Meeting Minutes

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.