was related to the fisher trapping season. There had been several major changes to fisher trapping regulations over the years and began around 2007. There were concerns the fisher population was declining at that time and we had a lack of information to validate the concerns. One of the changes was separating out the fisher trapping season outside of the general trapping season based on WMD. Currently, fisher trapping season was approximately 7 weeks in southern Maine and 9 weeks in northern Maine. The Department was proposing to eliminate the special trapping season for fisher and allow fisher to go back into the general trapping season. We have more data to validate that the fisher population is doing quite well, from our camera study which showed that fisher were abundant across the state and the most common species on a camera in the wintertime. We were also collecting more biological data on fisher and indicated the change would not have a negative effect on the population.

Mrs. Webb stated the second proposed change related to the beaver season and closures. Currently, beaver season dates were subject to change each year and we were doing that with a more formalized process similar to other species and how we selected the start and end dates. The closures we did on an annual basis at the request of landowners to open or close different areas for beaver trapping. There were two minor changes in the proposal.

Mrs. Webb stated the next change related to the fur tagging fee. Since 1982 a fee had been charged for furbearer species .25 per pelt to be tagged. We were proposing to allow the Department staff to tag fur without the fee, but we were going to provide language so fur tagging stations could still charge the .25 per pelt. The final change related to transportation tags for marten and fisher. This was a change that went into place last year and this was simply cleaning up the language in rule that they were no longer required for marten and fisher.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Expanded Archery Areas & 3. 2021 Any-deer permit allocations

Mr. Bieber gave a PowerPoint presentation to the group. For a copy of the presentation please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Smith asked about expanded archery and Washington County islands.

Mr. Bieber stated it was not something they had discussed but could if there were documented deer issues on the islands.

Mr. Smith stated with the increased population near the coast, was there any chance of getting a second week of muzzleloader hunting in WMD 27 and 28?

Mr. Bieber stated that was a more significant statutory change, but we would be reviewing and discussing how to obtain harvest objectives and there may be some seasonal discussions as well.

Mr. Thurston stated the archery community was growing and going forward he would not underestimate the archers being able to help with doe management goals.

There were no further questions or comments.


V. Other Business


There were no items under Other Business


VI. Councilor Reports


Councilors gave reports.


VII. Public Comments & Questions


There were no public comments or questions.


VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting


The Advisory Council would be notified by the next meeting at a later time.


IX. Adjournment


A motion was made by Mr. Scribner and that was seconded by Mr. Thurston to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
Sportsman's Alliance of Maine (LL Bean Room)
205 Church Hill Road, Augusta Tuesday, August 17, 2021 @ 10:00 a.m.

Tuesday, August 17, 2021 @ 10:00 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3 There are no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2 1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2022 - Francis Brautigam
2. Educational Trip Leader permit rules - Christl Theriault


C. Step 1 There are no items under Step 1.


V. Other Business

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 A.M.M
VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment 12:00 P.M.


ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
July 7, 2021 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Virtual (Microsoft TEAMS) meeting


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Mark Latti, Director of Communications
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Craig McLaughlin, WRAS Supervisor
Bill Swan, Director of Licensing and Registration
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries & Hatcheries Division Director
Nathan Bieber, Deer Biologist
Jim Pellerin, Regional Fisheries Biologist (Region A)
Liz Thorndike, Regional Fisheries Biologist (Region D)
Frank Frost, Regional Fisheries Biologist (Region G)
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Jerry Scribner (Chair)
Kristin Peet (Vice-Chair)
Bob Duchesne
Lindsay Ware
Shelby Rousseau
Al Cowperthwaite
Tony Liguori
Eric Ward
Jennifer Geel
Mike Gawtry


GUESTS
5 citizens and Department staff


I. Call to Order
Council Chair, Jerry Scribner called the meeting to order.



II. Introductions
Introductions were made.



III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. Ward to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: unanimous in favor - minutes approved.


IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3
There were no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2
1. Ch. 16 & 17 Furbearer Rules

Mr. Webb stated there were two proposals, but they covered the same basic subject matter. In Chapter 16 there were two changes being proposed for furbearers, one being the removal of the .25 fur tagging fee when fur was tagged by Department staff. Most of the warden service and wildlife staff were set up to tag fur from trappers and hunters. We found over the years we spent more time managing the money than we generated. We were proposing to eliminate the requirement for trappers to pay the .25 fee when the fur was tagged by Department staff but fur tagging agents would still be able to charge the fee and recoup some of their costs. The second change in Chapter 16 was a language update. In 2020 we removed the requirement to attach temporary transportation tags for marten and fisher and this was a language update that was neglected when that happened. A public hearing was offered on June 7, 2021 and there were no public comments at the hearing and no written comments were received. We were recommending the Council adopt the rule as it was originally proposed.

Mr. Webb stated the Chapter 17 proposal was very similar and included the same change with regard to removing the .25 tagging fee for Department staff. There were additional changes as well. The proposal included the annual update to the beaver season closures. The only change was the removal of one closure and an update to the landowner name in another WMD. There was an update to the special fisher trapping season. Currently, there was a special fisher trapping season that started in mid-November in southern and central Maine and we were proposing to align the fisher trapping season in that part of the state with the general trapping season. This would add two weeks to the fisher trapping season. There was a bag limit of 25 fisher per trapper per year so there would still be that limit on fisher harvest. We had seen a significant decline in fisher harvest since the inclusion of lynx exclusion devices. We were confident extending the season for two additional weeks and aligning it with the general furbearer trapping season would still result in a sustainable fisher harvest. We were also proposing to change the beaver season from dates that were updated annually to general language that would base the season on the start of the general trapping season. This would eliminate the need for annual rulemaking and the season would change based on the calendar. A public hearing was offered on June 7, 2021 and there were no public comments at the hearing and no written comments were received. We were recommending the Council adopt the rule as it was originally proposed.

Commissioner Camuso stated the Council had the option to move the proposals to Step 3 for a vote.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to move the Ch. 16 & 17 proposals to Step 3 and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: in favor (10) unanimous motion passed.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to approve the Ch. 16 & 17 proposals as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Liguori.

Vote: in favor (10) unanimous motion passed.

2. Expanded Archery Areas

Mr. Webb stated the proposal was to update language to address incorrect road references, outdated landmark names and bring language in line with what was on the website for wildlife management district boundaries, etc. Primarily, it was an administrative update to improve and modernize the language to reflect current landmarks on the ground. There were also a couple of changes to the areas. One was combining the Bangor and Brewer expanded archery areas into a single area. They were adjacent areas but had always been mapped as two separate areas, so we were proposing to combine them into a single area to make it easier for the public. We were also proposing to add much of the Owl's Head peninsula as an addition to the Camden expanded archery area where firearms hunting for deer was limited by local ordinance to shotgun only. There was also a clarification in the proposal to include islands within WMD 24 and reduce confusion with those islands in WMD 29. A public hearing was held on June 2, 2021. There was one public comment in support. We did not receive any written comments on the proposal. We were not proposing any changes to the original packet and recommended the Council approve the proposal as presented.

There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Camuso stated this could also be moved to Step 3 for a vote.

A motion was made by Mrs. Rousseau to move the expanded archery proposal to Step 3 and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: in favor (10) unanimous motion passed.

A motion was made by Mr. Liguori to approve the expanded archery proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: in favor (10) unanimous motion passed.

3. 2021 Any-deer permit allocations

Mr. Webb stated this was the annual proposal to set any-deer permit allocations. We were proposing a record number of permits, just over 153,000. That included some bonus antlerless permits in two subunits that were established a couple of years ago. In total, the allocation for 2021 was intended to achieve a doe harvest objective of just over 15,000 does. That was approximately 10 permits per anticipated doe harvest. We held a public hearing on June 1, 2021 and did not receive any public comment and did not receive any comments in writing. We were recommending the Council adopt the original proposal as written. We had reached a point with the any-deer system that we felt some modifications were necessary. We were directed by the legislative committee during the session to pull together a stakeholder group to discuss potential changes to the system. We anticipated that next year we may be looking at some potentially significant changes to the any-deer permit system to allow us to better meet our doe harvest goals.

There were no further questions or comments. Mr. Scribner stated they also had the option with this proposal to move it to Step 3 for a vote.

A motion was made by Mr. Liguori to move the any-deer permit proposal to Step 3 and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: in favor (10) unanimous motion passed.

A motion was made by Mrs. Rousseau to approve the any-deer permit proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: in favor (10) unanimous motion passed.


C. Step 1
1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2022

Mr. Brautigam stated the packet had been advertised and was open for public comment. A public hearing was scheduled for July 26, 2021. The comment period would end on August 5, 2021. Presentations would be given by regional staff Jim Pellerin, Liz Thorndike and Frank Frost after he gave an overview of the packet.

Mr. Brautigam stated for a second year the Department had been developing regulations based on theme categories. This year, there were 243 water specific rule proposals, and there were six regulatory themes. The special needs category reflected management initiatives that were of an urgent nature. There were a total of four proposals within the theme, including one regulation that provided protection to over summering brook trout in Abbott Brook which was a tributary to the Magalloway. Every year we reviewed waters that were either added or removed to the state heritage fish waters list. There were currently 583 waters on the list. We were proposing to remove one water from the state heritage list. Removals were not very common, but unfortunately over the years when waters had been added to the list there had been different levels of scrutiny placed on the justification for those additions and in some cases there had been very little data to support the addition of the waters. We found that staff had gone back to some of the waters, in this case Butcher Lake, and had not been able to document the presence of brook trout. The Department did not have any data to indicate brook trout were present in Butcher Lake. It was a very shallow water body, if there were brook trout there they were probably there seasonally as transients from down stream areas. There was no spawning habitat. We were prosing the water be removed from the state heritage waters list.

Mr. Brautigam stated another theme we were advancing in the packet was expanded winter angling opportunity which really only applied to the north zone. We looked at and explored opportunities to provide additional fishing where we had stocked fisheries and existing wild warmwater fisheries. The next theme was simplification of general law and it was pretty straight forward. Where we had waters where special regulations were no longer needed to effectively manage the resource we were removing the regulation from the lawbook and reverting to general law. The changes often resulted due to suspension of ineffective stocking programs, changes in public access, or changes in management. In 2020 the division took on a major project in developing our fishing laws online angling tool (FLOAT) that showcased all of our special fishing regulations and we mapped them out. When you mapped out fishing regulations that had been promulgated since the 1950s we found there were a lot of inconsistencies, and house cleaning items that needed attention. There were nine proposals that were seeking to clean up some issues or conflict in the existing rules.

Mr. Brautigam stated the last regulatory theme focused on the fall fishing season in the north zone and trying to create consistency with the language approach used. The bulk of the packet (87%) constituted proposals that fell into this theme. Our goal was to not only simplify the language and approach used in designating the waters open to fall fishing, but to also identify additional opportunity where fall fishing could be provided without impacts to our native wild fisheries. We reviewed over 400 north zone lake and pond fall fishing regulations. After that was completed, we had four different elements we were proposing that related to fall fishing. One of the things was the special season period referred to as season code "A" which as it existed in the current law book allowed you to open water and ice fish from December to the end of April. We typically used that time period in conjunction with general law season dates to create in effect year-round fishing on those waters. We are actually changing the definition of the special season A code to year-round fishing so it would be very clear that you could fish year round without having to look at special codes that were in place. Another aspect developed in this component of the packet was the elimination of special restrictions we had in the fall such as artificial lures only (ALO) and catch and release (CR) that were more applicable and appropriate for use where we had stocked fisheries. We are proposing to eliminate that special language which really had no conservation value in managing our warmwater fisheries. The third component was development of standardized language for waters that were stocked in the north zone and were open in the fall. The language would almost mirror language that we used in the south zone for waters that were open to fall fishing. The fourth component was development of 26 additional fall fishing opportunities on waters that were either stocked or supported warm water fisheries.

Mr. Brautigam discussed the new threat of rock bass in Cumberland County, and that Mr. Pellerin was involved in an effort to eradicate that introduction.

Staff presentations

Jim Pellerin - Region A - Reclamation and Restoration of Round Pond in Albany

Mr. Pellerin stated the project was part of the Sebago Trout Unlimited initiative with Dr. Dave Haskell, 5 in 5. The goal was to reclaim 5 trout ponds in 5 years. The last of the 5 in 5 projects was Round Pond, its a fairly small pond about 14 acres and 30 feet deep. It was fairly remote and historically, prior to the reclamation, we were stocking with 350 fall fingerling brook trout. It was managed to create a put, grow and take fishery but we rarely saw fish beyond 2 years of age. The pre-treatment data collection was conducted and permitting. We also did outlet flow studies. Crocker Pond had a mile outlet that drained down and was the primary inlet to Round Pond, there were large beaver flowages and several little springs and tributaries and made it very difficult to treat. Beaver dams were removed and the beaver relocated. After the dams were removed there was less water which made it easier to treat. Equipment had to be brought in which was difficult in remote areas. Once everything is in and set up the treatment goes fairly quickly. Wherever we have flowing water we have to set up drip stations so the water stays toxic for a long enough period of time to kill the invasive species.

Mr. Pellerin stated they would then do a field bioassay to see if they reached their target loads and take some of the water and put in live fish to see how long they survived. They also did some testing at the health lab. Typical results were an increased trout abundance, better condition and more holdover. Sometimes we would even see natural reproduction. On Round Pond we did four years post treatment and getting angler reports initially after treatment people were catching 10-15 trout but that changed from the last year or two with people reporting the trout werent very big and getting lots of small trout. We went in to sample and got 54 brook trout and the mean length was 10, the weight was .4 lbs. and the condition factor was .83. Typically, we saw a condition factor of reclaimed trout ponds of above 1 so that was low and meant the fish werent growing well. We also electro fished the tributaries and found an abundance of wild brook trout. We anticipated some, but not the extent we saw. We also saw no other fish species present 4 years post treatment. Our conclusion was the reclamation was successful, we did eliminate the invasive species, wild reproduction/recruitment exceeded our expectations and the issue now is we have too many trout. Recommendations are to eliminate stocking and manage as a wild brook trout fishery, and to revise management goals to reflect that it is now a wild trout fishery and we are proposing some regulation changes and manage it for wild trout. It had a fall fishing season and because these are wild trout were replacing that fall season with CL which basically closes it now. Were also adding an S-20 which is a harvest slot that allows people to harvest 6-12 fish, but anything over 12 has to be released. The idea behind that is to maintain that size quality of the fishery all those bigger fish over 12 will be released and recycled and caught by other anglers. In an effort with Trout Unlimited and White Mountain National Forest he was applying for a use permit to store one or two canoes at the pond for public use on a first come, first served basis similar to what occurred at Baxter State Park.

Commissioner Camuso stated he indicated there were too many trout, and not enough angling pressure. She was curious why he was recommending to close it to fall fishing.

Mr. Pellerin stated we were managing it now as a wild trout fishery.

Commissioner Camuso asked when was the last time it was stocked?

Mr. Pellerin stated it was stocked last year, but that was cancelled this year.

Mr. Brautigam stated it was a situation where there were too many fish and one strategy we could advance was to stop the stocking to reduce the density of fish. We always had the ability to reinstitute the stocking program if we felt there was insufficient recruitment there to maintain the fishery. There wasnt a lot of harvesting going on and that was part of the challenge. With what they were seeing there now, removing the stocking program was one step. We could explore what our regulatory needs might be in the future to fine tune what we had for a wild brook trout population there. In most cases eliminating the stocking program was a good step given the abundance of wild fish that were seeing in that system and given the low fishing pressure. Somehow, weve got to reduce that population to improve the overall health of the fishery thats there.

Liz Thorndike - Region D - Expanding Winter Angling Opportunity in the Rangeley Lakes Region

Ms. Thorndike stated only 2 of the 31 waters in the area that are currently stocked were providing winter angling opportunities. We also saw this when the Commissioner offered the free fishing week from February 13 21st, Franklin County which was almost entirely in the Rangeley Region had the lowest participation rate, but didnt have the lowest population rate and was likely correlated just from the lack of waters open to ice fishing. Rangeley had a long history and culture of open water fishing, and hasnt always supported ice fishing. Weve seen a change in the recent year with angler use and habits and anglers had been calling and emailing regional offices asking why there wasnt more opportunity. A list of possible waters was compiled that would not pose a risk to native populations such as stocked fisheries, consideration for access and aligns with management goals and objectives. Outreach included discussions with warden service, landowner relations, etc. and people overall were supportive of additional opportunity. There were some concerns around the use of live fish as bait and trespassing when accessing bodies of water for ice fishing.

Commissioner Camuso asked how many waters were being proposed to be open for ice fishing?

Ms. Thorndike stated there were 8 proposals. Six would be open for the first time, one was a kids only water they were proposing to open in December, and another similar one to change the season.

Mrs. Rousseau stated she was happy to see the rule changes being proposed were addressing both brook trout protection and also angler opportunity in the wintertime. There was something that concerned her that she did not see in the proposals and that was the Kennebago River and Trout Rock. She had brought this up before in the past. It had gotten worse and she was very concerned with the warming climate and some anglers were taking measures into their own hands blocking trail access with trees and shrubs to try and protect the fishery. It was extremely warm in there. She was confused why we werent including that when we were including Abbott Brook as being a little better protected by changes in rules. We had done a lot to modify rules and regulations on the Rapid River for the same reasons. The Kennebago, the Rapid and the Magalloway were the dream team of rivers in the western mountains of Maine. Trout Rock was probably the biggest question she got as an Advisory Council member.

Ms. Thorndike stated it was a small area below the spawning beds which was closed mid-September to the end of the season. Trout Rock was a unique area of the river, the river was relatively shallow that far up and this was really the deepest spot depending on water levels, 4-5ft. deep so trout would hold there before they went up into the spawning bed. It was becoming very well-known and popular.

Mr. Brautigam stated there were marked differences why we were moving forward with Abbott Brook and not Trout Rock. We had a peer discussion about the benefits associated with extending the area on the Kennebago. We felt, based on available information, there was more of a perceived concern there than a real biological issue. Abbott Brook we were dealing with a situation where the brook trout during the summertime needed to find cold water refugia and that was offered in Abbott Brook and thats why we were proposing to close that to fishing so those fish could utilize the refugia at a time of the year when the fish were very stressed and not have the additional stresses associated with fishing pressure. The Trout Rock conversation had nothing to do with cold water refugia. It was a scenario where trout staged prior to spawning. There was quite an area there that was protected, the river system brought a lot of trout, there was no data to suggest there had been a decline in the health of the fishery with the existing regulations. It was for those reasons we did not advanced any changes on the Kennebago.

Mrs. Rousseau stated it was a very popular question among anglers and bothered her when recreationalists took things into their own hands. Maybe it was an educational component needed for anglers. It was a dangerous summer we were in, flow regimes on the Androscoggin were being modified, they were stopping whitewater releases for rafting. She wanted to confidently be able to forward the information along to the anglers. Winter opportunity was moving in the right direction.

Frank Frost - Region G - Expanding Winter Angling Opportunity in Aroostook County

Mr. Frost stated there were two proposals and both were tributaries to the St. John River. The St. John River had been invaded by invasive muskie and smallmouth bass. They were throughout the main stem and they also had colonized in most of the major tributaries including the Allagash and also the Fish River below Fish River Falls. They were a popular fishery on the St. Francis River. The two proposals were for Little Black and part of the Big Black rivers. The Little Black was the short tributary just below the St. Francis. We were proposing to open the mainstem to ice fishing. Muskellunge existed there, the wild brook trout resource once there was very limited and confined to the smaller tributaries in the upper ranges of the Little Black. Anglers fishing for muskie in the winter would focus on the deadwater reaches where there was up to 25 feet of water in the deep deadwater areas. The proposal on the Big Black was the tributary that came in and entered the St. John mainstem. Big Black was already open for winter angling on a stretch in the Shields Branch which was where the proposal was. The area was colonized by muskellunge and the wild brook trout resource had been depleted to just the headwater, the smallest tributaries which was not habitat for muskies. The proposals would open a couple of new opportunities in the area where they had very little lake and pond resources for anglers.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Educational Trip Leader Permit Rules

Ms. Theriault stated this would be a new rule chapter 28. On June 11, 2021 the Governor signed what was Public Law Chapter 162 which went into effect by emergency. This law, An Act to Promote Outdoor Recreational Opportunities for Maine Students, created an educational trip leader permit program within IFW. This will allow private, elementary and secondary schools and public and private colleges and universities to, without a guides license, conduct paddling and primitive camping trips for students and adults associated with those institutions. This law was the result of at least two years of discussions and work amongst interested parties and the Department. The law sets the groundwork for the educational trip leader program based upon recommendations of a task force that was convened during the fall of 2020. The law provided specific direction on rules that the Commissioner must promulgate. The law has a provision for the schools currently conducting these trips as part of their programming to continue to do so until October 1, 2022 when they will need to be compliant with the new permitting process. This timeframe provides the Department and the Advisory Council the needed time to complete the rulemaking process and convene an advisory committee. The proposal, if adopted, would become new rule chapter 28 and have a similar structure as the camp trip leader rules. The law would require trips to be led by persons who have obtained educational trip leader permits and the trip leaders will have to be overseen by an administrator that works for the institution. It also establishes the educational trip leader advisory committee whose responsibilities include providing advice to the Commissioner regarding the permits, they will oversee the training qualifications and testing of the trip leaders and administrators and review any related complaints. This will be run similar to the guide advisory committee. The program is intended to be heavily managed by the schools themselves and the advisory committee rather than the Department. The rule proposal establishes the following: there will be an educational trip leader advisory committee of appointed members and includes their responsibilities, there will be an educational trip leader administrator and their responsibilities, there will be instructors who become certified to teach so that people can become a trip leader, eligibility and application process to become an instructor as well as an educational trip leader. There will also be a section that deals with standards for revocations, suspensions, and denials.

Ms. Theriault stated she would like to give some background as to how the discussion came about. For many years educational institutions had been conducting trips into the Maine outdoors providing students a variety of outdoor education and peer leadership experiences. In many situations the trips included paddling opportunities and camping at primitive camping sites. If they were conducted in conjunction with remuneration or receiving compensation, they required a Maine guide license or a Maine guide to be present. While the trips were sometimes led by registered Maine guides who were either regular employees of the school or hired specifically for the excursion, especially at Maines colleges and universities, they were often led by fellow students who had undergone extensive training including wilderness safety. It was a long held assumption of most of the educational institutions that because student participants were typically not paying directly for these excursion, nor were their trip leaders being directly compensated that they were not required by state law to hire a guide for any of the paddling or overnight primitive camping. There were some pretty lengthy discussions with the universities and colleges and it was kind of a gray area and needed to be addressed.

Ms. Theriault stated in 2019, representatives from the UME system and the Maine Independent Colleges Association approached the Departments guide advisory board raising concerns and questions attempting to find clarity on whether they were violating guide licensing laws by taking students out on these trips. The Department agreed that clarifying in law and rule made sense. During the 2020 legislative session LD 1932 came forward and required IFW to establish a task force of stakeholders to convene and report back with a recommendation to resolve the question. The bill was passed unanimously by the IFW committee, but due to the pandemic eventually died when the Legislature adjourned early. Agreeing we needed to remedy the situation IFW agreed to convene the stakeholders and developed a program that would permit educational institutions to have certified educational trip leaders that would lead the outdoor experiences. There were concerns from Maine guides that the program may infringe upon their business and clientele so there was a strong presence of Maine guides who were on the task force. The task force was involved in the development and review of the proposed rule.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Gawtry stated for an educational institution that was doing orientation through an outdoor trip, would they need to make sure they hired someone with Maine guide certification for those types of trips?

Ms. Theriault stated they would appoint an administrator who was a registered Maine guide and that administrator would oversee the program within their school or university. They would train student trip leaders and perhaps an instructor who could train the student trip leaders. There would be a component that a registered Maine guide would be administering the program, but also be a trip leader. The trip leaders that worked beneath the administrator didnt have to be registered Maine guide.

Mr. Gawtry stated based on the number of institutions or non-profit educational groups using those types of trips in their curriculum, was there confidence there were enough folks to fill those roles?

Ms. Theriault stated there was based on the college and university standpoint. There may have been less participation with the K-12 schools. Private schools were smaller, so there may be some reliance on some of the colleges and universities. They were well networked and communicated a lot so she thought in terms of being able to hire an instructor to train new student trip leaders, the rule would allow for that. Nonresidents or schools from out of state would have to have the permit in order to lead trips.

There were no further questions or comments.

V. Other Business

1. Overview of horsepower restrictions and concerns

Commissioner Camuso stated she would like to update the Council on a few bills that were carried over during the legislative session regarding boating. LD 1663 was a bill that was introduced late in the session and was a mandatory boater education requirement. In general, there was substantial support for the proposal. We were one of two states that did not have a mandatory boater education requirement. The challenges were, there was some need for exceptions for apprentices such as with lobster boats, etc. The bill also proposed a born after date so as long as you were born after a certain date then you would not need to take the course. This would target younger folks. Most of the feedback was that actually it was not the young folks causing most of the mayhem, it was the middle aged. There was a strong desire to move it to everybody with a phased in approach. We would work through it and come up with recommendations for the committee next session to implement a mandatory boater education law. The second bill, the committee directed the Department to look at personal watercraft restrictions. There was a bill or two that proposed to eliminate personal watercraft on particular waterbodies. The Legislature directed the Department to come up with a process that could be implemented to be fair and equitable for those requests. That related directly to some of the horsepower restriction petitions that had been received. A group would be assembled to try and come up with a process by which we were able to review horsepower restrictions. The Legislature was indicating they wanted to kick the authority to regulate personal watercraft back to IFW. Some of the challenges, for example, the Notched Pond horsepower restriction was passed and subsequently some of the seasonal residents had come forward and said no one had contacted them, they had no idea the rule was in place and now there was a group organizing a petition to rescind the rule because they all had boats over that horsepower limit. We would have to come up with a system where the petitioner would need to contact landowners or something to that effect. Laws and regulations did not necessarily curb bad behavior, we would need to work through that, but we may see an appeal on the Notched Pond horsepower restrictions.

Commissioner Camuso stated the last bill that came forward directing the Department to adopt rules was an issue around Watchic Lake. The Department currently had the ability to issue permits for regattas, races, and boat or water ski exhibitions on lakes and ponds. Similar to animal damage control licenses and wildlife rehabilitation licenses, the Department had the authority to issue those permits. It was less clear when we didnt issue them or revoked them. The Legislature directed us to go through rulemaking to make sure it was clear that we had the ability to revoke those privileges as well. There were not as many regattas or water ski exhibitions as there were jetskis and horsepower issues. Boating issues had been a very prevalent theme with the Legislature. Hopefully with the mandatory boater education we would have not just the ability to provide education but have contact information so we could provide continuing outreach and education, and kind of boater ethics.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Ward stated when you received a guide license, youre given a motorboat operator license. How would that effect guides?

Commissioner Camuso stated you would probably already have your boating certificate so guides would be covered. There were courses offered such as through the U.S. Coast Guard, so they might have already taken a course and would not be required to take it again if they had that certification. That would come to the Legislature during the next session with recommendations on ways to proceed.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated when the Great Ponds Task Force sat back in the mid to late 1990s (they disbanded in the early 2000s) there was a final report of that group. He thought it would be very helpful in reading that report and applying it to what they were currently facing. One of the recommendations that was not implemented 20 years ago was mandatory education.

VI. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

There were no public comments or questions.

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, August 17, 2021. The Council would be notified at a later time if the meeting would be virtual or in person.

IX. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Liguori and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING SPORTSMAN'S ALLIANCE OF MAINE
LL BEAN ROOM
205 CHURCH HILL ROAD
AUGUSTA, ME
Thursday, September 23, 2021 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Moment of Silence

II. Introductions

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


IV. Rule Making

A. Step 3

1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2022.... Francis Brautigam
2. Educational Trip Leader permit rules.... Christl Theriault


B. Step 2
There are no items under Step 2.


C. Step 1 1. Species of Special Concern.... Steve Walker
2. Boating event rules.... Jim Connolly


V. Other Business
VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 A.M.
VII. Public Comments & Questions
VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment 12:00 P.M.


ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
August 17, 2021 @ 10:00 a.m.
Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, LL Bean Room
205 Church Hill Road, Augusta, ME


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Mark Latti, Director of Communications
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries & Hatcheries Division Director
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Section Supervisor
Liz Thorndike, Regional Fisheries Biologist (Region D)
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Jerry Scribner (Chair)
Kristin Peet (Vice-Chair)
Bob Duchesne
Lindsay Ware
Shelby Rousseau (by phone)
Al Cowperthwaite
Tony Liguori
Eric Ward (by phone)
Jennifer Geel (by phone)
Mike Gawtry


GUESTS
Tony Touchette, Loon Lake Association Director
Carol Schwalbe, Loon Lake Association
Senator Russell Black
Representative Scott Landry
Fern & Sylvia Bosse, Norway
Gary Corson, New Sharon



I. Call to Order
Council Chair, Jerry Scribner called the meeting to order.



II. Introductions
Introductions were made.



III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite.

Vote: unanimous in favor - minutes approved.


IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3
There were no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2
1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2022

Mr. Brautigam stated the 2021 fishing regulations packet was presented to the Council at Step 1 on July 7th and a public hearing was held on July 26th with three public members in attendance. The public comment period closed August 5th and there were 120 individuals and organizations that submitted written comments. Generally speaking, the public that was satisfied and supportive we often did not hear from. We received support on the packet for many of the proposals. Not unlike past fishing regulation packets, we had input and comments on items that were not germane to the packet. There were about 16 comments that came in that were not germane to the packet. Those comments would be shared with staff and considered down the road. The special needs theme in the packet received nine public comments, eight were in favor. It also included a request to remove the S-4 regulation on Round Pond. The comment did have some merit and the concern was if we retained the no live fish as bait (NLFB) provision which was currently proposed, it would allow use of worms. Use of worms on a small body of water could certainly increase mortality and may reduce survival. The goal and objective of managing that water was to produce high quality brook trout. We have an overabundance of brook trout so concerns about hooking mortality are less urgent, but the comment had merit moving forward it was something to look at.

Mr. Brautigam stated the themes related to state heritage water listings, simplification of general law, errors conflicts and confusion, north zone fall season consistency, we had all favorable comments in support of the proposals. The theme that generated the most public comment was that related to expanding winter angling opportunities in the north zone, specifically in western Maine. About 80% of the comments that came in reflected either support or concern with the proposed expanded winter angling opportunities. Public support for winter angling opportunities did represent a very broad cross section of the general public that accounted for about 30% of all the comments that came in related to expanded winter angling opportunities. Of those that were opposed, about 64% of the comments came in from residents of Loon Lake. We looked at the issues that were raised in the public comment, but the most popular issues that were raised were aquatic invasive species, disruption of peace and tranquility and impacts to fish populations. There were no comments in opposition to the proposals to expand winter angling in Aroostook County at Shields Branch of the Black River and at the Little Black River. Those winter angling opportunities were supported by a couple of public members, there was no opposition there.

Mr. Brautigam stated he would like to talk a little bit about their approach, some of their perspectives in play when they looked at and explored development of winter angling opportunities in northern Maine. Some consideration was perspective, but he thought it was helpful to understand where we were coming from as we looked at the public comments that came in. The Department managed public waters of the state for the general public and not just those residing adjacent to these public recreation areas. The Department reviewed public input on proposed regulations for content and merit to ensure full consideration of any new information or concerns not available during proposal development. The Department recognized that sharing public waters with a new user group represented change for those who reside adjacent to the water body, but generally not the dire resource consequences suggested by some. The Rangeley area in particular really lacked winter angling opportunities enjoyed by the rest of the state and the waters selected represented the best opportunities to create winter angling in Rangeley area that were considerate of fish resources that were in that part of the state. The general issues raised during the public comment period reflected the same general issues considered by the department anywhere in the state when changes in public use opportunities are being explored. The comments that came in really weren't unique in any way as it related to any of the proposed waters and represent the general issues that are a concern statewide. Most of the resource related issues are being managed through statewide laws or other state and partner work programs.

Mr. Brautigam stated the selection criteria that we relied on in identifying waters that we felt would be good prospects for winter angling in Western Maine, were considerate of the resources there, we looked at waters that were stocked or proposed to be stocked where we had the ability to adjust stocking rates and regulations to provide opportunity both during the open water season and during the winter season. We also made sure the waters we identified had access for the public. We looked at the management of the waters, we didnt want to target waters that were providing trophy opportunities, or heritage waters or areas that supported robust wild brook trout fisheries. We picked waters that had mediocre fisheries or conditions that supported stocking programs but werent any significant fish resources there that would be impacted by providing winter angling. Lastly, we looked very closely at the use of live fish as bait as a gear restriction. In 2020 the Department moved forward with a pretty ambitious effort to reduce risks from baitfish introductions by establishing no live fish as bait in the northern part of the state. Some of the waters we proposed to open to expanded winter angling opportunity would deviate from that. There were a few waters because of the species assemblage of minnows there and or what was in those waters in terms of wild fishery resources or what was downstream of those waters, it didnt make sense necessarily to restrict use of live fish in those places. The areas where its very important was in the Rangeley Lake drainage because the drainage supported robust populations of wild brook trout and wild salmon. All the waters in the Rangeley Lakes Region were managed under a no live fish as bait restriction. We felt we needed to retain that restriction on two of the waters that are in the drainage, Lincoln Pond and Pepperpot Pond. There was a third water, Sandy River Ponds that was on the east side of Rangeley that drained into a different drainage, but because it was the headwaters to that drainage there were significant brook trout populations there so we retained no live fish as bait there in the winter. Where we would allow use of live fish as bait included Tibbetts Pond, Loon Pond, Beaver Pond and Toothacker Pond. Austin Pond already allowed use of live fish as bait so we would continue to allow that in the winter months.

Mr. Brautigam stated some of the concerns that were raised included parking and access concerns that the public would be crossing over private property. They were legitimate concerns, we have over 1,400 lakes in the state that were open to ice fishing where those were possible issues, but we have trespass laws in place to address those issues and where there were specific incidences of violations law enforcement have a role to play in managing those issues. The Department does have an obligation, when rules are advanced, to do some outreach to the public to create awareness where the parking and access points were on the waters we were opening up. The invasive threat issue was one of the bigger issues that had been raised during the comment period. It is a statewide issue, not specific to any of the ponds in the packet. Many of the comments talked about northern pike, we had about 37 waters that supported populations of invasive pike. We had about 1,400 waters that were open to ice fishing, he was not aware of any correlation between northern pike presence/introduction and ice fishing. Another topic of interest was impact to existing fish and wildlife populations, degradation of fishing quality and the need to conserve native fish that were present as well as impacts to loon food sources.

Mr. Brautigam stated any of the trout and salmon fisheries present in the ponds we identified, there may be some natural reproduction that resulted from the fish that were stocked there. There may be a remnant population of brook trout in some of the ponds, but there were no significant fisheries. Without our stocking programs we would not have sport fisheries in those water bodies. They were a big consideration as we identified waters that were suitable for expanding winter angling opportunities. There was concern about potential theft at lakeside residences and use of snowmobiles and safety. There were statewide laws that addressed those concerns. There were a lot of negative stereotypes regarding winter angling suggesting there was a tendency for them to leave trash, create noise, ice shacks ruining scenery for those residing on the pond. Again, there are existing laws to deal with littering and abandoned ice shacks. These were public waters of the state. The Department strived to manage that in way that benefitted the general public and not just those that reside on the water. He felt the approach they took in identifying opportunities to expand winter angling, particularly in Western Maine was responsibly developed and very considerate of fish resources in the area and at the same time trying to identify some additional public use benefits.

Commissioner Camuso stated one of her top priorities as Commissioner was to get more people engaged in outdoor activities and to try and broaden the scope of people that participated in the activities. Winter opportunities in particular were important. There were a lot of people that fished in the summer, but a lot of times you really needed a boat. She felt ice fishing really opened up an opportunity for a much wider range of people to participate. She had asked specifically for the fisheries division to look at expanding opportunity for ice fishing to make sure we had opportunity statewide for people to get out. The pandemic has shown that people wanted to be outside, they were flocking to the outdoors in unprecedented numbers and we had seen an increase in participation in every area we managed. Every time we surveyed the general public on what they were looking for, or what the impediments were to their participating in outdoor activities, the two things that came up were access and opportunity. People wanted more opportunity and they needed better access. They wanted places close to where they lived. She felt it was important to have opportunities statewide for people to get out and participate in our outdoor activities throughout the year. There were always concerns and issues we needed to make sure we were thinking about all sides and making sure we were being responsible in how we promoted these activities. She just wanted to make sure folks understood the direction that staff were asked to take when looking at fishing proposals.

Mrs. Rousseau stated she thought the criteria that was listed in creating the proposals was spot on and well crafted. She had spoken with Liz and Francis regarding the proposals as most of the ponds were in the Franklin and Oxford County area which she represented. She knew many of the people that were opposed, but she was connected in a couple of different ways. Her full-time job was at a land trust that held a conservation easement on one of the parcels at Loon Lake. She looked at the obligation and spirit of what the conservation easement meant and what it meant for the property. Specific to Loon Lake, which we received most of the comments on, the intention of the conservation easement (which is in perpetuity) was for recreational opportunities and for wildlife habitat. She looked back in 2010 the Loon Lake Association was informed by IFW that the management of Look Lake was going to likely cease, meaning they wouldnt have any further pond stocking because there wasnt reasonable and prudent access to the lake for the public. IFW approached the Phillips Preserve which is the owner of the 788 acres of land on the entire west shore of Loon Lake and Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust holds the conservation easement. The two organizations spoke with IFW, and the Phillips Preserve put $10,000 to make trail improvements to ensure the access was reasonable and prudent and Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust manages the gate system that prohibits vehicles past a certain point for the protection of the road. Snowmobiles did go down the road from the groomer barn and onto the trail system. There had been concerns with boat storage and abandonment issues on conservation land and they had spoken to the land owner to work out a program with them so they would start monitoring the boats and require all boat owners to not leave locks on the boats to ensure that anyone could use them. They spoke to the Phillips Preserve that if the ice fishing proposal passed on Loon Lake, could they find a way to manage or not allow ice shacks to be portaged across conservation property onto the lake to prohibit any type of shack being left out on the lake which would help reduce some of the aesthetics. They did state they would want to do that, and the land trust would help manage that. That addressed some of the concerns they had. She did not have a lot of information on Sandy River Pond, other than she had seen the comments both positive and negative, also with Lincoln and Pepper Pot Ponds. She did see one very common bottom line that no matter what information was being shared with the general public about the facts on why certain ponds were chosen because of the criteria IFW put on the table, she felt people kept realizing that the word live fish proposed as bait were in other areas not in the Rangeley Lakes watershed and in the upper Androscoggin River, they flowed into the Dead or the Sandy. She thought no matter how we kept presenting that it was not sticking and she felt that she would like to see no live fish as bait whatsoever proposed for any of the ponds to minimize those negative impacts. Socially, those were just as concerning as biologically when it came to the fisheries and opportunities for anglers and other recreationalists.

Commissioner Camuso stated Mrs. Rousseau had mentioned the land trust would consider not allowing ice shacks, she assumed they meant more permanent shacks. Would they allow pop-up shacks and day use with warming shelters?

Mrs. Rousseau stated the Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust owned the conservation easement which ensured long-term wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities for the public. Their obligation through the land trust was to make sure the terms were being met. The owner the Steven Phillips Preserve Trust would be the ones that would need to say, we dont want any shacks on the lake that are dragged across our property. When she spoke to the Phillips Preserve they did say thats what they would want to see, they didnt want to see ice shacks out there to reduce the aesthetics. The entire west shore of the lake was wild and natural, there were no structures. Shacks left there all season were a detriment, so there was request was that day shacks or pop-ups were ok. The ones that came out at the end of the day. They would use signage to indicate that and educate people.

Mr. Ward stated the general proposal for the extended ice fishing opportunities with the regional biologist Liz Thorndike and Francis, they put a lot of work into trying to come up with waters to open without creating any harm. It was interesting if you looked at the lake survey maps there were a lot of minnows, shiners and rough fish in Loon Lake and that did drain into Flagstaff which the principle fishery was pickerel. Mrs. Rousseau mentioned the $10,000 that was put in for the public access and he was pleased, there was some concern about season long ice shacks and it looked like that aspect may be covered as well. He thought in general it was a good plan and if there were some small changes if the group would consider that he would as well.

Mrs. Peet stated as a forester, and it would pertain to open water fishing, had there been any consideration or talk with habitat folks or forestry people about introducing earthworms into areas that they were not already in? They could be detrimental.

Mr. Brautigam stated there had been conversations around that, it was sort of an emerging awareness of earthworms and the fact that most if not all were not indigenous to the state. Some of the ones that were coming in were worse than what we had. He thought it was an issue deserving of a lot more attention that we would need to think about. There didnt appear to be any regulation or oversight on using or selling earthworms.

Mrs. Peet stated for the Council level, if they were going to go back and revisit any of the nuances around no live fish as bait, if some of the ponds were remote with very few camps if it seemed earthworms might not be there now if we could consider eliminating them from some of the ponds.

Mr. Duchesne stated what he would be listening for was specific concerns to any of the bodies of water they might want to talk about because starting with the principle, it was a public resource even the fish we were stocking there was a public resource and in order to curtail the publics use of its own resource there would have to specific reasons why that made sense. They had a list of them, and they had been mentioned but things like invasive species introduced as bait in some places that would be a danger and inappropriate, protection of downstream resources especially heritage fish waters, harm to the fishery itself. There could be a number of reasons to overcome the initial principal that the public has access to its own resource. He felt there were general concerns about noise, etc. but these were things that were just normal for every body of water not specific to the one they might be commenting on.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he lived on Nickerson Lake in southern Aroostook county. There were about 100 properties on the lake, about 30 year-round. It was not a big lake and open to ice fishing. Starting in January on a given weekend there might be 50 people in front of his house ice fishing, the same on the other end of the lake. He didnt see any litter, there was noise from snow sleds and ice augers. There were a lot of kids. All those folks were not a blight to his view and it did get kids out away from their screens and it was healthy exercise. The Department had adjusted their stocking program relative to the traffic so for folks that were concerned about the change of having ice fishermen, he lived with that and didnt see that being a negative in his world. They were a little concerned about invasive plant species in the lake and they had a paid employee at the boat launch and volunteers.

Mr. Gawtry stated regarding the ice shack discussion, for his understanding, it would be the land trust or the property owner that would be limiting that there would not be that access across their property for those types of structures but they would be allowing the temporary pop-up structures. That would be just one aspect. There would still be access for season long structures if permission was given at another access point. For clarity, none of this would be associated with regulation or statue this would all be done either through private ownership and or maybe association?

Mrs. Rousseau stated there was only one access point for the public to Loon Lake itself. It was on private property owned by the Steven Phillips Preserve. They were the ones stating they would make sure there was sign up saying no ice shacks are allowed to be trailered, etc. across this property to leave on the pond for the season. It was language they would need to craft.

Commissioner Camuso stated if someone had a friend or family member that owned a camp on Loon Lake, they could give permission to use their access to drag a permanent shack down. There could be ways for people to have permanent shacks with permission from a private camp owner.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he was not aware of any lakes where permanent ice shacks were prohibited, was there such a thing?

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there were some complexities with the issue we would need to look at. It would be a statutory issue.

Mr. Scribner stated in reviewing the public comments, there was one that talked to the ice fishing shacks and no live fish as bait, but also there was a potential review after three years on a given body of water. He didnt know if that was something that was feasible or not.

Commissioner Camuso stated we generally did fisheries rulemaking on an annual basis. The regional staff looked through the management strategies within their region and made recommendations. To have a law or rule sunset was probably not necessary in this case where we did an annual review of the management.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he thought the proposals were structured very well and he was supportive of the plan as it was presented.

Ms. Ware stated asked if an issue emerged in the future, would it likely be included in a future packet?

Mr. Brautigam stated depending on the nature of the resource issue, we could certainly move forward with a more liberal or restrictive regulation. The biologists were always monitoring the resources.

Mr. Ligouri stated the packet was very well presented, opportunity and access especially in the wintertime was so important. He hadnt heard anything to that point that was negative. The ice shack idea that Mrs. Rousseau explained if they could enforce that would be great. He would like to hear the comments that other people had, but he was pretty much in favor of the whole thing.

Mrs. Geel stated she felt a lot of thought and research went into the packet. She understood the concerns of those that lived on the lake, however, she didnt feel those concerns outweighed the resource of that property that could be used by the public and getting kids out in the winter on the ice. She thought that was important.

2. Educational Trip Leader Permit Rules Colonel Scott stated this originated back to the 129th Legislature due to a bill put in by the Independent College Association as well as the University of Maine system to try to answer the question about educational institutions, both K-12 as well as independent/private colleges across the state that conducted a lot of outdoor peer leadership/youth trips within the organizations throughout the State of Maine. The trips ranged from hiking and snowshoeing to free climbing, rock climbing, paddling, camping, etc. Did those trips violate the Maine guiding law if they included activities which guiding regulated? Generally, they were paddling trips and overnight camping. Those were addressed in the rule, there were a number of other trips that could continue.

Colonel Scott stated due to Covid the bill died, but the Legislature had been moving towards a stakeholder group to conduct a study. With a good faith effort, the Department pulled together a stakeholder group during the summer and fall of 2020. There were 15 members in the group and 12 of them were current registered Maine guides. It was important to keep that association between the stakeholder group and the Maine guides because that was the industry that would be affected. A number of recommendations came out of the group and was presented to the 130th Legislature. They moved forward with a bill which allowed for an exception to the Maine guide rule for educational institutions that wanted to sponsor peer leadership, paddling and camping trips.

Colonel Scott stated the proposed rule established an advisory committee appointed by the Commissioner of professionals in those activities. The committee would oversee the program. The committee would then come up with a curriculum and the rule laid out some of the basic requirements. The next level of control was any educational institution that was interested in becoming part of the program needed to have an administrator. An administrator would be in charge of the program and would be a registered Maine guide. The administrator had the training authority of the individual trip leaders under their purview. There were other guidelines within the proposal for a denial process, revocations, etc.

Colonel Scott stated a public hearing was held on August 2, 2021 with one person in attendance. There were three written comments received. The first was from the University of Maine, the person that heads their Maine Bound outdoor leadership program. He was also the co-chair of the stakeholder group. He had five suggestions in his comments to better define what the stakeholder group was looking for and to make some very small changes. The Executive Director of the MPGA also submitted comments. Mr. Kleiner was also on the stakeholder group. The feedback was that the recommendations of the stakeholder group to the Legislature met the objectives and he was excited about it because it was also a challenge for the guides to know if the programs were legal or not legal as they were run in the past. We were also looking at the program as a potential for a feeder group to the guiding program. If someone went to the University of Maine and became an outdoor peer leader through the program and training, they would be a natural person to move into the guiding industry. The last public comment was from a guide from New Hampshire. Most of his concerns were around the technical portions of the proposal. He requested we include things in the curriculum such as leave no trace principles, or preventative emergency awareness. They were good points, but where we addressed the curriculum itself, we laid out minimum standards so that the advisory committee when they were coming up with the entire curriculum had to meet those minimum standards. There were portions that spoke to risk management, wilderness tripping skills, landowner relations, awareness of the Maine outdoor sporting community, etc. He also commented on the minimum age and the size of the trips.

Colonel Scott stated there were a couple of the comments that were very small changes that we did support and would help better meet the overall final objectives of the stakeholder group.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated if the MPGA was ok with it, so was he.

Mr. Liguori stated the proposal was well thought out and he was pleased to see the guide involvement


C. Step 1

There were no items under Step 1.



V. Other Business


Commissioner Camuso stated she had an update for the airboat discussion. The Department had brought forward a proposal to come up with reasonable decibel levels for airboats which was overwhelmingly rejected. The proposal was withdrawn, and suggested the parties involved bring their request to the Legislature, which they did. The Legislature passed the bill which ironically was very similar to the rule proposal we had put forward. The Legislature also directed the Department to continue with the stakeholder group to try and come up with more parameters under which the harvesters could operate and minimize some of the impacts to the adjacent landowners. Because the bill was not emergency it would not take effect until October. Lt. Luce in Region A had been working with the Major of Marine Patrol and a warden from Wisconsin who had some technical expertise with airboats and was providing training to Maine Warden Service and Marine Patrol. They would then be moving forward with additional outreach to stakeholders to come up with additional sound-based parameters for airboat noise.

Commissioner Camuso also discussed additional bills that passed, LD 404 which directed the Department to prioritize acquisition of deer yards in northern, western, and eastern Maine and allocated a limited term position to focus on those acquisitions. It also made changes to the LMF program to prioritize Department owned proposals. Any proposal brought forward by the Department for deer yards in particular would get priority. The Legislature allocated $40 million to the LMF program. She felt this was a huge step forward for conservation in Maine. There were also a number of bills around Sunday hunting, and the Committee carried one of the bills over and directed the Department to form a stakeholder group. The Department did not support the bills that were submitted primarily for social reasons and that the landowners we worked with were very strongly opposed to the bills. Virtually everything the Department managed happened on private land but recognized there were a lot of people out there that would like more opportunity and access on Sundays. The Legislature directed the Department to form the stakeholder group and conduct a study similar to ones in the past where we would hire a professional firm to go out and survey the public. Funds were approved to hire a facilitator that would manage the group and we would bring the results back to the Legislature and they would be able to make a more informed decision on how they would want to move forward.


VI. Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports.


VII. Public Comments & Questions


Tony Touchette - Loon Lake Association stated he had prepared statements and some may be redundant with some of the things stated by Mr. Brautigam and Mrs. Rousseau.

Mr. Scribner stated that he wanted to remind everyone that the public comment period on the fishing rule proposals had ended if that would help Mr. Touchette with his presentation.

Tony Touchette stated it was mostly speaking towards the public comments that had come in.

Commissioner Camuso stated the comment period had closed. If he had questions, we could take questions, but really couldnt take additional comments on the proposal.

Tony Touchette stated he did have some questions. He assumed the Department did a lot of research and documentation on that research. They were looking to see if we had documentation that addressed the following four questions; could the Department provide data that supports the growing interest in ice fishing that would outweigh the interests of the people who own lakeside property; had the Department performed a risk/reward analysis that shows the benefits of introducing ice fishing and live fish as bait vs. the risks; can the Department provide data that shows how the Department decides where to allow live fish as bait in a region where the general law is NLFAB; has the Department taken any steps to regulate the baitfish industry and/or how baitfish are collected privately? He thought the concerns were legitimate that someone might bring an ice fishing shack out on the lake. Everyone on the lake was opposed and it was probably unlikely that anyone would drag a shack down from their property. They would be more concerned with the long-range process because of property turn over. Was there a way a special proposal could come in that would encompass the entire lake.

Carolyn Schwalbe, Chairman of Loon Lake Association stated she would like to continue with what Tony said regarding the ice shacks, some people were concerned about the view. It was a small lake, and some were concerned they might not be removed, and they would go through and be at the bottom of their lake.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated a lot of the discussion around ice shacks, there was a whole body of laws on abandoned ice shacks, littering, etc. and we could provide that if they were not familiar with it. The basis of the conversation, he was concerned with the scope of the rulemaking authority and thought it better suited for the Legislature. It was a statewide issue.

Carolyn Schwalbe asked about enforcement. The lake was remote (4 miles from Rangeley) and they were worried about response times and they were concerned about safety. There was no parking at the access, were there plans to create parking at the gated entrance to the public access across private land? Had we worked with the town of Dallas to consider the parking? Access was on the lake road in Dallas Plt.

Commissioner Camuso stated we could talk with the town. We did not own the property. Stocking of the lake was incumbent upon equitable public access and there was equitable public access to that through the preserve where the land trust had an easement. Where it was remote, we did not anticipate significant parking issues. If there were problems with parking, that would be something the regional staff could work to address.

Mr. Brautigam stated there was a substantial snowmobile trail system around the Rangeley area and a number of different parking areas where people could access the trail heads.

Colonel Scott stated in reference to the body of laws that took in ice shacks, all ice shacks had to have a name and address posted on them and game wardens kept track of that. At certain times of the year and certain places ice shacks could go through and those were litter laws. There were laws in place for when people had to get them off the ice relative to the end of ice fishing season or prior to ice out. We could enforce litter laws as well as enforcing them to get the shacks off before they went through.

Carolyn Schwalbe stated she believed they had one warden for a very large area, could he address how large the area was for that one warden.

Colonel Scott stated we had nine vacancies across the state, and also hired seven new wardens. Two of those were assigned to the Rangeley Lake area.

Carolyn Schwalbe asked if there were any plans to provide for trash receptacles or other public facilities in the area. She understood the criteria, looking for the fisheries, looking at the watershed, looking at the tributaries, she wondered if that was all we should or could look at. The Rangeley region was historic and unique from the rest of the state and the legacy for the brook trout and the fly fishing, it was a historic region. Did we look culturally and economically, or did we only look at the biological criteria? DEP had expressed concern and put into dollar amounts the cost to tourism and clean up if they could get the invasives out. It was considered a national treasure for the native brook trout. Why would we want to introduce ice fishing which would extend the risk of something coming off the line and getting into the water, extending the season and the amount of time and the risk was greater for invasive species. She liked that it looked like the live fish as bait could be taken off the table, to her that was very contradictory. Did we look culturally, and did we do an economic risk/reward analysis?

Commissioner Camuso stated we had looked at it from many different angles. The Department was very conscientious of the threat of invasive species. The risk of invasive species, with plants and other aquatics were spread in the summer months. It was not generally a risk in the winter months. We had requests from the community to expand fishing opportunity in the Rangeley Lakes area in the winter months for decades. There were many anglers in the state who were more than just fly fishermen and wanted opportunities for their resources in the winter months as well. She felt the regional staff did a good job picking water bodies that met the criteria that the Department establishes and minimized any potential threat or risks.

Carolyn Schwalbe asked if we would consider adding to the criteria something that looked at not just a watershed as an area we looked at biologically but extending the criteria to include a risk/reward analysis of economics for the area and a cultural concern. Instead of looking at the drainage only, consider i.e. Loon Lake as part of a region that was a cultural region or an economic region.

Commissioner Camuso stated it could be discussed. The other side was that ice fishing may very well add economic benefits to the region and provide opportunity. She did not see that ice fishing was going to do anything but improve the economic impacts to the area. We selected water bodies that were not going to threaten or impact any of the native heritage trout areas, so she did not think there was a risk to impacting that national treasure that we had and at the same time we were trying to provide more opportunity to people to engage in outdoor activities in the colder months.

Tony Touchette stated they would like to see some sort of analysis that must have been done by somebody that did counteract that reward with risk.

Carolyn Schwalbe asked about notifications for rulemaking and considering ways to make the process better to alert the towns when major changes were being made in the area.

Commissioner Camuso discussed the process for advertising rules. Towns had the ability to sign up for the distribution list as well to be notified of proposals as they came up.

Carolyn Schwalbe discussed the LUPC process for public comments and asked that the Department look into that.

Senator Black stated the proposed changes were in his district, most of them were in the Rangeley Lakes area. It was a big change to the area. As much as we tried to communicate, people didnt hear about it. If it went into effect, he thought there would be a lot of calls. He was not aware of the proposal until he started receiving phone calls and letters. It was a concern of his that the public and towns didnt know. He appreciated the work the Department had put into the proposals.

Gary Corson stated he thought it was a good proposal. He thought what was wrong was the process. It seemed like everything was a secret until that day when the proposal came out. He knew the Administrative Procedures Act played a role, but there had to be a better way. We werent hearing enough from the public. He had nothing against more opportunity and that was why he supported the proposal because where they opened to ice fishing and didnt allow live fish as bait it was what they should have done. We had laws but still had illegal introductions.


VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting



IX. Adjournment
A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Advisory Council Meeting
353 Water Street Fourth Floor Large Conference Room Augusta, ME (Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams) please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)

Tuesday, December 14, 2021 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.
I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting
V. Rule Making

A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2
1. Species of Special Concern - Nate Webb
2. Boating Event rules - Jim Connolly


C. Step 1
1.Bear Hunting rules - Nathan Webb


V. Other Business


1. PFAS Update - Nate Webb
   
2. Adoption of remote access policy - Commissioner Camuso
   

VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 A.M.
VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment
12:00 P.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
September 23, 2021 @ 9:30 a.m.
Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, LL Bean Room
205 Church Hill Road
Augusta, ME


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Mark Latti, Director of Communications
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries & Hatcheries Division Director
Steve Walker, E/T Species Coordinator
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Jerry Scribner (Chair)
Bob Duchesne
Shelby Rousseau
Al Cowperthwaite
Tony Liguori
Eric Ward


GUESTS
8 citizens



I. Call to Order
Council Chair, Jerry Scribner called the meeting to order.



II. Introductions
Introductions were made.



III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite.


Vote: unanimous in favor - minutes approved.


IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3
1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2022


Commissioner Camuso stated we were proposing a modification to the proposal. The reason for the modification was not based in the biological background. The biology for the proposal was sound, and she did not have any concerns about increased risk of invasive species or other detrimental impacts based on the proposal. However, as Commissioner her job was to consider not just the biology but also the social science and the political aspect of the proposals. Given the nature of the comments and the change in the region to access and opportunity as it related to Loon Lake, the Rangeley area historically had very little winter ice fishing opportunity. This was a change to that region, and she recognized the change was challenging and uncomfortable for most people. For that reason, she felt it was a reasonable modification to accept a recommendation that some of the citizens of the area requested in that we move to a proposal which would allow for no live fish as bait on Loon Lake. Her recommendation to the Council was that they accept the fishing regulations packet for 2022 with the one modification to Loon Lake.


Mr. Brautigam stated he appreciated all the input that came in from the public. There was a high degree of accountability they tried to build into the fishing regulations packets that balanced a lot of biological issues with the social and political.


Mr. Duchesne stated he appreciated the science on the proposal was sound and robust, but he thought an extra level of caution when it came to any method of introducing invasive species was wise and he thought a good decision for Loon Lake.


Mrs. Rousseau stated she received quite a number of the comments. She thought the science behind the proposal was superb and socially it was very difficult for her because she knew a lot of the comments that came in personally. She did believe the science and thought the Department needed to be commended.


A motion was made by Mrs. Rousseau to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.


Vote: in favor unanimous motion passed.


2. Educational Trip Leader Permit Rules

Colonel Scott stated we received a few comments and felt some of them were pertinent. The work of the stakeholder group, the comments did reflect the desires and work of the stakeholder group and we made a few modifications. The educational trip leader administrator for a particular school, we redefined the educational institution, so it was not just for a school, but for the whole school administrative district. Also, under definitions (3.) we changed that the administrator was not required to be an employee or a student of the school. We tried to make these modifications for the K-12 schools that may not have the resources to have somebody on staff who was a registered Maine guide, so these schools can then look outside to hire a guide or have somebody fill in. The last change was in 28.09 under the authorization of the permit that it only includes overnight camping and paddling trips, not things like fishing, hunting, ATVing, etc. There was a paragraph that spoke to that and we were proposing to remove that. Overall, the rule reflects the desires and the recommendations of the stakeholder group. If adopted, the next step was to identify guides and folks to form the advisory committee. Institutions had one year from October to come into compliance.


A motion was made by Mr. Liguori to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.


Vote: in favor unanimous motion passed.

A. Step 2


There were no items under Step 2.


C. Step 1


1. Species of Special Concern


Mr. Webb stated this was a new topic and was not something that had historically been in rule. We were bringing the issue forward because during the last legislative session the Department submitted a bill seeking to create a definition for species of special concern. For quite a number of years we had used that list of species where theyre not threatened or endangered really for planning and informational purposes that are species that dont meet the criteria for threatened or endangered but were kind of on a watch list that we felt required some attention to prevent them from becoming listed. That bill generated quite a bit of discussion at the Legislature. There were some changes to the original bill; creating the definition in statute directed the Department to go through the rulemaking process to more clearly lay out the criteria that we would consider when developing the list and also the actual list of species that would fall under that definition. The new law included a provision that prohibits the collection of reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates for personal use if theyre listed as threatened, endangered or special concern. A species like wood turtle is not available for someone to collect from the wild and take into their home for personal possession. Section 4 of the law related to scientific and educational collection permits. There was a special caveat for invertebrate species requiring an individual or an organization to obtain a permit before they could collect a special concern invertebrate from the wild. That provision does not apply if the species is not threatened or of special concern. We also use the list to inform planning and budgeting and staff work plan prioritization and use it in an advisory capacity to provide recommendations to DEP when they were considering for development projects. This would be a new rule chapter and the actual proposal would be advertised in the next couple of weeks.


Mr. Walker gave a PowerPoint presentation to the group. Please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov if you would like to view a copy of the presentation.


Mr. Walker stated the Department was responsible for not only game species but over 15,000 species out on the landscape. In order to prioritize and organize our efforts, there were multiple listing schemes that we had to juggle. The state wildlife action plan, last updated in 2015, was a document the Department had to update every 10 years. Currently, we had 378 species of greatest conservation need in it, and it was three tiers of listing organization. Tier 1 was most of our endangered and threatened species (high priority) and we currently had 58 of those as endangered in the wildlife action plan. Tier 2 we had 131 species, the difference was it took into consideration some of the historical occurrences, climate change vulnerability, etc. Tier 3 were species where we had an inkling something was going on but hadnt had the resources to do full statewide surveys or the expertise necessary to really document the declines. Sorting the three tiers took a lot of staff effort. The species specialists went through each one of the 378 species to rank them. We also had outside experts and the public helping as well.


Mr. Walker stated the Maine Endangered Species Act (ESA) had been on the books since 1975. We had 51 endangered and threatened species currently listed. The diversity ranged from aquatic invertebrates (snails, freshwater mussels, reptiles, amphibians, etc.) were represented on the list. Listing for the Maine ESA followed a handbook that was updated in 2014. It had a step-down process based on set criteria to rank the status of species and make recommendations to the Commissioner and ultimately the Legislature. It was last updated in 2015, which meant we would be coming back in 2023 with an update. There were 26 endangered species on the list and 25 threatened species. What about species of special concern? Up until LD 88 this was an informal process the Department went through where species specialist said, not quite endangered, not quite threatened, lets use this as a watch list. The list was last updated in 2011. There were comparison lists from 1996 through to the 2021 proposed list. There was a worksheet for each species to document how criteria were met.


Mr. Walker stated the language in LD 88 would set the definition of special concern in rule. We had references in the law to special concern lists as indicated in wildlife possession rules and scientific collection rules. It appeared there but there hasnt been a definition. Additionally, LD 88 gave the Commissioner the opportunity to set a category of special concern species called rare. In site location of development, if you were familiar with the DEP law, it was the review of DEP that captured large scale projects. It always had this section in it for preservation of unusual natural areas, which included the word "rare" or endangered species. To date, that had always been interpreted by the Department as including special concern broadly. We didnt regulate those species, but we did provide advisory comments to DEP when site location act was triggered. Those comments typically involved adjustments to the footprint of the development, the layout, the number of units, etc. ways to minimize focus on habitat impacts. Weve proposed a draft definition of that sub-set of species of special concern as rare, and its dependent on specific habitat types because most of our comments to DEP are based on habitat and not necessarily individual take or individual species. We were proposing 119 species for species of special concern, and the sub-set of rare would be 83 broken down by taxa group.


Council Member Questions and Comments


Commissioner Camuso stated the list had always existed, it just never had review. The proposal was to bring it forward so that it was transparent and consistent for review. Unlike the threatened or endangered species list or any of our game adjustments, the Council had never had an opportunity to weigh in on the species of concern list before.


Mr. Duchesne stated when you were dealing with special concern, most of the regulatory action behind that was just be careful. The burden was not terribly high. If you caught these things early, you could avoid much stricter regulation later.


There were no further questions or comments.


2. Boating Event Rules


Ms. Theriault stated currently in statute we had the ability to permit folks who wanted to have some sort of race for watercraft. A few years ago, we had communication about some boat race events occurring on Watchic Lake in Standish. We permitted a couple of different events there in the summer and a dead loon happened to wash up on shore. We did not know the cause of death, but there was some speculation about correlation between boaters and the boat race event. That spurred a conversation about safety of wildlife, safety of humans and water quality on the pond. The boat race events, particularly ones permitted by the Department on Watchic Lake were sponsored and coordinated by the Kiwanis Clubs. They put their own parameters on the boat race itself and having people standing by in case of emergency and they had a spotter for wildlife, etc. The shoreline owners that live on the pond and folks involved with the association were concerned about the Commissioners authority and ability to provide stronger stipulations and requirements. They put forth a bill (LD 394) last session asking for stronger authority and ability to provide some more restrictive requirements in our permitting. The Department testified in support but provided the Committee information that we currently had the ability to enforce different violations for recreational watercraft as well as boat race events. The initial concern from those people were that if we gave a permit out and somebody participating in the event did something egregious or wrong that we couldnt pull that person out of the event. Specifically, we may not be able to revoke the permit if there were some major issues with the event.


Ms. Theriault stated the Committee asked the Department to review current rules and report back to them with new rules that would give more authority and provisions to make specific requirements within those permits. Recognizing that the boat race events were a little bit different concern than some of the other types of events that occurred on the water that we permitted (sailboat races, regattas) the motorboat race events had higher concern. We separated those events in the proposed rule from some of the other types of events. We were proposing a new section in the Chapter 13 Watercraft Rules. We would go back to the Legislature after the final rule adoption and see if they felt further change was necessary.


Mr. Connolly stated the Legislature gave us specific authority and direction in statute on particular topics for rulemaking. The Commissioner also had general authority to engage in rulemaking on topics where delegated. Within the boat racing world, the Commissioner is authorized to issue a permit, and a permit is required to have a race. There was already language in rule that addressed a number of issues. When we start on a new topic, we look to see what weve been directed to do; we werent directed to ban boat races. That would be an inappropriate action. The other thing was noise. If you were upset by the noise in a boat race there was currently a specific exemption in statute for noise by boat and mufflers. The Department could not enact a noise restriction or a muffler change on boat races or regattas. If there was already an issue in statute where theres been clear direction, or in rule, we try to make those consistent. There was a water safety zone in Maine, 200 feet from the shoreline you were only supposed to operate with enough power to move forward and maintain control. That had implications for wakes and impacts on the shoreline. We then look at the event and begin to analyze if boat races, what was the distinction between a boat race and recreational boating. The authority wasnt to change recreational boating statewide, the discussion was to focus on boat races. That framework was important in terms of where we focus on this issue.


Mr. Connolly stated the other piece to start looking at was specific issues that come up. Wake, shoreline, injury to wildlife, we had someone that looked at loon mortality across the state. Was there something specific to boat races in terms of impacts to wildlife that was different than anything else that occurred with recreational boating. There wasnt. There was a mortality on that lake, we cant attribute it to the boat race, but is was blunt force trauma. We had loons that were killed on other lakes where there were no boat races. We had to look, is the particular fact that a boat race occurs mean theres going to be dead wildlife, no. We had different types of events and the criteria for each. Races, what was the scope of the problem in Maine. In 2018, there were three motorboat races, all on Watchic Lake. In 2019, there were eight total, six on Watchic Lake. In 2020, six on Watchic Lake. Was this a problem all over the state? It was currently a very focused problem. That didnt mean we werent going to address it but gave some perspective on what was going on. There were other factors impacting loons. The loon population was currently stable, chick production was flatlined and we were doing things to address that.


Mr. Connolly stated we were asking for some changes in statute to clarify our authority and clearly link wildlife safety to motorboat races. We were going to clarify that the Commissioner could put conditions on permits and revoke or refuse to issue a permit in statute and then we would create a corresponding spot in rule to do that. There were a number of suggestions for doing this that we should analyze the shoreline, look at the depth of the water, etc. After looking at all that, there really was no justification because the next day a recreational boat could be going over that same area with no consequences. We were asking applicants to submit a course map and put some criteria in terms of the layout of the course on the lake and look to them to avoid safety hazards and we were going to look at adjacent swimming areas. We were not going try to put all of the very specific things governing how we were going to look at that map in rule. We were looking at additional distance out beyond 200 feet in order to ensure that you could have a boat race going on, and people could be driving a boat between the course and the 200 foot headway speed zone and use the lake so it wasnt totally occupied by the race. Also, create an additional setback that will ensure that theres safety and minimal impact to shoreline for any other activities. We were also looking at having two spotters, we were going to ask on the application that the applicant notify the town in advance so there was an awareness to the public the event was going to happen; provide the names of two spotters; spotters will have guidelines for looking for interactions with the course and be able to communicate with the person running the course to make awareness to stop the course in case theres a risk to the participants but also to deal with wildlife issues. The other thing we were looking at was aquatic plant inspectors. We had required inspections for bass tournaments before they put the boat in, and afterwards. A motorboat race participant wasnt more risky than a bass tournament participant or recreational boater. We were going to look at requiring and then providing the names of the two aquatic plant inspectors, inspection before and afterwards and they would be trained by DEP to do that. We were also asking an emergency responder to be present. We want to designate a representative that we know in advance that was going to be present at the course we could communicate with and hold accountable for the actions that occur.


Mr. Connolly stated we were asking event officials have the boating education course certificate so the officials and participants in boat races both are certified in boating safety and have taken the course. Flags for warning will be on the course, a roster of participants, and then were asking for a report of what goes on during the race afterwards. That feedback will allow us to evaluate if the race was held responsibly and if we need to make changes. There would be less requirements for parades. The rule would also include an awareness that the Commissioner can revoke, suspend, or deny the permit.


V. Other Business


Commissioner Camuso stated she wanted to make the Council aware of the status of the Recovering Americas Wildlife Act (RAWA). This was a bill in Congress to provide permanent annual funding for species of greatest conservation need with the idea that the additional funding will minimize need to list species. The Department had 15,000 or so species we were responsible for. We also had species specialists that were dedicated to invertebrate species, not all states had one. The most recent estimate for funding from the bill for Maine would be $11million/year for nongame funding. In comparison, we currently received $8million/year from USFWS to manage all of the wildlife. It would be a monumental change in how we were able to manage wildlife species. It had support from both parties. The funding would come from mitigation fees for environmental impact.


VI. Councilor Reports


Councilors gave reports.


VII. Public Comments & Questions


Agnes Wiggin stated they were interested in the boat regulations. She wanted to make a distinction, there was talk about recreational boats vs. race boats. When she had driven a boat with a water skier, she was going the maximum of about 30mph. The race boats were going 70 to 90mph. To her, there was a big difference between a race boat and a recreational boat. The request for the legislation was a step in really protecting wildlife and in particular, loons. The legislation for harassing is very different than being in the loon nesting area and disturbing the loons. She did not think boat racers were trying to do that, she didnt feel the harassing part fit. There was a loon nesting territory that the race went through, and it was going on for three days for hours each day. That year, they had no live births. They had talked about the loon population being flat, so it was a concern to them. The Lake Association spent a lot of time and effort they had one of the cleanest lakes in Maine, they had a gold award from the state. She didnt get from the regulation anything that said a boat race must be X feet away from the loon nesting area. That was something she would like to see, whatever the experts say is a territory that you really shouldnt be zooming constantly in front of them.


Commissioner Camuso stated some of the challenges with that, when the Department enacted rules they were for the whole state. We wouldnt enact a rule for one particular location. There were many instances where recreational boats were going well in excess of 30mph in and around loon nesting areas on many lakes. We had over 4,000 pairs of loons in Maine. Because of the number of loons we had statewide, we did not feel it was appropriate to put a certain number of distance to or from. We could discuss the timing of the races. Currently, they were before Memorial Day after Labor Day which was outside the breeding season for that species. We felt that was a much more viable approach than having people measure distance from a nest. In general, the loon counts are usually the third Saturday in July, by then the chicks are probably two weeks old, its about a 30-day incubation period. June, July, August was approximate.


Agnes Wiggin stated while this was initiated because of the loon death, it happened on the day of a boat race and there was boat slice across the loon. They had pictures that were given to a warden. Nobody saw it so nobody could say thats what was happening on the lake that day. When there was a public hearing, there were 19 people who testified, 5 from Watchic Lake. Fifty people submitted written testimony in support of expanding the boat permitting process to include wildlife and they were from all over the state. She totally agreed we didnt want legislation for one spot, but there was significant support. She just hoped there would be some way to accommodate nesting areas. Nobody was against races, it was trying to protect the wildlife. Could they come up with some rules to protect the wildlife on lakes that were big enough to support wildlife and races. They did race within the 200ft. from shore, did they need to have people taking videos to show that? She did not know how that was enforced or reported. They talked about potentially having people report back after the race. If it was the people involved in the race, its going to be great theres going to be no violation. How would we know it was what it said it was, that they did what they said they would do?


Commissioner Camuso stated the Department had many processes where we had an expectation that the permittee was honest in their application and in their paperwork with the understanding that if they were not, they would not get a permit in the future. We had many processes that required people to be honest and that was the expectation. She could also assure her that when people were not honest, we heard about it. If the applicant or permittee was behaving in such a way to not comply with their permit, we would find out about it.


Mr. Connolly stated it would be more productive for them to review the written rule when it was advertised and during the comment period raise any points. If they had concerns specifically, they could contact the Advisory Council member for their area. After the comment period closes, we would address all the comments. He felt the concerns Mrs. Wiggin had was addressed in the rule in terms of a designated course being appropriate and respectful of the other laws and rules in place and the requirement they comply with the course that had been approved.


Katie Hansberry stated she was the Maine State Director of the Humane Society of the United States. During the legislative session there was a bill about the use of non-lead ammunition. Her recollection from that discussion was that a more formalized group or stakeholder group would be formed. Was that accurate or was that happening?


Mr. Webb stated there was a more informal group of folks that had been meeting virtually to discuss progress and ideas. We had started to ramp up messaging, there was some social media information that went out. It was a broader effort among states of the northeast, review of a conservation grant to pull in more resources and a more consistent strategy across the northeast states recognizing that hunters moved across state lines. There continued to be discussion and they would welcome her participation in the group if she wished. We did hold an informational session on July 1, 2021 at the Summerhaven range with representatives from fish and game clubs, staff, recreational safety officers and the North American Non-lead Partnership to talk about the issue and have a demonstration of lead vs. non-lead ammunition. There was work going on behind the scenes, but there was more to do.


Tony Touchette stated that on behalf of the association and the property owners at Loon Lake, he would like to thank the Commissioner, the Council and the Department for listening to their comments and making an amendment that was approved. He had learned a lot about the rule process.


Mr. Brautigam stated he would like to update the Council on the status of their 15-year fisheries strategic management plan. It had been a very lengthy process, but they were in the final stages of having the plan available for public comment. It was a three-document set focusing on goals and action items specific to sport fish, stocking program, goals for the entire fisheries and hatcheries division, species assessment, etc.


Mr. Connolly discussed LMF funding and reconstruction that was happening at the Fryeburg shooting range. We were also working on a family fishing area for water access at Togus Pond.


VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting


The Advisory Council would be notified of the date and location of their next meeting at a later time.


IX. Adjournment


A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Advisory Council Meeting
353 Water Street Fourth Floor Large Conference Room Augusta, ME (Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams) please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)

Tuesday, February 8, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.
I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting
V. Rule Making

A. Step 3
1. Species of Special Concern - Steve Walker
2. Boating event rules - Jim Connolly


B. Step 2
1. Bear Hunting rules - Nate Webb


C. Step 1
1. Educational Trip Leader Permit rules - Christl Theriault
2. Fall 2022 Wild Turkey season - Kelsey Sullivan
3. Migratory Bird Season 2022-23 - Kelsey Sullivan


V. Other Business


VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 A.M.
VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment
12:00 P.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
December 14, 2021 @ 9:30 a.m.
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room, Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Mark Latti, Director of Communications
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Jen Vashon, Bear Biologist
Danielle D' Auria, Bird Biologist
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries & Hatcheries Division Director
Steve Walker, E/T Species Coordinator
Linda Ahearn, Supervisor of Licensing and Registration
Nick Bragg, Licensing & Registration
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Jerry Scribner (Chair)
Bob Duchesne
Kristen Peet
Mike Gawtry
Shelby Rousseau br> Al Cowperthwaite
Tony Liguori - attending via Teams
Eric Ward - attending via Teams
Jennifer Geel - attending via Teams
Lindsay Ware - attending via Teams


GUESTS
17 citizens and additional staff



I. Call to Order
Council Chair, Jerry Scribner called the meeting to order.



II. Introductions
Introductions were made.



III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Gawtry.

Vote: unanimous in favor - minutes approved.


IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3
There were no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2
1. Species of Special Concern

Mr. Webb stated the proposal was the result of Public Law Chapter 65 which required the Department to establish a list of species of special concern including the criteria for those species and the subcategory for the species that are rare. The special concern list was a list of species that we had a policy for many years but this effort in our view of public transparency of this and make it a bit easier for the public for those we interact with on this list. We had a public hearing on the proposal on November 1, 2021. There was one member of the public that offered comment at the hearing and we received three written comments as well.

Mr. Walker stated there were four public comments received. The Maine Audubon Society requested that we include text requiring a regular update of the list and suggested that happen every 10 years. In our working definition of rare, they suggested we add a note about climate change and vulnerability being a factor driving the species into the rare category. They also requested a clarification that while we stated in the definition of rare that several of the species would qualify for the Maine Endangered Species Act, Maine Audubon wanted us to clarify that yes, they qualified, but were not included on the list. They also recommended the addition of Common Murre and Leach's Storm-petrel to the list of rare species. The bird group was fine with listing them given the few numbers of nesting locations.

Mr. Walker stated Maine Forest Products Council also commented. Largely they were encouraged by the public process and suggested more public availability of the data regarding each species and the reason for listing. We did have worksheets that biologists put together and a handbook that guided the listing process. All those materials were public information and could be made available upon request. A member of the public, Mr. Fred Hartman, requested we consider Pied-billed Grebe be added to the list and King Rail. Internally, there was no reason to do that. He also requested Least Bittern which was currently on the Maine endangered species list.

Mr. Walker stated a member of the public came to the public hearing and suggested adding wolf to the list. Staff did not support that recommendation.

Commissioner Camuso stated she would like to clarify when the Department was undergoing rulemaking, we were bound by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). We could not really step outside those rules that were set for Department rulemaking. We got feedback a lot similar to the request from Maine Forest Products Council suggesting that perhaps they could review the list before we presented it to the Council for rulemaking. We were not allowed to do that under the APA. We were going to try and work with the Attorney Generals office to clarify that our understanding was accurate. We recognized there was some frustration, but it was not the Department trying to not be inclusive. We had to operate under the APA.

Mr. Walker stated since the last meeting, staff had reconsidered the Fox sparrow being rare so that would be dropped down to special concern.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Boating Event Rules

Mr. Connolly stated a public hearing was held and the comment period had ended on the proposal. This was an opportunity to set the direction of the proposal. There were two directions where people would like to see the proposal go. One was a more nuanced approach to dealing with loons, and one was a very structured, size driven, presence driven criteria that would limit boat racing in many lakes. At that point in time, the Department had chosen to use data on a case by case basis rather than creating a formula that would guide us across the board. There was also a current proposal in the Legislature to go to mandatory boater education.

Commissioner Camuso stated one of the carry over bills from the last legislative session directed the Department to look at implementing a mandatory boater education for all boaters in the state that would be phased in so people would have until a certain date to comply. They would need to then have proof of the boater education course any time they were operating a vessel. Most states currently had mandatory boater education so it was very common in the rest of the country and we believed that many of the issues (not just boat racing) and many of the complaints were from people frustrated with lack of understanding of boat rules and regulations and irresponsible operation. Our hope was with the mandatory boater education we could tailor those and include additional components about shoreland erosion, harassment of wildlife, etc. Staff had been working on a mandatory boater education option that we would bring back to the Legislature. The Department would be supporting the proposal and working to implement that with the hope that would alleviate some of the stress.

Mr. Connolly stated the rule proposal affected all races. Currently, you needed permits for formal public events. The types of events were motorboat races, canoe, kayak or rowing races, boat parades, sailboat races, motorboat exhibitions and water ski shows. In 2018, there were 67 of those races, the dominant one was canoe and kayak races. There were 84 in 2019 and again, 38 motorboat exhibitions, 18 sailboat races. The non-motorboat races were not an issue in terms of rulemaking. There were some comments and concerns about camps being regulated when they had a race for a camp and we were looking at that as a separate issue. The focus of the proposal in terms of public comment came down to the motorboat races. The motorboat races were very few and focused primarily on one lake. That was what took the initial bill to the Legislature and was driving the comments on the proposal. Loons did get killed by fast, high powered boats but the majority of loon mortalities occurred through recreational boating, not the races associated with the proposed rule. Was there a correlation between loon mortality and motorboat races, no. Was there a correlation between boat strikes on loons and recreational boating, yes. There were many lakes in the state where that occurred, he thought 30 in one year out of all the lakes in Maine.

Mr. Connolly stated regarding the public comments that were received on the proposal. The 300-foot distance was felt to be a hardship. The water safety zone is 200 feet within the shoreline whether it was the mainland or an island. Headway speed, there was a section in Title 12 that governed operating watercraft that we had to take into account. A permit for a motorboat race did not give a pass on following any of the other regulations in Title 12. Related to the water safety zone and headway speed, a person may not operate a watercraft greater than headway speed within the water safety zone. The water safety zone is the minimum speed necessary to maintain steerage and control of watercraft while the watercraft is moving. There was an exemption for fishing and waterskiing. Even if you did not create a wake, the permit did not create the ability to have a motorboat race within the headway speed zone. There was some confusion there, and why we were looking to the boater education piece. The proposal added 100 feet to the water safety zone for boat races to create a 100 foot buffer around the headway speed zone so if you were operating a boat you had an area on the lake if there was a race going on where you could move at a speed greater than headway speed.

Mr. Connolly stated there was a question about the definition of hazards. A change was being discussed to address the concern which may add docks, sunken logs, ledges and other objects when we asked for a map that people would then share with us what those were. We also were discussing the addition of loon nests in response to public comments. The application would include resources for the applicant to research loon nesting locations, the Department would review the map and accept, modify or reject the proposed course consistent with the objectives of the rule to protect public safety and wildlife.

Mr. Duchesne stated one of the tools the Department had were screening maps on the natural resources protection act. Most of the loons would be nesting in those same areas where they were already screen mapped. Was that a resource to use in the proposal saying they had to avoid certain areas already protected.

Mr. Connolly stated when we looked at the issue we thought moving out 300 feet from the shoreline allowed to cover that issue in general. We were looking to find a way to inform folks about location of loon nests or information to include on that.

Ms. DAuria stated Maine Audubon did a loon count every year and primarily the result was a map online that anybody could go and look up a lake and see the tally of adults and chicks for that year. Loon counts on a datasheet location of nests and additional notes were not digitized or in a form just anyone could look up. If there came a time to evaluate a racecourse typically we would ask Maine Audubon for that datasheet form.

Mr. Duchesne stated the loon nests werent mapped but the wildlife habitat was mapped and there was probably a 90% overlap that was where the loons would be because it was shallow and somewhat protected. Furthermore, these were areas that were likely to be very shallow and not appropriate for a racecourse anyway. The actual impact of a potential race was probably minimal, but it did more directly impact how much wave action could significantly impact wildlife habitat we had already mapped.

Commissioner Camuso stated the concern with identifying the loon nest on the application is depending on the time of year when the race was, the nests may not be established. We did not want non-biologists trying to find and disturb nesting loons. We felt we had a solution with the biologists establishing where the loons were in the area.

Ms. DAuria stated loons tended to nest in the same location. Looking back on the most recent data (last 5 years or so) we had a pretty good idea where they would be nesting.

Mr. Connolly stated on the majority of lakes there was nothing to stop recreational boaters 200 feet from shore traveling fast. There was much discussion about race boats creating a wake. If that was a problem with the races he felt we should be looking at the recreational boaters and we had not done that. We were trying to create a balance. There were also comments received regarding spotters. We had intended to include information and a guide sheet along with the application, but in response to comments we were looking at adding a section that the spotters must be on the lookout during the entirety of the race for intrusions into the course area from boats, people, wildlife or other hazards, etc. We made it clear the applicant had to provide information to the best of their knowledge, we committed to reviewing those applications looking for issues, weve asked the applicant to notify the town and the lake association will have the opportunity to send us comments and weve clarified and put the burden on the race holder that they would have two spotters and that was their job and how they would react. It was also clear we would get a report at the end of the race and we could use that information to deny a permit in the future. We felt that was a reasonable and balanced approach.

Mrs. Peet asked if wardens typically circulated through boat races?

Colonel Scott stated not intentionally but would as part of a normal patrol.

Mr. Duchesne asked under what circumstances must someone stop a race? How far outside the path did the spotter have to make the decision about when the race needed to be curtailed until the threat was removed?

Mr. Connolly stated certainly if it was within the course or adjacent to the course. If they were not acting responsibly and we got a report then we could deal with it and work forward. We had not set a minimum guideline in terms of that.

Mr. Duchesne stated the nature of the threat to the loon was different than it was for a recreational boater and he wanted to make sure there was a recognition that the spotters had the power to stop the race under circumstances that the Department understood and guided.

Mr. Connolly stated the majority of the races occurring were done with boats that were fragile enough that if they hit a loon it would be a catastrophic failure that would impact not just the loon, but the boat and driver. The boaters in the races were acting responsibly to protect themselves, their property and their actions. There was no information to show that any of them had actually ever killed a loon. There was one loon found dead on a water body where a race occurred in the race weekend, but no way to tie that loon mortality to the race.

Mr. Duchesne stated it seemed self-limiting as they couldnt do it in a big lake with big waves, they were somewhat limited to small bodies of water due to the nature of the watercraft.

Mr. Connolly stated there were additional public comments regarding the two aquatic plant inspectors and we thought that was reasonable to reduce the number to one. There was some request for waiving that requirement for regattas that occurred where the people on the lake decided to hold the event so we were looking at a way to address that. There was also a request from the camp association that they held private water ski exhibitions for the camp participants as part of their educational program and we were looking at trying to find a way to address that.

Mrs. Rousseau stated Mr. Connolly mentioned there was one loon mortality during the weekend of a race event, how long ago was that and on what lake?

Mr. Connolly stated it was on Watchic Lake in 2018 that one was found.

Mrs. Rousseau asked if IFW or Audubon kept track of how much loon mortality there was?

Mr. Connolly stated we gathered loon carcasses and it was part of a public effort looking at the lead sinker issue and lead poisoning of loons to address that. We were trying to identify causes of death. Loons killed each other, he felt there was more documentation of loons killing each other than from motorboat races.

Mr. Scribner stated he understood Maine Audubon had a body of data that was supposedly reliable, and they were a very respected organization. Why wouldnt we want to utilize that information in the permitting process to set the criteria up front. If we had the data to suggest there were some bodies of water that had very high densities of loons, why wouldnt we want to utilize that data in the permitting process to determine where it made sense to have the races and where it did not. He agreed with the education portion and certification, that was where a lot of the problems came from in terms of loon mortality. The proposal was supposed to deal with loon safety, he believed their responsibilities as Council members was to convey the publics views and input on proposals. He had been inundated with views stating that we were not addressing what the legislation intended us to do. Why wouldnt we want to utilize the data up front in the permit process to head off some of these mortality issues.

Commissioner Camuso stated the proposed modification to the proposal did include a requirement that the applicant identify any known loon nests in the area. They would then have to place the course at least 300 feet away from that area which was more protective than any of our significant wildlife habitat protections. If there were loons in or adjacent to the race they would have to stop the race.

Ms. Ware stated the Commissioner mentioned that the Department would be consulting with Danielle DAuria when it came to identifying nests as potential hazards. Was that just when the applicant had identified a loon nest being in the area or was that for every application?

Commissioner Camuso stated the thought was it would be for every application for the motorboat races. Because there was a limited number of them, we felt it would be manageable.

Ms. Ware asked about the status of the modifications to the rule that were being discussed.

Commissioner Camuso stated the goal today was to receive feedback from the Council and based on that would make modifications to the rule and consult with the Attorney General to see if the changes would be considered substantive. If they were determined to be substantive, we would need to start over at Step 1. If they were minor in nature, we would proceed with the proposal to Step 3.

Mrs. Peet stated they heard if they did something wrong at the event there was the potential their permit would not be renewed, but if a warden was to see a spotter not acknowledge something was the spotter the one that would be written up, or the boat driver, or both?

Colonel Scott stated if they saw a violation of the rule as written, they could stop the boat race and address it. The way it was written was either the organizer could be addressed, or the individual boat operator could be excluded from future races as well. The races were very well organized, and they did not get a lot of complaints regarding them. One loon was killed adjacent to a weekend race four years ago; they received thousands more complaints around recreational boaters every weekend.

Mrs. Peet asked about the boater safety course. Would that be for Maine residents or for anybody operating a boat?

Commissioner Camuso stated it would be for anybody operating a boat in Maine regardless of where they were from. It would be reciprocal, if they took the course in another state. It was a nationally recognized class.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated if they were going to do something to help the loons the mandatory boater education course would be a lot better than trying to regulate four or five boat races in a season.

Mr. Connolly stated we would finalize the edits we were proposing and verify they were not substantive changes before moving forward to Step 3.

There were no further questions or comments.


C. Step 1
2. Bear Hunting Rules

Mr. Webb stated the proposal went back to 2017 with the big game management plan. One of the key recommendations of the plan was to request broad authority from the Legislature for the Department to be able to have more flexibility in setting bear season dates and bag limits. That turned out to be a lengthy process with the Legislature. LD 142 was signed into law in June 2021 and outlined the changes. It took the season dates that were previously in statute and authorized the Department to set the dates in rule with some sideboards. The bill also required the Department to set the bag limit for bears taken by hunting that could be up to 2 bears taken by hunting and 1 by trapping, but no more than 2 total. It also made some changes to the way the bear trapping permit was structured. It required a mandatory bear trapper education course starting in January, 2022. It reduced the permit fee for residents for both bear hunting and trapping to $10 with the goal of increasing hunter participation. With the passing of the bill, the Department now had to set in rule what was previously in statute. We had seen a fairly substantial increase in both the bear hunting permit sales and the total bear harvest the past two years. We felt it was due in part to the pandemic, but also our R3 efforts that the I&E division had been working on. With this increased activity, we did not feel any additional changes to the season dates or bag limits were warranted at this time.

Mrs. Vashon discussed the handouts that were in the Councils packet. (a copy of the handouts may be requested by contacting becky.orff@maine.gov)


V. Other Business


Commissioner Camuso stated the Legislature directed the Department to convene a stakeholder group to assess the publics feeling on Sunday hunting. The group met several times, a professional survey firm was hired (Responsive Management) to survey the public on their feelings on Sunday hunting. There were about 2000 survey respondents which should get us about a 95% confidence interval and would survey hunters, landowners and the general population. This information would be used to report back to the Legislature in early February 2022.

Mr. Gawtry asked if there had been any other surveys recently on the topic.

Commissioner Camuso stated the last one was done in 2005 and was just an up or down question, did you support the ban on Sunday hunting. The question at that point was about 52% supported the ban, 48% did not. Looking back at summaries from sportsmans shows it was consistent and very close to 50/50 as well.

Commissioner Camuso stated during the pandemic the Governor issued an executive order basically saying that boards and commissions could conduct their business virtually. When the state of emergency ended, so did the provision to conduct activities of boards and commissions virtually. We needed to adopt a policy that would allow the Department boards and commissions to conduct business virtually. It did not need to go through normal rulemaking, so we would draft a policy and bring it to the Council to review. The expectation was that Council members would still come in person, but felt it was beneficial to have that option due to weather, etc. and for the public if they wanted to listen in.

1. PFAS update

Mr. Webb stated we issued a consumption advisory for deer in the Fairfield area. We received about 300 calls in a 7-hour period along with emails, Facebook inquiries, media interviews, etc. It was a substantial issue that generated a lot of public interest and concern. We had continued to get requests and questions from states across the country and were thinking about similar issues in their state. There had been concern about PFAS levels in the Fairfield area for a couple of years based on work that DEP had done both in the soil of fields where industrial sludge was spread back in the 70s as well as some water sampling they had been doing in the area. We were aware of that testing and over the course of the summer and early fall we started to get questions from hunters, and we started to question if there was a wildlife issue there. There hadnt been much in the way of testing wildlife for PFAS anywhere, it was very new. We felt it prudent to sample some deer from the affected fields in that immediate area in mid-October in hopes of getting results back to inform a potential advisory if one was warranted for the firearms season on deer. Unfortunately, the lab turn around was longer than anticipated and took over a month. We got the results just prior to Thanksgiving and consulted with CDC and DEP to determine the course of action and arrived at issuing an advisory in the area for consumption of deer.

Mr. Webb stated we sampled 8 deer and all 8 of them came back with elevated levels, 5 of the 8 were very high. Based on CDC advice we had no choice but to communicate an advisory to the public. Using what we knew about deer movement at that time of year we used our best professional judgement to delineate an advisory area based on landscape features that would be easy to communicate to the public. We were working on developing a broader sampling plan for wildlife. We would use the Fairfield area as a model or a test case to determine what other species may be impacted for wildlife and hopefully refine the geographic extent of the advisory area. We did also intend to follow DEPs sampling as they sampled other locations around the state. They had 34 tier one sites that had sludge with significant industrial components spread at relatively high volumes going back to the 70s that based on their expertise would likely have the highest risk of contamination. We may need to issue advisories for other areas, but were taking a strategic measured approach.

Mr. Webb stated questions we had received were asking if we would be using hunters or the general public to contribute samples to our surveillance efforts. At this point, the answer was no. The lab costs were extremely expensive ($400 per sample). The testing was done in a way that looked for contamination at the level of parts per billion or trillion. There were only a few labs in the country that could do the testing and had very limited capacity and were prioritizing state and federal agencies for broad public health issues. The way the testing was done, there was a high risk of contamination...simply rubbing against an animal with your Gortex jacket (which had PFAS in it) could result in contamination of the sample and give an erroneous result. Another complicating factor, because the work was public health related, we believed none of the work was eligible for typical funding stream or federal PR grants, they were all about conserving wildlife, animal disease and health. If the work we were doing was really focused on human health then our understanding was it was not eligible for those regular funding streams.

Commissioner Camuso stated she would be going to the Legislature during the supplemental budget request and ask for substantial funding for hiring a limited term coordinator to oversee the issue and funding for the lab testing.

Mr. Latti stated we were the fourth state to issue a PFAS advisory. The first was Michigan, and the other two states, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, had a do not eat liver advisory.

Commissioner Camuso stated we would also be testing fish, turkeys and other species.

Mr. Scribner asked if there was a determination of how it got into the deer, via water or vegetation?

Mr. Webb stated they assumed it was likely through consumption of vegetation in those fields. There was some degree of surface water contamination in the Fairfield area so that was a possible route as well. In addition to the surveillance work and consumption advisories there was a whole body of research that over time would help inform how extensive the issue was.

Mr. Connolly stated before this, it was a Fairfield problem and the people in Fairfield were very concerned about it, but it wasnt perceived as a statewide issue. The deer advisory changed that. DEP received $30 million during the last legislative session to start testing the 700 sites. They prioritized them by the type of biosolids they thought were a priority. They had four years to do the testing, they would be testing soil and drinking water and then creating a plan to test out from the central area which was where the fields were spread and look at drinking water. We were trying to connect our testing given what we knew about deer and turkeys in association with the field where the solids were spread and do it in a way that was responsible and may give us some information so we may get to the point where we could issue a broader advisory based on levels.

Mr. Brautigam stated with fisheries the DEP had a long-standing partnership with monitoring contaminants out in the wild. Weve had statewide fish consumption advisories in place for a long time, some of those were related to statewide mercury deposition, etc. With the availability of additional information in Fairfield we had additional conversations with DEP and the CDC about how we could better partner to better understand the dynamic of PFAS assimilation in fish. We had youth ponds that we stocked there so we established a research project there where we could stock uncontaminated hatchery fish and we would monitor assimilation rates over time. The goals were to look at the relationship between PFAS levels in the water and what level it was realized in fish tissue. We needed to think about costs and how we assessed potential effects in fish moving forward.


VI. Councilor Reports


Councilors gave reports


VII. Public Comments & Questions


Katie Hansberry stated she knew Responsive Management often would do focus groups in addition to surveys, was that considered for the Sunday hunting study?

Commissioner Camuso stated they didnt do that because of the cost associated with it. The Legislature did not request that in particular. Depending on the results of the survey, if the Legislature asked us to do that, she was sure Responsive Management would accommodate that.

Agnes Wiggin stated just as Jim mentioned with drinking water in Fairfield and how it was viewed as a Fairfield problem not a state problem, on March 1st the Legislature held a public hearing on LD 394 and the organizer of the race stated they had raced on North Pond in Warren, Pennesewassee Lake in Norway, Little Sebago Lake, Number One Road in Sanford and they did plan to go to other locations. She wanted to mention it was a statewide issue. She thought it was important the rulemaking be as objective as possible.

Commissioner Camuso stated the Administrative Procedures Act did not allow comments at this point in time about the boating events rule. The public comment period was closed, and the Attorney Generals office had given direction that at this point we were not allowed to accept additional comments on the proposal. There was a lengthy comment period and after that the Council gave the Department direction and we moved forward from there.


VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting


The Advisory Council would be notified of the date and location of their next meeting at a later time.


IX. Adjournment


A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne and that was seconded by Mr. Gawtry to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Advisory Council Meeting
353 Water Street Fourth Floor Large Conference Room Augusta, ME (Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams) please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)

Tuesday, March 29, 2022 @ 10:00 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 10:00 A.M.
I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting
V. Rule Making

A. Step 3
1. Bear Hunting rules - Nate Webb


B. Step 2
1. Fall 2022 Wild Turkey season- Nate Webb
2. Migratory Bird Season 2022-23 - Nate Webb


C. Step 1
1. Moose permit allocations 2022 - Lee Kantar
2. Antlerless Deer Permit Framework - Nathan Bieber

V. Other Business


VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 A.M.
VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment
12:00 P.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
February 8, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m.
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room, Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Mark Latti, Director of Communications
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Kelsey Sullivan, Game bird biologist
Jen Vashon, Bear Biologist
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries & Hatcheries Division Director
Steve Walker, E/T Species Coordinator
Nick Bragg, Licensing & Registration
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Jerry Scribner (Chair)
Bob Duchesne
Al Cowperthwaite
Eric Ward
Lindsay Ware br> Kristen Peet - attending via Teams
Mike Gawtry - attending via Teams
Shelby Rousseau - attending via Teams
Tony Liguori- attending via Teams
Jennifer Geel - attending via Teams


GUESTS
20 citizens and additional staff



I. Call to Order
Council Chair, Jerry Scribner called the meeting to order.



II. Introductions
Introductions were made.



III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. Liguori to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: unanimous in favor - minutes approved.


IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3


1. Species of Special Concern

Mr. Walker stated we had received public comment on the rule proposal, and we were proposing a few changes. Under the review list (5.) it will make the Department review the list at least every 10 years. That was added at the request of Maine Audubon. Below that, under 29.03 Designation of Rare Species of Special Concern, the last line (again at the request of Maine Audubon) we added a species highly vulnerable to climate change as a factor. The final line after "qualifies for Maine endangered species status" we added but has not yet been listed. At the request of Maine Audubon, we added Leach's Storm-petrel and Common Murre both as rare species of special concern. We also eliminated Fox Sparrow from the list of rare species but continued to have them as special concern. Due to multiple lists being combined, some species were inadvertently included that were not special concern, and those had been struck from the list; Least Flycatcher, Wood Thrush, Veery, American Redstart, Yellow Warbler, Orchard Oriole and Dark-eyed Junco. They had appeared on a previous list and species specialists had dropped them from the list for special concern and they would then become species of greatest conservation need in our state wildlife action plan. We did not receive any public comment on the species that were being struck out.

Mr. Duchesne stated there was concern for the Boreal Chickadee, they were gone from the coast. At what point did we get of sense of them and put them on the list for future reference?

Mr. Walker stated he would check with the bird biologist for their status.

Mr. Duchesne also asked about the American Three-toed woodpecker.

Mr. Walker stated that was listed as special concern, rare.

Mr. Duchesne asked if the list did anything regarding habitat.

Mr. Walker stated for something specific such as the northern three-toed woodpecker, once it was on the species of special concern list as rare, that would enable us to provide advisory comments through DEP site law. It also was in working forest land conservation easements that the Department was involved in, it gave us the ability to work with the logging professionals to address that if we knew there was a breeding population in the area.

There were no further questions or comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite.


Vote: A roll call was taken with each of the ten (10) members present voting in favor to accept the proposal as amended - motion passed.

2. Boating Event Rules

Mr. Connolly stated in response to public comment we had made some revisions to the original proposal and added specific language clarifying the need to provide information on loon nesting sites as part of the application process. We also clarified the role of the spotters. We did reduce the number of aquatic inspectors from two to one to make it more reasonable. We had been talking with DEP regarding the training necessary to become an inspector and provide more opportunity during the course of the year. This also clarified the Commissioners authority based on peoples behavior to deny a future permit. It required feedback from the performance of the event and required the Department to look at the application and the supporting materials. The materials had to include the safety hazards and loon nesting sites. The racecourse had to be 300 feet from any shoreline. We felt the extra 100 feet moved it out into more open water and clarifies the roles of the spotters to be watching at all times for potential impacts to wildlife as well as human safety.

Mr. Duchesne stated in reality any race faced this situation, so an airplane race had to worry about gulls and geese, deer, etc. Any wildlife getting into the way of trouble was going to be a concern no matter what the race was. Although we may love our loons, really it was the danger both to the participants and to the wildlife that we were concerned about. He was comfortable with this type of regulation because you would do it for any race. His concern had always been, how close did a loon have to be considering how far one could swim underwater that they would issue a caution, and did the Department have a feel on how to advise or regulate that?

Mr. Connolly stated we did not have an exact distance. Our message to spotters was to air on the conservative side. Their ability to have the race depended on their actions. The race boats were very light and the impact to a loon would be catastrophic to the driver. Theyve always shown that they were responsible in terms of their behavior. Our caution in the application to the spotter is that if theres any risk at all that you hold the race until the area clears.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated the spotters were there to protect the loons, but more importantly to protect the racers.

Mr. Gawtry stated for clarity, at the last meeting it was decided that it was going to go back to be reviewed and there were a couple of options as to what the next steps were going to be. Based on what was discussed and the changes brought forward, what kept it from going back to being revisited from a public hearing standpoint.

Mr. Connolly stated the normal course of the rulemaking process, we had a comment period where the proposed rule was available to everybody and we didnt make any changes until we had all the comments. We had received 60 comments on the proposal, and then we look at the rule and the comments to see which ones we feel could be accommodated or addressed or which ones were confusion. Then we proposed changes and discussed with Mark Randlett, our Assistant Attorney General about the comments and proposed amendments to the original proposal to see if they were substantive enough so that its out of line with the scope or intent of the rule so much that it calls for that rule to be readvertised. When Mark Randlett looked at the proposal and the recommended changes, he said they were logical and clarifications and clearly within the intent of the original rule. If there was something that went in an entirely different direction, then we would have had to readvertise the rule.

Mr. Duchesne stated he assumed they couldnt send a tender out to try to shoo the loon away as that would be harassment of wildlife, was that true?

Mr. Connolly stated we could include that clarification in the directions to the spotters that were included with the application.

There were no further questions or comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to accept the rule as amended, and that was seconded by Mr. Ward


Vote: A roll call was taken and all ten (10) members participating voted unanimously in favor of adopting the proposal as amended.


B. Step 2


1. Bear Hunting Rules

Mr. Webb stated there were two rule chapters impacted by the proposal Chapter 16 for bear hunting and Chapter 17 for bear trapping. The proposals were the result of Public Law Chapter 100 which passed in 2021 that directed the Department to conduct rulemaking to establish the bag and possession limits for bear hunting and bear trapping in rule as part of broader package of statutory changes regarding bear management. The proposal creates a bag limit for bear of one by hunting with a possession limit of two total, and also the second portion creates a bag limit of one bear by trapping. The limits are the same as what existed previously in statute, but now needed to be in rule. We had seen over the last couple of years largely due to the pandemic and closure of the Canadian border, a substantial increase in bear hunting participation and harvest in Maine so we did not feel any further changes or increases to bear bag limits were warranted at this time.

Mr. Webb stated we held a public hearing on January 19, 2022 and the public comment deadline was January 31, 2022. We received two comments, one supportive of the rule as written. The other was opposed to the rule and in general opposed to trapping upon principal.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Ward asked if this would be reviewed again for further changes say a year from now?

Mr. Webb stated we didnt know if the current hunter participation would change so we would review this annually. The law that passed gave us some flexibility in the rule for bag limits and season framework.

There were no further questions or comments.


C. Step 1


1. Educational Trip Leader Permit rules

Colonel Scott stated this started with the 129th Legislature looking at a statute to develop a system where educational institutions, post-secondary, private and public schools had been taking students on trips which included paddling and overnight camping. Depending on the circumstances, that could potentially be in violation of Maine guide rules. The initiative was brought forth by the independent colleges to see if some statutory changes could be developed. The bill did not move forward due to the pandemic, but a stakeholder group was formed to develop recommendations for the 130th Legislature. A law was passed instructing the Commissioner to develop a rulemaking process around educational trip leader permits would allow institutions the ability to do peer education and use students to guide outdoor trips associated with their educational institutions.

Colonel Scott stated this had previously been at Step 3 before the Advisory Council. The previous rule proposal established a hierarchy of an advisory committee made up of Maine guides, Department representatives as well as representatives from the different educational institutions that would advise the Commissioner on the program. The next layer down was the administrator who would be a Maine guide that oversees each of the educational institutions, and then a layer of instructors and trip leaders. We had used language in the administrator level that used terms such as would certify instructors and would approve or deny permits. Upon further review from the Attorney Generals office they did not like that language being basically a common person, even though they would be an administrator. The rule language would be updated that any kind of certification or approval moved up the hierarchy to the advisory committee who would then make recommendations to the Commissioner who had the final authority for approvals and denials. The majority of the rule would not change it was basically the wording around approvals by the Commissioner.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Fall 2022 Wild Turkey Season

Mr. Sullivan stated the proposal was to open WMDs 7, 8 and 14 to wild turkey hunting in the fall with a 1 bird limit. The districts had not been open to a fall season in the past. We had good spring harvest data from registrations, so we looked at 2014 to 2021. WMD 8 had a very low spring harvest which reflect the lower densities of turkeys. Turkeys in WMDs 8 and 7 were local pockets typically associated with towns or development. In that same respect, most of the wild turkey habitat in 7 and 8 which was mostly forested, we thought was occupied by turkeys and likely there would be a lot of occupied area in those districts. WMD 14 had a larger turkey population but were also in pockets as well because of the forested cover. We felt adding a fall bird for each of the WMDs with a one bird limit was conservative and likely mortality associated with hunting wasnt going to contribute overall to the population trend. Survival for turkeys in those WMDs through the winter were lower and this wouldnt really add much more pressure or loss of turkeys. We had seen production in all three WMDs and documented successful reproduction of turkeys over the last few years.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Rousseau stated in WMD 7 there was quite a bit of excitement about potential for a bird season in the Rangeley area. He had mentioned mortality by hunting, was there a way to track mortality by way of vehicles? There seemed to be a lot of byways, and also where people were feeding deer. Was there any correlation between that mortality with deer feeding and the byways?

Mr. Sullivan stated there could be records consistent with the warden service, any car collisions report would be put into the system with the general area of the strike.

Mr. Scribner stated last fall they did not need to register fall turkeys, was that going to be a continuation into 2022?

Mr. Sullivan stated it would continue into 2022. There were efforts to move registration to electronic.

Commissioner Camuso stated there had been discussion at the Legislature around electronic self- reporting. One of the concepts we presented was should we move to self-reporting for turkeys, we would then require fall and spring registration.

Mr. Liguori asked if there would be any reporting requirements for 7, 8 and 14 to see what the success rate was?

Mr. Sullivan stated we planned to do some post season surveys but that would be voluntary. We used the spring harvest as a way to track population trends. The fall survey was a request, not a requirement and would get about a 20% reporting rate. There was a way to do it, but it was not as accurate as mandatory registration.

Mr. Ward asked if the Department would ever consider a fall hunt in WMD 4?

Mr. Sullivan stated there were probably very small pockets of turkeys in WMD 4, the spring harvest was pretty low. It was something we could look at in the future.

There were no further comments or questions.

3. Migratory Bird Seasons 2022-23

Mr. Sullivan stated the proposal amendments were mostly updates for the calendar. There were two significant changes, one was something we were constricted based on the USFWS overall umbrella. The 2022/23 season would be the first year of eliminating the special sea duck season. Previously, we had 60 separate days where we could put our season separate from any other duck hunting. That was something already passed at the Federal level, so we had to find a way to put sea duck hunting and regular duck hunting together in the same season and balance that with the interest of sea duck hunters and coastal duck hunters. It mostly effected the coastal zone. The Waterfowl Council met and discussed options on how to set the season.

Mr. Sullivan stated the second significant change was related to mergansers. Previously, there was a two hooded merganser bag limit. Through evaluations through the Atlantic Flyway and other states, current merganser populations were not a concern. Other merganser bag limits were a species limit of five, so the Federal frameworks allows for a five hooded merganser bag limit now, so we were proposing to take that opportunity and eliminate the two hooded merganser bag limit.

Mr. Sullivan reviewed the proposal amendments with the Council. Regarding the sea duck season and the coastal zone season there had been some concern expressed from sea duck hunting guides about understanding what we were proposing and how they forecast and book sea duck hunting trips in the future. From what he could tell, most sea duck hunting guides were supportive of the proposal. There was not a big change in the season itself, other than a week ending earlier. Sea duck harvest would be included in the total duck bag limit of six overall.

There were no further comments or questions.


V. Other Business


Commissioner Camuso stated they were having discussions at the Legislature around electronic tagging. This would allow people to self-report for turkeys and there was another bill that would allow self-reporting of other big game species. The Department felt somewhat confident that we could move forward with turkey and still maintain the integrity of the biological data we needed to collect to manage the species. We were less confident we could do that with other big game species. There was potential for deer, but a number of changes would have to be made to have that happen. There would be a substantial fiscal note with the bill. In order to collect biological data that we currently get at the in-person registration station, we would have to have more staff available to handle individuals with trouble self-reporting and also staff to go door to door to get the data we would need to manage the species. Our proposal to the Committee was to move forward with self-reporting, electronic tagging for turkey starting the spring of 2023. At that time, also reinstate the tagging in the fall. Many states had experienced reduced compliance with registration so we would want both seasons to compensate for some potential loss of compliance with registration.

Commissioner Camuso stated folks should also be aware of discussion at the Legislature for the proposed change to the any-deer permit system. In order for a self-reporting, electronic system to work the bill would need to pass to eliminate swaps, transfers, fewer WMD selections, etc. Instead of tracking 180,000 permits we would be tracking a much smaller number and allow for ease in tagging. There were also a number of exemptions where people did not require a permit i.e. landowners, lifetime license holders, etc. In order to determine success and harvest rates we needed to know how many people were actually hunting. We would need lifetime license holders to check in annually and say they intended to hunt that year. There were many logistical changes that needed to happen before the Department felt self-reporting, electronic tagging would be a viable option beyond turkey at this point.

Commissioner Camuso discussed carry over bills and report backs to the IFW Committee. The Sunday hunting survey study, we still not have the results. We were scheduled to give a report back to the stakeholder group and then we would present the information to the IFW Committee. She also discussed supplemental budget requests for additional positions within the Department.

Mrs. Peet asked if the proposed climate position would also be diving into any carbon type stuff. In the land trust world, they were getting hammered with landowners that were interested in conservation easements that were dealing with either carbon storage or carbon sequestrations. She thought it could lead to some changing forest structure in the future, hopefully toward the older side forest structure. It seemed that carbon and climate could go hand in hand.

Mr. Webb stated that was one of the many initiatives they would have that person work on. There was carbon sequestration underway we were involved with. They would also work on offshore wind siting, offshore wind wildlife surveys, renewable energy siting, etc.

Mr. Cowperthwaite asked about mandatory boater safety.

Commissioner Camuso stated the Committee had passed mandatory boater education that would be implemented by 2027 and that would require everyone operating a boat to take mandatory boater education on inland waters. There was substantial feedback that the Committee would bring the bill back and potentially put a born after date on it to help alleviate concerns of those who had been boating for a substantial amount of time. We were one of only a few states that did not require mandatory boater education.

Mr. Scribner asked for a PFAS update.

Mr. Webb stated we were working in Region B to collect samples of turkeys from the Fairfield area. We hoped to have samples to submit to the lab soon. The goal would be to determine whether a consumption advisory for turkey was warranted in the Fairfield area for the upcoming spring hunting season. It remained challenging for us to work on PFAS related issues with wildlife. In comparison to soil, water, some of the agricultural issues, the movements of wildlife were a challenge. We were sampling turkey in the winter which was not necessarily where they would be come hunting season. We likely would follow up with sampling during the season to better inform next year. We had a pretty significant request in the supplemental budget including a full-time position as well as associated funds to coordinate and pay for sample collection and analysis. We intended this summer and early fall to sample for deer in the Fairfield area, probably more intensively for turkey and some preliminary sampling of waterfowl. Also limited sampling in other locations where DEP had found PFAS levels in the soil or water to determine if consumption advisories were warranted in other locations.


VI. Councilor Reports


Councilors gave reports.


VII. Public Comments & Questions


Larry Roberts had questions on the boat race events. Would there be a form, or should he make out a letter trying to include everything required and what would be the timing on that? They had to apply for an insurance permit by April 5th for their first race.

Commissioner Camuso stated there would be an application form.

Nick Bragg stated the form should be available in the next month or so.

Larry Roberts asked about the resources for the applicant to research loon nesting locations.

Commissioner Camuso stated we would do that for the applicant, they just needed to tell us where the race location was, and the loon biologist would review the application.

Jack Erler stated for 50 years he had worked with childrens camps and the Maine Camp Association. It was youth camps that he represented. Youth camps had been around for more than 100 years, they were the heritage of Maine. He had worked with the Department on the Junior Maine guide program and trip leaders. He fully recognized we had passed a rule, he was a lawyer. He wanted to call attention that the rule as it was passed would seriously negatively impact camps because what we did in Chapter 13.11 was made an exemption for waterskiing, which was probably in the grand scheme of things the least important. Camps boated, canoed and sailed without motors and had been doing that for 100 years and to his knowledge had never been a threat to wildlife. Camps had worked with the state with regard to invasive species. The rule as written was unfortunately very bad and very sad for camps. They wanted to work with the Department for a rule that said, regularly conducted activities by a youth camp licensed by the Department of Health and Human Services as defined in Title 22 MRSA, Section 2491, subsection 16, shall be exempt from the requirements within section 13.11 except for intercamp activities. If they were teaching sailing in the afternoon and they were doing racing, they didnt have to call in. Recognizing that occasionally camps engaged in intercamp activities, they could have a regatta which they would have 5 or 6 camps on a single lake sailing the boats of the camp that was hosting. For that they had been calling those in to get permission under the current rules. They recognized that was an issue and they were fine with that. All they were asking was they not have to call in if they decided as part of their activities that they wanted to have a race between the jr. and sr. campers for canoeing, etc. They didnt do motorboating in youth camps.

Mrs. Theriault stated she would be happy to connect with him to hear his concerns and going forward there may be an opportunity to make adjustments. It was not our intent to make it more restrictive or burdensome to the youth camps. The language was included to address public comment.


VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting


The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, March 23, 2022.


IX. Adjournment


A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne and that was seconded by Mr. Ward to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Advisory Council Meeting
353 Water Street Fourth Floor Large Conference Room Augusta, ME (Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams) please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)

Wednesday, May 18, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.
I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting
IV-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
V. Rule Making

A. Step 3
1. Fall 2022 Wild Turkey season - Nate Webb
2. Migratory Bird Season - Nate Webb


B. Step 2
1. Educational Tripp Leader Permits Colonel Scott
2. Moose permit Allocations - Lee Kantar
3. Antlerless Deer Permit Framework - Nathan Bieber


C. Step 1
1. 2022 Antlerless deer permit allocations - Nathan Bieber
2. Ch. 16 & 17 Furbearer rules - Shevenell Webb

V. Other Business


VI. Councilor Reports 11:30 A.M.
VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment
12:00 P.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
March 29, 2022 @ 10:00 a.m.
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room, Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Craig McLaughlin, DWRAS Supervisor
Kelsey Sullivan, Game bird biologist
Lee Kantar , Moose Biologist
Nathan Bieber, Deer Biologist.
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Bill Swan, Director of Licensing and Registration
Nick Bragg, Licensing & Registration
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Jerry Scribner (Chair)
Bob Duchesne
Eric Ward
Tony Liguori
Shelby Rousseau - attending via Teams
Lindsay Ware - attending via Teams


GUESTS
Gary Lamb
9 citizens and additional staff



I. Call to Order
Council Chair, Jerry Scribner called the meeting to order.



II. Introductions
Introductions were made.



III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Liguori.

Vote: unanimous in favor - minutes approved.


IV. Rulemaking

A. Step 3


1. Bear Hunting Rules

Mr. Webb stated this covered Chapters 16 and 17. Due to a bill that passed during the last legislative session there was a need to put the bear bag limits and season dates into rule because they were removed from statute. There were no changes to the hunting framework for black bears, just the necessary change due to the bill which gave us more flexibility in rule to make adjustments to the seasons and bag limits. At this point, we felt that harvest levels were appropriate. Comments were minimal, there was one comment in support and one comment that was opposed in general to trapping. We were not recommending any changes to the original proposal.

A Motion was made by Mr. Liguori to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.


Vote: unanimous in favor to accept the proposals as presented - motion passed.


B. Step 2


1. Fall 2022 Wild Turkey season

Mr. Sullivan stated we had received a few public comments, all in support of the proposal. This was to add WMDs 7, 8 and 14 to the fall turkey season for one bird. There had been a few interactions from a couple of folks expressing a desire for review to see if populations were affected by the rule change, or a way to continue to monitor spring harvest.

There were no further comments or questions.

2. Migratory Bird Season 2022-2023

Mr. Sullivan stated a public hearing was held on March 2, 2022 with 15-20 people in attendance. There was one formal comment at the hearing in support. A waterfowl council member from York County expressed support via guide input informally, but that the guides in southern Maine were supportive of the season, especially the sea duck season. With the elimination of the sea duck season the coastal zone where sea ducks are hunted would be one week shy of when it had been in the past. It was still 60 days but would be closing earlier. Written comments were also received in support in general. There appeared to be overall support of the proposal even with the change from removing the sea duck season and incorporating it into the regular duck season. One thing pointed out at the hearing, which had been an oversite was under the Federal regulations there was now a one hen eider limit which was not indicated in the proposal. Page 6 of the proposal would need to be updated to include one hen eider as we did for hen mallard.

Council Member Comments and Questions


Mr. Liguori stated he was under the impression that all the migratory bird regulations were set by the Federal, could he explain that interaction.

Mr. Sullivan stated there was a Federal framework which we could operate under. We couldn't liberalize, but we could be more restrictive. We had to be within the confines of the Federal framework and then within that we had the option of the timing of our seasons.

Mr. Duchesne stated he had been at the coast over the winter and the population of scoters and eiders was the smallest he had ever seen it. He didnt know if there was a trend?

Mr. Sullivan stated there had been a distribution shift, more so this year. Scoters and eiders were turning up in more southern waters. Birds were found in Long Island and off the Massachusetts coast. The Waterfowl Council did endorse the proposal after the end of the public comment period.

There were no further comments or questions.

C. Step 1

1. Moose Permit Allocations 2022

Mr. Kantar gave a PowerPoint presentation on the 2022 moose permit allocations (for a copy of the presentation please contact becky.orff@maine.gov).

Council Member Comments and Questions


Mr. Kantar stated spruce budworm came into play and changed the forest through the 70s and 80s and created a bonanza for moose, and then they are recolonizing the state. Not only were they increasing where they already were, theyre expanding out helping NH, VT, MA and CT. When we look at available browse the difficulty with looking at that data is that has changed over time, but there is still so much browse out there that we dont have any physical indications of moose changing.

Mr. Ward asked if there was a difference with the type of woods as far as ticks go. If youre in more heavily forested areas would they be less likely than going through the raspberry bushes as far as where the ticks are hanging out?

Mr. Kantar stated we were working with at least four different Universities on that question. The new grad student would be doing an analysis as best we could given forest inventory data on that scale of where the moose feeds and where he goes with the idea of from a management perspective was there a way we could advocate the forest be cut differently to disperse moose in a different way.

Mr. Scribner asked about tick loads found on harvested animals during the moose season.

Mr. Kantar stated there was a balance with the weight of the animal going into winter, but when we did the tick counts and added up the transects (10cm lines; 4 lines on the neck; 4 lines on the shoulder; 4 on the rib; 4 on the rump) essentially more than 35 larval ticks it was looking bad. Putting that together with the variation of weights was how we predicted mortality.

Mr. Liguori asked if during the adaptive hunt if we encouraged the harvesting of calves.

Mr. Kantar stated yes, it was part of the presentation that we did and answered questions at the end. It had been a big part of it. He discussed hunter survey results from the adaptive hunt. Ovary removal and access to the North Maine Woods were topics they indicated they would like more information about.
Mr. Kantar discussed the rule proposal for 2022 permit allocations. There was only one change from the previous year which was an increase in permits from 50 to 100 in WMD 8.

Mr. Ward asked about a December cow hunt. He thought we should have one after the muzzle load season. Some people may not be able to access places, but you wouldnt have to worry about the meat spoiling. He also thought we should push "leave no trace." Some of the areas that saw a lot of traffic it was pretty disgusting what people left behind. He had someone ask about drones being used for hunting and the 24-hour rule like they did in Alaska. There was concern with them interfering with aircraft. Also, multiple moose permits within a household, was there a way to manage that.

Commissioner Camuso stated it was pretty unusual for a household to get more than two permits. We could look into how often it was happening and if it was an issue or more of a perception of an issue.

Mr. Webb stated regarding a December moose hunt, the biggest concern was larger moose started losing their antlers the last week of November, first week of December. The challenge would be with an antlerless season in December there would be a percentage of bulls that would drop their antlers by that point. It would be difficult for moose hunters to be able to distinguish those from cows at that point.

Ms. Ware asked what was the overall impression of the adaptive hunt?

Mr. Kantar stated before we implemented the adaptive hunt there were a lot of internal discussions about how it might go. One of the potential problems we were going to see was that we slated this for five years and the idea is were trying to bring the population down. We were also dealing with the perception from almost everybody that theres way less moose out there, and yet were saying theres a lot of moose there. Its how much people believed the amount of moose, especially in WMD 4 and 4-A itself. Were we going to be able to work backwards, drop down the population of moose and somehow deal with ticks? Thats what we were going to see over the next four years.

Mrs. Rousseau stated she had a couple of comments related to what Mr. Ward was saying about drone usage. She had some people talk to her about that working for the land trust. The land trust had a policy that drones were not allowed to be operated on the ground from their lands. She thought it was something that would need to be taken up with the landowner in WMD 4-A. You couldnt regulate ethics. She had heard them compared to using game cameras.

Colonel Scott stated nationwide there was a move towards being critical of any kind of technology around hunting. Long-range shooting had become very popular, and it was not uncommon in Western states for people to be shooting 800 or 1,000 yards to kill big game animals. That was very controversial whether that was fair chase. There were always different perspectives. In the North Maine Woods a game camera really wasnt going to do you any good if you couldnt get to it. In this part of the state where they had cellular coverage it could be looked at as a huge advantage. The drone issue, we were seeing a lot more of that. There was a law in place that said you cant use any aircraft, and a drone is an aircraft, to assist you with hunting. What did assist mean? It meant basically you cant gain the advantage on the animal. There was potential through the legislative process to further define the use of aircraft.

Colonel Scott continued the PowerPoint presentation with a summary from Maine Warden Service on the adaptive moose hunt.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Antlerless Deer Permit Framework

Mr. Bieber gave a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed changes to the antlerless deer permit system (for a copy of the presentation please contact becky.orff@maine.gov ).

Council Member Comments and Questions


There was some procedural discussion regarding the timing of the legislation being in effect and the adoption of the rule. The rule would need to be adopted within 120 days of the comment period deadline.

Mr. Webb stated he was pretty sure there was nothing in the rule that was dependent on the statute changing. As long as the bill was signed into law regardless of what the effective date would be, we could go through the rulemaking process. They were linked in the sense it was all one package, but he didnt believe there were any changes to rule that required a change to the statute to come first.

Mr. Scribner stated he thought the goals associated with it were right on. He had some concerns about whether the lottery fee would end up being counterproductive in terms of getting us to a better place in terms of matching the doe harvest goals. He hoped we were right in the fact that attaching a fee to the doe permit during the lottery process didnt negatively impact the doe harvest.

There were no further questions or comments.

V. Other Business


Commissioner Camuso gave a legislative update, informed Council members of upcoming events the Department would be participating in and discussed the statutory requirement for a tribal member to be placed on the Advisory Council that was adopted during the last session. The chiefs had to bring forth the recommendation, we were hoping by the summer they would bring someone forward.

Mr. Webb stated we collected samples (PFAS) from a small number of turkeys in the Fairfield area. The results had come back, but we had not yet met with CDC to discuss the implications of the results. We didnt know if there would be an advisory for turkeys or what that might look like. We were working on developing a plan for more intensive sampling for deer, turkey and other wildlife in the Fairfield area as well as other locations where DEP has tested soil and water over the summer months with a goal of hopefully being able to refine the size and the boundaries of the advisory in Fairfield.

Commissioner Camuso asked Mr. Sullivan for an update on the high path avian influenza.

Mr. Sullivan stated there had been several domestic cases of high path avian influenza in Knox, Lincoln and York Counties. The Department of Agriculture had been working on dealing with those and doing depopulations on site and best practices and checking and surveillance within a 10km radius around each site. This was spurred on from an epidemic of high path avian influenza spread through mostly wild ducks which tend to be less susceptible, theyre more carriers. Theyre interacting with domestic livestock/poultry and ducks in farm ponds and spreading it that way. Its pretty much up and down the Atlantic seaboard into the Midwest. There were several cases much greater than in Maine. We had detected it in wild ducks, black ducks in Washington County and also in a Canada goose in Kittery. There had been a die out between 40 and 50 Canada geese just north of Great Bay. We continued to respond to calls, especially for top predators such as eagles and hawks that were dying of suspicious behavior. We expected it would decrease in the summertime based on previous epidemics. It seemed to quiet down after migration. Messaging was just to be diligent about interacting with backyard poultry or ducks and chickens. Try to minimize interactions with wild birds and segregate them as much as possible from the domestic animals that you have.

Joe Overlock stated we had met with CDC and DEP to talk about waters that would likely have a fish consumption advisory added to them. The exact location of the final waters was still being ironed out and how the advisory would look. Fish consumption advisories were not unheard of, we already had statewide advisories for mercury consumption. There would likely be a couple of do not eat any fish from a particular water. We would be doing outreach and press releases regarding the advisories.

VI. Councilor Reports Councilors gave reports.

VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The Adivsory Council would be notified at a later time of the next meeting date.

IX. Adjournment A motion was made by MR. Scribner and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Advisory Council Meeting
353 Water Street Fourth Floor Large Conference Room Augusta, ME (Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams) please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)

Wednesday, June 29, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.
I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting
IV-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
V. Rule Making

A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2
1. 2022 Antlerless deer permit allocations - Nathan Bieber
2. Ch. 16 & 17 Furbearer rules - Shevenell Webb


C. Step 1
There are no items under Step 1.


V. Other Business


There are no items under Other Business


VI. Councilor Reports 10:30 A.M.
VII. Public Comments & Questions

VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

IX. Adjournment
11:00 P.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
May 18, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m.
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room, Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Craig McLaughlin, DWRAS Supervisor
Shevenell Webb, Furbearer Biologist
Nathan Bieber, Deer Biologist.
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries and Hatcheries Division Director
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Jerry Scribner (Chair)
Kristin Peet
Al Cowperthwaite
Eric Ward
Jennifer Geel - via Teams
Bob Duchesne - via Teams
Tony Liguori - via Teams
Mike Gawtry - via Teams
Lindsay Ware - via Teams
Ed Pineau - via Teams


GUESTS
Nicole Scribner
7 citizens and additional staff



I. Call to Order
Council Chair, Jerry Scribner called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance



II. Moment of Silence



III. Introductions
Introductions were made.



IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting


Vote: unanimouus in favor - minutes approved.


IV. Election of Chair and Vice Chair


Commissioner Camuso stated she believed Vice-Chair Peet was willing to step up as chair and that Shelby Rousseau was interested in serving as Vice-Chair if that pleased the council. If there were others interested in that responsibility, they could certainly entertain a motion.


Chair


A motion was made by Mr. Ward to accept the nomination of Kristin Peet as Chair and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite.

Nominations ceased.

Vote: unanimous in favor - Kristin Peet elected Chair.


Vice-Chair


A motion was made by Mrs. Peet to accept the nomination of Shelby Rousseau as Vice-Chair and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Nominations ceased.

Vote: unanimous in favor - Shelby Rousseau elected Vice-Chair.


V. Rulemaing

A. Step. 3
1. Fall 2022 Wild Turkey Season

Mr. Webb stated the proposal was to add a fall season with a one bird bag limit in WMDs 7, 8 and 14 based on our history of monitoring the spring harvest and seeing growth and stability in those WMDs. A public hearing was held on February 28, 2022 and there were no members of the public in attendance. We received three written comments in support. Based on that feedback we were not recommending any changes to the proposal.

A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Vote: Unanimous in favor to accept the proposals as presented - motion passed.

2. Migratory Bird Season 2022-23

Mr. Webb stated this was the annual proposal to align the state's migratory game bird hunting framework with the federal framework. Most of the changes were to align the season dates with the calendar and allowable days for hunting of various species. Part of the proposal was the elimination of the special sea duck season based on recommendations from the technical committee from the flyway as well as the federal framework that was adopted. The proposal generated a fair amount of interest. A public hearing was held on March 2, 2022 with 12 people in attendance. Most of the comments were really questions about various aspects of the proposal, there were two formal comments in support. We also received four written comments generally supportive. There were some suggestions on season dates and eider limits. The Department was recommending a couple of amendments to the proposal, one was to correct some typos. We had inadvertently missed inclusion of hen eiders in the bag limit table on page 4. There were a couple other date adjustments to line things up with the calendar. Other than those few changes, based on feedback, we were not recommending any other changes.

A motion was made by Mrs. Peet to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Ward. Vote: Unanimous in favor to accept the proposals as amended motion passed.


B. Step 2.
1. Educational Trip Leader Permits

Colonel Scott stated this came about during the last legislative session directing the Commissioner to develop a rule which could allow staff and students from public and private schools and post-secondary educational institutions to conduct certain trips in the outdoors without a guide license, specifically paddling and primitive camping trips. For many years there were questions around these educational outdoor trips, if they were receiving remuneration did they need a Maine guide license. This was initiated by the University of Maine system as well as the Maine Independent College Association. After the direction from the Legislature, the Department formed a stakeholder group with 15 members to develop the rule language. Of the 15, 12 of the members were Maine guides so we kept coordination and communication with the guides. We received two written comments on the proposal. The first one came from the Maine Independent Colleges Association; they were directly involved with the original language draft. We did make a change to the proposal under 28.10 to adjust the wording. We used words such as "safe" and safest and they asked that be changed to best manage to mitigate risk mitigate risk as much as possible which we agreed with. It was hard to define the safest trip. The second comment was more in the form of questions and clarification. Colonel Scott discussed the comment and the formation of the Advisory Committee. Other than those non-substantive language changes there were no further amendments to the proposal.

There were no further questions or comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to move the proposal to Step 3 for final adoption and that was seconded by Mr. Ward. The council voted unanimously in favor to move the proposal to Step 3.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated this had been around for over 20 years, it had been discussed at the Legislature, somewhat by the Advisory Council with the Department and it had been a real problem with the institutions. This was a monumental event to actually codify the rules and have legislation in place to answer the concerns of the institutions.

A motion was made by Mr. Ward to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mrs. Peet. Vote: Unanimous in favor to accept the proposals as amended motion passed.

2. Moose Permit Allocations 2022

Mr. Webb stated this was the annual proposal to set permit allocations for the fall hunting season. A public hearing was held on April 26, 2022 with no members of the public attending. We received one written comment that was opposed to the proposal. The only change from last year was the addition of 50 antlerless moose permits in WMD 8 which was kind of ground zero for impacts of winter tick on moose. We were continuing to see those impacts unfortunately. The only other change was to adjust the dates for the adaptive hunt in WMD 4A to align with the calendar. We were not recommending any changes to the original proposal.

There were no further comments or questions.

A motion was made by Mr. Ward to move the proposal to Step 3 for final adoption and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite. The council voted unanimously in favor to move the proposal to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Ward to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite. Vote: Unanimous in favor to accept the proposals as presented motion passed.

3. Antlerless Deer Permit Framework

Mr. Webb stated this worked in tandem with LD 116. The changes between the bill and the rule proposal were extensive in terms of the changes to deer hunting and the antlerless deer hunting framework. The bill had passed but would not go into effect until August 8th. The lottery was coming up soon so there were a few things that complicated the timeline. Many of the rule changes were related to the changes that were pending in statue related to the elimination of swaps and transfers and a couple of other changes in the law. In addition, the rule proposal would change any-deer permits to antlerless permits which would be an additional deer to the statewide bag limit of 1 deer which was a pretty substantial change. It would limit the number of choices hunters could make in the lottery to two choices, would allow us to sell additional permits above and beyond those which were issued in the lottery over the counter, it also made changes to the allowance of crossbows during the regular archery season. We did have a couple of non-substantive changes to the proposal. One of those was related to the exception for persons 65 years of age and older and their allowance to use crossbows during the expanded archery and muzzleloader seasons. That provision was in statute and when drafting the proposal had inadvertently eliminated that reference in rule so this was just a clarification so that anyone looking at the rule realized that provision was in place. The other change was adding a clarification that the regular archery season now included the use of crossbows. We were very surprised by the relatively small number of public comments on the proposal. We had a public hearing on May 2, 2022 and there were no members of the public that attended. We received only four written comments, all of which were generally supportive. We did receive many questions about what the changes would mean for their particular situation. If the rule passed, we were prepared to work with Information and Education staff on a substantial effort for public outreach and make hunters aware of the changes.

Commissioner Camuso stated it seemed to take people a few times to understand that the $12 was going to get them an additional deer. We would need to be patient and diligent in helping people understand that. Not all areas of the state had been eligible for the bonus any-deer permits that had been available in the past.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he did not get a lot of requests from his constituents except for the number of antlerless permits and for WMD 3 there were 25 and they changed that to 75. He just wanted to put a word in that the hunters of Aroostook County would like more antlerless deer permits for WMD 3.

A motion was made by Mrs. Peet to move the proposal to Step 3 for final adoption and that was seconded by Mr. Ward. The council voted unanimously in favor to move the proposal to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Ward to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite. Vote: Unanimous in favor to accept the proposal as amended motion passed.


C. Step 1
1. 2022 Antlerless deer permit allocations & expanded archery areas

Mr. Bieber gave a PowerPoint presentation on the 2022 antlerless deer permit allocations and expanded archery areas proposal (for a copy of the presentation please contact becky.orff@maine.gov).

Before the presentation, Mr. Bieber gave some background information on the proposal. The proposal was in three different parts, the first part was permit recommendation numbers and then there were two parts related to expanded archery. For expanded archery we added some clarification in the definition of the expanded archery season. This would not change the way the season operates, it will just make it more specific what you were allowed to use for weapons and permits. The functionality of the season would be the same as in previous years. The second expanded archery change added some land area in two parts of the state. The first part would be North Yarmouth and Yarmouth. This was an extension of the Portland expanded archery area and was covered by a discharge ordinance for shotguns only. It was characterized by high levels of development which was continually increasing and less and less land access. Usually when we were looking at expanded archery areas, we were focusing on areas with discharge ordinances and that was the case with this addition. The exception to that were the offshore islands. We had WMD 29 which was entirely expanded archery. The issue with islands is that it was hard to get hunters to go there and it was hard to control deer numbers there as well. The other addition we were proposing was the coastal islands of WMD 27. It would be functioning as an extension of WMD 29 expanded archery area in that we had the same justifications for it, but this would just add the coastal islands off WMD 27.

Mr. Bieber stated the other part of the proposal was the permit numbers for 2022. We developed the recommendations with antlerless deer permits in mind rather than any-deer permits. With an antlerless deer permit, that was an extra deer and we anticipated hunters would be much more willing to use those permits to harvest does so we wouldnt have to issue as many permits in order to achieve desired levels of doe harvest. Permits numbers overall would be lower but they would be a different type of permit that would let a hunter take an additional deer that had to be antlerless.

Mr. Webb asked Mr. Bieber if he felt like there could be any changes to the buck harvest or hunter behavior in terms of their willingness to harvest a buck with the changes to the antlerless deer system.

Mr. Bieber stated we were a little concerned about seeing an increase in the buck harvest because the any-deer permit people that took a doe in the past wouldnt have been able to keep buck hunting, but now they would be. We would be putting up a lot of messaging about the benefits of managing for advanced age structure bucks. A lot of hunters were interested in seeing older bucks so we would be putting up some information about how to make that happen such as passing on young bucks, how to identify them, and how that might look different on the landscape if they did that. Some places had used this and called it a voluntary antler point restriction, which was essentially just a messaging campaign.

Mr. Scribner stated there came a point in a lot of hunters lives where meat on the table became more important in terms of quality than the trophy on the wall. He thought it was a good tact to take to have it voluntary. He would hate to see a point restriction in Maine given the habitat differences compared to the woods with some of the areas of Pennsylvania, etc. where they had antler restrictions.

2. Ch. 16 & 17 Furbearer Rules

Mrs. Webb stated we had relatively minor changes for this year. The first one affected biological data requirements for hunters and trappers. Currently, they were required to submit a tooth sample for bobcat, fisher, marten, and river otter. The proposed changes would clean up language to clarify that we would like to have the complete lower jaw and some modifications on the labeling of the samples. Labels were so important and the seal number and the accuracy in making sure that linked up to the correct animal. For bobcat, relatively small numbers at a time were tagged so we were proposing to add the seal number for bobcats to increase our data. The seal number, no matter what changes were made to the online registration, if we had the seal number we had all that information that came along with it linked back to the tooth sample for age and sex.

Mrs. Webb stated the next section related to beaver closures. Every year we had landowner requests to close a property to beaver trapping. We took a pretty comprehensive look at the beaver closure list to make sure they were all current, and there were some areas that may have been removed for other wildlife management purposes. The final rule changes were related to beaver and muskrat trap setbacks. This was a historical rule that had been in place since the 1930s. Currently in Maine, trappers could not set a beaver or muskrat trap within 10 feet of a house or 5 feet of an active beaver dam. In 2012 we introduced some exceptions to those setbacks, but those were not consistent in terms of trap setbacks to houses or dams. The language would simplify where the setbacks occur between houses and dams and also make it standard across the board. We were proposing a 5-foot setback for all. Beaver trappers have to make sure they maintain at least a 4-foot distance between other beaver trappers traps. So that was all historically because of competition. When fur prices were really high there was heavy competition and the first trapper that got to a house would monopolize the house. We were in a different situation now where we did not have a lot of competition. Most trappers had a whole flowage to themselves, so this reflected some of those changes also maintaining fair chase. We were proposing to standardize setback distances to 5 feet to a beaver house or muskrat house; to an active beaver dam and to another persons beaver traps.

Mrs. Webb stated we were also proposing to allow exceptions to the rule. We were proposing in WMDs 1-6, 8-11, 18 and 19 that there would be no setback distances required. That aligns where the exceptions currently occurred but make sure that they were correct for setback distances for houses and active beaver dams and it did overlap our commercial forest lands where had high beaver conflict issues with flooding of roads. They tended to be fairly local areas that could be harder to get people into. This was a major recommendation from the furbearer planning process.

There were no further questions or comments.


VI. Other Business


There were no items under Other Business.


VII. Councilor Reports


Councilors gave reports.


VIII. Public Comments & Questions


Mr. Webb gave a PFAS update to the group. We did not issue a consumption advisory for spring turkey in the Fairfield area. We were in the midst of a pretty substantial collection program so we would revisit that based on that information. We were also in the midst of a substantial effort for deer and other species in that location this summer.

Mr. Peabody stated hopefully before the next meeting we would have the Maine Jobs Recovery Program, $20M for hatcheries. We would be working with the Governors office on what that meant for our hatchery system. There were three major projects, one was rebuilding the New Gloucester fish hatchery, the second was an upgrade to Grand Lake Stream hatchery, and the third was looking at effluent in all of our eight facilities. We had just received a 646-page report from HDR Engineering.

Commissioner Camuso stated in addition to the invasive species position the Department was able to secure a full-time climate scientist. We received a substantial amount of our annual funding from both Pittman Robertson (PR) and the Dingle Johnson (DJ) money and first quarter reports showed the DJ money was up 6.8%. That was great news for fisheries. The PR money was up 16.1% over last year. That was substantial funding for wildlife programs. The Recovering Americas Wildlife Act (RAWA) was still making good progress in Congress and we were hopeful that their process would allow that to go to vote during the summer. The whole premise behind RAWA was to try and keep common species common and to keep things from becoming listed. The allocation of funds was dependent upon the state having an approved state wildlife action plan, which we did, but those states that have plants listed within their state wildlife action plan were eligible for an additional 5% funding. During the last review of our action plan we didnt formally include plants, but we generated the list and included it as an appendices but didnt formally adopt the list. We had requested the USFWS make a minor amendment to our action plan to include the list of plants we had identified which would then make us eligible for the additional 5% funding through RAWA. It also would include additional funding for Warden Service and Information and Education as well.

Colin Holme stated he was the Executive Director of the Lakes Environmental Association, but today he was representing a group called the Maine Boating Impacts Coalition. The coalition was formed in 2021 and included groups of organizations, lake associations, boaters, planners and volunteers seeking the development and implementation of measures to reduce the adverse impacts of boating on Maines inland waters. He wanted to talk about large wakes and in particular, large wakes created by wake surfing boats. Wake boating sports have increased substantially in recent years. While the appeal of wake surfing is undeniable, this sport requires large wakes of 3-4 feet. Specialty designed boats that plow through the water at low speeds with their propellor angled downward as opposed to straight out like most boats when they are on plane. Most of these boats have large ballast tanks that can hold 2,000-6,000 pounds of water. Because of these unique characteristics, this sport could have serious side effects on Maine lakes. Once you experienced the wakes as a bystander its pretty obvious they could have an impact on the lake or other users. If used too close to the shore these large wakes can erode shorelines, flood loon nests and increase shallow sediment. Propellor turbulence from the downward angled props while surfing can resuspend sediments in water shallower than 20 feet. The nutrients in these sediments provides food for algae to grow and reproduce, reducing clarity and water quality of our waters.

Mr. Holme stated the ballast tanks in the boats were not visible or able to be inspected and most did not fully drain making the tanks vectors for transporting invasive aquatic species. Current boater messaging from IFW and DEP ask boaters to clean, drain and dry their boats and gear. At this point it is not possible to do this with these ballast tanks on these boats. Lastly, these large wakes can pose safety issues for smaller watercraft, swimmers, children if used imprudently. Research has shown that it takes more than 500 feet for most wake surf waves to dissipate to levels that are similar to wakes created by waterski boats. To help mitigate these issues and allow the sport to continue without harming our lakes, the Maine Boating Impacts Coalition is recommending that; 1. The 200ft. existing safety zone distance on lakes be increased to 500ft. for large wake producing activities; 2. Wake sports only occur in waters greater than 20ft. depth; 3. The coalition was also interested in working with the boating industry and state agency staff to address proper methods of cleaning and decontaminating the ballast tanks to remove or kill invasive species.

Mr. Holme stated he came to the meeting to raise awareness about the issue with the Advisory Council. States all across the U.S. had begun regulated the activity and the coalition would like input and support from IFW when moving forward with any legislative or rule changes regarding the issue. The coalition met previously with Warden Lt. Jason Luce to discuss the issue as well as Francis Brautigam at clean, drain, dry meetings.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated they had a lake association meeting the next day with volunteers to inspect boats for invasive plants. Was there anything different with the wake boats that they could pick them out from normal recreational watercraft.

Mr. Holme stated most of the boats were fairly new (5 years) and fairly large. Some had plates on the side that came out to create the huge wave. They were fairly easy to recognize once you had seen a few of them. It was difficult to check the ballast tanks even if the boater were to allow someone to check everything.

Commissioner Camuso asked if the wake boats could operate in way that did not generate the massive wakes. Could they adjust the pitch of the propellor to operate more like a regular boat.

Mr. Holme stated yes, they could. They could waterski with the boats or just do recreational boating they did not need to take on the ballast, the ballast was mostly in the back of the boat and pushed it down. The coalition was mostly interested in preventing the impact of the wakes, they were not interested in prohibiting the boats because they could be used for a variety of activities. There were a lot of boats that just when plowing through the water could also create a large wake that would have a similar impact.

Mr. Ligouri asked how they took on the ballast, through hoses or an intake pump? Could they adjust it and dump any of it?

Mr. Holme stated they took on the ballast when they were on the water. They didnt intentionally keep it in there. They could take on 2 to 6,000 pounds, they were very large pumps. They expelled it before they pulled the boat out when theyre leaving. Studies had shown that 2-8 gallons of water remained after everything was expelled and that could hold species such as the Chinese mystery snail, zebra mussel larvae, spiny water flea, chunks of plants like milfoil, etc. That was a major concern for spread of invasive species particularly when people are moving around the boats.

Martina Witts stated she was part of the Maine Boating Impacts Coalition and on the board of LEA. She was there to support what Colin Holme was saying as they looked for a path forward in trying to mitigate the damage the boats had the potential to cause.

Toni Pied stated she was also part of the Maine Boating Impacts Coalition and worked for Friends of the Cobbossee Watershed and was there to support Colin and also what Martina had said.


IX. Adgenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting


The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW, 353 Water Street, Augusta.


X. Adjournment


A motion was made by by Mr. Ward and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING 353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400 AUGUSTA, ME (Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams)
please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)
Thursday, August 4, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.
I-A. Pledge of Allegiance II. Moment of Silence III. Introductions
IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

V. Rule Making

A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2
There are no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1
1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2023.... Francis Brautigam

VI. Other Business

VII. Councilor Reports 10:30 A.M.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

X. Adjournment 11:00 A.M.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING 353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400 AUGUSTA, ME (Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams) please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for login information)

Thursday, September 15, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.
I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions
IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

V. Rule Making

A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2
1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2023.... Francis Brautigam

C. Step 1
1. Endangered & Threatened Species listing.....Nate Webb
2. Electronic Registration of Wild Turkey Nate Webb

VI. Other Business

VII. Councilor Reports 11:00 A.M.
VIII.Public Comments & Questions
IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
X. Adjournment 11:30 A.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
June 29, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m.
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room, Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Shevenell Webb, Furbearer Biologist
Nathan Bieber, Deer Biologist.
Bill Swan, Director of Licensing and Registration
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristin Peet (chair)
Shelby Rousseau (Vice-Chair)
Ed Pineau
Bob Duchesne
Tony Liguori
Mike Gawtry - via Teams
Lindsay Ware - via Teams
Eric Ward - via Teams
Jennifer Geel - via Teams


GUESTS
Jerry Scribner



I. Call to Order
Council Chair, Kristin Peet called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance



II. Moment of Silence



III. Introductions
Introductions were made.



IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting


A motion was made by Mrs. Rousseau to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Pineau.

Vote: unanimouus in favor - minutes approved.


V. Rulemaing

A. Step 3
Thre were no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2
1. 2022 Antlerless deer permit allocations & expanded archery areas

Mr. Bieber stated these were now antlerless permits rather than any-deer permits and would allow hunters to take an additional deer that had to be antlerless rather than an either sex permit that was issued in the past. We were recommending just over 96,000 permits down from 153,910 permits last year. The doe harvest objective we were shooting for was just over 13,000. This was similar to last year but a lot fewer permits given the different type of permit. We also had some changes to the expanded archery program. We wanted to define some aspects of the program that were not previously in rule. They didn't change how the program worked but made things more clear in rule. We also had two additional areas we were proposing. One impacted the Portland expanded archery area and would add some land area in the towns of North Yarmouth and Yarmouth. We were also proposing an addition that would encompass the coastal islands of WMD 27. It was kind of an extension of WMD 29 expanded archery area which were coastal islands that were always difficult to control deer numbers on. We had a public hearing with no members of the public in attendance. We received one written comment that was submitted during the previous proposal for deer permit framework, but the contents of the comment made more sense to attach to this proposal. The comment requested adding some land area to the southern end of the Portland expanded archery area. It was discussed with regional staff and warden service and determined not to move it forward. It was a very minute change which would have bumped the boundary over by one road and into a town where the land was under a discharge ordinance and already covered by expanded archery.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Liguori stated there were a lot of comments on the Maine hunting website, he was surprised the Department hadnt received more comments.

Mr. Bieber stated we had been doing a lot of messaging and now that the changes were more or less official, we could put out more material and hopefully it would become clearer to people. Mr. Bieber stated there was also a small amendment being proposed that changed a road reference. The map that was used for the original boundaries did not show the road names. The road name had been added but did not change the boundary.

Mr. Pineau asked how the overall permit numbers were determined as this was a new process.

Mr. Bieber stated the only change for developing recommendations was the expansion factor. We tried to take into account how many permits would actually be used to take a doe. For example, in a lot of WMDs we would have to issue 10-15 permits to take one doe. We anticipated the with new type of permit the kill rate would be higher because people would be more willing to take a doe because the permit let them take an additional deer rather than a buck or a doe. The kill rate would be higher so the expansion factor would be lower. To estimate the expansion factor we looked at the bonus permits that were issued in the past and how many people used those. There would be more calibration over the next couple of years.

Ms. Ware stated she had received comments regarding the messaging so far and the graphics and it had been very helpful.

There were no further questions or comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to move the agenda item to Step 3 and the motion was seconded by Mr. Liguori. The vote was unanimous to move to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to accept the proposal as amended, and that was seconded by Mr. Liguori.

Vote: unanimous: motion passed.

2. Ch. 16 & 17 Furbearer rules

Mrs. Webb stated for Chapter 16 hunting rules the only change was a revision of our biological data labeling requirements for bobcat. For Chapter 17 that was similar for the trapping rules in terms of the biological data labeling requirements adding a seal number for bobcat that provided additional information/data. We were also making some changes to the beaver closures and we had proposed to standardize setback distances for beaver and muskrat traps. We held a public hearing with no on in attendance and received one written comment. The comment was a little bit in confusion with what we were striking and adding to the language. The person followed up stating they realized we were actually getting more data with the proposed changes, and that was a good thing.

There were no questions or comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to move the agenda items to Step 3 and the motion was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau. The vote was unanimous to move to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mrs. Rousseau to accept the proposals as presented, and that was seconded by Mr. Pineau.

Vote: unanimous: motion passed.

C. Step 1 There were no items under Step 1.


VI. Other Business


Commissioner Camuso stated she had a few items she would like to discuss. We held the moose lottery earlier that month in Jackman and it was an overwhelming success. The 2023 lottery would be held in Augusta. SAM had asked if we could bring the lottery back to Augusta. We also had requests from Presque Isle, Fort Kent and one additional town with requests for the 2024 lottery to be held there. Commissioner Camuso stated we had advertised for positions that were approved in the supplemental budget. The Recovering Americas Wildlife Act (RAWA) had passed out of the House and was heading back to the Senate for final approval and then would go to the President. This would provide an additional $10 to $11 million annually for the Department to work on species of greatest conservation need. Before we made any significant structural changes to the agency, she wanted to figure out what the funding sources would look like moving forward. This would be a permanent allocation of dedicated revenue with the goal of keeping species from being listed. In Maine, the law allowed the Department to use Pittman Robertson (PR) money for nongame species for birds and mammals. We had been able to fund a lot of our nongame programs with PR money. Not all states had that ability. Many states did not even recognize invertebrates as wildlife and were not authorized to work on those species. Maine did, and we knew invertebrates were basically the basis for the entire food chain, so they were critical to all of our fisheries and wildlife populations. We were one of two states that the Congressional delegation had signed on as cosponsor and supporter.

Mr. Webb stated we had been receiving calls, particularly from southern Maine about dead, diseased or sick birds mostly along the beaches. We believed that was likely due to high path avian flu that we had been dealing with since the spring. We had put out some guidance to the public on precautions and we were monitoring it closely. The bird group was spending an enormous amount of time on the issue and maintaining situational awareness.

Commissioner Camuso stated the guidance was, in general, we did not want the public touching any of the sick birds as it was highly pathogenic.

Mrs. Peet asked if the public called and had a couple of dead birds in their yard and wanted to remove them, was there any sort of guidance that we gave the public?

Mr. Webb stated there was information on our website. Guidance was not to handle the birds, if there was a need to remove it we asked they use gloves, wear a mask and double bag it before disposing in the trash.

Commissioner Camuso stated she also wanted to mention the Sunday hunting lawsuit. We had been sued under the constitutional right to food saying we were denying people the ability to procure food for themselves on Sunday. Our Attorney Generals office filed a motion to dismiss. Depending how the court ruled it would likely be appealed by either the plaintiffs or the Department. This was likely to take a year or more to work its way through the process.


Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports


VIII. Public Comments & Questions
There were no comments or questions from the public.


IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting


The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW, 353 Water Street, Augusta.


X. Adjournment
A motion was made by Mr. Liguori and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
August 4, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m.
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room, Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director of Bureau of Resource Management
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Frank Frost, Regional Fisheries Biologist
Bob Cordes, Wildlife Special Projects Coordinator
Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Ed Pineau - via Teams
Tony Liguori - via Teams
Jennifer Geel - via Teams
Eric Ward
Al Cooperthwaite


GUESTS
Gary Corson, New Sharon - in person
4 additional staff and public online



I. Call to Order
Commissioner Camuso called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance



II. Moment of Silence



III. Introductions
Introductions were made.



IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Vote: unanimouus in favor - minutes approved.


V. Rulemaing

A. Step. 3
There were no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2.
There were no items under Step 2.


C. Step 1.
1. Fishing regulations & State Heritage Fish Waters 2023

Mr. Brautigam stated the focus of the 2023 fishing regulations packet involved management initiatives of about 131 statewide. The packet contained three parts, a quick reference listing of all the waters with a pending rule change, a summary of the different management themes used to bundle the fishing regulations and a list of all the pending rule proposals. In the last few years, we had been bundling all our fishing regulations by regulatory theme and that was to create improved orientation to the content within the packet to help support review by the Council and general public.

Mr. Brautigam stated there were 11 different themes that captured the 131 rule proposals:

State Heritage Fish Waters - The Department had legislative direction to list state heritage fish waters which are waters that support self-sustaining populations of brook trout and arctic char in lakes and ponds that had either never been stocked or haven't been stocked in the last 25 years. We had 3 waters we were proposing to add to the list.

Special Need - Management initiatives, typically in response to dramatic events, an emerging situation requiring adaptive rule changes, or needs not addressed by other regulatory themes (for example, addressing impacts of summer/winter fish kills, changes in management focus, or more complex and comprehensive initiatives). We had 3 proposals in that category

Salmonid Growth and Performance These are waters where salmonid size quality, condition, and overall population health has declined or is not meeting management goals and objectives. This is often associated with populations where reduced angler use, reduced forage, and/or reduced harvest have allowed population growth to exceed carrying capacity required to attain size quality management objectives; or in some cases, where previous management strategies have failed to meet desired objectives. We had 15 proposals in this theme.

Expanded Angler Use Opportunity - Creation of new or expanded seasonal fishing opportunities (including fall fishing, year-round fishing, or winter opportunities) commonly associated with stocked waters that would provide meaningful public use opportunities supported by the angling public. We had 5 proposals in this category.

S-8 (restricted to two lines per person) These are waters regulated under a two-trap limit. Back in the 1980's, Special Code S-8 (Restricted to two lines per person) was applied to several waters open to ice fishing that were seeing high use and harvest levels, with the intent of spreading the catch out over the winter season. Regional fisheries staff conducted a statewide review of all S-8 waters and identified several where the two-line limit is no longer necessary, typically due to reduced angler use and harvest. The proposals in this theme would all revert to the general law line limit of five lines per person while ice fishing and two lines per person while open water fishing. There are 7 proposals in this theme.

Partial and Complete Simplification to General Law - The themes identify waters with portions of special regulations to manage for different management needs including where we might have stocking programs that have been eliminated or where there were shifts in angler use where special regulations were no longer warranted so a part of the special regulation is removed. A compliment to that is complete removal from the lawbook. We may have changes in access or stocking programs that no longer warrant the special regulations there. In some cases, it was just a matter of the regulations being very antiquated and should have been removed previously.

Errors, Conflicts and Confusion - A significant effort has been made to correct previously identified issues related to conflicting regulations, inconsistencies, inadvertent omissions, errors, and confusing regulations that have also created challenges for mapping special regulations in the Fishing Laws Online Angling Tool (FLOAT). This theme is retained from year to year to correct any newly identified issues. There were 5 proposals in this theme.

New Special Regulation Listing - Proposals in this theme are typically advanced to support new or recent stocking and management programs with a specific management goal or concern addressed by the special regulation.

Transition to "Only 1 brook trout may exceed 12 inches" and Transition to "Only 1 brook trout may exceed 14 inches" These reflected the Departments effort to move forward and phase out the traditional S-16 and S-17 brook trout slot limits. They were in place on many of the remote brook trout ponds and had been quite effective over the years improving size quality in those waters but they lacked flexibility that we needed to effectively manage some of those waters. We were working on modified slot regulations to better address the need for more flexibility. Each of the current slot length limits, the S-16 and S-17, created a 2-fish fixed bag limit and they also set and established a very high minimum length limit of 10" for 1 and 12 for the other. Each of the slot regulations allowed for harvest of only 1 fish over 14 or 1 fish over 12.

The new approach being proposed involved retaining the 1 fish over 12 and 1 fish over 14 but providing flexibility on bag limits. If we had a 2-fish bag limit, that was the only option under existing slots, we sometimes had the need to liberalize harvest in order to achieve our management objectives so we were looking for flexibility to have either a 2 or 5 fish bag limit. We were also removing the high minimum length limit of 10 and 12 and going back to the 6 minimum general law.

Mr. Brautigam stated there were a couple of other points he would like to highlight regarding the packet. We had made a number of changes to the format of the fishing regulations packet and hoped the public found it easier to review. We also added two additional pieces of content to the packet to provide more information to the public, so we now had a management history background for each proposal and management goals and objectives. The proposal had been advertised and the comment period was open until September 1. A public hearing was scheduled for August 22nd.

Mr. Brautigam stated he had invited regional biologist Frank Frost from the Ashland office to give a presentation to highlight some of the changes that we were seeing in angler use on waters in the northern part of the state. Many of the regulation themes that were outlined reflected the fact we were seeing changes in angler use and harvest patterns. As a result, they would be seeing more fishing regulations focused on liberalization of harvest opportunities.

Regional biologist Frank Frost gave a PowerPoint presentation on proposed changes for his region (for a copy of the presentation please contact becky.orff@maine.gov ).

Mr. Frost stated in Region G they had 51 proposed changes, so he thought it would be good to talk about the data they had for justifying those changes. This was all data specific to northern Maine (Region G). Back in the mid-90s they had an internal committee look at brook trout populations and what was happening as far as harvest and use, and they were seeing overharvest of many populations. 1980-1990 had major increase in use and harvest and was documented in Department surveys as well as University of Maine questionnaires showing huge increases in use and harvest. By the early 1990s the fisheries division had internal committees that came up with four classes of trout, the S-16, S-17, S-19 and general law. There was also the "quality fisheries initiative that then Commissioner Bucky Owen initiated. Each region selected waters where they had highly restrictive regulations and those were the S-18 waters. Those were their very best waters where they thought they might produce trophy trout that exceeded 18.

Mr. Frost stated the objective of that effort from 1994 and 1995 was to protect wild brook trout to spawning size (around 10), protect the older genetically important fish, prevent overharvest and account for the variable growth rates across waters. All of the rules were put into place in 1996. In 2001, Mr. Frost put together data from a couple of waters, Third Wallagrass Lake and Square Lake for salmon and brook trout. They wanted to evaluate the changes made in 1996 and they had voluntary survey records going back to the early 80s and fall trap netting. They found the rules did really well, their overall catch rate at Square Lake increased 75% and those were trout that were 6 20. They noted the biggest change in trout that were less than 12, up 142% and the catch rate went up for trout over 12. They also saw a big increase in fish over 18. On Third Wallagrass they shifted harvest from 6 to 10 trout, the angler catch rates increased significantly and they went from 6- 11 trout to 10 16 trout. They started to see declines in growth and condition of the fish. It was a K factor condition, and it was an important thing for anglers for the attractiveness of the fish they caught. Looking at S-18 waters, those were also implemented in 1996 a few were later. There were 10 of those waters we were proposing to change.

Mr. Frost discussed the charts and graphs in his presentation. In summary, they had 51 rule proposals on their best trout fisheries in northern Maine. They wanted to relax the length restriction slightly, the 2 slot to a 4 6 slot going back to the general law and relax the length restrictions on the S-18 waters, that was a more significant change going from an 18 to 14 minimum. Given the trends in angler use and behavior these changes were justified. The catch and release ethic had really picked up over the last 20 years and we received a lot of angler complaints on the narrow 2 slot which we tried to respond to in recent years and this year wanted to make some of those widespread changes.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Commissioner Camuso asked what an ideal K factor would be for trout.

Mr. Frost stated we typically felt a trout should be around 1. In the mid-80s it was just over 1, but we liked to see brook trout that were up around 1.

Mr. Ward stated he felt it made sense especially in the wintertime that narrow slot, if you hooked a fish hard that was less than 10 or 12 it was doomed anyway.

Mr. Frost stated if you fished with the 10 to 12 slot and tried to measure fish it was difficult. We had a lot of complaints over the years. The decline in use had been significant. When the changes were implemented in the mid-90s use was much higher. Some stocked waters in convenient locations were seeing higher use though.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated the gas prices may be contributing to the decline in activity.

Mr. Ward asked how many of the S-8 in total were there, 2-lines in the wintertime?

Mr. Overlock stated he felt there were 20ish waters statewide.

Mr. Brautigam stated most of those we were retaining were on really small ponds, just to manage the harvest over the season.

Mr. Pineau asked how Mr. Frost came up with the numbers on what the difference was between the 80s catch and release to todays catch and release?

Mr. Frost stated the 80s information was a summary from some University of Maine studies and the internal committee in the mid-90s reviewed that. He picked up in 1995 and moved forward from there. The surveys, over the 10-year period, really documented some huge increases in angler use and harvest. They were in the 150% to 200% increase over the 10-year period.

There were no further questions or comments.


VI. Other Business
There were no items under Other Business.


VII. Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports.


VIII. Public Comments & Questions


Commissioner Camuso stated she had a few updates for the Council. We had started the process for developing the 2023-2024 budget. The Northwoods Law throwdown baseball game fundraiser between Maine wardens and New Hampshire wardens took place on Saturday, July 30, 2022. Proceeds from the event went in support of Operation Game Thief. Maine wardens won the game! She discussed recent warden service searches and the upcoming employee recognition events.

Gary Corson asked about the S-16 and S-17, were they being eliminated?

Mr. Brautigam stated we were transitioning away from those.

Mr. Corson stated he fully supported that. He thought it gave more flexibility and doing away with the 2 slot was a good thing. The additional information in the packet was going to be useful. He also found a link on the fisheries page that dealt with the process of changing fishing rules and he thought it was well done and thought it would be very useful. The public would have a better understanding of the whole process of when the rules were initiated to public participation with the Advisory Council. He suggested the information be moved to the website homepage to direct them to the process so people were aware. He asked Mr. Frost about the data he was going through on the Waterway, when were those regulation changes done and when would the data be available?

Mr. Frost stated he believed the changes had occurred in 2016 or 2017. Some of the data was from spring 2022 when they trap netted the fishway up until July. It should be available by next winter to allow for two summers of trap netting.


IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The next Advisory Council meetings were scheduled for Thursday, September 15, 2022 and Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW, 353 Water Street, Augusta.


X. Adjournment
A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite and that was seconded by Mr. Ward to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING


353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400
AUGUSTA, ME (Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams)
please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)

Wednesday, October 26, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

V. Rule Making

A. Step 3
1. Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2023.... Francis Brautigam

B. Step 2
1. Endangered & Threatened Species listing.....Alex Fish
2. Electronic Registration of Wild Turkey.....Bob Cordes

C. Step 1
There are no items under Step 1.

VI. Other Business
1. Antlerless deer permits update...Commissioner Camuso

VII. Councilor Reports 11:00 A.M.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

X. Adjournment 11:30 A.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
September 15, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m.
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room, Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director of Bureau of Resource Management
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Alexander Fish, E&T Species Biologist
Philip DeMaynaider, Wildlife Resource Supervisor
Bob Cordes, Wildlife Special Projects Coordinator
Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristin Peet (Chair)
Al Cowperthwaite
Ed Pineau - via Teams
Tony Liguori - via Teams
Eric Ward
Shelby Rousseau (Vice-Chair) -via Teams Bob Duchesne - via Teams Mike Gawtry - via Teams Vacant - Hancock County


GUESTS
Gary Corson, New Sharon -in person Rich Evon - in person 9 additional staff and public online


I. Call to Order
Kristin Peet, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance



II. Moment of Silence



III. Introductions
Introductions were made.



IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mrs. Peet.

Vote: unanimouus in favor - minutes approved.


V. Rulemaing

A. Step. 3
There were no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2.
1. Fishing Regulations & State Heritage Fish Waters 2023

Mr. Brautigam gave an overview of the public process to date. The proposals were advertised and during Step 1 Frank Frost gave a presentation outlining some of the changes that we were seeing in angler use on many waters, particularly in northern Maine. On August 22nd a public hearing was held with seven public members present. In general, there was support for the packet. Most of the discussion by the public focused on topics that weren't directly relevant to the pending proposals. The public comment period closed on September 1st and we received 61 written comments. Given the outreach to 356,000 individuals that had either purchased fishing licenses or had requested information on fishing, it represented a small number of individuals that actually commented on the proposals.

Mr. Brautigam had prepared a summary of the public comments that was provided to the Council. He also discussed how the Department considered public comment. We were looking for content, not necessarily the volume of comments. Our goal when soliciting public comment was to make sure we considered everything we should that was appropriate. He also provided more detail on five topics the public had raised during the comment period. We reviewed the public comment and where appropriate, had discussion with regional staff. Based on that we didnt identify any significant considerations that warranted additional modification of the packet.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Pineau stated he received pushback from local residents on Echo Lake in Fayette. They were upset with the changes being proposed. They were opposed to removing the 2-trap limit. The lake was having a lot more ice fishing activity than what was reported or the decision was based on.

Mr. Brautigam stated we had data, we measured use so had a pretty good sense on what the changes in use patterns were there. The 2-trap limit was established quite awhile ago and was intended to spread out the catch over the ice fishing season when use was very high. We were just not seeing that high level of use anymore. Like most waters around the state, that water given its size would be managed both during the open water and ice fishing season with no concerns regarding the level of use that was currently there.

There were no further questions or comments.


C. Step 1
1. Endangered & Threatened Species Listing

Mr. Webb stated this was something historically we updated every 8 years. The state list of threatened and endangered species was established in law (Title 12) so it did need to go before the Legislature. We would submit a bill for the Legislature to consider. Part of the preparation for the bill and the list of species changes was holding a public hearing and soliciting comments using the Advisory Council to provide advice to the Department and Commissioner prior to bringing the bill forward to the Legislature. The process was a little different in that the Council would not be voting on anything, they would just be providing feedback and guidance prior to moving on to the next step.

Mr. Webb stated the Department had responsibility and management authority over all of the inland fish and wildlife species in Maine, in particular there were a lot of invertebrates (over 15,000) and other species as well. A lot of our regulatory structure focus on those species for which we have hunting and fishing seasons, but we also had conservation responsibility for the full suite of species. We had to plan and prioritize to determine which species really require conservation attention within the state. This is separate from the federal process and the federal endangered species act. Within the State of Maine there are three different lists we use for conservation planning purposes. The Maine threatened and endangered species list captured in MESA (Maine Endangered Species Act) we had a special concern list which was in rule, and we had a species of greatest conservation need list which included both special concern and endangered and threatened species but also included other species that we lacked data on and needed to survey to determine their status.

Mr. Webb stated the SGCN (species of greatest conservation need) list was generated through our state wildlife action plan which we were required by the federal government (USFWS) to update every ten years in order to maintain eligibility for state wildlife grant funding which was a funding source we used to address conservation needs for reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and non-sportfish. That list would also be used to determine eligibility for Recovering Americas Wildlife Act (RAWA) funding if the bill passed. There were 378 total species on the list broken down into three tiers, Tier 1 there were 58 species with risk of extirpation including state threatened and endangered species as well as federally listed species. Tier 2 were those with recent significant declines or that were endemic or native to the region but werent more broadly distributed globally. Tier 3 or moderate priority were species that were under studied and we lacked knowledge on their status, distribution, etc.

Mr. Webb stated species of special concern were the next tier up in our conservation prioritization framework. These were species that did not meet the criteria for endangered or threatened, but for which we did have conservation concern due to a small distribution, low or declining numbers, specialized habitat needs or other factors that effect their status in the state. The list of species was used primarily for planning and informational purposes and for budgeting and resource allocations within the agency but we also used it to provide recommendations and advice on land use activities, particularly under site law when we were providing information to DEP and they were reviewing large development projects. The list was established in rule in 2022, prior to that it existed in policy. Currently, there were 112 species on the list.

Mr. Webb stated the MESA specific to Maine and was distinct from the federal ESA. This act had general prohibitions around negligently or intentionally importing or exporting, hunting, taking, trapping, possessing, harassing, selling or offering for sale, or feeding or baiting any threatened or endangered species that are included on the list. We had some latitude to prioritize or customize conservation activities using incidental take plans and broad activity exemptions and we had those in place for bats and forestry issues currently. We used those to ensure that the limitations that came with MESA were focused on the conservation issues that existed for the species and did not create unnecessary challenges for land users and landowners. We also had some other conservation tools that were in MESA including essential habitat, and we could also establish protection guidelines. The reasons for listing were outlined in statute and rule. We last went through the process in 2014, 2015. We were required to update the list at least every 8 years. We had an endangered and threatened species handbook that was developed in 2014 to help guide the internal process. The Commissioner makes the recommendation to the Legislature, and they make the final decision. Although the Legislature needed to approve the list, they could not alter the list after it was brought forward. Currently we had 51 species listed. The process we used to develop recommendations was quite thorough. We had a multi-page listing worksheet that was completed by the species specialist that went through all the various factors that could lead to a recommendation for listing as endangered or threatened.

Mr. Fish gave a slide presentation on each of the species we were proposing to either add or remove from the listing. (For a copy of the presentation please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov )

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Duchesne stated he thought this was on track with the swallows. He discussed bank swallows which he felt had just about disappeared. Gravel pits were where you would be most likely to see them and riverbanks. Many of the gravel pits were active and commercial, was there any regulation of them if it became a threatened species.

Commissioner Camuso stated typically our nexus with a project was usually through DEP. Operating in a gravel pit would not trigger any sort of DEP review. We would have authority under MESA for people knowingly destroying nests or a breeding bird, but that would require that we knew that those birds were at that spot and the gravel pit operator acted in a way to knowingly cause harm to the birds. Our approach for this particular species would be education and outreach to help people understand the population. She did not see it as a species where regulation necessarily would help, but where a federal or state listing would give us additional focus and potentially additional funds to help with education and outreach to help the public.

Mr. Webb stated the key in MESA was there had to be either some sort of negligent activity or an individual had to intentionally cause take or harm.

Mr. Duchesne stated the Bicknells Thrush was an alpine bird so it seemed it would have an effect on not just wind power but ski areas. Was there any particular regulatory threat that we saw coming?

Mr. Webb stated that would occur through our work with DEP in reviewing the projects. The Bicknells Thrush was currently listed as special concern so we had been commenting on that species as a rare or special concern species already in the context of larger development projects.

Commissioner Camuso stated the alpine zone already had substantial protections around it, so she did not think this would unduly impact any industry practices.

Mrs. Peet stated the ski mountain in Greenville with the LUPC permit that just went through, they would be required to have Forest Society of Maine hold a 150 acre ecological reserve easement at the top of the mountain for Bicknells Thrush habitat. That was part of the permitting process.

Mr. Webb stated one of the goals of listing under MESA was to allow us to intervene on species prior to them warranting federal listing. There were a number of species that hadnt been brought forward for federal listing or have been determined not to be warranted for federal listing because of their status in Maine. Federal listing brought with it more restrictions, and no one wanted to be at a point where federal listing was warranted.

Mr. Pineau stated when the bill went to the Legislature, was it a simple majority or 2/3 vote? What if the Legislature rejected the bill, then what was the process?

Mr. Webb stated he believed it required a simple majority and if they rejected it then there would be no changes.

Commissioner Camuso stated if the Legislature rejected it then we would modify the list and come back the following year.

Mr. Gawtry stated he had a question regarding the funding aspect, in the past with endangered species recommendations he heard questions did the educational or any type of management aspect of that come from general IFW funding or was there specific funding that was allocated towards it and was that state or federal funding as well?

Commissioner Camuso stated for all the birds and mammals our Pittman Robertson (PR) dollars we used on birds and mammals. Things that were listed had a higher priority to address than species of concern. We had a 25% state requirement, and 75% federal dollars would be used for outreach and education or management. For the invertebrates the state got a small annual tribal state wildlife grant. We would have to use state wildlife grant funding for invertebrates and reptiles and amphibians. We also had dedicated funds, the chickadee checkoff and loon license plate. There was some state money, some federal and some other special revenue we would use for the reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates. Should RAWA pass, that would significantly improve our ability to work and have staff focus on these species.

Mrs. Peet had a question regarding the list, the ones stating breeding population only. Was that more of a habitat issue or were they breeding later?

Mr. Fish stated there was potential for individuals to be migrating and overwintering in the state as well. It was only a distinction on a couple of species.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Electronic Registration of Wild Turkey

Mr. Webb stated earlier this year the Legislature directed the Department to allow self-registration or electronic registration of wild turkeys starting with the spring 2023 season. That would essentially allow hunters though a system we develop to self-register their turkey without needing to take them to an in person registration station. This would require some program and procedural changes in our systems and database, but we also had to look at the rule and determine if any changes were required. There were a couple of minor changes to the wild turkey registration requirements under Chapter 16 being proposed. One was to clarify that if a turkey is registered electronically and not at an in person station the hunter had to submit any transmitters, bands or wing tags to the Department within 5 business days. The records and information from those, we had quite a bit of ongoing banding work for turkeys as part of our management. The other part of the proposal would require the hunter to attach a tag bearing the seal number that would be issued by the electronic registration system. That would serve as a replacement for the plastic seal that the hunter would get at the registration station.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Liguori asked if there was a time frame on registration.

Mr. Webb stated that would not change. The hunter would still have to register the animal within 18 hours or a certain number of days in an unorganized town. We would still have our network of in-person stations, they would just have to choose if they want to take the bird to one of those or self-register.

Mr. Gawtry stated when he was first appointed to the Council, he asked some of the local businesses what changes they would favor and this was one of them. Especially from folks that had seen other states use this method of registration. Would there be anything additional to this from an enforcement standpoint?

Colonel Scott stated there were no changes on the horizon until it was back with the Legislature. There had been some questions around the 18 hour timeframe in order to register an animal if we were making it so convenient that you could electronically register on your phone was there really a necessity to have 18 hours. That would be a question for the Legislature. The biggest change with the rule was the hunter would have to self-apply their registration seal.

Mr. Webb stated the discussion with the Legislature around timelines for registering was related to poor cell coverage, etc. That was a factor for individuals that might harvest a turkey and want to self-register but didnt have good cell service and need to drive somewhere for that. There was a lot of uncertainty with regards to compliance. Many states had used this for turkey and other species as well and it was remarkable how different their experiences seemed to be. There were states that believed that by allowing self-registration compliance increased with registration because it was easier. There were also states that felt compliance declined because the process you went through mentally and physically to go to a registration station after a period of time became not part of the culture around the harvesting process and particularly with turkey given their size and youre not taking it to a butcher or taxidermist or something like that. It was pretty easy to just put it in the freezer or eat it and forget about it and not register the animal. Kelsey Sullivan was working on finalizing a proposal that would collect data to get at the compliance issue so that once the numbers started coming in with the new system, we would have a sense how they compared to having only in-person registration as an option.

Mrs. Rousseau stated she thought the extended window for registration whether going to a tagging station or doing it yourself was important. When she harvested a turkey that spring it took almost four hours to get to a town and when she got to town the tagging station was already closed. In order for her to tag her turkey she would have had to go back to Rangeley the next day. She thought the extended window for electronic registration was vital in some of the more remote areas.

There were no further questions or comments.


VI. Other Business
There were no items under Other Business.


VII. Councilor Reports


Councilors gave reports.

Commissioner Camuso stated she had a few updates she would like to share with the group. The LMF Board approved a total of five projects totaling $8 million in state dollars, but those projects together the match was $32 million. With a modest state investment, we were getting close to $40 million in investment in acquisition. She felt it had been enormously successful so far in being able to leverage private dollars to help this land acquisition and conservation around the state. She discussed the new process for antlerless deer permits. Overall, it was positive when they realized they could harvest a second animal. She had attended the Sportsmans Alliance of Maine annual banquet where we presented Galen Ruhlin with the Lifetime Outdoor Achievement award. The budget process was underway and legislative proposals had been submitted for the upcoming session. She had also met with Senator Collins to talk about RAWA and try to encourage her support. She and the Colonel had also participated in the annual fallen officers run.

Mr. Webb gave a PFAS update. Over the last couple of months, we had done a pretty intensive sampling effort for PFAS in wildlife in the greater Fairfield area within the deer consumption advisory area we issued last year. We were working closely with USDA wildlife services. We were submitting samples to two different labs. Lab capacity was a chronic issue and seemed to be getting worse and there was more awareness and more testing going on. Once we received information back from the 45 samples submitted, we would be able to hopefully update the consumption advisory for the Fairfield area in time for the firearms season on deer. Feedback from the community so far had been positive. We had gotten landowner permission prior to doing sample collections and that had not been a challenge at all.


VIII. Public Comments & Questions


Tom Johnson stated he was the Maine Chair of the Native Fish Coalition that was started in Maine in 2017 and they were now in 12 additional states and growing. They spoke for hundreds of Maine native fishermen, many of them fly fishermen and although most of them were fly fishermen, they were not a fly-fishing club. They were only there to help preserve and restore and save native fish. On endangered species, Atlantic salmon was listed on the federal level in Maine as an endangered species, but yet Maine refused to add the Atlantic salmon as an endangered species in Maine. It was beyond their wildest imagination why it wasnt. There were probably only 100 or 150 true wild native fish returning to our rivers in Maine and they needed our help and Maine should be helping in this endeavor more than they are doing now. On their letter they sent to IFW regarding the proposed changes on the rulemaking mostly having to do with fisheries. It states that the fish and game department is doing all it can to protect wild native fish.

Commissioner Camuso notified Mr. Johnson that the public comment period for the fishing regulations proposals had ended, and we could no longer take public comment on those.

There were no further comments or questions.


IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, October 26, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. at IFW, 353 Water Street, Augusta.


X. Adjournment


A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite and that was seconded by Mrs. Peet to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING


353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400
AUGUSTA, ME (Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams)
please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)

Tuesday, February 14, 2023 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

V. Rule Making

A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2
There are no items under Step 2. C. Step 1
1. 2023/24 Migratory bird seasons - Kelsey Sullivan

VI. Other Business
1. Legislation update - Commissioner Camuso 2. Fly Rod Crosby presentation - Brent West, High Peaks Alliance

VII. Councilor Reports 11:00 A.M.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

X. Adjournment 11:30 A.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
October 26, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m.
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room, Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director of Bureau of Resource Management
Bill Swan, Director of Licensing and Registration
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Alexander Fish, E&T Species Biologist
Philip DeMaynaider, Wildlife Resource Supervisor
Danielle D'Auria, Waterbird Biologist
Adrienne Leppold, Songbird Biologist
Bob Cordes, Wildlife Special Projects Coordinator
Lauren McPherson, Wildlife Outreach Coordinator
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristin Peet (Chair)
Shelby Rousseau
Al Cowperthwaite
Eric Ward
Bob Duchesne
Ed Pineau - via Teams Tony Liguori - via Teams
Mike Gawtry - via Teams Vacant - Hancock County


GUESTS
Gary Corson, New Sharon -in person Brian Rhea, Native Fish Coalition 6 additional staff and public online


I. Call to Order
Kristin Peet, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance



II. Moment of Silence



III. Introductions
Introductions were made.



IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: unanimouus in favor - minutes approved.


V. Rulemaing

A. Step. 3
1. Fishing Regulations & State Heritage Fish Waters 2023

Mr. Brautigam stated an overview of the public comments that were received had been provided. The comments had been reviewed and discussed and no new information was identified that would warrant any amendments to the original proposal.

There were no further Questions.

A motion was made by Mrs. Rousseau to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: unanimous in favor - motion approved.


B. Step 2
1. Endangered and Threatened Species Listing

Mr. Fish stated we had received both verbal and written comments from Maine Audubon. They were supportive of the Maine Endangered Species Act (MESA) and our listing recommendations. They did have a question regarding the two species we were proposing to remove from the MESA which were the eastern box turtle and the rapids clubtail, why those were being removed versus being delisted. The delisting category we had for bald eagle retained some protection for recovered species, but because the rapids clubtail and eastern box turtle were species that may have been misidentified or released pets, we felt those were better to be removed from the list. Their written comments reiterated their support for MESA with particular support for the listing of the saltmarsh sparrow. They also voiced their support for considering the rusty blackbird, the purple sandpiper and the eastern whippoorwill which were three species that we had considered, but due to a combination of either limited data or most of the declines happening range wide with less specifics to Maine population changes. At this time, we were keeping those species as special concern. Maine Audubon also voiced support for revisiting the MESA on a 2-to-4-year cycle.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Peet asked what it would entail to revisit the list earlier than every 8 years.

Mr. Fish stated under the MESA it's at least every 8 years, we could revisit once during a legislative cycle.

Mr. Duchesne stated he would like to echo what Audubon suggested about speeding up review of the list. The bank swallow and cliff swallow were disappearing so fast that in 8 years it may be a moot point.

Commissioner Camuso stated they talked regularly about increasing the frequency of reviewing the list. We were statutorily required to revisit it every 8 years, we could do it as often as we wanted. It was a significant lift on staff, but she felt every 2 to 4 years was reasonable and she felt they were committed to doing that. As a reminder, the Council would not be voting on the list as the final proposal would go to the Legislature.

Mr. Ward asked about the tri-colored bat.

Mr. Fish stated the last time we listed some bat species, tri-colored bats, there was some genetic work done where they used to be called the eastern pipistrelle, but were renamed and reclassified. They are cave roosting bats, so similar to little brown bat, etc. they were susceptible to white-nose syndrome. The information we had, the species was declining in Maine. Range wide they had been declining but they were not common in Maine. During the summer they roosted in trees in maternity colonies, but the best data we had was that they foraged mostly over water so big bodies of water or lakes were where they were most common.

Mrs. Peet asked if there were any specific forestry recommendations?

Mr. Fish stated he did not know of any. One of the challenging things for a lot of the tree roosting bats, prior to white-nose syndrome in early 2000 in most states there was little population monitoring. A lot of whats happened has happened as white-nose syndrome was detected and causing bad declines. There was a reactive approach to try to figure out some of the habitat associations. It was challenging to capture the bats and when you put a transmitter on them, they would groom it off. When bats foraged at night they could travel up to 10-15 miles from where they were roosting. There were a lot of challenges to working with bats and a lot of effort. In southern states there were a lot more listed species. They would drive around in telemetry trucks trying to follow them to their roosting site. Within a season, they were lucky to find half dozen sites where they were roosting, let alone a maternity tree which was where a lot of conservation would be focused. Other than knowing trees like shady bark, but some bats roosted in conifers, etc. We were playing catch up trying to understand some of the management locations and habitat management practices out there.

There were no further questions or comments.

Electronic Registration of Wild Turkey

Mr. Cordes stated a public hearing was held and no members of the public attended. One written comment was received from the Maine Professional Guides Association pointing out some language that needed to be amended. It was relative to submitting the bands, so we amended the language to reflect it just needed to be reported, the leg bands and wing tags and transmitters needed to be reported whether they were presented for registration in person or electronically. The transmitters needed to be submitted, and we added the language "or arrange to be submitted" within 5 days. We needed the hunter to return the number on the leg bands and wing tags, but they could retain those.

Commissioner Camuso stated the comment period had ended so they could move to Step 3 for adoption if they had no further questions on the proposal.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to move the proposal to Step 3 for a vote, and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Vote: unanimous in favor - proposal moved to Step 3

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to approve the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Liguori.

Vote: unanimous in favor - proposal adopted as amended.

Mr. Liguori asked about electronic tagging for deer.

Commissioner Camuso stated we were moving toward electronic registration of turkey and see how that worked. There were a number of things that would have to happen before we could effectively register a big game animal electronically online. We still had a few paper MOSES license agents. Some people could go to a town hall, buy their deer license in September, harvest a deer in November and the system wouldnt show that they had their license. We needed to continue to push to get the paper MOSES license agents converted to electronic. There were still challenges with lifetime license holders and those with complimentary licenses. Once we moved to electronic registration, understanding the number of people who were hunting would be critical to our ability to assess success rates. She suspected that long-term, the Department would be moving toward electronic registration of deer but that would probably be at least five years out until we were updated to a more integrated license system. The Department had significant concerns with electronic registration for big game. We did not harvest as many animals in Maine as other states, so it was imperative that we had a good understanding of the harvest rates, success rates, participation rates, and got the biological data that we needed from the animals that were harvested.

Mrs. Rousseau stated another concern was that some people did not have internet service.

Commissioner Camuso stated right now, there was a benefit to stores having the tagging system. It brought in business when the person came to register their game. There was also a cost to the store in training staff, sending in reports, etc. If the number of people coming into the stores to tag was reduced, many of the stores may opt out. Moving to electronic tagging would have an impact on small businesses. We would do our best to continue to support in person registration, but the Legislature would have some effect on that as well as business models and what the stores were willing to manage.


C. Step 1


There were no items under Step 1.


VI. Other Business
1. Antlerless deer permits update

Commissioner Camuso stated we had changed the antlerless deer system. There were 96,000 permits allocated; 82,000 people applied for the permits in the lottery; 64,000 permits were awarded in the lottery, and 58,000 permits were paid for (90%). 38,000 permits were offered for sale (32,000 that were not awarded and 6,000 not paid for). The permits originally went up for sale on October 5, 2022, and the system crashed and did not work. She thought it was pretty amazing that so many people were so interested in deer hunting that it shut the system down. The system opened at 9:00am and there were over 20,000 people in the queue. By 9:11 a.m., those 20,000 people had hit the refresh button 120,000 times. The Department regrouped and changes were made to the system, and it was reopened the following week. We did receive a lot of messages and questions. The site opened at 11:00 a.m. with 38,000 permits for sale and there approximately 11,000 people in the waiting room. By noon, over 21,000 people in the waiting room. The system provided people with an estimated wait time and availability by WMD. By October 11th there were 18,000 permits sold. The money from the antlerless deer permits was going directly to use for deer yard acquisition and management. The permits generated $950,000.

Commission Camuso stated people could only purchase one permit for themselves. The system did allow purchase of permits for three other people. There were still permits available for WMDs 22, 24, 25 & 29. If by the beginning of November there were still permits in those WMDs, we may open it so that folks that already purchased one could purchase a second for those WMDs. There were no longer any swaps or transferring of permits. On youth day, there were 1,500 deer harvested.

Mr. Swan discussed what a denial of service attack was. Basically, if enough people went on a site and kept clicking, it would bring that system to its knees. Not every system, but most. On October 5th, this is basically what happened to our system. There were roughly 38,000 people clicking consistently at the same time. The change that we made when we rebooted on October 11th was that we slimmed down the landing page so it consumed less resources when people would click on it. The second thing we did was once you clicked the page you were put into a waiting room. If you did click again, the tool Queue It we used would accommodate that. The Queue It system put everyone in a pile and drew random numbers as to where they would be allowed into the sales application. If we had determined to sell the antlerless permits over the counter, we had 18,000 people that bought permits on October 11th. Single file, 18,000 people would be 10 miles long and it would have taken 12 days, 24 hours a day for staff to sell that number of permits over the counter.

Commissioner Camuso stated there was a small percentage of people that had challenges with the system and were unable to complete the sale. For those people, we gave them their permits. We were able to view the transactions that failed to contact the people and give them their permit. The challenge we had moving forward was how to create a system that would work next year. The issue was the 6,000 permits that were allocated and not paid for in the lottery, the WMDs that had just a few hundred permits allocated with more people applying for the permits than you had permits available. We were looking at multiple ways to handle this situation such as requiring a credit card number in advance when applying for the lottery or not selling the unclaimed permits and holding a second lottery.

Mr. Pineau asked how hard it would be for the Department for people to put their credit card information in when applying and if theyre selected its automatically charged and if not, it goes away?

Commissioner Camuso stated that was probably one of the top options we were considering presenting to the Legislature.

Mr. Liguori asked how the money was going to be allocated, were there projects already being considered?

Commissioner Camuso stated the Department had two proposals into the Land for Maines Future (LMF) board that had been preliminarily approved. She asked Mr. Connolly to give more details.

Mr. Connolly stated one was Caribou Stream which was around 1,200 acres and then Reed Deadwater was around 6,000 acres.

Commissioner Camuso stated if we could complete the project, it would be the largest WMA the Department had ever acquired. It was over 6,000 acres with existing deer yard use and tremendous other wildlife resource values. Some of the projects for land acquisition of this size had a $15 million price tag. These were significant investments and the money raised would go very quickly. The LMF match and use of Pittman Robertson money would help with the acquisitions. The Department had stringent requirements for any property being purchased.

Mrs. Peet asked if we were considering putting easements on any of the properties.

Mr. Connolly stated there wasnt really a need to put an easement on them. Any of the funding that the Department used required them to be maintained for the purposes they were acquired for. There was no real benefit to an easement. If there was LMF money allocated to a project, there was a constitutional protection that the only thing you could do was replace the property in kind. If there was federal money involved such as Pittman Robertson, you had to get approval from them to do anything with the property.

There were no further questions or comments.


VII. Councilor Reports


Councilors gave reports.


VIII. Public Comments & Questions


Brian Rhea stated he was with the Native Fish Coalition. He just wanted to circle back to the fisheries regulation proposal. It was great to see three waters added to the State Heritage Fish list. There were 32 other changes and 30 of those decreased regulation. He wanted some elaboration on why.

Mr. Brautigam stated the regulation packet focused on liberalization of many of our fishing regulations largely because of use patterns we were seeing out on the landscape and largely in response to catch and release practices. As a result, we were not seeing the same level of harvest that was seen in the past. Harvest was a mechanism we used to regulate populations and size quality. We were liberalizing in an effort to encourage and promote increasing opportunities to harvest to meet our size quality objectives. That had been and would likely continue to be a trend as we looked at opportunities to create desirable fisheries and meet public needs. He suggested and had in his summaries of public comment that liberalization should not be confused with a lack of commitment to preserving our state native fish resources. The new fisheries strategic plan had a lot of new conservation initiatives to be pursued that focused more on conservation, but also provide opportunities for enhancing sport fisheries as well. He felt our approach moving forward supported by the strategic plan provided for both conservation and enhancement and was responsive to the changes we were seeing in the angling community and the behaviors they were exercising.

Brian Rhea stated his greater concern was there were only so many state heritage fish waters, and we could add some but manipulating them to enhance quality over the fact of preserving, it was hard to quantify that data and have some scientific evidence that we were able to meet the objective. There was something at risk.

Mr. Brautigam stated the real threats such as climate change, invasive aquatic species, things that were going to change the water quality or change the species assemblage in the waters. It was not recreational angling. Recreational angling was not a threat, it was heavily regulated. Staff spent a lot of time collecting data so we could monitor those fisheries. Those fisheries were not at risk of being lost or being extirpated in any way as a result of recreational angling.

Gary Corson asked for an update on the Recovering Americas Wildlife Act (RAWA).

Commissioner Camuso stated unfortunately, it was in a holding pattern. There had been some attempt to have a resolution in the budget but that did not pass. They were still optimistic that there may be opportunities after the election. The Maine Congressional Delegation supported the bill.

There were no further questions or comments.


IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The Council would be notified of the next meeting date at a later time. It was likely the next meeting would not occur until late January or early February with the timing of the migratory bird rule proposal.


X. Adjournment
A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned by 11:10 a m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING


353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400
AUGUSTA, ME (Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams)
please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)

Tuesday, March 28, 2023 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

V. Rule Making

A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2
1. Migratory Bird Season 2023-24 - Kelsey Sullivan

C. Step 1
1. Ch. 5 rules - Steve Powell Wildlife Management Area (Swan Island) - Nate Webb
2. Moose permit allocations 2023 - Lee Kantar

VI. Other Business
1. Legislation update - Commissioner Camuso

VII. Councilor Reports 11:00 A.M.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

X. Adjournment 11:30 A.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
February 14, 2023 @ 9:30 a.m.
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room, Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Rick Parker, Director of Engineering
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Shelby Rousseau (Vice-Chair)
Eric Ward
Al Cowperthwaite - via Teams
Bob Duchesne - via Teams
Ed Pineau - via Teams Kristin Peet (Chair) - via Teams Mike Gawtry - via Teams Vacant - Hancock County


GUESTS
Brent West, High Peaks Alliance 3 additional public in person 9 additional staff and public online


I. Call to Order
Shelby Rousseau, Council Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance



II. Moment of Silence



III. Introductions
Introductions were made.



IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. Pineau to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: unanimouus in favor - minutes approved.


V. Rulemaing

A. Step. 3
There were no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2
There were no items under Step 2.


C. Step 1


1. 2023/24 Migratory Bird Seasons

Mr. Sullivan stated the proposal was similar to last year with a couple of exceptions. Most of the waterfowl and game bird populations were pretty stable. On page 3 of the proposal, Section B. Ducks, the south zone and the coastal zone were proposed to start September 30, traditionally it had been October 1. The reason for the change was the coastal zone, we eliminated the sea duck season which effected the coastal zone dates. The coastal zone lost a week in the first segment, and the 30th is a Saturday so it will capture a second Saturday. On page 4, Section C. Brant, this was not a species with much harvest in Maine, but there were some folks that were interested in brant hunting. The winter counts from last year were below the 50/2 season we could have at the federal level, so the season was reduced to 30 days and 1 bird. We could not go any more liberal than that.

Mr. Sullivan had a handout that was associated with the proposal specific to the mallard bag limit. At the federal level it had already been adopted, an increase of 2 mallards per day to 4 mallards per day. In 2019 we went to a 2-bird limit. It was related to the breeding population estimates. In 2019 at the Atlantic flyway level, we went from 4 mallards to 2 mallards. Since then, and the graph showed, there's a modest rebound in breeding population estimates. There was eastern Canada and the northeast United States, there was a compilation of breeding population estimate from aerial surveys and ground counts. In Canada, the breeding population estimate from those aerial surveys increased quite a bit. The model responded pretty well to that estimate so he wouldnt be surprised if in a year or two we would see the 2 bird limit again. We could go more restrictive with the season if we were concerned about mallard populations in Maine, but we werent. We had some breeding mallards in developed areas but in northern Maine there werent a lot of breeding mallards. Mallard harvest was 85% derived from eastern Canada, so if eastern Canada was doing well there was no concern with our harvest levels. That was shown from banding.

Mr. Sullivan stated there was a change in the Canada goose season for the September season. There were two different seasons, the early September and the regular season. The September season was established for the resident Canada goose population. Breeding and nesting geese below this 49th parallel mark separated between what Arctic goose populations were delineated differently, they bred in different areas and had different population trends than the resident geese. The Arctic goose population was not over abundant, but the resident goose populations were considered over abundant. There was a target of 750,000 resident Canada geese below the 49th parallel, and we were at 1.3M. The goal was to bring that population number down through different means, one being harvest. There were also special permits that were given. There was work being done to look at harvest levels and how that effected resident goose population trends. If you harvested greater than 25% you would start to see a downward trend. We had not achieved that 25% harvest level over time. We could afford more harvest in both the southern and northern zones. Folks did not tend to take more than 10 per day. The average was 5 or 6.
The north zone had been at 6 for a long time, and there were people commenting on the discrepancy between the north and south zones and hunting opportunity. They had been asking for an increase over time. The proposal for the north zone for the September season was to go from 6 to 8. Because of the trend of not reaching the harvest level, he was not concerned about effecting goose populations.

Council member comments and questions Mr. Duchesne stated he had received an email from someone who was under the impression the sea duck hunting season had been extended. He did not see that in the proposal.

Mr. Sullivan stated there was no special sea duck season any longer. Sea ducks and regular ducks were lumped into one coastal zone season. He thought we were proposing to go a couple of days longer than we did last year and that was related to when the season started and overlap with the weekend at the end.

Mr. Duchesne stated that he felt it was related to what was happening along the coast, a lot of the sea ducks across the board had disappeared in some places and the numbers seemed to be way down along the entire coast and they were wondering if what the Department was seeing reflected what others had been seeing.

Mr. Sullivan stated it was consistent with what we received for comments from waterfowl hunters and sea duck guides, especially eiders, very low numbers compared to what we were seeing in the past. That was part of the reason why we eliminated the season and reduced the bag limit last year.

Commissioner Camuso asked Mr. Sullivan to go over the process for adopting the migratory bird seasons.

Mr. Sullivan stated there was a separate waterfowl council that was similar to the advisory council in that it was a subset of individuals representing each county in the interest of waterfowl hunters. He met with them prior to developing the rule proposal. That was where the September 30th coastal zone change came from. They provided input more from the waterfowl hunter perspective and requested desires for the seasons. After the comment period for the proposal ended the waterfowl council would communicate with Mr. Sullivan on any recommended changes or they would endorse the proposal.

Mr. Ward mentioned the one public comment that had been received.

Mr. Sullivan stated the comment was advocating for extending the coastal zone season longer into January. If we went with that recommendation, that would affect the front end of the season. Sea duck guides had provided input, the looked at 3-day windows when setting up sea duck hunts, so we tended to avoid breaking that up in the beginning. If we changed, it would affect the sea duck guides. It was only a couple of days longer; the comment was going from the 9th to the 11th of January. That would mean a November 11th start date which was a Friday and would break up that 3-day window.

There were no further questions or comments.


VI. Other Business
1. Legislation Update

Commissioner Camuso updated the Council on some of the bills currently before the IFW Committee. One of the bills dealt with invasive plants, trying to stop the spread of aquatic invasives. It was part of the clean, drain, dry program. The Department testified in opposition, not because we didnt support the concept but there were challenges with the bill as written such as many of the boat ramps did not have adequate space to de-water a vessel. We didnt want the water draining into the clean waters. There were issues around requiring people to drive with the plugs out, etc. This would probably be a carry over bill, and we would probably have a working group try to come up with reasonable solutions. Other bills included modifying the adaptive moose hunt (loss of bonus points); minimum age for hunting; youth lifetime licenses for dependents of veterans, and changes to the endangered and threatened species listing.

Commissioner Camuso stated another bill was dealing with lifetime license holders. In the future, we would have more lifetime license holders than we had annual hunting license holders. We did not currently have an effective way to communicate with those lifetime license holders and for population management we needed to understand how many people were participating in the activity. We were trying to figure out the most effective way to address that. Other bills were regarding adding expanded archery to the Superpack license, and also the public hearing for the budget bill had been scheduled for February 27th. We had about 65 bills that would be before the Committee and we were making good progress.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Ward asked about moving bird hunting back to the first October, was there any mention of that?

Commissioner Camuso stated there were no bills regarding that. Many of the bills submitted this session were "concept draft" which had no language associated with them. None of the titles indicated they were related to bird hunting.

Mr. Duchesne stated there was some controversy regarding ATV clubs and insurance.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there were a couple of bills that had been submitted, but no discussion yet. He was not sure if the bills were pointed towards liability insurance. LD 434 was probably the first bill that would have discussion around money going back to the ATV clubs. We had done research on the states position through Risk Management and the ATV program at ACF. There was a lot of miscommunication about how the clubs viewed what their responsibility was for liability insurance.

There were no further questions or comments.

1. Fly Rod Crosby presentation The presentation from Brent West was delivered following the close of the Advisory Council meeting.


VII. Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports.


VIII. Public Comments & Questions
Mr. Cowperthwaite hed always felt the time a person had to shoot a moose could be longer. Driving the logging roads on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday people were pretty stressed out. It was a quality hunt to hunt a Maine moose and he thought we should figure out a way to give more days, especially the adaptive hunts. Our success rate would be much higher, people wouldn't be so stressed out trying to find a moose.

Claire Perry asked about the sea duck and eider problem, was anyone doing studies on them to find out what was causing the decline.

Mr. Sullivan stated sea ducks were one of the most challenging species to follow and study, especially during the breeding season they were up north in the Arctic. There was a group called the Sea Duck Joint Venture, it was a federal cooperative with state and federal and NGO, academics; they had funding and were doing research on reproductive potential, diets, etc. It was complicated but they were trying. It was a challenge because of habitat and where they were found.

Claire Perry asked if they were offshore feeders or closer to the coastline.

Mr. Sullivan stated they were near coastal but could be offshore. They were divers and feeding on crustaceans mostly in the wintertime. Scoters and long-tailed ducks were more inland feeding on clams and mussels. Eiders were feeding in the summer near coastal on the same kinds of things.

Claire Perry stated she had noted a decline in mussels and sea urchins. She was worried that might be part of it.

Mr. Sullivan stated through banding and harvest information program through USFWS sampling hunters and declines in mussels, habitat, food resources, etc. contributed more to the declines than harvest. We had been reducing hunting seasons for sea ducks over the last 10 years. We tried to accommodate those that used the resource but also recognized there were things we could do to help slow the decline.

Claire Perry asked about seaweed harvesting.

Mr. Sullivan stated it was his understanding it did not contribute on a wide scale enough to effect sea duck populations.

Mrs. Rousseau asked for PFAS update.

Mr. Webb stated we did an extensive sampling effort last summer and fall for both turkey and deer in the greater Fairfield area. The samples were sent to two different labs, we were still waiting for results from the second lab. Based on the preliminary results from the first lab, we believed we would be able to reduce the size of the advisory area substantially, but we were waiting for confirmation from the second lab. There was still a challenge with lab capacity nationwide. We were also working on sampling plans for the next phase which would be east of the Kennebec River. Also, a press release had gone out that we detected avian influenza (AI) in Kennebec County in wild birds for the first time. It was an ongoing issue; we were still seeing mortality. We were working with ACF on messaging to owners of domestic poultry flocks to ensure they kept them separate from wild birds.

There were no further questions or comments.


IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, March 28th at 9:30 am at IFW, Augusta.


X. Adjournment
A motion was made by Mrs. Rousseau and that was seconded by Mr. Ward to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 am.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING


353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400
AUGUSTA, ME (Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams)
please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)

Tuesday, May 9, 2023 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

V. Rule Making

A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2
1. Ch. 5 rules - Steven Powell Wildlife Management Area (Swan Island) - Nate Webb
2. Moose permit allocations 2023 - Lee Kantar


C. Step 1
1. Furbearer rules - Shevenell Webb
2. Antlerless deer permits 2023 - Nathan Bieber


VI. Other Business
1. Legislation update - Commissioner Camuso
2. Plan for new IFW presentation - Rick Parker


VII. Councilor Reports 11:00 A.M.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

X. Adjournment 11:30 A.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
March 28, 2023 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)


Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Lee Kantar, Moose Biologist
Bill Swan, Director of Licensing and Registration
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristin Peet (Chair)
Eric Ward
Al Cowperthwaite
Bob Duchesne
Tony Liguori
Ed Pineau- via Teams
Mike Gawtry via Teams
Jennifer Geel via Teams
Vacant Hancock County


GUESTS
1 in person
6 additional staff and public online



I. Call to Order
Shelby Rousseau, Council Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance



II. Moment of Silence



III. Introductions
Introductions were made.



IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. Pineau to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: unanimous in favor minutes approved.
V. Rulemaing

A. Step. 3
There were no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2
1. 2023/24 Migratory Bird Seasons

Mr. Sullivan stated there were two written comments received. One was related to extending the coastal zone season a couple of days into January by shifting it in the beginning of November. By doing that, they would lose a 3-day window for guides who had expressed interest in having the first opportunity for guided hunts in November for 3 days which made sense for guided trips. Based on the comment, the season would only move from January 9 to January 11. The second comment was a letter from Fred Hartman in Whiting. He had several comments, much of what he suggested was against the general concerns and desires of the waterfowl council. Most of his points were the opposite of what was presented and proposed. There were no questions regarding the comments. Mr. Sullivan stated based on what had been received, he didn't see any reason to make adjustments to the proposal.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Duchesne stated the sea ducks had vanished. He didnt think it affected the proposal, but something was happening.

Mr. Sullivan stated it was based on habitat, there were a lot of variables.

Mrs. Peet asked if there was any work between Maine, Canada, etc. to address the issue.

Mr. Sullivan stated there was the Sea Duck Joint Venture with the USFWS that annually received research grants/proposals and we met with Canada/New Brunswick a few years ago specific to eiders. It was on the radar and there were studies going on for scoters and eiders as a regional effort.

Mr. Webb stated if the Council was supportive the proposal could be moved to Step 3 for adoption.

There were no further questions or comments, and a motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to move the proposal to Step 3. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite.

Vote: Unanimous proposal moved to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Pineau.

Vote: Unanimous in favor motion passed.


C. Step 1


1. Ch. 5 rules Steve Powell Wildlife Management Area (Swan Island)

Mr. Webb stated the proposal was in reference to Swan Island in the Kennebec River. It had a lot of public use with a campgrounds on the north end of the island that for quite a number of years we had provided access from the Richmond side. Historically, we had a member of staff from the Sidney regional office spend about 6-8 months per year operating as a full time Swan Island manager and we hired two seasonal staff during the summer. There had been a number of changes over the past couple of years that caused us to rethink the model which we facilitate public access to the island. Staff housing used for seasonal staff was condemned due to mold and other issues. There was also a determination by the Coast Guard last year that the ferry needed to meet Coast Guard requirements for a ferry in tidal waters. For the Department to continue operating the ferry in the way that we had we would have to make significant upgrades to the ferry (which we were pursuing) and we would have to hire someone with a captains license to run the ferry for the trip across the river to the island. A captains license required a significant amount of training. We opted not to continue with that, and felt the path forward was to switch to a self-access model where the island would stay open for public use and camping, but the public would have to provide their own access or contract with a Maine guide to get them back and forth across the river.

Mr. Webb stated given that transition and the model for public use there were some changes necessary in the rule. One of the changes was removing the requirement for a reservation. We would also not require a fee and go to a first come first served approach which was similar to remote campsites across the state on the Bureau of Public Lands land base. We retained the option to charge a fee, the Commissioner would have the authority to charge a fee but it was not something we anticipated doing in the short term. We were proposing to limit campers to three consecutive nights rather than two. The rules pertaining to campfires had also been amended. There had also been discussion around providing more opportunity for mentored hunting on the island. There was no hunting on the island currently.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Liguori asked about upgrading the ferry.

Mr. Webb stated we were pursuing that. We owned the ferry and used it routinely to transport equipment, including heavy equipment to the island for habitat management work. We needed to retain the ferry to support other objectives on the island, we felt it made sense to upgrade the ferry to meet Coast Guard requirements. It would also give us the option to hire a captain for future events.

Mr. Duchesne asked if there was any kind of registration necessary once you got to the island?

Mr. Webb stated there would probably be some type of sign in. We intended to continue to have a staff presence there and hire two seasonal staff for the summer.

Mr. Pineau stated he thought it would be important to watch what the numbers were of people using the island. He thought it was positive going to self-access. What kind of expense would upgrading the ferry be?

Mr. Webb stated he believed it was around $15,000.

Mrs. Peet asked about outreach to let people know about the change.

Mr. Webb stated staff was having discussions with the town and well as members of the legislature, and we did intend to let the public know. In our favor was that during Covid, use was restricted and transportation to the island had been suspended. All of last summer it kind of functioned in this way, but reservations and fees for camping had been required.

Commissioner Camuso asked if local communities had started renting canoes and kayaks there last year.

Mr. Webb stated there had been discussions, but he was not sure if that happened. There was potential for business opportunities for private individuals or the town to provide rental watercraft or transportation.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Moose Permit Allocations 2023

Mr. Kantar stated the Department had a process for dealing with moose management and permit allocations. The process begins with the collection of data throughout the year and meetings with regional staff. Flights were conducted as well as winter tick counts. We had the lowest tick count on moose since 2006. That was a predictor of what spring mortality may look like from winter ticks. One of the worst years, of the 70 collared moose we lost 61 from winter ticks and the next year things changed. Because of the changes in climate and shorter winters and the way the forest was harvested, it was really complex. He was appreciative of the collaring efforts, when doing research you wanted to capture the extremes and we were now two years in a row of extremes. We collared another 70 moose in 2022 which we were monitoring. To date, only 2 moose had been lost.

Mr. Kantar stated staff had come together and made some recommendations. A lot of what they did came from the Big Game Management Plan which was developed in 2016 and was in place from 2017 2027. This plan was very different from the 2000-2015 plan which was based on objectives looking at how many moose could we have on the landscape and figuring out how many moose there were. With the onslaught of winter tick, that big game plan shifted to the idea of health and trying to reduce disease issues and increase productivity and get more healthy moose out there. Along with that, we recognized in the core range of moose (WMDs 1-11 & 19) when you have a system as we did in the past where you just depended on harvest data to manage wildlife, you didnt have a lot of data. With the new big game plan, we moved to looking at the amount of access in the areas and how many moose permits would you have based on hunter density. Part of the new plan was about what hunter expectations were, and when access was lost and success rates went down and it was hard to find a moose at what point was the state providing opportunity to hunt moose or just not have any permits there.

Mr. Kantar stated for the core range this year we were not proposing any changes except for WMD 8 where we were adding another 50 cow permits. WMD 8 was our research area starting in 2014 for seven years. For a lot of the areas with good habitat, there had been too many moose. When there were too many moose, we had a problem with winter ticks that was driving the population. This was talking about utilizing moose and harvesting moose so that winter ticks werent doing it for us. WMD 8 is 2,000 square miles and has a massive amount of moose habitat. 150 total cow permits in that WMD was not even touching it. The other recommendation that was in the peripheral range. Several years ago, one thing that came out of the big game plan we took WMDs 27 & 28 and made that a combined unit. On paper, we had the same amount of permits but you had the ability to hunt in both WMDs. Based on that model and the shrinkage of WMDs, in WMD 13 recently there were 5,000 acres that would no longer have access for hunting. We were recommending combining WMDs 7 & 13. Looking back, in 1980 our units for hunting were very large. We had large units and small permit numbers. Now, we have really small units with really large permit numbers. The recommendation to combine WMDs would give hunters flexibility and provide opportunity. We were also recommending combining WMDs 12 & 15. WMD 15 used to be part of the southern Maine moose hunt. What no one could foresee was what the impact of winter tick would be and the shrinking of the states moose range. We did have WMDs 22, 23, 25 & 26 open for the southern Maine moose hunt and it has since gone to zero permits. Weve now added WMD 16 with zero permits. We wanted to retain permits in WMD 15 as there was moose habitat there, but it would go to an October bull season and fall in with WMD 12. WMDs 14 & 17 were also being combined. WMD 17 had a 0% success rate last year.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Commissioner Camuso asked about the application process for combined zones.

Mr. Kantar stated there wouldnt be any change you would list your preferred choice of WMD.

Mr. Pineau asked about permits in WMD 9 the Moosehead region. Looking at dates was there a reason the upper part of WMD 9 did not have a September hunt. In October it was a cluster with bird hunters.

Mr. Kantar stated the issue was currently being discussed in the Legislature. Biological staff had recommended a September opening in some of the western units previously. It was written in the big game management plan to open those units in September.

Mr. Kantar discussed the adaptive moose hunt. There had been 2 years of the adaptive hunt, success rates in year two were half of what they were in year one going from 52 to 26. In trying to make adjustments to the adaptive hunt and increase success, the sideboards were very limited due to other seasons such as bird season, bear season, etc. There was also limited infrastructure. We were hesitant to increase the number of permits there. We wanted to expand the amount of time an adaptive moose hunter could hunt, so we were proposing two weeks. There would be three different segments, each segment being two weeks. For each two-week period there would be 200 permits issued. The dates would limit conflicts with other hunters. This would be year three of the adaptive hunt with the goal to increase harvest for decline in winter tick numbers.

Mr. Pineau asked if there was a way to find out from moose hunters from the survey if they stopped hunting mid-week. Numbers of hunters seemed to drop off mid-week.

Mr. Kantar stated traditionally, 75% of the moose harvested occurred in the first three days of the hunt. We had also surveyed hunters of the adaptive hunt regarding their experiences.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated at the beginning of the adaptive hunt he tried to find places for people to put campers. There werent that many roads compared to the rest of the zones and it was extremely thick, it was a lot of new growth. The hunters would be able to see each other because of the limited number of roads to travel on. He was impressed with going to two weeks because that would help the people that were patient. The Maine moose hunt was a quality hunt and trying to get a moose in 6 days was extremely stressful. He thought the proposal was a comprehensive reasonable plan.

Mr. Duchesne asked about the land that was being locked up, was that private owners or timber management companies?

Mr. Kantar stated it seemed western Maine was being hit harder. The land was not necessarily closed to walk ins. The issue sometimes was how to get a moose out if you did harvest one if vehicle access was not allowed.

Mrs. Peet stated a meeting was held recently about access. Part of the land being locked up was some of the environmental organizations that were doing conservation. Some left it up to the landowner to restrict access, but some organizations that had easements or were buying the land in fee wanted to see culverts pulled and gates up. She appreciated that regional staff had started the conversation and it was something conservation organizations needed to think about. They often brought in IFW part way through the process of an easement, and she thought they needed to ask earlier in the project planning process to say "what is the important access" for the area. Hunting hadnt been in their foresight at the beginning of projects and her organization was going to try and do better.

There were no further questions or comments.


VI. Other Business
1. Legislation Update

Commissioner Camuso stated there were a number of bills being discussed with the legislative committee. Upcoming Sunday hunting bills were anticipated to have a lot of interest. 60% - 80% of landowners were opposed to Sunday hunting. The Department spent approximately 6 hours at the legislature discussing wake boats with the Committee. There were known effects such as erosion from the wake boats and they were trying to figure out how to navigate that. There were a number of bills regarding free permits, bonus points, lifetime license, etc. to veterans or a new segment of the public. The Department supported veterans, but the bills would have to be written in a different way i.e. NJ veterans received free permits but the Legislature provided funding to the Department and they were still able to receive federal match dollars. Antlerless deer permits and moose permits were topics being discussed. A stakeholder group to look at the issues would likely be assembled. Bills may be carried over to the next session. There were upcoming hearings on the coyote bills, and they were anticipated to have the largest attendance.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Ward asked about the adaptive moose hunt and individuals not losing their bonus points.

Mr. Webb stated a hearing had been held on the bill and it would be discussed further when the work session was scheduled.

Mr. Ward stated he was in favor of LD 1049. He would keep speaking to protect Maines native fish populations.

Mrs. Peet asked about the bill to move the IFW headquarters.

Commissioner Camuso stated we had a proposal in as part of the budget to move to the East Campus. The former Augusta town manager had put in a bill for the headquarters to be moved to another property where we had originally proposed the move. There were too many obstacles to be able to move the headquarters there and the bill was killed.

Mr. Cowperthwaite asked if it would be a new building or an existing building to renovate?

Commissioner Camuso stated it would be combination. The new location was on the East Campus adjacent to other natural resource agencies. It would reuse a historical building with additions. A presentation on the new building could be provided at the next meeting.

Mr. Duchesne asked about the ATV club liability issue.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there was nothing new and no bills moving forward.

Mr. Cowperthwaite asked about the wake boat issue.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we were not in favor of the 500-foot buffer regulation that was part of the bill. There was an existing law for operating with prudent speed, that you cant have a damaging wake coming ashore currently. The warden service had spoken about headway speed and the water safety zone, but not on any type of damaging wake. The current law could deal with the wake boat if it were damaging the shoreline. We had options for education with mandatory boater education pointed towards wake boats if that was what the Committee wanted to do. There were studies across the U.S. regarding wake boats. We didnt know a lot about them in Maine and wanted to look at that information. Mandatory boater education would go into effect January of 2024, for anyone born after 1999 (age 25). The Legislature had the opportunity to make amendments to the age, etc.

Commissioner Camuso stated other bills of interest were relevant to lead sinkers, threatened and endangered species protection and funding for wetlands and large scale solar and wind projects.


VII. Councilor Reports


Councilors gave reports.


VIII. Public Comments & Questions


Claire Perry stated it was hard for her to see the reaction some of the committee members had when the coyote bills came up. She felt deeply sorry. She believed the science of the animal was not being looked at and only the hate seemed to be well understood. She would encourage the members to read the testimonies that would be coming in from people who had experience with them and who cared about science. She knew 4 out of 5 wildlife biologists on the subcommittee were strongly in favor of a well-regulated season for the coyote. She was not a coyote lover anymore than she was a deer lover and she was not anti-hunting she just couldnt not say something.

Commissioner Camuso stated she wanted to clarify that the Advisory Council would not be the ones making that decision, it would be going to the legislative committee.

Claire Perry stated she fully understood that.

Mr. Duchesne discussed the Maine Bird Atlas; it was an astonishing project.

Christa Rose stated she wanted to introduce herself and bring some attention to a wildlife and ecology initiative that was developing throughout the northeast. She had started the Northeastern Puma Project and there was also a puma research collaborative that had been fundraising and generating peer review research on different aspects of cougar recovery in the U.S. There were also two events that spring she wanted to put on the radar, the first was a session on catamounts at the Northeastern Natural History conference in Burlington, VT during earth day weekend. The second event was a symposium on rewilding North American species at the Northeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies conference in Hershey, PA in May. She would be at both events and would enjoy connecting with wildlifers and ecologists from the Department.
IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting


The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, May 9th at 9:30am at IFW, Augusta.


X. Adjournment


A motion was made by Mr. Ward and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400
AUGUSTA, ME
(Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams)
please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)

June 20, 2023 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.
I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions
IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


V. Rule Making


A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2
1. Furbearer rules..... Shevenell Webb
2. Antlerless deer permits 2023....Nathan Bieber


C. Step 1
1. Ch. 1 & 1-A Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2024...... Francis Brautigam
2. Ch. 2 Bass Tournament/Fishing Derby rules.... Francis Brautigam


VI. Other Business


VII. Councilor Reports 11:00 A.M.
VIII. Public Comments & Questions
IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
X. Adjournment 11:30 A.M.


DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400
AUGUSTA, ME
(Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams)
please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)


August 8, 2023 @ 9:30 a.m.


AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions
IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


V. Rule Making

A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2
1. Ch. 1 & 1-A Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2024...... Francis Brautigam
2. Ch. 2 Bass Tournament/Fishing Derby rules...... Francis Brautigam


C. Step 1
There are no items under Step 1.

VI. Other Business
1. Fish tagging project.... Liz Thorndike

VII. Councilor Reports 11:00 A.M.
VIII. Public Comments & Questions
IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
X. Adjournment 11:30 A.M.


ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
May 9, 2023 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)


Attending:
Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Lee Kantar, Moose Biologist
Nathan Bieber, Deer Biologist
Shevenell Webb, Furbearer Biologist
Keel Kemper, Regional Biologist
Connor White, Resource Biologist
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Bill Swan, Director of Licensing and Registration
Rick Parker, Director of Engineering
Dan Scott, Warden Service Colonel
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristin Peet (Chair)
Eric Ward
Al Cowperthwaite
Bob Duchesne
Ed Pineau- via Teams

Mike Gawtry via Teams
Shelby Rousseau via Teams
Vacant Hancock County


GUESTS
9 additional staff and public online


I. Call to Order

Kristin Peet, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

Introductions were made.

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Pineau to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: unanimous in favor minutes approved.

IV-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated he believed current Chair Kristin Peet was willing to remain as Chair and that Shelby Rousseau was interested in continuing to serve as Vice-Chair if that pleased the council. If there were others interested in that responsibility, they could certainly entertain a motion.

Chair A motion was made by Mr. Ward to accept the nomination of Kristin Peet as Chair and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Nominations ceased.

Vote: unanimous in favor Kristin Peet elected Chair.

Vice-Chair A motion was made by Mrs. Peet to accept the nomination of Shelby Rousseau as Vice-Chair and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Nominations ceased.

Vote: unanimous in favor Shelby Rousseau elected Vice-Chair.

V. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Ch. 5 rules Steve Powell Wildlife Management Area (Swan Island)

Mr. Webb stated the proposal was to adjust Chapter 5 rules to update them and reflect that we were moving to a self-access model for Swan Island. We would also be removing the requirement for reservations for camping. A public hearing was held, and no members of the public attended, and no written comments were received. We had met with the town; from the Department's perspective we were happy with the rule as written.

Mr. Kemper stated the Department had 69 wildlife management areas (WMAs) in Maine. Swan Island had long been a unique one. For years we had done public transport back and forth to the island. In 2022 the Coast Guard determined we werent in a position to do that. We didnt have a licensed Coast Guard captain; we didnt have a licensed boat and we had to stop that activity. We decided to bring Swan Island into alignment with the other WMAs that did not require reservations, transportation or a fee to access it. We met extensively with the town and assured them we would still be involved but hoped the private sector would step up and provide opportunity for transportation to the island.

There were no further questions or comments.

Mrs. Rousseau stated it seemed pretty straightforward and asked if the proposal could be moved to Step 3 for adoption.

Mr. Webb stated we would be supportive of that.

There were no further questions or comments, and a motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to move the proposal to Step 3. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Vote: Unanimous proposal moved to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Pineau to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: Unanimous in favor motion passed.

2. Moose permit allocations 2023

Mr. Kantar stated we held a public hearing with 8 people attending. A public meeting was also held on behalf of Senator Jackson in Fort Kent with approximately 5 people attending. Similar comments were heard at both meetings. Combining management districts, he had heard from one individual that wanted to be able to both deer hunt and moose hunt.

Mr. Webb stated we had received a formal comment from the MPGA about the concept of lumping several of the WMDs. There was concern that by combining those WMDs there could be increased hunting pressure in some of those zones. Most of the comments and discussion at the hearing focused on the proposed change of the cow hunt to the third week of October instead of the fourth week as it had been for several years, and also the proposal to establish three, 2-week seasons for the adaptive hunt. Concerns regarding the cow hunt were about timing and guides being able to accommodate the change in their schedule and for the 4A seasons there was concern about getting too late into the fall and early winter with snow conditions. Also concern with reduced effort with the second week and hunters not utilizing the season.

Mr. Kantar stated there were some very strong comments with the structure of the proposed adaptive hunt season. Swapping the cow hunt, it appeared they might accept that for the 2024 season. The adaptive hunt, the result was unknown. He thought it was important that everyone listened to what the public wanted, and the proposal was amended to go back to the previous season framework and offer a 4th week so that anyone that hunted the first 3 weeks and did not harvest a moose could come back the 4th week. The bottom line was this was a short season and the difficult part with the adaptive hunt was it was a scientific endeavor that was being put out as a general hunt.

Mr. Webb stated the amended proposal recommended reverting back to the regular timing for the cow hunt, so it would be the last week of October. We believed the proposal to combine some of the districts had merit. We had used that approach successfully in the past in WMDs 27 and 28, so our recommendation was to move forward with those changes and engage public feedback for potential to revisit it next year. The adaptive hunt was amended to go back to the 3-week season with the additional 4th week where any of the permit holders could come back. The IFW legislative committee unanimously passed a resolve that directed the Department to establish a stakeholder group to review the issue of moose season timing, hunter conflicts and other users on the landscape and report back to them during the next session. That may reflect on next years rulemaking. It was an issue we were hearing more about, a lot of people doing a lot of things on the landscape in October.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Ward stated he thought the Department did well by listening to the public and amending the proposal. He was still advocating for a December hunt.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he felt the same, the proposal showed the Department was listening to the public.

Mr. Pineau stated he felt the Department reacted well to the comments. It was an evolving thing.

Mrs. Peet asked Colonel Scott if there were any concerns with the 4th week for enforcement.

Colonel Scott stated his staff had been in communication with resource management and they would be all set.

Mr. Webb stated if the Council was supportive the amended proposal could be moved to Step 3 for adoption.

There were no further questions or comments, and a motion was made by Mr. Ward to move the proposal to Step 3. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Peet.

Vote: Unanimous proposal moved to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Pineau to accept the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite.

Vote: Unanimous proposal accepted as amended.

C. Step 1

1. Furbearer Rules

Mrs. Webb stated this was the annual furbearer rulemaking. We just had some very minor changes for Chapter 17 related to the beaver closures list. We were proposing to amend the list which would impact WMDs 17 and 23. There was a removal in the town of Charleston, a removal in the town of Freedom, and two additions, one in Searsmont and one in Waldo. This was at the landowners request to close beaver trapping and certain sections of towns. There were also other management reasons why we might close a section to maintain a wetland. A public hearing was scheduled for the end of the month.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Antlerless Deer Permits 2023

Mr. Bieber gave a slide presentation to the group (please contact becky.orff@maine.gov for a copy of the presentation).

Mr. Bieber stated we did a massive overhaul of the deer permit system last year. The primary reason being, the does drive the deer population and its the management of does that allows us to manipulate the population and either move it up or down or stay the same. Traditionally, we had done this using the any-deer permit system. The system was developed in 1986 and a hunter that received a permit essentially had an either sex permit so could harvest a buck or a doe. The permits were distributed through a lottery. Initially, the system worked well but the ability of the system to meet doe harvest objectives eroded over time so that over the past six years we were on average 18% below our doe harvest objective. We compensated by increasing allocations of permits over time but saw diminishing returns on the additional permits being issued. We needed to look for a better path forward to better meet our management objectives.

Mr. Bieber stated the first change we made was to transition from the either sex any-deer permits and began issuing antlerless deer permits. An antlerless permit allows a hunter to take an additional antlerless deer in a designated area. Instead of choosing between a buck or a doe, they could now take a buck and a doe if they wanted. We also instituted a permit fee of $12 plus agent fee for the permits with the money going to the deer management fund so that could be used in efforts to acquire and manage deer habitat. In particular, we were interested in wintering habitat. We also changed the way we dealt with leftover permits after the lottery. We used to go through the lottery and distribute the any-deer permits and whatever was leftover for permits we would distribute as bonus permits. Last year, we decided to take those leftover permits and sell them through the website so people could come on an as needed basis, see where there were permits available and make a choice to purchase a permit in a WMD that they wanted to take another antlerless deer in that WMD. We also limited lottery applicants to selecting two districts for their permit instead of three to increase the likelihood that where they got a permit was going to be an area where they actually wanted to hunt and take an antlerless deer. We also eliminated transfers and swaps of permits. This alleviated administrative burden and felt it was fair giving each hunter one application for a permit.

Mr. Bieber stated the Commissioner was granted authority to designate certain districts as open to either sex hunting on a regular license. This wasnt an authority that had been exercised, but it would allow the Department to choose a district and allow a hunter to take a buck or a doe. That approach did not rely on permits so it would reach out to the people who were not applying for permits. Just over half of hunters applied in the lottery. We also changed the way hunters could take an antlerless deer without a permit. Previously, it was tied to whether or not permits were issued in a WMD. If permits were issued in a district and hunters during the regular archery season or the youth season would be able to take an antlerless deer without a permit. Now, we manually designate which districts allowed hunters to do that.

Mr. Bieber stated the last change that was made was to Superpack permits. Previously, WMDs that had 2,500 or more permits had some percentage made available as Superpack permits. That threshold was lowered to 2,000 permits to account for the fact that we would overall be issuing fewer permits with the antlerless system.

Mr. Bieber discussed the harvest numbers for 2022. There was a 12.4% increase in total harvest. We gained harvest in most WMDs. The total doe harvest was 13,883 which was near our objective.

Mr. Bieber stated the customer experience with the changes, most of the negative feedback we received was related to the system to buy permits on the website. One of the things that caused a problem were the permits that were not claimed and paid for within the 30-day time frame, leftover permits. Some people were getting two permits in a district while others in the same district got none. We also had some districts with a small number of permits available to buy through the website and we had people lining up online to get a permit and there were only a few available which resulted in some unhappy people. Long-term, our preference would be for people to enter their payment information up front, that way when they were selected in the lottery they would be charged and there wouldnt be any unpaid permits. That would remove the situation of some getting two permits while others got none and would also get rid of there being permits available in some districts where there were just a few leftover. We were not able to implement that for this years drawing, so we would be allocating slightly more permits in WMDs to make up for the fact that there would be unpaid permits, and then whatever permits were unpaid would remain unpaid and would not be sold through the website.

Mr. Bieber discussed the proposed permit allocations. Another thing to factor in for this year was a change that came through the legislative committee to institute a two-day youth hunt which would be a Friday, Saturday hunt. That factored into the permit recommendations in a few WMDs such as 27 where youth hunting was extremely popular, but it was a fairly low permit district, so we had to tailor recommendations to the fact we were adding an additional Friday. The reason we had to account for that with permit recommendations was because we were also proposing that youth hunters be able to take an antlerless deer without a permit on both of the youth days. The recommended total number of permits was 108,070 which was inflated by about 4%-5% to deal with the unpaid permits. Relatively stable, but a slight increase in permits for 2023. The subunits were still in place, it was intended these be in place for at least 5 years before reevaluating them. Next year would be year five. They were instituted to put some additional permits in areas experiencing high levels of deer human conflict in WMDs 25 and 26, subunits 25a and 26a.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Gawtry discussed the changes in the permit system last year. There were many variables as part of a new launch process, but there was some very impressive work done.

There were no further questions or comments.

VI. Other Business

1. Legislation Update

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the session had been a lot of work. We had 65 bills assigned to the Committee as well as bills in other committees that we were working on. The bills of interest were challenging going between multiple committees. He discussed the crossbow bill which was 11 pages long working to change the description of archery equipment. He was surprised at the lack of public comment on the bill, there was no one at the public hearing besides the Department.

Mrs. Theriault stated the Committee hoped to have the bills voted out by the end of May, and once the legislature wrapped up, we would know the effective date of laws that had passed. She gave an overview and summary of bills we had been working on.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Pineau discussed public input on bills and asked about bills related to PFAS.

Mrs. Theriault stated DEP normally took the lead on PFAS related bills, and IFW was also monitoring those and giving input. There had been multiple bills on PFAS.

Mr. Ward asked about LD 379 An Act to Responsibly Regulate Recreational Boats on Maine Lakes.

Mrs. Theriault stated the Committee voted ought to pass as amended, and they wanted the Department to look at studies that had already been done on wake boats and come back with a summary and some recommendations. They wanted the Department to create a stakeholder group with multiple organizations.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the Department testified in favor of the study review. Studies had already been conducted and we wanted to look at them collectively and make recommendations. That was what put the stakeholder group together. We needed to better understand the situation on the water across the U.S., what studies had been done, what were the concerns, were they appropriate studies, were they done well and then better inform legislation going forward.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he had an upcoming lake association meeting, where was the wake boat issue heading?

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there was the study moving forward, then a minority report to potentially regulate them this season, 500 feet from shore, 20 feet of water.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated they took in water from the lake and if they went on multiple lakes and they pumped it back out, ff there were invasive plants there that was a big spreader.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there were also the "clean, drain, dry" bills going forward with potential for coming up with a proposal for the upcoming season.

Mrs. Theriault discussed other bills before the Committee including the range safety bill, it was a resolve for a firearm range safety working group and was very specific to a shooting range in York County. The Department was not supportive of the range safety working group, but we would try and work with the individuals there to try and make some modifications.

Mr. Duchesne stated one thing that had been universally true was when the Committee didnt know what to do, a study group or working group was always the solution. The worst thing was the people that got the results probably had left the Committee one term later. All that work and it fell on new eyes that didnt understand why it was asked for in the first place.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Plan for new IFW HQ Presentation

A slide presentation was given (please contact becky.orff@maine.gov ) for a copy of the presentation.

Commissioner Camuso stated we had a proposal for new building in the Legislature. Our current building was not functional and lacked proper storage and there was no place for necropsy work, etc. The goals for the new building were to consolidate offices and storage facilities. She wanted to have the building in a place that would allow for outdoor access so we could have trails and conduct workshops. The new building would house staff from the Water Street location and the fish health lab. We would get rid of the Federal Street location for additional consolidation. We would have less facilities and it should improve communication and reuse and make better use of our space. Regional offices would still remain, the new office would house those in Augusta and some that worked in Bangor. The particular location we were looking at was on the same campus as other natural resource agencies (DMR, DEP and ACF) and would allow for proper storage and necropsy work. There would be more opportunity for education both indoors and outdoors. It had access to the Kennebec River with a hand carry boat launch and there was an existing dock and fishing pier with guaranteed parking for the state. She discussed the plans and models for what the new building would look like. It would reuse an existing historic facility that was currently there and in need of upgrades. This was identified in the states master plan to have all the natural resource agencies co-located. There were also conference rooms at the east campus that would be available to staff. The budget request was for $41 million.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Pineau asked if we had considered solar panels for the roof.

Mr. Parker stated we were currently at the conceptual stages. We were going to be requesting a lot of the services such as solar and energy efficient heat pumps, but it would come down to what fit the budget and the project. We would be asking those questions once the design was completed.

Commissioner Camuso stated we envisioned it being LED certified with as many energy efficiencies as we could.

Mr. Cowperthwaite asked what the timeframe would be.

Mr. Parker stated if it was approved in the budget, it would be approximately 5 years before we could move in.

VII. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

Clair Perry wrote a comment in the chat feature of Teams I appreciate all of our Advisory Board members and the work that you do. I want you to know this, but I need to say...(and to ask): "As a landowner/member of a stakeholder group in the past, (Hound Dog Trespass Bill ) ...I found the laughter of some of the members regarding "Stakeholder-Groups a bit perplexing. Why the laughter ?" Thank you.

Mr. Duchesne stated if that was in reference to the laughter they did earlier when he was making comments about the legislative process, it wasnt about stakeholder groups that he was laughing, it was about the Legislature.

Commissioner Camuso stated Mr. Duchesne was a representative on our legislative committee for several years and chair for three years.

Mr. Duchesne stated his comment was if the Legislature didnt know what to do it usually punted to a study group or stakeholder group and then the information came back to new people who werent there when they first asked for it, so the process was a little flummoxed, and that was the source of the laughter.

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, June 20th at 9:30am at IFW, Augusta.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
June 20, 2023 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)


Attending:
Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries Division Director
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Kory Whittum, Fisheries Planner
Dakota Stankowski, Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristin Peet (Chair) - via Teams
Ed Pineau via Teams
Jennifer Geel via Teams
Eric Ward
Al Cowperthwaite

Bob Duchesne
Tony Liguori

Roger Grant


GUESTS
4 in person
5 additional staff and public online


I. Call to Order

Kristin Peet, Council Chair, requested that Mr. Duchesne chair the meeting as she was attending virtually. Mr. Duchesne called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

Introductions were made.

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Ward to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Liguori.

Vote: unanimous in favor minutes approved.

V. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Furbearer Rules

Mr. Webb stated this was the annual furbearer rule proposal which consisted of changes to the beaver closures. These were in response to landowner requests. The proposal was to remove closures in portions of WMDs 17 and 23 and add a couple of closures in WMD 23. A public hearing was held on May 30th with no members of the public attending. The comment deadline was June 9th and no written comments were received. The Department was recommending moving forward with the original proposal.

There were no further questions or comments, and a motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to move the proposal to Step 3. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Vote: Unanimous proposal moved to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Vote: Unanimous in favor motion passed.

2. Antlerless Deer Permits 2023

Mr. Webb stated there were no substantial changes from last year. We were recommending a 12% increase to the total number of permits statewide. That was primarily due to the mild winter we had experienced. A handful of WMDs in the northern part of the state that were closed to harvest were issued a few permits. There was a bill working its way through the legislature, LD 482 which directed the Department to establish a 2-day youth hunt beginning in 2023. This would be the Friday and Saturday prior to the resident only day. The rule proposal also included that change. The bill had passed the House and Senate and was waiting for the Governor's signature. It was an emergency bill and would become effective once signed. Mr. Bieber, the deer biologist, did an extensive analysis looking at potential antlerless harvest across the state and he and the regional biologist felt comfortable allowing youth on both days to harvest an antlerless deer statewide. The same applied for archery hunting. A public hearing was held on June 1st with no members of the public in attendance. The comment deadline was June 12th and no written comments were received. The Department was not recommending any changes to the proposal and was ready to move forward if the Council agreed.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Ward commented that it would be all WMDs for youth days and archery?

Mr. Webb stated Mr. Bieber had taken a close look and the harvest of antlerless deer on youth day was essentially very low.

Commissioner Camuso stated that swaps and transfers had also been eliminated. We were still trying to promote youth hunting.

Mr. Duchesne stated a constituent commented to him there were no does in WMD 18.

Mr. Webb stated we had not received any public comments.

Mr. Ward asked if we had looked at bordering states when formulating the lottery.

Mr. Webb stated the system we had previously that allowed hunters to shoot a doe instead of a buck, he was not aware of any other states that had a system like that. The system we currently had in place was very similar to what other states were doing.

Mr. Liguori asked what the maximum number of antlerless permits an individual could get.

Mr. Webb stated aside from expanded archery permits, you could get one antlerless permit in the lottery and then there would be extra permits (those not issued in the lottery) and those would be available for purchase, one per person. Depending on the sale a second round may be offered. There was potential for two permits. The number of people harvesting two deer was very low.

There were no further questions or comments, and a motion was made by Mr. Liguori to move the proposal to Step 3. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite.

Vote: Unanimous proposal moved to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Ward to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite.

Vote: Unanimous in favor motion passed.

C. Step 1

1. Ch. 1 & 1-A Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2024

Mr. Brautigam discussed the handouts that had been provided to the Council on the rule proposals.


Under Chapter 1-A, State Heritage Fish Waters (SHFW) we were proposing the following additions and removals; Beck Pond, (Somerset Co), proposed for removal from the SHFW list and remove special regulations; Big Indian Pond, (Piscataquis Co), proposed for addition to the list


Under Chapter 1, Open Water and Ice Fishing Regulations we were proposing the following in the various categories...

Special Need (2 waters)


4. Burnt Land Lake, (Hancock Co) Add S-33 Establish a maximum length limit (25") for salmon and brown trout to prevent accidental harvest of federally listed sea-run salmon. We used the S-33 around the state on waters where our resident salmon and brown trout could not exceed 25. There was a sea-run salmon caught there last year so that prompted the rule change.
5. Moosehead Lake, (Piscataquis Co) Clarify that open water fishing is also prohibited in areas currently closed to winter angling to protect spawning/staging brook trout.
North Zone Bass Management (14 waters) - Remove special regulations intended to enhance bass populations on North Zone waters

6. North Zone General Law (no size of bag on BSS) was changed in 2018 to support management of BSS as an invasive fish in northern Maine
7. Invasives are managed by the Department so as to not promote, popularize, or enhance their sportfish value
8. Current 14 North Zone waters with existing special regs intended to enhance BSS populations are inconsistent with management of BSS as an invasive in the North Zone.

Errors, Conflicts, and Confusion (4 waters) designate 4 waters split by the North/South management zones as South Zone and managed under South Zone General Law

9. East Grand, Crowell Pond, Carlton Pond & Sucker Lake
10. At East Grand the 5 BKT bag limit will be retained

Clarification RE: fishing for Endangered & Threatened Species (change to general laws page) - Add language prohibiting fishing for Redfin Pickerel & Swamp Darters

11. On General Law Page No size or bag limit for "Inland species not listed
12. Although State listed E&T species are already prohibited from take they are not currently listed on the General Law page



Recreational Baitfish and Smelt Clarification (Reorganize + clarification to pages 51-52 of printed law book)

13. Smelt are not a baitfish as defined, but are legal bait
14. Smelt may not be harvested in baitfish traps
15. Consolidating existing smelt harvest statutory language (definitions page 2 - 3) into a single place in lawbook (smelt/baitfish section page 52-53)

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mrs. Peet stated it was a conflicted goal of managing bass in the south and as an invasive in the north.

Mr. Brautigam stated in the south zone we recognized bass as a sport fish and had minimum length and bag limits and sometimes special regulations to enhance those fishing resources. We also supported bass tournament fishing, promoted bass fishing, we talked about it in a positive way in the south zone. Part of the reason is they were pretty much widespread throughout the entire south zone. The Department felt an obligation to manage that as a resource. In the northern part of the state, they were starting to creep into northern Maine, but had not established the distribution as they had in the south. In the interest to try and conserve our native coldwater fisheries in the northern part of the state, we felt compelled, and it was expressed in our fisheries strategic plan that we manage them as an invasive species in that part of the state. They would have a significant impact on our ability to manage for coldwater fish in the long term.

Mrs. Peet asked if we felt the public understood the difference and the seriousness of keeping them out of the north.

Mr. Brautigam stated we were working on messaging. In 2018 we started that conversation going to no size or bag limit on bass in the north zone. We had a new position for an invasive aquatic coordinator, Dakota Stankowski, so we were hoping to do more through public outreach and awareness as it related to aquatic invasives.

Mr. Liguori stated they were slowly creeping in the north, did that mean people were bringing them there and releasing them?

Mr. Brautigam stated yes. We also had a lot of dams in Maine and they made great fish barriers. It was limited upstream movement of bass. Most of what we were seeing were deliberate illegal introductions.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Ch. 2 Bass Tournament/Fishing Derby rules

Mr. Brautigam stated Chapter 2 contained all the rules pertaining to commercial fishing, fish culture, derbies and bass tournaments. We were proposing changes concerning derbies and bass tournaments.
Mr. Brautigam discussed the handout from the packet.


Fishing Derby Rule Updates (Section 2.04) create consistency with other Department regulated events (Bass Tournaments)

16. Clarify events cannot obstruct ingress or egress of public water access sites.
17. Add authority for the Commissioner to place conditions on derbies.
18. Require participants to complete aquatic plant self-inspections before launching and after retrieving

Bass Tournament Rule Updates (Sections 2.05, 2.06, and 2.07) simplify and consolidate existing rules, capture items as rule that are currently being applied as permit conditions and incorporate strategic planning and other administrative needs.

19. Consolidate redundant requirements (special possession limits, use of livewell, etc) for each type of tournament events (opens, club, multiday)
20. Continue to allow the 7 weigh-in tournaments per year, whether a club or open event.
21. Eliminate special Penobscot River rules and regulate under statewide process.
22. Require clubs to have at least 5 members + provide contact information for all members (when not affiliated with a national bass organization)
23. Add existing permit conditions to rule: Each club must have 2 trained aquatic plant inspectors & must perform inspections before and after the event.
24. Require self-inspections for aquatic invasive species when pre-fishing and boats fishing after the event,
25. Eliminate differential maximum number of boats for club vs. open and apply 1 boat per 35 acres for all one-day events.
26. Prohibit all bass tournaments in the North Zone create consistency managing bass as an invasive fish in North Zone
27. Clarify that events cannot obstruct ingress or egress of public water access sites
28. Youth events: will now require a permit but fee will be waived

Council Member Questions and Comments
Mr. Liguori asked if there was a specific training program for aquatic plant inspectors.

Mr. Brautigam stated the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) managed training opportunities through a grant program. It was the same training received by courtesy boat inspectors. DEP provided the training. They would receive a card once they completed the training.

Mr. Duchesne asked how we would enforce the self-inspections.

Mr. Brautigam stated we would have a list of the participants to know who should be inspecting as a part of the event. If there was some concern about pre-fishing warden service could have a presence there and work down through the list. We were hoping to create self-responsibility and accountability and trying to integrate clean, drain, dry practices through all the activities we regulated.

Mr. Duchesne stated it put some responsibility on the club as well to help manage it.

Mr. Brautigam stated it did, the clubs understood the importance of the issue.

Mr. Ward asked if tournaments could be held in the north if the fish couldnt be released.

Mr. Brautigam stated we had informed bass tournament organizers that if they wanted to convene an event it would have to be catch and kill for bass. We gave them the opportunity multiple times and they did not like it.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he lived on Nickerson Lake, and it didnt have bass in the 1980s and now they were all over. His grandchildren caught 25 in one day. They were certainly impacting the cold-water fishery.

There were no further questions or comments.

VI. Other Business

Commissioner Camuso stated at the next meeting she would like have Liz Thorndike give the Council a presentation on the project she was doing in the Rangeley Lakes region tagging fish.
Regarding the legislature, most of the bills before our Committee were done, we were just waiting for the budget to be finalized.

Mr. Ward stated he had a question regarding LD 1319 operate a watercraft without a guide license working for a seasonal business. Would that affect someone conducting moose watching trips, or was it more like a school?

Commissioner Camuso stated this was specifically around a couple of businesses in the Sebago area that were taking people waterskiing. They had a business; people were paying them, and they were transporting them in the boat. The bill was carried over to the next session. She did not think people thought of a registered Maine guide as a person that was taking you on a waterski loop. It did technically meet the definition, however. One of the holdovers was to have a group review the definition and when it would or should not apply.

Mr. Ward stated it was a concern for people driving vans on woods roads. He also had a question regarding the bill for a second week for moose hunting in WMDs 7 and 8.

Commissioner Camuso stated there were several carry over bills that instructed us to convene working groups. A group would be reviewing the moose season framework, success rates, etc.

There were no further questions or comments.

VII. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

Gary Corson stated he had questions for Mr. Brautigam. For the north zone bass, did the proposal completely take care of that? Were there any outliers in the northern zone where we would continue having special regulations on bass.

Mr. Brautigam stated we should have captured all 14 of them in the packet.

Gary Corson stated Beck Pond, the information we had on the pond was there any of it that came from King & Bartlett?

Mr. Brautigam stated the regional biologist, Liz Thorndike, prepared the summary. Whatever information she had based on her records, he did not know if she had spoken with the Thurstons more recently.

Gary Corson stated the pond used to be their go to pond for big fish.

Mr. Brautigam stated he thought that was why it initially made the list. People assumed it was a viable existing self-sustained population and it was hydraulically connected to other waters that have wild populations. The thought was there might have been movement of fish between Beck and it was not the case. Stocking had been suspended. Whatever was there for brook trout was no longer there.

Christa Rose stated she offered a comment about Eastern puma recovery during the March meeting. She wanted to follow up and update everyone on the puma initiative that continues to develop in the northeast. She was representing herself, and people could learn more about her at northeasternpumaproject.net. There were a handful of groups working on puma recovery that had begun speaking with one another and messaging out to the public. Four of the groups were represented at the northeast natural history conference in Burlington. Two of them had generated peer review research on habitat stability corridors throughout the eastern U.S. The second event was a symposium on rewilding North American species at the NEAFWA conference in Hershey. The cougar research collaborative gave four talks during the symposium including on the social science aspect of cougar recovery. There was some high level and good quality work begin done exploring puma recovery east of current breeding populations out west, and just raising awareness among the groups. Before moving forward, they needed to engage state wildlife agencies and those that managed habitat. They were talking about ecological recovery and strengthening our natural systems. If pumas came to Maine, they could establish here, there was good viable habitat here. The people in the room were important, and the people in Maine were important so she wanted to bring it to their attention again.

Larry Bastian stated he was representing the Native Fish Coalition. He asked Mr. Brautigam about the addition of Big Indian Pond to the state heritage fish waters list, were there surveys and additional native to support that addition other than not been stocked, angler counts, etc.

Mr. Brautigam stated we had a lot of voluntary records from that water body. A lot of history and diaries. A long history of active fishing there. Ordinarily we would set gill nets on a lot of the waters to ensure brook trout were there and not just rely on angler reports. The history of record keeping was so strong there it didnt warrant that type of sample.

Clair Perry wrote a comment in the chat feature of Teams Would it be possible to announce on your IF&W website, any Advisory Board positions that become open and also announce nominees as they are chosen with a run-down for the public to learn about who they are: Hometown, business (if any) sportsman organization affiliations (if any) and why they would like to serve on this board, etc. I ask, because it is hard currently for the public to comment at the hearing when they have none of this information made available to them. Thank you.

Commissioner Camuso stated the process was handled through the Governors office; the seats were appointed by the Governor. The division of Boards and Commissions handled the process. We made recommendations to the Governor and the Governor ultimately selected the candidate.

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, August 8th at 9:30am at IFW, Augusta.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Ward and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
September 19, 2023 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)

 

Attending:

Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Dan Scott, Warden Service Colonel
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries & Hatcheries
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Kory Whittum, Fisheries Planner
Cindy Rego, Warden Service Secretary
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristin Peet (Chair)
Shelby Rousseau (vice-chair)
Tony Liguori
Roger Grant
Eric Ward
Jennifer Geel - via Teams
Al Cowperthwaite via Teams
Bob Duchesne via Teams
Ed Pineau via Teams
Mike Gawtry via Teams


GUESTS
Gary Corson, New Sharon
2 additional staff and/or public online

 

I. Call to Order

Kristin Peet, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

Introductions were made.

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mrs. Rousseau to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Vote: unanimous in favor minutes approved.

V. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

1. Ch. 1 & 1-A Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2024

Mr. Brautigam stated at Step 2 we had talked about some minor revisions to the fishing regulations packet in response to public comment received. Following discussion with staff and the Attorney General's office the Commissioner was ready to move forward with some changes to the original packet. Under Chapter 1 and 1A there was only one amendment for consideration and that was related to East Grand Lake. The amendment was in response to public comment and concern that individuals would not be able to ice fish until the end of April. We addressed the issue by adopting a "B" code which established a fishing season that ran from January 1 April 30th. Looking at that and the definition of ice fishing shacks, it would allow people to ice fish until the end of April. There were no other amendments proposed to the original packet.

Mrs. Peet stated this was a nice effort to respond to public comment.

A motion was made by Mr. Ward to adopt the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Liguori.

Vote: unanimous in favor motion passed

2. Ch. 2 Bass Tournament/Fishing Derby rule

Mr. Brautigam stated Chapter 2 covered bass tournaments and fishing derbies. Most of the revisions being considered were clarifications with one exception. The first was to clarify that no bass tournaments or fishing derbies could be managed in a way that it would interfere with access to a boat launch facility. When the original language was advertised, there was concern that the organizations would not be able to convene an event there. We wanted to clarify the expectation that you could convene the event provided you didn't interfere with normal launching and retrieving of boats. The second clarification related to the requirement for watercraft inspections. We had become complacent referring to them as "plant" or "weed" inspections, we wanted to broaden the understanding of aquatic invasive species. In places of the proposal where it mentioned the term "aquatic plant" we were replacing that with the term "aquatic species."

Mr. Brautigam stated we also received comments that because we structured the prohibition on bass tournaments in the north zone with county line descriptions, that was not entirely in line with how some of the rivers were defined. We had some rivers that transcended the north/south line. We moved away from describing the north zone by counties and basically referenced that any of the bass tournaments that were not permitted were those that occured in the north zone general law. Those waters in our law book, we list waters as north zone or south zone. If they were listed as north zone, those were the waters that were in effect. The one exception/clarification was in response to concern by the organized bass fishing community that there were some popular high use waters in more of the southern tier of the north zone and we were proposing to exempt five (5) waters from the prohibition on bass tournaments. The waters included Indian Pond in St. Albans; Great Moose in Athens; Schoodic Lake in Brownville; Sebec in Bowerbank and Wesserunsett in Madison. In addition, we were offering a clarification. In the general law of the north zone there was no size or bag limit on bass. Ordinarily in the south zone when bass tournaments were convened the participants were required to maintain the bass in good health, maintain aeration flow through systems and release the fish alive. In the north zone, we were not requiring folks to keep the bass alive, they could harvest the fish if they so desired. The rule amendment would provide that extra clarification on those 5 waters listed as exemptions.

Mr. Brautigam stated the last clarification related to different types of events, weigh-in tournaments. We had club events and we also had open tournaments. On the Maine, New Hampshire border they were allowed up to ten (10) weigh-in events. We had previously limited a number of open tournaments to four (4). Similar to what we had done on all the other events in other parts of the state, we were basically not defining how many events you could have. We were now saying you could have the seven (7) that was allowed in most of the state, and on the ME/NH border you could have ten (10). There were no further changes being proposed to the original packet.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Liguori asked how we defined invasive aquatic species.

Mr. Brautigam stated we had a general definition in our strategic management plan. There was not a specific list. By law, you were not allowed to have anything that was a plant on your boat or trailer. The hope was with the new law in effect requiring draining of watercraft to eliminate any other aquatic life. We would like to broaden the messaging and encourage more responsible behaviors.

Mrs. Peet asked if these were self-inspections or was someone there that would know what to look for.

Mr. Brautigam stated for the organized events they were required to have certain plant inspectors that had been trained. For any pre-fishing prior to the events, we were requiring self-inspections in those instances.

Commissioner Camuso asked Mr. Brautigam to discuss zebra mussels.

Mr. Brautigam stated we had zebra mussels that were discovered in Quebec on the Quebec/New Brunswick border last fall. Our new invasive species coordinator was there currently implementing a new monitoring plan to look for potential downstream migration of zebra mussels within the drainage. Zebra mussels were very small, and they had a larvae stage that was free swimming. It was not very visible which was part of the reason we were supportive of encouraging people to drain their watercraft in a way that it was not being drained back into the lake. There are some aquatic invasives that were not highly visible and only way to manage those was through promoting "dry." We currently had not confirmed them in the St. John River. There was a lot of traffic moving between New Brunswick, Quebec and Maine so all the provinces and the state were trying to create awareness and encourage people to clean, drain and dry to reduce the risk of spreading introduction of zebra mussels. Other states dealing with those infestations had significant economic impacts because they can fully clog intake and outlets associated with municipal treatment systems; they'll clog outboard motors and more importantly, they can significantly change the ecology of the waters of the state by completely dominating the landscape.

Mrs. Peet asked about eradication methods.

Mr. Brautigam stated he did not believe there was a safe chemical that could be applied in a way that didn't have broader ecological impacts. It was all about containment and limiting the spread.

There were no further questions or comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Liguori to adopt the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: Nine (9) in favor; One (1) opposed (Mr. Ward) motion passed

B. Step 2

There were no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

There were no items under Step 1.

VI. Other Business

1. Federal audit findings re: grant monies

Commissioner Camuso stated she wanted to give an update on an article that was in the news around an audit finding that the Department was misusing federal money. Our federal monies are audited every 3 to 5 years. We do charge a grant overhead to our federal grants and those are allowable. This had been done for the last 30 years and we had been audited every 3-5 years and there had never been an issue or a finding. This particular auditor noticed it first with DMR and they charged the same overhead rate which was 27%-30%. They found that to be too high, but there was no federal guidance that says what you can or cannot charge. Some states charge anywhere between 7% and 80%. It was a completely allowable charge and the auditor's issue was primarily with what the percentage was rather than the fact it was a legal activity. We did not anticipate any outcomes rather than moving forward the USFWS may set parameters around what the rate of overhead you could charge.

Commissioner Camuso stated she sat on the national grants committee which was a committee that oversees money that the USFWS puts into multi-state grants. The USFWS allocated the money to be awarded to projects supporting multiple states. On the committee, they discussed putting guidelines around the indirect rate people could charge. People applying for grants, some were partners or state agencies and the guidance the USFWS gave to the grants committee was they could not dictate what another entity's indirect rate was, that was not legal. Some of the grants apply and people were charging 50%-70% overhead and that was legal.

Commissioner Camuso stated she just wanted to assure the council that nothing had changed, we had been doing this process for decades. This had been the most challenging audit we had. Other states had the same experience to the extent that the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies wrote a letter of complaint to the USFWS stating the auditor was disrespectful, unprofessional and basically a list of challenges that the state's experienced with this particular auditor. A separate entity is contracted to do the audit outside of government. We did not anticipate any further action.

There were no further comments or questions.

VII. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

Mr. Overlock stated we had received a report from the district warden Downeast about some eels showing up dead in someone's trap who was harvesting eels for scientific research in the St. Croix River. He had been doing this for years and it was abnormal to see the eels dying in the traps. We took a sample of the eels to our fish health lab in Augusta for analysis. Preliminary results showed a heavy load of a gill parasite, gill lice was at least a factor in the mortality. We were not seeing this in other species. There was another location approximately 13 miles upstream within the drainage where we also saw some mortality and we were trying to retrieve a sample there as well. We were coordinating with DMR and DEP, the Passamaquoddy tribe and New Brunswick. For now it appeared to be localized and related to a parasite issue. These were adult eels that were migrating out to sea to spawn.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

There were no public comments or questions.

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The Council would be notified of the next meeting date at a later time. There was no anticipated rulemaking for the near future.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Ward and that was seconded by Mrs. Peet to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
August 8, 2023 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)

Attending:
Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Dan Scott, Warden Service Colonel
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Jen Vashon, Game Management Section Supervisor
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries & Hatcheries
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Liz Thorndike, Fisheries Resource Supervisor
Kory Whittum, Fisheries Planner
Dakota Stankowski, Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristin Peet (Chair)
John Neptune
Roger Grant
Eric Ward
Al Cowperthwaite
Bob Duchesne - via Teams
Ed Pineau via Teams
Mike Gawtry via Teams
Shelby Rousseau (vice-chair) via Teams


GUESTS
3 in person
9 additional staff and public online


I. Call to Order

Kristin Peet, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

Introductions were made.

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Vote: eight (8) in favor; one (1) abstained (Mr. Neptune) minutes approved.

V. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Ch. 1 & 1-A Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2024 &
2. Ch. 2 Bass Tournament/Fishing Derby rule

Mr. Brautigam stated the public comment period had closed and a public hearing was held. During the public hearing we had about 16 members of the public that provided testimony. A summary of the comments had been provided to the Council, and Mr. Brautigam went over the highlights. During the public hearing most of the comments were provided by members of the organized bass fishing community and they had more of a concern particularly with the prohibition of bass tournaments in the north zone. There were 43 written comments received, and about 21% of those were not germane to the packet. The written comments focused on north zone bass tournament rules, the north zone special bass regulations and state heritage fish waters. Mr. Brautigam went over the comment highlights by theme in the proposal.

The bass tournament rules, there were people both for and against the rule packet. Those in favor recognized these were positive steps to protect our coldwater fish in the north zone. There was also support for some of the permit conditions which would require inspectors to ensure that aquatic invasive species (AIS) were not being transported. For those in opposition there was sentiment in terms of lost local opportunities to participate in competitive bass fishing in the north zone. There were also questions raised the way we had characterized the prohibition of bass tournaments in the north zone. We referenced the counties that were affected, and we have a number of waters that straddle the north/south zone. We also had river reaches that also straddled the north zone. There were a number of waters in the south zone we managed under south zone general law with portions of the area in the north zone. Comments also discussed charity work the organized bass tournaments provided, approximately 5% of the bass tournament permits occurred in the north zone. For some of the clubs it represented a significant percentage of the waters they actively fished. During the public hearing there seemed to be confusion over the intent of the prohibitions on the bass fishing tournaments. Their focus was our intent was to reduce bass populations, and it didn't have anything do with reducing bass populations. It was trying to create broader messaging regarding risk associated with promoting and conserving bass where they posed a threat to managing cold water fisheries and to not support activities that may create incentives for people to establish new bass populations.

There were 14 proposed changes to the special regulations to bass waters in the north zone. We had public comment both for and against the proposals. Those in support recognized enhancing bass in a part of the state where the Department was managing bass as an invasive species was inconsistent. We also had public comment indicating a desire to increase harvest of bass in those waters where they currently could not, or harvest was limited. It was pretty clear those opposed to removing the special bass regulations expressed frustration with the treatment of bass as an invasive in the north zone. That was clearly stated in our statewide fisheries strategic plan that bass were to be managed as invasive in the north zone because of the threat they posed to our native coldwater fisheries.

Mr. Brautigam stated the last item he would highlight related to East Grand Lake. That was one of the waters that straddled the north/south zone and we had proposed to manage that under the south zone. We retained the 5 fish brook trout bag limit that was currently in place, so that there wouldnt be any changes in terms of use opportunity there. In moving that lake to the south zone, the public would not be able to use ice fishing shacks after March 31st and that was something we did not anticipate, and public comment was received suggesting that East Grand often held ice until the end of April and the conditions were such they didnt want to lose the opportunity to use permanent ice shacks through the month of April.

Based on the public input and conversations with staff, there were five areas identified we were looking to make revisions to in the packet. These still were being reviewed by the Attorney Generals office to make sure the changes we were proposing were consistent with the publics opportunity to review the proposed change. Mr. Brautigam had mentioned earlier there were a number of waters that were managed in the south zone that had portions that technically were located in the north zone. We were proposing language to clarify the waters where bass tournaments would be prohibited were waters that we managed under north zone general law. It was a minor technical change but would help clarify the waters being managed were those covered under north zone general law. We were also looking to exempt a few select waters where we had a more recent consistent history of permitted bass tournaments that were more popular. Those would be excluded from the proposed prohibition of bass tournaments in the north zone. Another amendment being considered, when we issued a bass tournament permit (most occurred in the south zone where we were actively managing bass) they were expected to keep the bass alive following the requirements to ensure bass were conserved through the event. Those were not concerns we had for bass in the north zone. We were proposing to add language where club events would not be prohibited from killing bass on waters that were convened in the north zone.

Mr. Brautigam stated another proposed change in the bass tournament rules was related to the launching and retrieving of boats. After the event, there was typically a weigh-in, etc. There were land based ceremonial aspects to the bass tournaments that occurred after the fact. We wanted to make sure when those activities were occurring, they were not interfering with the normal operation of launching and retrieving at the boat ramp. We wanted to clarify that normal launching and retrieving wouldnt be affected by any of the activities associated with managing the bass fishing event.

Finally, we were exploring retention of a B season code which was currently in place at East Grand Lake. The B season code allowed people to ice fish until April 30th which is what we had in place on waters with ice fishing in the north zone. By having that end date of April 30th in conjunction with how our ice fishing/ice shack law was written it would allow people to continue to use ice shacks until the end of April.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Pineau asked about the ceremony after a bass tournament blocking the launch. What would be the penalty and who would be penalized?

Mr. Brautigam stated the purpose of moving this to the permit condition was to give more ability for enforcement. Warden Service would have a role in enforcing the rules.

Commissioner Camuso stated the most likely outcome would be that we would not permit the event the next year. If they were to violate the conditions of the permit and people were complaining they were violating the rule, we would have grounds to not authorize the event the following year.

Mr. Duchesne stated when he read the public comments, it seemed like we were not getting to the real point. We needed to back up to understand why we were doing this. We had to do everything we could to protect our coldwater fisheries. We did this through regulation. Warmwater fisheries contended to compete with that. In southern Maine where there were all kinds of bass that was a fishing resource, but in the northern zone for the most part we did not want warmwater species to become prevalent and certainly not promoted. When you had a charismatic fish there was going to be some pressure to move that around. We needed to drill down to what actions should the state be taking that were not promoting warmwater fisheries in the wrong place. There was some talk about the economic impact of banning some activities, but look at how much coldwater fisheries brought in. That was as much of an economic impact we had a threat to lose if we were not careful. He thought the policy that we didnt promote bass in the north zone was a good one and that we did consider it an invasive species no matter how it got there. He thought the Department was right and needed to drill down on the discussion of why we were doing what we were doing.

Mr. Gawtry referred to the proposed amendment to exempt waters with a recent consistent history. What would the working definition be of recent consistent history of permitted bass tournaments?

Mr. Brautigam stated we had looked at the last 6 years on waters that were supporting more regular events. We had 5 or 6 waters we would consider under that exemption.

Commissioner Camuso stated they were the waters that had multiple tournaments over multiple years.

Mr. Gawtry asked if there was a future consideration by a club looking to gain access to a body of water that was becoming prolific with bass fishing, was there language needed that wed have a proposal process for new waters in the north zone. If we reviewed them and looked at fish populations, and it would be feasible to host a tournament would there be a proposal process put in place.

Commissioner Camuso stated when the proposal was developed, we knew there would be comments from the bass tournament folks. A lot of the comments at the hearing were that they didnt know the proposal was coming, it was a surprise. The Departments strategic planning process was a multi-year process which included members of the bass tournament association. They participated and were aware of the proposal. The recommendation came out of a long public transparent process. After the public comment process and discussion with staff they agreed that if they could grandfather the 5 or 6 waters but would not be considering additional tournaments in the north zone based on the rationale outlined in the Departments strategic fisheries plan. There would not be a process for establishing additional waters. The north zone would be managed for coldwater species and not bass or invasive species. We would remain firm on that but recognize the small number of water bodies that have had historical consistent use, there was good economic support, there was community support for those events. They were all close to what we would consider the south zone, they were kind of in a buffer zone. We wanted to work with the tournament groups to talk about the invasive nature of bass so we could discourage people and have that educational material go out in their tournament information reminding people it was illegal to move fish, we didnt want these invasive species in any other waters in the state, etc.

Mrs. Rousseau stated she thought the proposed modifications would better satisfy people who made negative comments. She thought we were meeting in the middle. Invasive species were a concern, and part of our changing climate and we should be better preparing ourselves.

Mr. Ward stated this was a problem that needed to be addressed and he was glad we were bringing it forward. He had been on Moosehead Lake since he could remember, and the bass had changed everything. They had affected the baitfish and trout and salmon. Something needed to be done, people needed to be held accountable for introducing these invasives. He knew of people that caught bass and moved them around the lake.

Mrs. Peet asked if the Department did anything at the line where the bass were moving north such as harvesting events, etc.

Mr. Brautigam stated there was interest in convening those events, but the challenge was they did not result in any population level reduction. There was no simple solution. We had no size or bag limit in the north zone to encourage harvest where people were interested in doing that.

Mr. Grant stated regarding the parking issue, who had the authority to regulate. Was it local law enforcement or warden service or state police. We could hold the tournament accountable, but they had no authority other than to not hold the tournament again the next year.

Colonel Scott stated if it was in rule that you couldnt block the boat launch during the tournament, then that would be a violation of rule which was a crime. That could be regulated. If someones name was on the permit it would be their responsibility to ensure that didnt occur. He felt the rules around public boat launches through DACF also stated you couldnt permanently block the boat launch. Warden service or local law enforcement could enforce that. When it is specific to the permit and in rule it would be a violation to not clear out of the way.

Mrs. Peet asked about the proposed amendments.

Commissioner Camuso stated the proposed amendments were being reviewed by the Attorney Generals office and if the changes were not considered substantive at Step 3 we would bring the modified proposal forward for a vote.

Mr. Pineau asked what the input was from the bass fishing community and who were they when the rules were being developed.

Commissioner Camuso stated it was not possible to have every club participate on a steering committee. We worked with the Sportsmans Alliance of Maine to designate someone, and our expectation was that they were in communication with other members of their community. There was a representative of a national club, a larger statewide club and one representative of a local club that was out of the Bangor area as well as other members that were non-tournament.

Mr. Pineau stated once the rules were approved the executive summary should reflect who participated from the steering committee to show the Department was all inclusive and the ownness would be on them.

Commissioner Camuso stated throughout these types of processes there was not 100% consensus on everything. She was confident those on the committee had an opportunity to participate, the group in general would have come to consensus on the recommendation. It did not mean every person at the table was in agreement. They should not have been surprised by the rule proposal.

Mr. Brautigam stated for clarity, it wasnt that the plan would specifically say we were going to prohibit bass tournaments in the north zone. It was discussed, the goals were broad, we talked about managing bass as an invasive specie in the north zone and regulating the north zone to discourage illegal introductions, reconcile current inconsistencies with north zone bass management, etc. We couldnt possibly outline every strategy that would be developed to implement the objectives.

Mr. Neptune asked how we would measure if the rules were successful, or how the strategic plan was working. Typically, you would have short term and long-term goals.

Mr. Brautigam stated some of the challenges with this issue and not wanting to see a further spread of bass was there were multiple venues. The rules would have some cumulative benefit, but it was difficult to know to what extent. We were working on developing a tracking system so we could better monitor what we were seeing for changes in bass populations as well as other species around the state. We also needed to work on target messaging to different communities.

Mrs. Peet asked about the spread. Would we ever put stronger language in the lawbook that said for the north zone people were encouraged to lethally remove bass from the lake?

Mr. Brautigam stated we could encourage that, but it may not be meaningful in reducing the population. It was consistent with how we wanted to manage invasives.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated he lived on Nickerson Lake in Linneus and in the 1980s there were no bass in the lake and this summer there were bass nesting near their shoreline and afterwards there were swarms of little bass. There was no way we could create a fishing regulation to keep bass that would do anything with the population because they were so prolific. It was unfortunate they were being introduced into other waters.

Mrs. Rousseau stated a good example was the Rapid River which straddled the north and south zones. It had a lot of bass and over the years IFW strategy was to find a flow that kind of kept the bass at bay. The Department was managing the bass for brook trout because how would you eradicate the bass when it was an open door to the Androscoggin River which was full of them. If we didnt open our eyes it would keep getting worse. The Rapid River was a perfect example of a prime coldwater fishery that was turning the tide because of the crisis were in on a global level.

There were no further questions or comments.

C. Step 1

There were no items under Step 1.

VI. Other Business

1. Fish tagging project

Mr. Brautigam stated Liz Thorndike managed in the Magalloway and was trying to deal with some of the bass issues there. She was the regional fisheries supervisor for the Rangeley Lake area and was involved in a radio telemetry project on the Mooselook Lake drainage. She was there to talk about the project and demonstrate how the tags were implanted in the fish.

Liz Thorndike stated Mooselookmeguntic Lake had been a hotspot for concerns and suggestions the last several years. We proposed new ice fishing regulations, which passed, as the Rangeley Lakes region did not have a lot of ice fishing opportunities. It had been highly successful, and the community was enjoying the ice fishing opportunities. Mooselookmeguntic was part of the Rangeley Lakes chain. The lake was unique because it was the only self-sustaining fishery out of the whole chain. In part, that was because of the miles of spawning nursery habitat. She and Advisory Council member Shelby Rousseau had been hearing concerns about where fish were staging, were they vulnerable, would this have a negative impact on the fishery, etc. There were also requests to open fall fishing and create opportunity. We had an idea where the fish were going, but not which tributary was most important and the exact timing. The community, and Rangeley Lakes Heritage trust along with sportsmans associations stepped up financially to support the tagging project. The goal was to tag 125 fish as it was a big system. Local camp owners, guides, etc. participated in collecting the fish to be tagged. The transmitters were placed internally in the fish. The transmitters varied in size and needed to be within 2-3% of the fishs body weight so they would act normally once back in the water to truly understand when and where the fish were going. Some of the tags would last more than 900 days. If it was a small fish, those may last only 90 days.

Liz Thorndike stated in June they tagged 124 fish. They were tracking the fish weekly and monitored them moving into the next chain down, which was unique. The tag would stay with the fish, they were not retrieved. Each tag had a unique number which referred to a specific fish which we recorded the size and age. If someone caught one of the tagged fish we asked they report it. We could track the fish by boat, plane, sometimes by foot going up the tributaries or paddling.

Ms. Thorndike demonstrated implanting the tag into the fish.

Commissioner Camuso updated the Council on upcoming Department employee appreciation days; antlerless deer permits applications; legislation updates and effective date for new legislation, and new positions within the Department.

VII. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

Gary Corson asked where we were in the process for the fishing regulations and what would come next.

Mr. Brautigam stated we felt the Ch. 2 proposal was probably ready, Ch. 1 and 1-A modifications were being reviewed. The proposal for East Grand to allow an extension to use the ice fishing shacks was being reviewed by the AGs office.

Commissioner Camuso stated if the changes to the proposals were still in line with the original intent of the proposal, the AGs office would approve that and we would go to Step 3. If the AGs office felt the changes were substantive, we would have to readvertise the rule so the public would have the opportunity to review that proposal and comment on it.

Gary Corson stated he was looking at the management plan. The management plan was explicit in saying bass would be managed as an invasive species. If we were going to amend the rule we were actually going against the management plan. It seemed to him we had a hard time protecting the waters in the north zone. Was the amendment resource related, or social?

Commissioner Camuso stated the Department was trying to acknowledge and adhere to the principals outlined in the management plan. We were still going to consider bass an invasive species in the north, but given the community involvement and the desire to maintain that tournament opportunity in a limited number of waters that we would consider "grandfathering" those waters and put a hard line that we were not going to allow any additional tournaments in any other part of the north zone moving forward. There was some recognition of the history but be firm we were not going to manage other waters in this fashion.

Gary Corson stated they could have multiple tournaments on those waters. He did not know what we had to do to get the Department to take care of the wild and native fish.

Larry Bastian stated he was representing the Native Fish Coalition. He concurred with some of the concerns raised by Mr. Corson. They stood behind the comments they submitted earlier and they recognized and supported the Departments effort to implement the management plan. With respect to Beck Pond on the heritage waters, they had made comments on that.

There were no further public comments or questions.

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, September 19th at 9:30am at IFW, Augusta.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Ward and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400
AUGUSTA, ME
(Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams)
please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)


March 6, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.


AGENDA


I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions
IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


V. Rule Making


A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2
There are no items under Step 2.


C. Step 1
1. 2023/24 Migratory bird seasons......Kelsey Sullivan
2. Ch. 16 rules (edits for crossbow/archery equipment)....Nate Webb
3. Moose permit allocations 2024....Lee Kantar


VI. Other Business
1. PFD age requirements ....Commissioner Camuso
2. Legislation update ....Commissioner Camuso


VII. Councilor Reports 11:00 A.M.
VIII. Public Comments & Questions
IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
X. Adjournment 11:30 A.M.


DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400
AUGUSTA, ME
(Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams)
please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)

April 17, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.
I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions
IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

V. Rule Making

A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2
1. 2023/24 Migratory bird seasons - Kelsey Sullivan
2. Ch. 16 rules (edits for crossbow/archery equipment) - Christl Theriault
3. Moose permit allocations 2024 - Lee Kantar

C. Step 1
1. Furbearer rules Ch. 16 & 17 - Jen Vashon
2. Depredation moose hunt areas. - Lee Kantar

VI. Other Business

VII. Councilor Reports 11:00 A.M.
VIII. Public Comments & Questions
IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
X. Adjournment 11:30 A.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
March 6, 2024 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)

 

Attending: Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Jen Vashon, Game Research and Mgmt Supervisor
Caitlin Drasher, Bear Biologist
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Cody Lounder, Game Warden Corporal
Cindy Rego, Office Specialist
Robin Hudson, Secretary Associate
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Shelby Rousseau (Vice-Chair) - via Teams
Eric Ward
Al Cowperthwaite
Mike Gawtry
Roger Grant
Bob Duchesne - via Teams
Ed Pineau via Teams
Tony Liguori via Teams
Jennifer Geel via Teams

GUESTS
Larry Bastian, Native Fish Coalition
4 additional staff and public online

 

I. Call to Order

Council Chair, Kristin Peet was not in attendance and Council Vice-Chair, Shelby Rousseau was participating online. Eric Ward, who was attending in person, was asked to chair the meeting. Mr. Ward called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

Introductions were made.

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: unanimous in favor minutes approved.

V. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

There were no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1

1. 2024/25 Migratory Bird Seasons

Mr. Sullivan gave a PowerPoint presentation to the group. For a copy of the presentation please contact becky.orff@maine.gov .

Mr. Sullivan discussed how the general duck season was set. At the flyway level they looked at wood ducks, ring-necked ducks, green winged teel and common goldeneye, the population status, harvest rates and general estimates of total harvest. A combination of population status and harvest metrics equaled the general duck season recommendations. Overall, the species had trended in a stable way. The general season was 60 days and 6 birds overall with species specific bag limits.

Mr. Sullivan discussed mallard breeding population estimates from 1999 2023. In 2023 Maine went to a 4-bird mallard limit from 2. We went to 2 birds because of the general population decline in 1999-2019. Aerial surveys of Eastern Canada and Maine detected an increase in the mallard population which led to the 4-bird limit recommendation in 2023. The breeding population had dropped some but was still above the threshold to have 4-bird limit so there was no change recommended in the bag limit for the coming year. Specific to black ducks in Maine, we were fortunate the USFWS did aerial surveys of Eastern Canada and transects in Maine. Black ducks were variable in their breeding population in any given year based on water and other conditions. In general, black ducks were relatively stable over time. There was also no change being proposed for the black duck bag limit.

Mr. Sullivan discussed waterfowl hunter participation from 1999-2022. Estimated active duck hunters through HIP (harvest information program) showed increased participation in 2020. This may have been due to COVID. Overall, the trend in harvest matched the trends in participation which supported matching our seasons with the level of hunter participation. Harvest rates for banded Canada geese was discussed. 2020 was the last year we had done banding in Maine; it occurred every 3 years. If you harvest greater than 25% of your resident population you could start to impact the population trend in a negative way. The goal was to decrease the resident population in Maine and the flyway. They were considered an overabundant species and contributed to some issues with landowners and a health risk. Our goal had been to increase the goose harvest. In 2011 and 2012 we went above the 25% harvest rate, but overall, we had been below that. In 2023 we went from 6 birds in the north zone for the resident season to 8. After the 2024 banding season we would have a more updated harvest rate we could look at. Mr. Sullivan discussed the American woodcock and singing grouse survey. Trends for woodcock in Maine, we still had a pretty strong robust population of singing males prior to the breeding season.

Mr. Sullivan went over the season changes being proposed in the rule. The brant season was not included in the packet, the information was not available when the proposal was created. The brant season would be the same length and bag limit as in 2023. Another change in the packet was the coastal zone segment start. Traditionally, prior to 2023 coastal zone and south zone started on October 1. When we eliminated the sea duck season in 2023, we lost 2 weeks of sea duck hunting in January. Because the sea duck season was eliminated, sea duck harvest was within the 60 day/6 duck general framework. Based on surveys and input from the Waterfowl Council, it was a priority to maximize the amount of sea duck hunting later into the winter. In order to do that, we had to truncate the first segment of the coastal zone. The coastal zone and the southern zone both have split seasons (an early and late segment), to try to increase the amount of time for sea duck harvest later in the winter, we pulled days off the early segment for the coastal zone. In 2023 we broke the tradition of October 1 and went to September 30. That was to grab two Saturdays within the early segment of the coastal season to accommodate the coastal duck hunters that preferred hunting earlier. The surveys predominantly showed there was more interest in going later in the coastal zone. In 2024 to do that we would go to October 5, not October 1. In general, the Waterfowl Council felt maximizing Saturdays for the early segment was important enough to make that traditional break from October 1.

Mr. Sullivan stated the sea duck harvest and the concern about over harvest of sea ducks has been a conversation at the flyway level since the late 1990's. There was a change in 1999 you could hunt sea ducks for 107 days and take 7 eiders, scoters or long-tailed ducks. In 1999 the bag limit on any given species was reduced from 7 to 5. There was work done by the USFWS to look at potential for harvest for sea ducks and compared what was measured and observed compared to what's allowable based on different parameters for each of the sea duck species survival, reproductive rate, and various other things that went into population estimates. At the flyway, they were struggling with how to approach the concern, recognizing it's a challenge to monitor sea ducks. To go with the process of the change they'd been seeing over time, sea duck season reductions happened in the Atlantic flyway and in 2016 we went from 107 days to 60 days for the total sea duck season. Species bag limits were dropped from 5 to 4 for scoters, eiders and long-tailed ducks with a total bag limit of 5. In 2022, because we weren't seeing a response to reduced level of harvest, a change was made at the flyway level to eliminate the sea duck season completely. Sea ducks are now included in the general bag limit. The Maine Waterfowl Council met prior to drafting the proposal and at the meeting some council members expressed concern about the lack of eiders being seen on the coast. A graph of sea duck harvest over time was shown. Looking at Ebird data the eider population had been trending down. Reviewing data from 2011-2022 there appeared to be a max decline of 30% in some areas.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Gawtry asked about the baseline for population data. He agreed that he did not see as many eiders as he used to. Was it potentially that the population hadn't changed but relocated because of lack of forage base and they were not viewed in the places they were viewed before? Was the justification for reducing it valid? He felt it was based on what we think we see vs. what we knew.

Mr. Sullivan stated that was the struggle. He had reached out to other key eider hunting states, MA, NH and they were not making any proposed changes. To Mr. Gawtry's point about relocation, there were larger groups of eiders turning up in Long Island and MA that may be Maine birds.

Mr. Gawtry stated if there were fewer eiders and we were visually seeing fewer on the Maine coast, was it still meaningful to reduce the rate in Maine because there were fewer here and some associated impact to that.

Mr. Sullivan stated that was where the Waterfowl Council's concern came in, were we at the point where saving a few birds would keep them on our coast.

Mr. Ward stated there was a comment from MPGA that some guides may have already booked clients and the change might impact them. Would that have any effect on thoughts about going from 3 to 2.

Mr. Sullivan stated they had made their plans before the season was adopted, but it was a valid point for the guides.

Mr. Duchesne stated the crash in common eiders had been scaring him for years. He realized there was a desire to keep hunting at the current rate, but at the current trend they wouldn't be able to hunt them at all in a few years. He thought there were natural reasons why it was happening, not because of hunting pressure; the decline in blue mussels because of green crabs, avian flu, etc. All these pressures were already affecting eiders and we had to be careful how much more pressure we added to that. He also questioned if there were enough brant in Maine to hunt.

Mr. Sullivan stated there were low numbers of brant, they were vagrants. We maintained a tradition of allowing that opportunity. There were a couple of brant hunters that attended the public meetings expressing interest.

Commissioner Camuso stated the Waterfowl Council had met and she was then informed that they were recommending a reduction in the eider bag limit from 3 to 2. Since the proposal was different than the Federal framework (to hold at 3 for another year to get additional data at the flyway level) she asked Mr. Sullivan to see what other states were doing. Other states weren't making any changes. The Commissioner met with the Waterfowl Council and was convinced by the Council that there were not enough ducks and anything we could do to protect the resource was justified. They wanted to make sure there were eiders to hunt in the years to come. They discussed Maine being at a disadvantage to the other states, but needed to ensure that we had enough eiders to hunt. They felt that most people that came to Maine to hunt eiders wanted one good looking male to mount. A 3-bird limit wasn't necessary. Most came to Maine because they liked to hunt here and we had a lot of other sea ducks and reducing the eider limit from 3 to 2 was not likely, they believed, to impact the guide business overall.

Mr. Grant asked if we knew the comparison of hunters per the three other states? In comparison, there was more coastline in Maine than the others put together.

There were no further comments or questions.

2. Ch. 16 rules (edits for crossbow/archery equipment)

Ms. Theriault stated these were changes as they pertained to crossbow hunting. The rule changes were to implement changes in the law to make things consistent. In years prior, bow and arrows and crossbows were considered different classes of weapons and as such, different laws and rules applied to each weapon type. With the increasing popularity of crossbow hunting and a desire to simplify the laws there have been statute and rule changes for a period of years to allow the use of crossbows more broadly and we had examined the impacts of the increased usage. In 2020, a temporary law went into effect allowing broader use of crossbows during the October archery season. This took place until 2022 and in 2023 the legislative committee made the law permanent. In 2023, the Department brought forward a law proposal that created the definition of archery equipment. The law went into effect January 1, 2024 and created a definition of archery equipment that included both traditional bow and arrow and crossbows. This created a host of changes within Title 12 statutes and the rulemaking proposal aligned rules regarding crossbow use with the statutory changes.

Ms. Theriault stated because bow and arrows and crossbows were now both considered archery equipment in statue the proposal would incorporate the change in rule terminology. It also allowed the use of crossbows more broadly during the expanded archery season. We also included crossbow use for fall turkey season. She reviewed the changes in the packet. There were no changes to hunter orange requirements. In the migratory waterfowl section, bow and arrow and shotguns were the only things that could be used. We couldn't expand to the use of crossbow due to the code of federal regulations. In the special hunts section, the proposal impacted several town specific hunting closures and modified the rule regarding the special closures to reflect the preference of the impacted towns. A section was being removed regarding the Eastport special hunt because the hunt no longer occurred. The section describing special hunting requirements for archery hunters on Marsh Island in Old Town was being repealed because the hunt no longer occurred. The City of Old Town was consulted along with local wildlife biologists as well as regional game wardens and they all concurred it should continue to allow the use of handheld bow and arrow only and not expand to the use of crossbows. The section would also include several special hunt locations that were currently in statute. The Department would repeal the sections in statute next year in a law proposal and pull them into rule to have them all in one area.

Ms. Theriault discussed use of crossbows during the expanded archery season. Expanded archery hunting occurred primarily in developed areas of the state where firearms discharge ordinances prohibited hunting with firearms and where additional deer removal was desired. As seen during the regular archery season when crossbows were made widely usable a significant increase in the expanded archery deer harvest is expected. It's the Department's desire to maintain lower deer numbers in these developed areas and an increase in expanded archery harvest would be beneficial. In terms of warden service violations for expanded use of crossbows since 2020, they encountered more violations with crossbow use opportunities, but they were minimal. From 2020 2022 there was an increase of 10, 23, and 21 violations respectively. Most of the incidents were not related to the use of crossbow, it was only the implement that was possessed at the time.

Mrs. Theriault stated prior to the changes a very small percentage of harvested animals were taken with a crossbow. Between 2017 2019 there were 162 deer of the over 1,800 deer that were taken during the regular archery season (9%). In 2023, about 56% of the deer taken during the regular archery season were taken by crossbow. There had been a very low increase in crossbow harvest for turkeys in the fall. It did not appear to have any negative impacts on the population. The new law repealed the crossbow permit so hunters would no longer be required to purchase a separate crossbow permit.

There were no questions or comments.

3. Moose permit allocations 2024

Mr. Webb stated the proposal was to set the annual permit numbers and season dates. There was a lot of work and information that went on throughout the year to inform the annual rulemaking. Aerial survey work that Mr. Kantar and staff participated in with the Maine Forest Service pilots as well as collection of biological data. The proposed changes were minimal. The past two years we had seen some positive trends in the moose population. We had two consecutive years of relatively low tick numbers and that was being reflected in relatively high rates of pregnancy and high rates of overwinter calf survival. The moose were in good condition, calf weights were up and things were looking good for the upcoming season. We were proposing no changes to permit numbers for the 2024 season. With the current season framework, we felt we were more limited by hunter satisfaction and just overall busyness on the landscape; hunter numbers as opposed to the harvest level. We had reached a threshold within the existing framework for the hunting season in terms of the number of hunters we could have on the landscape. The only change we were proposing was for the adaptive hunt. Initially, the first two years of the adaptive hunt we had three one-week seasons. Last year we tried a new approach where we had an additional fourth week where any hunters that were unsuccessful in each of the first three weeks could come back during the fourth week and have an additional six days of opportunity. We saw very minimal harvest resulted from the fourth week. There were 15 moose harvested out of potentially up to 400 hunters that were eligible to come back and hunt. There was a lot of effort required on the Department to host that moose hunt. We felt the added effort to host the fourth week wasn't worth the small increase in harvest. The proposal recommended eliminating the fourth week of the adaptive hunt and reverting back to the three one-week seasons with a total of 550 antlerless permits.

Mr. Webb stated this year, and it happened about every seven years, there would be two weeks in between the first bull hunt and the second bull hunt. That was based on how the calendar dates fell. Most years there was only one week between the bull hunts. Every time the calendar worked this way we received comments. We had received mixed messages on making changes to the season structure to avoid this.

There were no further questions or comments.

VI. Other Business

1. PFD age requirements
Commissioner Camuso stated that the Department had received a request from the Power Squadron and Representative Hepler about changing the minimum age that people would have to wear a life jacket from 10, to align with the federal requirement which was 12. A meeting was held with Warden Service and Marine Patrol. The federal framework was that in state waters the federal regulation switched over to what that state's regulation was. We hadn't had any issues and didn't feel that changing the regulation was necessary or warranted. That was communicated to the Representative and the constituent so they may respond by forming a petition.

2. Legislation Update

Commissioner Camuso updated the Council on some of the bills before the IFW Committee. This was the short session for the Committee.

Mr. Webb updated the Council on the stakeholder group for moose hunting. The group met three times and discussed various perspectives. There was no consensus among the group on what should change. Conflict between moose and grouse hunters was discussed. There was a statutory change that occurred changing the start of the upland game bird season such that rather than starting on the last Saturday in September and going until the end of December, there would be a one-day upland game season the last Saturday in September and the season would close and restart on October 1. That change did not become effective until 2025. The group also recommended a moose hunter education course modeled after the briefing for the adaptive hunt. They felt the course should be voluntary to start. They also recommended collecting broader information on the issue of conflicts during the moose season as well as season timing. We would be doing a public survey to investigate those issues. The stakeholder group would be reconvening to help inform the survey process and questions. Mr. Webb discussed the changes in the lottery application timing.

Mr. Ward stated regarding the survey, where he lived there was a big moose watching industry. Those companies had four months where someone that hunted had one week. Maybe a survey would let us know that hunting along with viewing wasn't what it used to be as far as conflicts. The survey would help bring that information out.

Commissioner Camuso discussed additional bills before the legislative committee including the invasives bill which proposed an increase in the cost of the milfoil sticker ($10 for residents and $15 for non-residents). The supplemental budget was discussed. There was a decline in federal monies for fisheries. During the next budget cycle there may be an increase in the cost of fishing licenses proposed. This was due to the reduction in gas tax revenues.

VII. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

Claire Perry asked a question in the chat function of Teams, "Question on crossbow/archery:  I heard "Beauchamp" as being a place now open to crossbow hunting. Is this in Camden (Beauchamp Point)?  If yes.... was hunting prohibited in this area previously?  Thank you."

Mr. Webb stated that area was already open to archery hunting and now that would include crossbows as well. It was already open to hunting.

There were no further questions or comments.

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, April 17, 2024, at 9:30am at IFW, Augusta.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite and that was seconded by Mr. Gawtry to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400
AUGUSTA, ME
(Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams)
please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)

May 21, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.
I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions
IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting
IV-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
V. Rule Making

1. Step 3
   There are no items under Step 3
2. Step 2
   1. Depredation moose hunt areas....Jen Vashon
3. Step 1
   1. Antlerless deer permit allocations.. Nathan Bieber

VI. Other Business
VII. Councilor Reports 11:00 A.M.
VIII. Public Comments & Questions
IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
X. Adjournment 11:30 A.M.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
April 17, 2024 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)

 

Attending: Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jen Vashon, Game Research and Mgmt Supervisor
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Donna Bickford, Licensing and Registration Division
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Shelby Rousseau (Vice-Chair)
Mike Gawtry
Roger Grant
Bob Duchesne
Tony Liguori - via Teams
John Neptune via Teams

GUESTS
4 additional staff and public online

 

I. Call to Order

Shelby Rousseau, Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

Introductions were made.

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Gawtry.

Vote: unanimous in favor minutes approved.

 

V. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. 2024/25 Migratory Bird Seasons

Mr. Sullivan stated a public hearing was held. Comments received were not in support of the eider bag limit reduction. Most of the comments not in support were from Maine guides. There were also written comments received regarding the crow season requesting a change in the timing of the season. We were restricted to putting the crow season dates outside of the breeding season so that would not match what they were requesting. The original proposal had been amended to include the brant season dates. The USFWS did not provide the options for the brant season until after the proposal had been advertised.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Duchesne stated that eider numbers had fallen so far it was scary. One of the traditions we had always had nationwide was to manage the resource for sustainability. At the rate we were going it was not sustainable in Maine. He was seriously concerned with the eider numbers. He could understand where the guides were coming from, but this was not the only species we would eventually be dealing with. The Gulf of Maine was changing and things weren't good.

Mr. Grant stated he had been asked questions regarding the decline in eiders and if it was specific to the decline in mussels?

Mr. Sullivan stated it was a complicated ecosystem. The decline in eiders in Maine was a pretty significant result of mussel decline. We had breeding eiders, and the birds we had during the winter a portion of those were from the breeding population, but the majority were from Newfoundland and Labrador. In July-September we used to support thousands of eiders that would come to molt where there were mussels. We were not seeing those big concentrations of those molts. He felt the mussel decline had a significant impact outside of all the other things such as gull predation, etc.

Mr. Grant asked if that was due to water temperature.

Mr. Sullivan stated the warming Gulf was pretty significant. There was also some dragging that was going on. The recruitment wasn't there because of water temperature. Outside the Gulf of Maine in Cape Cod the temperatures weren't changing as drastically and there were still concentrations of molting eiders on mussel beds.

Commissioner Camuso asked if a change in the eider limit would have an impact on the population.

Mr. Sullivan stated he felt we were at a point where anything we could do to save a few eiders would help. Impact in the overall population across the Maritimes and New England, it was a drop in the bucket but in terms of the Maine coast in the wintertime we would preserve those few eiders we had left.

Mr. Liguori asked how we measured the population.

Mr. Sullivan stated we monitored harvest levels through the harvest information program (HIP). The numbers themselves, we did not have a functional survey. We used sources such as Christmas bird count and Ebird data. He had shared trend data in his presentation at the previous meeting. It was a mix of science and interpretation.

Commissioner Camuso discussed the proposal and moving it to Step 3 for vote. She felt it might be beneficial to wait until more members of the council were present.

Mr. Gawtry stated there really was no additional information to gain public comment. The feedback from the Waterfowl Council was in and this was their recommendation. Based on Kelsey's presentation on the data used to support the recommendation for the bag limit on eiders to be reduced to 2, he thought it had been an appropriate, comprehensive review with the best available information. It tended to be supported by the guiding community. They voiced some concerns, but the voices in aggregate did tend to support the reduction. If there was not going to be any additional feedback between then and the next meeting, besides the point of having additional council members present, he felt it had been a very thorough process.

Commissioner Camuso stated that was a good point, and guides would probably like to know the seasons so they could begin advertising. We could also provide the final seasons to the USFWS.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to move the amended proposal to Step 3 for vote and that was seconded by Mr. Gawtry.

Vote: unanimous in favor to move to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to accept the amended proposal and that was seconded by Mr. Gawtry.

Vote: unanimous in favor motion passed.

 

2. Ch. 16 rules (edits for crossbow/archery equipment)

Ms. Theriault stated the proposal came about from legislation that changed the use of crossbows to allow them during the regular archery season and created a definition for "archery equipment" to include crossbows and bow and arrow. There were no public comments received on the proposal. During the muzzleload season one of the substantive changes was that we would no longer allow those age 65 and over to use a crossbow. The permanent disability permits would no longer grant the use of crossbow during the muzzleload season. The section of the rule for open and closed seasons was changed to "Deer Hunting Special Regulations and Closures." This section was repealed and replaced due to duplication between rule and statute. The language was being brought into rule, with the statutory language being repealed during the next session so the language will be all in one place. The effected towns had been contacted to confirm whether or not they wanted to allow the use of crossbows. The section that referred to Marsh Island was repealed as that hunt no longer occurred. She discussed amendments to the proposal including the addition of Long Island in Long Island Plt. That was from the statutory section (11402) and was overlooked in the original proposal. Other amendments were to correct grammatical errors. If the Council was in support the amended proposal could be moved to Step 3 for a vote of final adoption.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Duchesne stated for so long the archery community and the crossbow community were polar opposites, and now we were saying they were all the same. It was a long process to get there but there was now fast acceptance.

Mr. Grant asked who determined the closed season on deer on Mt. Desert Island? He had received comments from people who wanted something done about the overall deer population there.

Colonel Scott stated there was a long history there. Warden Service received many complaints. When they brought it to a vote with the town to allow hunting there it always went in the other direction. Special hunts had been discussed, etc. There was a dynamic there between summer residents and full-time residents. It was a social issue around wildlife management there.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to move the amended proposal to Step 3 for vote and that was seconded by Mr. Gawtry.

Vote: unanimous in favor to move to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to accept the amended proposal and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.

Vote: unanimous in favor motion passed.

3. Moose permit allocations 2024

Mrs. Vashon stated we had made recommendations to move forward with the same permit levels as 2023. We received no public comments on the proposal. If there was no discussion, the proposal could be moved to Step 3 for a vote.

Ms. Orff stated one written comment was received, but it was related to ticks and not the proposed permit numbers.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to move the proposal to Step 3 for vote and that was seconded by Mr. Gawtry.

Vote: unanimous in favor to move to Step 3.

Mr. Liguori asked if there was any indication that the special hunt in WMD 4a was having an effect on the tick population?

Mrs. Vashon stated we did not have the information on that yet. The study was ongoing for the next couple of years. So far that year we had not had any moose mortalities from ticks on our collared moose which was very unusual. This would suggest that maybe it was having an effect. Weather was also a big determinant.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Grant.

Vote: unanimous in favor motion passed.

C. Step 1

1. Depredation moose hunt areas

Mrs. Vashon stated this was a minor change to the location where we had depredation moose hunts. For a number of years, the Department had been working with agricultural growers and landowners to try reduce damage done by moose on crops, primarily broccoli fields. Originally in rule we had 10 towns listed as to where the hunt could occur. Stone crops or broccoli crops were rotational crops and were moved year to year to different fields. For a number of years, the primary stone crops were occurring in those 10 towns, but recently they had expanded beyond those 10 towns. At the times that moose were causing damage to broccoli we're able to provide hunters to try to control that damage in those areas. However, if damage was occurring outside those 10 towns, we did not have that tool to help assist agricultural farmers with the damage when it was occurring. For ease, we were recommending to cross out the 10 towns and replace them with WMDs 3 and 6. The 10 towns were currently within WMDs 3 and 6 and by extending it, hopefully we would not have to come back again if the agricultural fields expanded further into the WMDs. The purpose was to provide opportunity to help alleviate damage where it was occurring.

Mr. Duchesne stated that made sense to him.

There were no further questions or comments.

VI. Other Business

Commissioner Camuso stated she had a few items for discussion. The Legislature was scheduled for statutory adjournment that day (4/17/2024). There would not be a special session as the Governor was not in favor of that. Budget items were discussed including a request for additional funding for fisheries. Federal monies were down for freshwater fisheries. A recent survey indicated a shift more towards saltwater and additional money to DMR. Warden Service also had additional costs for new firearms and new ballistic vests rated for long guns. She also gave a brief overview of bills that had been before the IFW Committee.

VII. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

There were no public comments or questions.

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, May 21, 2024, at 9:30am at IFW, Augusta.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
May 21, 2024 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)

 

Attending: Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries & Hatcheries Division Director
Jen Vashon, Game Research and Mgmt Supervisor
Nathan Bieber, Deer Biologist
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Dan Scott, Colonel, Maine Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Shelby Rousseau (Vice-Chair)
Al Cowperthwaite
Eric Ward
Bob Duchesne - via Teams
Tony Liguori via Teams
Mike Gawtry via Teams
Ed Pineau via Teams

GUESTS
1 public member online

 

I. Call to Order

Shelby Rousseau, Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

Introductions were made.

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Vote: unanimous in favor minutes approved.

 

IV-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

This agenda item was postponed until the June meeting.

V. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Depredation moose hunt areas

Mrs. Vashon stated there were no public comments received on the proposal. This was a minor change to expand beyond the 10 towns listed in the rule to the entire WMDs 3 and 6. This would create flexibility so hunters could go where the problem areas were.

There were no further questions or comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to move the proposal to Step 3 for final adoption and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Vote: unanimous in favor to move to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Ward to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Liguori.

Vote: unanimous in favor motion passed.

C. Step 1

1. Antlerless deer permit allocations

Mr. Bieber gave a PowerPoint presentation to the group (for a copy of the presentation please contact becky.orff@maine.gov).
Mr. Bieber stated he would be giving a broad overview of some of the goings on of deer for the past year. In 2023 there were 38,215 deer harvested. This was down from the 43,787 deer taken in 2022 which was an all-time record. There was a 12.7% decrease in total harvest with decreases pretty much statewide. Most notably in the core deer districts, WMDs 21-25 we had declines anywhere from 15-20%. Most of the decline was in antlerless harvest. 10,849 adult does were harvested of a desired 15,720. There were very poor conditions on critical hunting days which created an impact on the harvest. We also had a 2-day youth hunt but there were also poor conditions on both of those days. We also had very abundant mast crops in 2023. Similar to what we see for bear when they have high natural food we tend to see depressed harvest.

Mr. Bieber stated every year we tried to collect data from as many deer as we could. In 2023 we were able to examine 5,488 total deer. We collect 2,000 incisor teeth each year that we send to a lab out west. The teeth are sectioned and stained and looked at under a microscope to see what the exact age of the animal was. Results take a year to receive so are pending for the 2023 hunting season. Chronic wasting disease samples were also collected and sent to Colorado State diagnostics lab. All of the samples tested negative as they have since we began testing in the late 1990's. 263 nasal swabs were collected, and 46 blood samples were sent to a lab. Not all results had been received, but of 223 nasal swabs 13 tested positive for Covid antibodies. Ear tips were also sent to labs for testing, and of those 120 ear tips there were 2 positives for babesiosis and 6 positives for anaplasmosis.

Mr. Bieber stated we also collected hunter effort data in the fall. We did this to gauge whether or not hunters were spending the same amount of time in the field every year. That helped us to look at trends and determine whether or not a trend we were seeing in buck harvest might be driven by changes in how much hunter effort people were putting in the field. In 2023 hunters spent an average of 7.6 days hunting during the regular firearms season and 4.6 hours per day out hunting. That was pretty consistent with hunters spending 30-35 hours in the field per hunter.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody asked how the hunter effort survey was conducted and if it included lifetime license holders.

Mr. Bieber stated it was an online survey that was sent to 10,000 registered deer hunters over the age of 18. He believed lifetime license holders were excluded from that survey. At the end of the survey we asked a few miscellaneous questions each year such as "at what age did you first hunt for deer?" and "how were you first introduced to deer hunting?" We also gathered information regarding mast crops within WMDs which showed a pretty strong correlation where you had high acorn productivity/low hunter success; low acorn productivity/high hunter success.

Commissioner Camuso asked how mast production affected movement of deer.

Mr. Bieber stated he thought a lot of it had to do with deer being less localized as they would be in a poor food year. Rather than being located in pockets where there's good foraging, the opportunities were spread out.

Mrs. Vashon asked if the increase in food plots also might be influencing that.

Mr. Bieber stated he wasn't sure how prevalent food plots were. He thought those were still rare exceptions that someone would have their own food plot to hunt over.

Mr. Biber discussed the deer collaring project that began in 2015 and ended in 2022. They captured and collared deer in four different WMDs, 1, 5, 6 and 17 to monitor survival and they collared 269 deer over the seven-year period. The idea was to look at their survival and they used a modeling technique where they were able to model their survival in 2-week intervals. Each 2-week period of time when the deer was alive what were the conditions the deer experienced during that period and did it survive or not. By looking at all those intervals for all the deer they could see what conditions best predicted whether or not a deer was going to survive. The best model looked at average temperatures and deer feeding/development of the area. They were able to use remote sense data on temperatures and staff insight and aerial imagery to estimate the influence of development feeding to estimate winter mortality.

Mr. Bieber discussed community science deer projects. We follow two community science deer projects, Maine Deer Spy and within that program was the Deer Spy Project and the Rut Watch Project. Rut watch was added in 2023 to collect direct observations of the breeding season behaviors. Peak birthing occurred the 2nd week of June.

Mr. Bieber discussed the youth hunt, 2023 was the first year of the 2-day youth hunt. We would be continuing that until 2027 when the Legislature requested a report back with final recommendations.
The NEDTC meeting that was held in Maine in 2023 was discussed. The Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP) was discussed. These were programs that facilitate meeting site specific deer management or removal goals; helping individual properties meet deer management goals. Permits were issued specific to properties for antlerless deer. It was a very flexible program, there were about 25 states that had DMAP programs. The intent was to improve data collection and help with deer damage issues. Deer taken in these situations would be registered through the current database. Potential solutions to help landowners would be to have a point person to funnel information to people, develop a landing page for the DMAP program which would tie together all the resources we currently have for dealing with deer/human conflict situations and being able to issue permits to landowner to distribute to hunters to remove deer specifically from their property during the hunting season. This would be limited to crop producers having deer issues and losing money. Land access was sometimes an issue and we may be able to match landowners that were experiencing problems with hunters.

Mr. Bieber discussed the 2024 permit recommendations. Each year he met with each of the regions to discuss the districts and develop recommendations. All of the feedback was incorporated into the proposal. We were proposing to issue about 20,000 more permits than 2023. We were also able to designate which WMDs would allow hunting during the youth hunt or during the archery season to take an antlerless deer without a permit. We intended to allow that in all WMDs again for 2024. Subunit 25a was being removed. At the 5-year mark we reviewed the towns to see if they still met the criteria for designation as a deer management subunit and these towns no longer met the criteria. We had many excess permits in WMD 25 already that were not sold at the end of the lottery, the subunit was no longer serving its intended purpose.

There were no further questions or comments.

VI. Other Business

Commissioner Camuso stated individuals would be able to prepay for antlerless permits this season. In the southern WMDs where we generally had more permits than applicants, they would be able to pay in advance.

Colonel Scott discussed the annual Warden Service awards ceremony. This year's Colonel's Award went to Advisory Council member Al Cowperthwaite. Al was presented with his award.

VII. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

There were no public comments or questions.

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, June 26, 2024, at 9:30am at IFW, Augusta.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite and that was seconded by Mr. Ward to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
June 26, 2024 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)

 

Attending: Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Jen Vashon, Game Research and Mgmt Supervisor
Nathan Bieber, Deer Biologist
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries & Hatcheries Division Director
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Kory Whittum, Fisheries Planner & Research Coordinator
Jeremiah Wood, Regional Fisheries Biologist
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristin Peet (Chair)
Al Cowperthwaite
Eric Ward
Ed Pineau
Roger (Rod) Grant
John Neptune - via Teams
Tony Liguori via Teams
Mike Gawtry via Teams
Vacant Washington County seat

GUESTS
Casey Mealey Maine Native Fish Coalition
1 public member online

 

I. Call to Order

Kristin Peet, Chair, called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

Introductions were made.

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Pineau.

Vote: (1 abstained - Kristin Peet) Remaining members unanimous in favor minutes approved.

IV-A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we were taking nominations for Chair and Vice-Chair if there were members interested in that responsibility.

Chair
A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to accept the nomination of Kristin Peet to continue as Chair and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Nominations ceased.

Vote: unanimous in favor Kristin Peet re-elected as Chair.

Vice-Chair
A motion was made by Mrs. Peet to accept the nomination of Shelby Rousseau to continue as Vice-Chair and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite.

Nominations ceased.

Vote: unanimous in favor Shelby Rousseau re-elected as Vice-Chair.

V. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Antlerless deer permit allocations

Mr. Webb stated this was the annual rulemaking proposal to set antlerless deer permits for the upcoming hunting season. We were recommending 128,030 permits for the fall 2024 hunting season. That was based on harvest levels from previous years and the relatively mild winter conditions we experienced. We were also proposing to remove sub-unit 25a. A public hearing was held on June 10, 2024 and there were no members of the public that attended. One written comment was received.

Mr. Bieber stated the public comment was related to WMD 18 and the gentleman's experience hunting there. Mr. Bieber stated he corresponded with the individual a couple times of year typically. He related he hunted east of the river and felt the deer populations were very different on the west and east side. He was also concerned the deer population east of the river had declined. Mr. Bieber had provided him with data looking at the towns east and west of the river. Looking at population trend indicators which was mostly the buck kill index. Ideally that was applied at the WMD level, but looking at the town level as well, he did not see the gentleman's concerns in the data. He may be hunting in a place where locally there were just not as many deer. East of the river in some of the towns mentioned such as Milford, Lincoln, etc. there were steady buck harvest trends or increasing, sometimes doubling since the mid 2000's. It appeared the numbers were stable to increasing in most of the towns. It may be habitat related where he hunted east of the river, on the Stud Mill Road it was mostly big woods. If there were localized disturbances or logging that could open up some regenerating cover and that could have temporary booms in the population in localized areas, but otherwise it was big woods habitat which tends not to support a lot of deer. The gentleman's proposed solution was to split the WMD down the middle, east and west of the river. It was in our Big Game Plan to look at WMD boundaries, but it was not something we did routinely.

Mr. Biber stated we were not proposing any changes to the original rule proposal. As the comment period had ended and there was just the one comment we were recommending moving the proposal to Step 3 for adoption.

There were no further questions or comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Pineau to move the proposal to Step 3 for final adoption and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Vote: unanimous in favor to move to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mr. Ward to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Pineau.

Vote: unanimous in favor motion passed.

C. Step 1

1. Furbearer rules Ch. 16 & 17

Mr. Webb stated this item had been on past agendas and had been removed. The Department had recently completed a comprehensive furbearer planning effort and that implicated some areas of the rules that required review. One of those was clarifying the requirements for registration or tagging of coyotes by hunting. In looking at that, part of the challenge with furbearers and tagging was that some of them (fox, coyote and bobcat) were hunted and trapped which meant there was content in two different rule chapters. Looking at clarifying the requirements for coyote tagging by hunters, we identified some other species references which would also need some adjustments. That was the reason behind the need to revisit the agenda item at a later time.

2. Lake whitefish conservation presentation

Mr. Brautigam stated he asked Jeremiah to provide an orientation on lake whitefish conservation in the state. We had two regulation proposals in the current packet that focused on lake whitefish conservation. Moving forward, he anticipated they would be seeing more and thought it was important for them to understand what was going on with lake whitefish in terms of trying to address concerns with some declines we were seeing statewide.

For a copy of Jeremiah Wood's presentation please contact becky.orff@maine.gov
Mr. Wood stated lake whitefish were in the salmonid family, so they were related to trout and salmon. Lake whitefish were a native species to Maine and parts of the northern U.S. and Canada. They had undergone significant declines in the past 50 75 years, and they were a species of special concern in Maine. The majority of the population in the northeast were located in Maine. Lake whitefish were a popular sport fish. The percentage of anglers targeting lake whitefish was very low, however, the people that did fish for them were very passionate and dedicated in trying to catch these fish. They were primarily targeted in the winter through the ice and were a very good eating fish. The whitefish populations were not supporting the sport fisheries they once did. From the mid-70's to early 80's there were pretty high catch rates for whitefish and that has steadily declined over time. We were trying to determine the cause of the decline. The fish around whitefish were pretty simple species assemblages. There was one fish species not native to the waters but was now in most of them, and that was the rainbow smelt. Smelts had been introduced widely throughout northern Maine but were not native. A lot of the problems we were seeing with the whitefish populations appeared to be directly tied to the establishment of rainbow smelts.

Mr. Wood discussed changes in the ecosystem and how zooplankton (cope pods) were impacted by smelts and the effects on the whitefish population. Studies were being conducted on how lake trout (togue) could help control smelt populations. Lake trout were effective smelt predators. Cresent Pond, T9R15, was used for this. It had a native population of lake trout and lake whitefish, smelts were introduced in 1980 and not long after they became established we found that lake trout and lake whitefish were no longer reproducing. It took decades for that to show in the population. When you have no young fish moving into the population and surviving, all the older whitefish eventually died out. Whitefish could live up to 30-40 years. We implemented a project to try and get lake trout back into Crescent in order to try to lower smelt densities. In the fall of 2018, 200 adult lake trout were trap netted from Allagash Lake and stocked into Cresent Pond. Data collected beginning in 2017 2022 showed a decline in the smelt population. Lake trout had a dramatic effect. Zooplankton spiked for 2 years, and larval whitefish were caught. Smelts were confirmed in Haymock Lake in 2019. Lake trout were stocked there in May 2024 and the Department would be monitoring the effects.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Ward asked why togue were used from Allagash Lake?

Mr. Wood stated the way the watersheds were lined up, Allagash Lake flowed into Cresent Pond. Allagash was a large waterbody that had never been stocked. We weren't certain whether stocking hatchery fish would have impacted the wild and native population of togue there, but we did not want to take a chance that it would have an impact. We made the effort to collect the fish from Allagash and move them over to Cresent as opposed to stocking hatchery fish. Haymock was stocked with hatchery togue since 1969 so there was a long history of hatchery fish already being there. It was also 900 acres and would require many more fish to be stocked.

Mrs. Peet asked how the smelt were introduced.

Mr. Wood stated with Haymock Lake, the outlet flowed into Big Eagle. Big Eagle has had smelts for at least 40 years. There was a waterfall that prevented smelts from getting into Haymock. However, that was only a mile or two below the lake. We did not know if someone intentionally put smelts in the lake, it could have been accidental, it could be anything.

Mrs. Peet asked if the numbers of smelts started to come back after a few years, was this something we would need to do every few years?

Mr. Wood stated because they were a long-lived species, we could go for long periods of no successful reproduction. As long as we had some reproduction every decade, we should be able to sustain the population for the long term. That was the goal we had in mind, trying to get a couple of years of successful whitefish reproduction every decade.

Mrs. Peet asked if it made sense to stock whitefish as opposed to introducing lake trout.

Mr. Wood stated currently we didn't have any hatchery capability to raise and stock whitefish. We had done it in the past and had variable success rates with stocking.

Mr. Gawtry stated that Mr. Wood had referred to a small but passionate whitefish angler community. How many anglers was he referring to?

Mr. Wood stated he would have to refer to the statewide angler survey data. In Region G which was their best whitefish fishery on Ross Lake, just in the wintertime they average about 800 angler days and most of those were targeting whitefish.

Mr. Liguori asked if the lake trout would target small whitefish.

Mr. Wood stated he went through the lake trout stomach data they had from 1974 2023 in northern Maine and they looked at 14 waters that had lake trout, lake whitefish and smelts. They examined 958 lake trout stomachs and of those, 272 had smelts in them and only 2 had whitefish. When smelts were available, togue would go to them.

Mr. Cowperthwaite asked about the togue that were originally stocked in Haymock.

Mr. Wood stated he was not sure what strain those were. They were stocked with a variety of different strains.

Mr. Neptune asked if we were meeting with other organizations and states that were having similar issues with whitefish.

Mr. Wood stated staff attended a conference in MA and there was a symposium on whitefish. They had a biologist from Lake Ontario and they were seeing the same patterns we were but on a larger scale. It was easier to see the patterns in Maine with smaller waters. The northeast group was planning to start meeting to talk about whitefish and share information.

Mr. Grant asked if there was a slot size in lake trout that consumed more smelts than larger fish?

Mr. Wood stated lake trout start feeding on smelts around 12" 14" but most of the size feeding on smelts was 16"-23" once they were above 24" they were looking for large food items.

There were no further questions or comments.

3. Ch. 1 & 1-A Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2025

Mr. Brautigam stated the packet contained a listing of all the Ch. 1 and 1-A proposals. There was also a quick reference sheet of all the waters contained in the packet. There were 23 proposals in the packet, 4 of which were state heritage fish waters proposals. Mr. Brautigam went over the themes and items under each theme in the packet.

State Heritage Fish Waters These were established in statute and had a no live fish as bait restriction as well as no stocking. There were 4 waters being proposed for addition to the list. There were no regulation changes, just adding to the list.

Special Need These were management initiatives in response to things such as population decline, etc. There were 6 proposals in this section.

Salmonid Growth, Condition and Performance This theme included waters where salmonid size quality, condition and overall population health/performance has declined or is no longer meeting objectives. There were 4 waters in this theme.

Expanded Angler Opportunity These were to increase opportunity; stocked waters with public interest. There were 4 waters in this theme.

Errors, Conflicts and Confusion This theme was retained from year to year to correct any newly identified issues/corrections to the lawbook. There were 4 proposals in this category.

There were no further questions or comments.

VI. Other Business

Mrs. Peet stated she and Claire Perry had been on the furbearer management plan canid subgroup. She knew Claire had a strong interest in coyote management and had forwarded an email to the Council from her expressing an interest in IFW doing more educational outreach.

Mr. Webb stated we had done the comprehensive furbearer management plan a couple of years ago which included priorities related to outreach and education for various species. There was relatively low support from the general public for coyotes and maybe some misconceptions. The subcommittee that Mrs. Peet was on and the steering committee agreed we should do more outreach about coyotes and their ecology and the role they played in our state.

Mr. Webb stated we had done quite a bit through various platforms working with the information and education division on social media outreach with the Maine Wildlife Park on public presentations and summer wildlife staff. The presentations focused on coyotes as well as carnivores in general in Maine. We recently did a comprehensive update to our living with wildlife section on the website which was focused on preventing conflicts with wildlife including predators and there was specific content about coyotes and avoiding and preventing conflicts. We also worked with the Maine Farm Bureau and the landowner relations program to develop a farmer's guide for preventing and controlling wildlife damage to crops and livestock with information related to coyotes. We also had a species page on the website focused on coyotes that we linked to when doing social media posts on that species or furbearers in general. We had a new Eastern coyote fact sheet giving a brief summary of coyotes in Maine and their status. There was a lot of work underway, but we did have to keep in mind the broader mission of the agency and all the other outreach needs that we had.

There were no further questions or comments.

VII. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated that the fishing regulations packet really reflected the science and was positive for fisheries. The Department's budget proposal was due by September 1 and would be robust related to fisheries and would need support. Due to a decline in federal monies we would be asking to supplement with general fund monies.

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, August 1, 2024, at 9:30am at IFW, Augusta.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Ward and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
August 1, 2024 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)

 

Attending:
Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Jen Vashon, Game Research and Mgmt Supervisor
Caitlin Drasher, Bear Biologist
Shevenell Webb, Furbearer Biologist
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries & Hatcheries Division Director
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Kory Whittum, Fisheries Planner & Research Coordinator
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Dan Scott, Game Warden Colonel
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristin Peet (Chair)
Al Cowperthwaite
Roger (Rod) Grant
Bob Duchesne
Ed Pineau - via Teams
Tony Liguori via Teams
Mike Gawtry via Teams
Shelby Rousseau (vice-Chair) via Teams (joined after vote)
Vacant Washington County seat


GUESTS
Larry Bastian Maine Native Fish Coalition
Claire Perry via Teams


I. Call to Order

Kristin Peet, Chair, called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

Introductions were made.

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Pineau to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: Unanimous in favor minutes approved.

V. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Ch. 1 & 1-A Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2025

Mr. Brautigam stated a public hearing was held on July 15, 2024, and no public members provided comment. We did receive 20 written comments, with few of them being relevant to the rulemaking packet. Mr. Brautigam presented a comment summary to the Council (attached).

Mr. Cowperthwaite asked if when public comment was received if we replied to those.

Mr. Brautigam stated the comments were compiled. Those not germane to the packet were forwarded to the regions for future consideration. We were required under the APA to summarize the comments in the final adoption and give the Department's response. If there were no further comments, we were not proposing any changes to the packet based on the comments that were received. The proposal could be moved to Step 3 for a vote if the Council had no further questions.

Mr. Pineau asked if there was a number or percentage of times we had altered the proposals based on public comment.

Mr. Brautigam discussed the use of public comment in the rulemaking process. What we were trying to make sure of was that we considered every piece of information out there. We looked for meaningful things in addition to what was considered when drafting the rule.

Commissioner Camuso stated last year we did make amendments to the bass tournament rule proposal based on public comment.

Mr. Liguori asked if there was an effort to move away from red posts as markers?

Mr. Brautigam stated there has been a number of pushes to move away from red posts. We used to have a lot of reference to red posts in our law book, but often they are not maintained, or people moved them. Where we could, we wanted to move away from the red posts. It made it difficult to demarcate a red post on our fishing laws online angling tool (FLOAT). We needed a physical reference on the landscape to do that.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody went back to Mr. Pineaus question regarding public comment. We had retracted initiatives in the rulemaking process based on public comment, and we had also stopped rulemaking processes if we had missed the mark on something based on public comment. He felt that overall, it was considered at a very high level.

Mr. Cowperthwaite asked about Snowshoe Pond and no bait for ice fishing and the lady had suggested just banning smelts. Were the other live bait available for ice fishing a threat to the lake whitefish?

Mr. Brautigam stated he looked at it as people bringing in bait in their bucket, sometimes it was just bait fish and sometimes it was other things. There was value in the full restriction of smelts and every other bait fish in the bucket. It would be hard to manage off-shoots of allowable bait species. Using dead bait worked, they just needed to kill the bait before entering the pond.

There were no further questions or comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to move the proposal to Step 3 for final adoption and that was seconded by Mrs. Peet.

Vote: unanimous in favor to move to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mrs. Peet to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: unanimous in favor motion passed.

C. Step 1

1. Furbearer rules Ch. 16 & 17

Mrs. Webb stated the proposal was focused on the possession, transportation and registration of furbearers. Historically, the hunting and trapping rules were in one chapter (Chapter 4). In 2019 those were separated to try and make them more manageable. When they were separated, certain species such as furbearers and bear had both a hunting and trapping season and rules that went along with them for tagging, biological data collection, etc. We did try to mirror some of the language from the trapping chapter into the hunting chapter for the furbearer species and some mistakes occurred. The proposal is cleaning up some of the language. In Chapter 16 it talked about the registration requirements of furbearers pertaining to a trapping season. In practice, nothing had changed we would continue to enforce the laws around tagging of furbearer species. We also tried to streamline the process so when a change was made to furbearer rules it would not have to be made in two places. We were proposing to move the language pertaining to registration, possession, transportation all to Chapter 17 as it applied to furbearers. The season structure for furbearers in the hunting chapter still remained, the biological data collection still remained in Chapter 16, but now in Chapter 17 we were proposing to have the registration, etc. live there instead of both places. We were proposing an effective date of July 2025 to allow time to communicate the change to hunters. The Chapter 17 title was also revised from just Trapping to Furbearers and Trapping.

Mr. Gawtry asked if in the rules we would use both hunter and trapper. It appeared in some places we had eliminated the word "trapper" which might cause some confusion.

Mrs. Webb stated in Chapter 16, the hunting rule chapter, we did strike out trapper and replaced it with hunter so that it was clear we still did have requirements for hunters related to the possession, transportation, and registration for furbearers. We struck out anything below that and moved it to the trapping chapter. We wanted to retain the section title, so it was clear that hunters still had some requirements and that they needed to review Chapter 17 to see what those requirements were.

There were no further questions or comments.

VI. Other Business

There were no items under Other Business.

VII. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

Larry Bastian, Maine Native Fish Coalition stated they had written in comments regarding the fish regulation changes. They were pretty much supportive of the proposals with the exception of being opposed to the additional protections for landlocked salmon on Baker Pond. Based on their understanding of the heritage law as protecting native fish (brook trout, arctic charr) and it seemed inconsistent with Crawford Pond in the same package as eliminating unlimited harvest on landlocked salmon.

Mr. Brautigam stated the difference on Crawford Pond, we had salmon that moved up. There is a barrier on the stream and there were flow conditions that allowed for the salmon to move up from lower in the drainage further up. We did not want them there. We had movement of a species we felt was going to be impactful which was assessed on a case-by-case basis. We would take steps to prevent the movement of that species. In the case of Baker Pond, we had an overabundant population of brook trout. Concerns of competition or shifting the focus of management, that was not happening there.

Larry Bastian stated they would stand by their objection to Baker Pond, Mr. Brautigam had eluded to landlocked salmon predation on brook trout.

Claire Perry posted the following comment in the chat function of Microsoft Teams, 4 out of 5 biologists on the Coyote Management subcommittee program (2020-2030) strongly supported a closed season for our coyotes: April 15-Oct 15 and a focused outreach effort on reaching the public regarding coyote's benefits. I respect Nate, but the information he shared with you was either not new, not coyote specific, and not specifically focused on the benefits of our coyotes. I feel this is important and am in communication with Nate on how a more effective and simple method might be agreeable. I would be happy to talk to anybody further about this important matter. Or answer your questions right now...which I am hoping at least some of you might have. Thank you. * Basically, these biologists felt it is time to raise the status of our coyotes from vermin to valuable predator/furbearer. And I am NOT about ending hunting...just for the record. Thank you.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the wardens had started notifying people who had boat moorings out further than 200 feet from shore on Sebago Lake.

Colonel Scott stated there was a regulation that you couldnt place a mooring outside the headway speed zone of 200 feet and there were anchorage laws, etc. that had been in place for a long time. If you were in a town with a harbor master the town could create ordinances around how many moorings you could have, but there was a state law that they could not be out beyond 200 feet. DACF had a division that regulated moorings and buoys and markers, but IFW was the enforcement side. The number of people using the waters had increased greatly over the last 20-30 years. People who did not own land on a particular water body had moved boats into certain areas. As property values increased and space becomes more limited, homeowners had begun to complain about where some of the moorings were. Many moorings were extending beyond 200 feet and interfering with navigation. There had been so many complaints coming in we were going to identify who had moorings that were not in compliance, educate and notify them they were not in compliance and try to begin to work with the marinas and towns. Many did not realize they were not in compliance. We were starting with Sebago Lake. Registration information was gathered, and letters were sent notifying them they were out of compliance and had 30-days to come into compliance. A lot of people responded. It was our hope to bring awareness for next spring.

Commissioner Camuso stated we were working on budget priorities and bills for the upcoming session. She also made the Council aware of an issue that had been raised regarding Atlantic salmon within a fishway and a request to close the fishway. The Department was not in favor of doing that and was following up on the request. There were current rules in place protecting Atlantic salmon and we would follow up with I&E for educational updates.

There were no further questions or comments.

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 4, 2024, at 9:30am at IFW, Augusta.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne and that was seconded by Mr. Pineau to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.





MDIW 2025 Fishing Regulation Packet
Step 2 of the Advisory Council
Public Comments
August 1st, 2024


Rule packet presented at step 1 of the Advisory Council on June 26th, 2024
Public Hearing convened July 15, 2024 (no members of the public provided comments)
Public comment period closed on July 25, 2024


A total of 20 comments were received electronically during the public comment period; this is an unusually low volume of comments for fisheries regulation packets. 35% of the comments focused on specific rule changes, the majority of the comments (65%) were not germane to the rule packet.

Comments that were not germane to the packet still provided insight into public concerns or interests that staff are able to take into consideration in the future. Also on most rule making packets, we tend to hear more from rule opponents than the general public who are satisfied and support Department proposals. That said we received a number of positive public comments, including praise for our communication efforts with creating the awareness of this years rule making packet, and an appreciation for the format of the information as well as the level of detail provided for supporting the proposed changes.

General Summary of public comments and agency perspective by regulation theme
SPECIAL NEEDS. 3 comments on 2 waters
Snowshoe Pond - Two commenters opposed the proposed S-4 regulation (No live fish as bait) due to concerns about the potential loss of opportunity of using live fish as bait during the ice fishing season as that is their primary method of angling.

MDIFW Response: The Department recognizes that live fish as bait is popular among ice anglers but would like to highlight that Snowshoe Lake supports a Lake Whitefish population which is a species of special concern identified in the Maine Wildlife Action Plan. Lake Whitefish populations have suffered significant declines over the past 50 years and the Department has determined that whitefish remain present in about 50 waters in Maine. Many of these waters no longer supported self-sustaining populations, meaning we are likely to see continuing decline of the species, including complete loss of whitefish populations in a number of lakes. Lake Whitefish declines have coincided with the introduction of rainbow smelt, and research in Maine and elsewhere has identified smelt as the primary cause of recruitment failure and eventual loss of whitefish populations. In an effort to prevent further introductions of nonnative species such as rainbow smelt, the department has proposed the addition of the S-4 regulation to afford additional protection for the Lake Whitefish population that persists in Snowshoe Lake. The Department would also like to highlight that anglers can still use baitfish while angling at this water with the distinction that the bait must be dead. This approach has proven to be effective and still provides the opportunity for anglers to use baitfish when ice fishing while minimizing potential nonnative species introductions. Please see our 2022 blog post highlighting this angling method. (https://www.maine.gov/ifw/blogs/mdifw-blog/tips-deputy-commissioner-fishing-dead-baitfish)

Little Wilson Pond One commentor focused on the proposed addition of a S-7 regulation (All trout, Landlocked Salmon, and Togue caught must be released alive at once). The commentor felt that recent MDIFW survey efforts suggesting potential signs of low recruitment do not align with what anglers are observing out on the water.

MDIFW Response: At times, anglers observations can contradict our findings, however our decisions for managing fisheries across the state are supported by our scientific methodologies which we use to inform our decision-making process. In this instance, our most recent sampling data suggested a lack of recruitment of younger age classes into the fishery so in order to conserve the health of the fishery, this proposal of adding the S-7 regulation is intended to support recruitment into the fishery by preventing harvest on sexually mature Brook Trout.

STATE HERITAGE WATER LIST. Two comments were provided relating to the State Heritage Water List theme with both comments in support for the proposed additions (Aziscohos Lake, Upper Hudson Pond, Upper South Branch Pond, and Thomas Lake) to the State Heritage Water List.

SALMONID GROWTH, CONDITION, AND PERFORMANCE. One comment was received.

Baker Pond - The commenter was opposed to the proposed addition of a S-22 (Daily bag limit on Landlocked Salmon: 1 fish) regulation on Baker Pond. This commentor highlighted that Baker Pond is a State Heritage Fish Water and that adding a protective regulation for wild Landlocked Salmon is inconsistent with the intent of State Heritage Law by actively managing salmon that were introduced to the Pond in the 1960s.

MDIFW Response: The current Heritage Law precludes any new stocking in heritage waters and does not reference existing fish assemblages and how they should be managed by the Department. Salmon were introduced in the 60s by the Department (well prior to the heritage law), resulting in the creation of a small wild salmon population. The Department actively manages salmon as a resource, which coexists with brook trout to provide a recreational fishery. It was the angling public there that created awareness with our biological staff that the salmon population may be in decline.

ERRORS, CONFLICTS, AND CONFUSION.One comment was received.

Flagstaff Lake - This commenter was opposed to the proposed changes at Flagstaff Lake for demarcating the delineation of the regulated area. This commentor felt it would be difficult to interpret delineations and felt that the use of red posts would more clearly identify the regulated boundary of Flagstaff Lake.

MDIFW Response: The department recognizes the challenges with delineation of regulated areas around the state. Traditionally this demarcation was accomplished using red posts recommended by the commenter. This solution requires additional maintenance, and the posts get mysteriously relocated, so the department has moved away from use of installing posts to using more obvious and permanent landmarks for demarcation that can be more easily mapped on the Departments Fishing Laws Online Angling Tool.

EXPANDED ANGLING OPPORTUNITY. No comments were received relating to this regulation theme.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400
AUGUSTA, ME
(Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams)
please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)


December 4, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.
I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions
IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


V. Rule Making


A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2
1. Species of Special Concern..... Nate Webb
2. Upland game season. Nate Webb


C. Step 1
There are no items under Step 1.


VI. Other Business


VII. Councilor Reports 11:00 A.M.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

IX. Schedule Date for Next Meeting

X. Adjournment 11:30 A.M.


ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING October 22, 2024 @ 9:30am 353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room Augusta, ME (and virtually via Microsoft Teams)

Attending:
Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Liz Latti, Fisheries & Hatcheries Division Director
Alexander Fish, Endangered Species Coordinator
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Biologist
Phillip DeMaynadier, Wildlife Diversity Section Supervisor
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Dan Scott, Game Warden Colonel
Cody Lounder, Game Warden
Cindy Rego, Warden Service Admin
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristin Peet (Chair) - via Teams
Shelby Rousseau (vice-Chair) via Teams
Eric Ward
Al Cowperthwaite
Roger (Rod) Grant
Bob Duchesne via Teams
Ed Pineau via Teams
Tony Liguori via Teams
Vacant Washington County seat


GUESTS
8 additional staff and public members


I. Call to Order


Commissioner Camuso called the meeting to order.


I-A. Pledge of Allegiance


II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions


Introductions were made.


IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting


A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.


Vote: Unanimous in favor minutes approved.


V. Rulemaking


A. Step 3


1. Furbearer rules Ch. 16 & 17


Mr. Webb stated previously, we had hunting and trapping information for furbearers combined in one rule (Chapter 4), and later separated those into two chapters 16 & 17. Afterwards, we realized some of the information wasn't carried over to the trapping chapter. The proposal was an effort to correct some of those errors and move the information on the possession, transportation and registration of furbearers from chapter 16, which is the hunting chapter, to chapter 17. The rule also clarifies the tagging requirements for coyotes. A public hearing was held on August 29th and there were no members of the public that attended. We did not receive any written comments on the proposal.


There were no further questions or comments.


A motion was made by Mr. Ward to accept the proposals as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite.


Vote: Unanimous in favor motion passed


B. Step 2


There were no items under Step 2.


C. Step 1


1. Species of Special Concern


Mr. Webb stated the proposal was an update to our species of special concern list, which is a list that went through rulemaking a couple of years ago. Most of the proposal was a housekeeping exercise to remove species from the special concern list that were added to the state endangered and threatened species list in 2023 that was in law. There were also taxonomic name updates that we wanted to make to keep them current, and three species being added to the list.


Mr. Fish gave a PowerPoint presentation to the group. For a copy of the presentation please contact becky.orff@maine.gov


Mr. Fish stated there were over 15,000 species in Maine, the vast majority of those were invertebrates. People were more familiar with the birds, amphibians, mammals, etc. and they tended to get more attention. We had 57 species listed under Maines endangered species act in statute. There were 112 species of special concern listed currently. This was our "watch list" for those species that might make it to the endangered and threatened species list, or species we were focusing more attention on trying to get conservation status assessments because they were in decline or might be rare in Maine. We also had species of greatest conservation need and there were 378 species on that list for Maine that was last updated in 2015. That list was found in the State Wildlife Action Plan. We were currently in the process of revising Maines Wildlife Action Plan so the number was likely to change by the end of 2025.


Mr. Fish went over the changes outlined in the proposal.


Council Member Comments and Questions


Mr. Ligouri asked how the data was gathered on each species to determine decline, etc.


Mr. DeMaynadier stated the numbers were rounded. With insects, the proxy for decline was usually loss of presence within a historical range, not numbers per say. We had partners in the University of Maine Farmington, Colby College and a biologist from New Brunswick that were helping to guide the citizen science atlas effort. We would also draw on previously trained entomologists who helped with the flower fly effort. They were pretty identifiable species because they were so colorful. He suspected we would get a lot of recruitment, and it would be successful.


Mr. Ligouri asked if we were finding that the European, whatever forms they were, causing species to decline were they filling the gap and pollinating?


Mr. DeMaynadier stated he was not sure. Honey came from the European honeybee. It was quite possible that another species in the same taxa was playing an important role and serving support for some functions. With bumblebees the decline was a result of diseases that had been introduced via the European honeybee and some other introduced bees. It was a mixed blessing whether those introductions could fill ecosystem gaps or were creating declines in a whole diversity of species that were doing just fine before they arrived.


There were no further questions or comments.


2. Upland Game Season


Mr. Webb stated the proposal related to the start date of the hunting season for upland game. The issue went back to 2019 when the legislature amended the start date of the hunting season for upland game species to start on the last Saturday in September. Previously, the season started on October 1st. There was an interest at that time to start the season a few days earlier prior to the end of the general fishing season to allow a cast and blast weekend so people could hunt upland game on Saturday and fish on Sunday. That was in place for several years and in 2023 there was a bill introduced in the legislature that requested some changes to the timing of the moose hunting seasons. The outcome of that bill, the legislature directed the Department to establish a stakeholder group to discuss conflicts related to moose hunting seasons, timing, different activities on the landscape, etc. The group met throughout 2023 and developed a report with several recommendations.

The stakeholder group made several recommendations which the Department was in the process of implementing. One of those was to develop an education course specifically for moose hunters. Another recommendation was to survey hunters, landowners, residents, businesses, etc. to understand the level of conflict during moose hunting seasons and their perception on any potential changes to moose hunting seasons. They also recommended we use the survey results to assess whether any additional rulemaking may be required to help better distribute moose hunters and other recreational users on the landscape and reduce conflicts. The stakeholder group also recommended we move forward in the short term with modifying the September grouse hunting season that would maintain the opportunity for the cast and blast weekend, the open last Saturday in September but then not continue the season until October 1st in an effort to reduce conflict between bird hunters and moose hunters.

The report was brought back to the legislature, and they passed Public Law 530 which amended the language around the start date of the upland game season to simply state that the season must include the last Saturday in September, but did not have to start on that date and then carry forward until the end. The understanding was that we would move the stakeholder groups recommendation forward to rulemaking to the Advisory Council to modify the upland game season accordingly such that there would be a 1-day season on the last Saturday in September and then the season would not continue until October 1st. Depending on the calendar and the year it could mean that the season would pick up again on Monday, or it could mean there was close to a week gap before the season reopened. The exception to the seasons would be for woodcock which was set in the migratory bird season proposal.

Council Member Questions and Comments

Commissioner Camuso stated thinking about the survey that was completed and if one of the recommendations was to move the second moose season so it didnt have to coincide with Indigenous Peoples Day, would it continue to conflict with a moose week if there was a recommendation to change that week.

Mr. Webb stated the conflict was with the first bull season (September). The overlap varied because both that season and the start of the upland game season were calendar based. It was a social issue, there was very little biological nexus to the dates. It was clear from the survey there were a lot of different opinions. The general public did not feel like there was a major issue, it was a small percentage that felt like there was conflict. There were some districts and parts of the state where the feeling that there were some conflict was higher than others.

Mr. Cordes stated they were still finalizing the report with Responsive Management. The majority of the conflicts had been identified and reported between guides, guides having problems with other guides.

Commissioner Camuso stated one of the things the Department had gotten better at was working with human dimensions specialists and using that science to help the Department better understand public opinions.

Mr. Duchesne asked about how the seasons were changing and whether the problem was going to get worse. It was getting harder to get wood out in the winter and the roads were thawing too fast. He was wondering if there was going to be more pressure in the harvest season in the fall and overlap with the hunting seasons.

Commissioner Camuso stated the Department also had concerns about access issues. There were areas where hunters used to have access but now there were bridges out and obstructions that the roads were not being maintained the same way they had been in the past.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated some larger landowners were going into conservation carbon credits where they were paid not to cut wood. Subsequently, if they were not cutting wood they were not fixing roads.

Mrs. Rousseau stated there was a lot of concern about lack of access, when lack of access was due to weather patterns that we couldnt keep up with the maintenance and management to provide opportunities to people. There was also concern with taking the moose out of the woods and getting them to the butcher on time because the weather was warmer.

Commissioner Camuso stated getting the moose to a butcher in time was an issue that could be addressed if people would modify their behavior and quarter the moose in the woods.

Mrs. Peet stated there was a group of land trusts and conservation organizations called the Maine Mountain Collaborative that met several times a year. A couple of years ago, Sarah Boyden and Kris MacCabe met with the group to talk about road access and hunting access issues. It may be a good time for someone from the Department attend one of their meetings again. It was all groups that worked with large landowners.

Mr. Webb stated the current statute that was recently changed did not require that we change the season, it provided the option for the season to be changed. The Department committed to taking the proposal forward through rulemaking, but if it did not pass the rule would not be out of compliance with the law.

Mr. Grant stated he felt Maine hunters and outdoor people took Maine access for granted compared to every other state in the country. Unless it was state or federal land somewhere else you didnt access it unless you had a written permission slip.

There were no further questions or comments.

VI. Other Business

Commissioner Camuso discussed upcoming budget initiatives. We would be requesting a $6.50 fishing license fee increase. The license fee had not increased since 2010. License sales appeared flat and federal funds (Pittman Robertson) were not increasing. She discussed position reclassifications and the new IFW headquarters was moving forward with the construction bid going out in the spring. The hope was to have the building completed by 2027.

Mrs. Latti discussed the hatchery projects for New Gloucester and Grand Lake Stream. They were breaking ground on the New Gloucester hatchery, and they had received one bid for Grand Lake Stream.

Mr. Webb discussed the recent PFAS advisory for the consumption of deer and turkey in the Fairfield, Unity areas.

VII. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

There were no public questions or comments.

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, December 4, 2024, at 9:30am at IFW, Augusta.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Ward and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400
AUGUSTA, ME
(Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams)
please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)

February 18, 2025 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions
IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


V. Rule Making

A. Step 3 There are no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2 There are no items under Step 2.

C. Step 1
1. 2025-26 Migratory Bird Seasons...... Kelsey Sullivan
2. Gray Squirrel Hunting Season Jen Vashon


VI. Other Business

VII. Councilor Reports 11:00 A.M.
VIII. Public Comments & Questions
IX. Schedule Date for Next Meeting
X. Adjournment 11:30 A.M.


ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
December 4, 2024 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)


Attending:
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Jen Vashon, Game Research and Management Section Supervisor
Liz Latti, Fisheries & Hatcheries Division Director
Alexander Fish, Endangered Species Coordinator
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Biologist
Phillip DeMaynadier, Wildlife Diversity Section Supervisor
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Angie Dionne, Licensing and Registration Division Director
Dan Scott, Game Warden Colonel
Cody Lounder, Game Warden Corporal
Andrew Smart, Game Warden
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristin Peet (Chair) - via Teams
Shelby Rousseau (vice-Chair) via Teams
Eric Ward
Al Cowperthwaite
Roger (Rod) Grant
Ed Pineau via Teams
Tony Liguori via Teams
Mike Gawtry via Teams
Vacant Washington County seat


GUESTS
1 in person 2 online

I. Call to Order

Kristin Peet, Council Chair called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

Introductions were made.

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Pineau to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Vote: Unanimous in favor minutes approved.

V. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Species of Special Concern

Mr. Webb stated this was to update the species of special concern list to reflect changes that were made to the endangered and threatened species list (E&T) which occurred in statute. The proposal would remove eight species from the special concern list because they had been added to the E&T list. We also took the opportunity to propose updates to a number of both common and scientific names to reflect updates to nomenclature for those species. We were also proposing to add three species to the special concern list to improve information for those species. A public hearing was held on November 4th and no one attended the hearing. We received one written comment from Maine Audubon in support of the proposal.

A motion was made by Mr. Cowperthwaite and seconded by Mr. Ward to move the item to Step 3 for final adoption.

Vote: Unanimous in favor move item to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mrs. Peet to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Ward.

Vote: Unanimous in favor motion passed.

2. Upland Game Season

Mr. Webb stated this was the result of an extended legislative discussion about moose hunting seasons and conflicts between moose hunters and other hunters and the general public. We were asked to convene a stakeholder group to discuss the issue. The group developed a report with a number of recommendations, one of which was to adjust the start of the upland game season such that we would have a one day season the last Saturday of September every year and then the season would close until October 1st. The legislature amended the statue to allow the season framework to be adjusted to reflect the recommendation. We told the Committee we would bring the recommendation forward through rulemaking. A public hearing was held on November 4th with 12 people in attendance. All 12 provided testimony, most opposing the proposal. One testified neither for nor against (MPGA). We received 50 written comments, 44 were opposed, 1 in support and the remainder were neither for nor against or expressed concern with parts of the proposal. The feedback received was fairly consistent. There was concern the proposal favored moose hunters over others; upland game hunters would lose opportunity; conflicts experienced by moose hunters were perceived and not necessarily a decline in harvest; concern over loss of days of upland game hunting. There were a number of comments that pointed out that the season change would occur statewide, yet moose hunting only occurred in a small number of WMDs during that time. Based on that and overwhelming testimony from the public with little support for the proposal the Department was recommending not moving forward with the proposal. The Commissioner was withdrawing the proposal.

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Liguori stated he was in favor of withdrawing the proposal.

Mr. Pineau stated all he heard was opposition to the proposal.

Mr. Ward stated he was involved with the stakeholder group and felt it was a good compromise.

Mr. Webb stated we were reconvening the moose stakeholder group and would be discussing the public survey and general feedback they received. The survey seemed to reaffirm the public comments. The vast majority of hunters did not feel there was an issue with conflicts, it seemed to be a segment of the guiding community that felt there were conflicts.

Mr. Gawtry stated from the comments he received it was loud and clear we were moving in the right direction by withdrawing the proposal.

Mr. Cowperthwaite stated there seemed to be a conflict of people moose hunting on a side road and partridge hunters driving in. You couldn't block roads. He didnt know how it would work if you had some kind of sign to put up and take down as a courtesy that someone was hunting there.

Mr. Grant stated he had also received negative comments on the proposal. The grouse hunters were not in favor.

Mr. Cordes stated discussing solutions, one of the recommendations of the stakeholder group was continuance of our education material, the voluntary moose education packet.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we put a lot of time into stakeholder groups. When sitting on a stakeholder group representing something he thought it was important if their role was representing an organization to seriously reach out to that organization and get some response back as to what their position was and bring that perspective back to the table.

Mr. Pineau stated there would likely have been a bill in the legislature during the upcoming session if we had moved forward with the rule. It was the most comments he had received since being on the Advisory Council.

There were no further questions or comments.

C. Step 1

There were no items under Step 1.

VI. Other Business

Mr. Webb gave an overview of 2024 deer hunting season. There had been 40,000 deer harvested so far, which was the 4th or 5th highest harvest. Most of the harvest took place during the firearms hunting season. Biological data sampling was being conducted as well as sex and age ratios. There had also been some meat consumption concerns that were addressed. The moose season success rate for the September bull season was 72%.

Colonel Scott discussed enforcement during the moose and deer seasons. Additional online training would be helpful to avoid mistaken kills and baiting for deer was a growing concern. It had been a safe year with few incidents.

Mr. Webb stated the USFWS had released a draft lynx recovery plan which we were reviewing. It was a path towards delisting.

Mr. Pineau asked about baiting in other states.

Mr. Webb stated it was allowed in other states with varied regulations. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies recommended prohibiting baiting due to the increase in the chance for disease spread such as chronic wasting disease (CWD). States were clamping down as disease reached closer to their borders.

Mrs. Peet stated that feeding of deer was legal but baiting was not.

Mr. Webb stated there were negative consequences with feeding but in some instances there was increased survival. There were some inconsistencies. We were considering the aspects of CWD in our management plan.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody gave an update on the hatchery projects for New Gloucester, Grand Lake Stream and Embden. The projects had required an additional $7 million to complete. The Governor had approved the additional funds.

Mrs. Latti stated that there would be a proposed $7 increase for fishing licenses in the next budget with $1 going towards boat access and $6 going toward staffing and resources for species of greatest conservation need.

VII. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

There were no public questions or comments.

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The Council would be notified of the next meeting date at a later time.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Pineau and that was seconded by Mr. Ward to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400
AUGUSTA, ME
(Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams)
please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)


March 18, 2025 @ 9:30 a.m.




AGENDA


I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.
I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


V. Rule Making
A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2
1. 2025-26 Migratory Bird Seasons...... Kelsey Sullivan
2. Gray Squirrel Hunting Season...... Jen Vashon

C. Step 1
1. 2025 Moose permit allocations.... Lee Kantar


VI. Other Business


VII. Councilor Reports 11:00 A.M.
VIII. Public Comments & Questions

IX. Schedule Date for Next Meeting

X. Adjournment 11:30 A.M.


ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
February 18, 2025 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)

Attending:
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Christl Theriault, Assistant to the Commissioner
Jen Vashon, Game Research and Management Section Supervisor
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Lauren McPherson, Resource Biologist
Kory Whittum, Fisheries Planner and Research Coordinator
Angie Dionne, Licensing and Registration Division Director
Cody Lounder, Game Warden Corporal
Andrew Smart, Game Warden
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder


COUNCIL MEMBERS
Bob Duchesne
Shelby Rousseau (vice-Chair) - via Teams
Eric Ward via Teams
Al Cowperthwaite via Teams
Tony Liguori via Teams
Mike Gawtry via Teams
Vacant Washington County seat


GUESTS
Claire Perry online


I. Call to Order


Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner called the meeting to order.


I-A. Pledge of Allegiance


II. Moment of Silence


III. Introductions
Introductions were made.


IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting


A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mrs. Rousseau.


Vote: Unanimous in favor minutes approved.


V. Rulemaking


A. Step 3


There were no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2


There were no items under Step 2.


C. Step 1


1. 2025-26 Migratory Bird Seasons


Mr. Sullivan gave a short PowerPoint presentation. For a copy of the slide presentation please contact becky.orff@maine.gov Mr. Sullivan went over harvest and population status metrics for key species and stated he would highlight some changes from the 2024 season that were outside of the changes for the calendar year. From 1999-2023 the estimate of active waterfowl hunters (HIP program) shows that over time there was a decline until about 2015 and there has been a steady increase in interest and participation. There was a general trend upward. In 2023, the USFWS had a change in sampling framework that led to an elevated level of estimates. Maine sea duck harvest from 1999-2023, eiders, long-tailed ducks and scoters, we made a major change to the sea duck season in 2016 as a response to the decline in harvest which was reflective of a decline in populations. In 2024 we made a change to reduce the common eider bag limit from 3 to 2. In 2022 we made a change in the sea duck season to reduce the number of days and bag limit overall and still saw in increase the next year. That was part of the justification for reducing the bag limit. That trend was still of concern.

Mr. Sullivan stated from 1999-2023 for mallard and black duck harvest, the same trends were likely related to participation increasing. Both harvest estimates had increased slightly for mallards and more substantially for black ducks. Breeding population estimates for black ducks and mallards were from aerial transects that were flown by USFWS. There was a slight increase in mallard breeding population estimates and a slight decline in black ducks. The black duck trend was slight and associated more with habitat changes/losses and factors other than harvest which was why we didn't see a change to reduce the bag limit.

Mr. Sullivan stated wood duck and teal harvest for that same time frame had gone up likely related to participation. In 2008 we also had a bag limit change from 2 to 3 for wood duck and harvest had increased. The percentage of wood duck and hooded merganser broods observed in Maine from 1999 2024, productivity had been increasing for wood ducks. The goal for wood ducks was that 25% of broods or greater were wood ducks in our counts. Even with the bag limit increase we maintained or increased beyond that goal. Merganser and ring-necked duck breeding population estimates in Maine, mergansers were at a slight increase and ring-necked ducks were showing a slight decline. The Canada goose harvest over the same time frame, with the goal to increase harvest in Maine to reduce conflicts.

Mr. Sullivan stated American woodcock harvest in Maine from 2006 2023, increase in harvest over that time similar to waterfowl attributed to the increase in participation. For the breeding population index, singing ground surveys show a slight decline per year attributed to habitat changes and loss not attributed to harvest.

Mr. Sullivan discussed the rule proposal, which was consistent with the previous years seasons, etc. One thing to note for the North zone, we could start as early as the Saturday closest to September 24th , but Maine has traditionally started the Monday after that Saturday. Last year it was September 23rd, the way the calendar shifted for 2025 that Monday would be September 29th. Also, on pg. 5 of the proposal, there was an error. In "Exceptions" (Section F.) under northern pintail the bag limit should be 3. It should be listed in the wood duck section. The northern pintail bag limit had been one for several years, and there was a harvest strategy that dictates the allowable take. The 2024 breeding population estimate was 1.97 million across the country. That yields an allowable take of 3 northern pintail per day. How that related to Maine was minimal, we harvested on average 220 northern pintail across the season.

Mr. Sullivan discussed a concept for next year. When he met with the waterfowl council in December 2024, the idea of shifting the north zone somehow was discussed. Every 5 years we could make a change to the waterfowl zone configuration and 2026 would be the next opportunity. We had made proposals in the past to modify the north/south zone line. When a season opened in the north zone it spanned a large geographic area. When it closed, which would be Dec. 6, 2025 up in Aroostook County it closed in Cumberland County as well. That north/south zone line closed when there was still probably 3-4 weeks of duck hunting opportunity. We proposed to make that line higher to accommodate when ducks were in that area, but in the past there was not enough support to change it. We were looking at a way to move the zone higher or have a split in the north zone so that it would close mid-November and reopen in mid-December so there could be more north zone hunting opportunity. We could move the line or have a split season for more hunting opportunity in the southern part of the zone. We would be working on a survey over the next year to gauge whether or not to move forward with a proposal.

Council Member Comments and Questions


Mr. Duchesne stated some of the uptick seemed to relate to Covid. We saw people going out and doing more recreational stuff and he wondered how much influence that might be in some of the uptick in hunting.

Mr. Sullivan stated he thought very much so. With waterfowl hunting it seemed to be sustaining.

Mr. Gawtry stated there had also been an uptick in sporting goods sales.

There were no further questions or comments.

2. Gray Squirrel Hunting Season


Mrs. Vashon stated we were recommending extending the gray squirrel season by one month. The season currently opened the last Saturday in September and closed on December 31st. We were proposing to extend the season and close on January 31st. There would be no change in the current bag limit or possession limit which was 4 and 8. There would not be any changes to the falconry season which opened the last Saturday in September and closed February 28th. We were proposing the change due to the abundance of the gray squirrel populations. Biologist Shevenell Webb had sent a survey to staff prior to proposing the rule change and everyone supported the increased hunting opportunity. This was also viewed as increased opportunity for youth hunting. We also looked at how our season related to other northeastern states. By extending our season it would be more in line with other states.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody asked if we had any requests from the public to extend the season.

Mrs. Vashon stated we had. Historically, we did receive some requests. We had one individual reach out over the past year.

There were no further questions or comments.

VI. Other Business

Deputy Commissioner Peabody discussed legislative proceedings. The bills were very slow in being printed. One bill had been passed through the IFW Committee which was a resolve for the Department to look into self-registration of deer. We would report back to the Committee in December on a proposed pilot project for self-registration of deer. He also discussed budget initiatives which included a $7 fishing license fee increase to support native fisheries and hatcheries.

Ms. Theriault discussed the Departments omnibus bill which included a lead tackle law clarification and added definitions for sinker and jig.

VII. Councilor Reports


Councilors gave reports.


VIII. Public Comments & Questions


There were no public questions or comments.


IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting


The next Advisory Council meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, March 18, 2025 at 9:30 a.m.

X. Adjournment


A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne and that was seconded by Mr. Cowperthwaite to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
353 WATER STREET, ROOM 400
AUGUSTA, ME
(Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams)
please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information)


April 29, 2025 @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Call to Order 9:30 A.M.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Moment of Silence
III. Introductions

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting


V. Rule Making


A. Step 3
There are no items under Step 3.


B. Step 2
1. 2025 Moose permit allocations..... Lee Kantar


C. Step 1
1. Ch. 27 Animal Damage Control Agent Certificate rules.....Bob Cordes
2. Fall turkey season WMD 3.....Jen Vashon
3. Furbearer seasons, rule clarification...Shevenell Webb


VI. Other Business


VII. Councilor Reports 11:00 A.M.
VIII. Public Comments & Questions

IX. Schedule Date for Next Meeting

X. Adjournment 11:30 A.M.