Advisory Council Meeting Minutes

June 26, 2008 – 9:30a.m.
Scarborough Fish and Game
70 Holmes Road
Scarborough, Maine


Roland D. Martin, Commissioner
Andrea Erskine, Assistant to the Commissioner
Ken Elowe, Director of Bureau of Resource Management
John Boland, Director of Fisheries Operations
Regis Tremblay, Director of Information and Education
Mark Stadler, Wildlife Division Director
Steve Walker, Resource Management, Beginning with Habitat
Colonel Joel Wilkinson
Lt. Adam Gormely
Jason Luce, Warden Investigator                              
Becky Orff, Secretary and Recorder

Council Members

Joe Clark, Chair
Mike Witte
Frank Dunbar
Cathy DeMerchant
Ray Poulin
Ron Usher
Al Goodwin 

Representative Peggy Pendleton
Don Kleiner, MBA 

I. Call to Order
Mr. Clark, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.

II. Introductions

Introductions were made.

III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting

Motion made by Mr. Usher and seconded by Mr. Dunbar to accept the minutes of the previous Council meeting as written.

Vote:  Unanimous – minutes accepted as written.


  • Step 3


1. 2008 Expanded Archery Season

Mr. Stadler stated this was adding a section to the Camden/Rockland/Thomaston expanded archery area.  It was a stretch of Camden north of Rt. 1 on the east side of Rt. 1; a narrow band there.  It had been proposed by the Maine Bowhunter’s Association.  He had talked with the Town of Camden and they were fine with it.  Part of the area encompassed Camden Hills State Park and he had talked to Will Harris at DOC and they stated that part of the park was administratively closed to hunting.  If they did not oppose, in our expanded archery definitions we would put in a note indicating the park was administratively closed to hunting.  There were no new comments or changes from Step 2.

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

Vote: unanimous - proposal accepted as presented.

2. 08-09 Fur Hunting/Trapping Seasons
Mr. Stadler stated there had been some modifications made to the proposal based on discussions with the Advisory Council and MTA.  The proposal was developed in consultation with the MTA and they were supportive of it.  The rule would establish a limit on fisher.  The Department had been concerned with declining fisher populations for the past couple of years and in 2007 we initiated a mechanism to reduce the fisher take.  MTA came to the Department in the spring and said they would like to try a limit.  That had been our original recommendation to MTA, so based on input we were proposing to go to a 10 fisher limit during the fisher trapping season.

Mr. Stadler stated the rule also would allow a trapper to take any mink that were incidentally taken during beaver trapping.  Currently, there was a provision that allowed a trapper to keep incidental otter associated with beaver and muskrat sets so MTA requested mink.  That request was reviewed by the Department and there was no issue with that. 

Mr. Stadler stated the third adjustment to the trapping rule was that MTA had requested a provision to allow the use of the Victor wooden based rat traps as a trap to take red squirrel and weasel.  There were comments raised as to whether that would be a legal device given the consent decree with use of killer type traps in WMDs 1-11.  When it was discussed with MTA, the Victor rat trap would have to be used the same way the conibear was used in WMDs 1-11.  When that became apparent that the rat trap couldn’t be used on the ground, it didn’t achieve what MTA was hoping to.  Based on discussions with Skip Trask they requested that be deleted from the proposal.  That was agreed upon and struck out of the proposal.

Council member comments and questions

Mr. Witte asked if tags would be sent out like martin tags were.

Mr. Stadler stated yes.  For martin, each licensed trapper was issued a unique set of 25 transportation tags.  All trappers would also receive 10 fisher tags and they would work the same way.

Mr. Elowe stated in 2007 there was a limit on fisher and martin season to 1 month.  The proposal expanded it to coincide with the regular trapping dates.  Whether a fisher was taken in another trap, it did not matter in 2008 and the size limitation for what a legal trap was covered all species.  If you were using a legal device and caught a fisher you were all set as long as you didn’t catch more than 10.

Mr. Witte asked if the rat trap in a cuddy was a pending issue that would be discussed at a later time, or was it a done deal?

Mr. Elowe stated it was a done deal according to the consent decree in WMDs 1-11 until an incidental take permit was allowed.

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

Vote: 6 in favor; 1 opposed - proposal accepted as amended.

3. Falconry Hunting - Gray Squirrels

Mr. Stadler stated there were a series of meetings with Maine falconers (only about 20 in the state) and they suggested the Department consider extending the gray squirrel season to have a special falconry season.  They proposed to run the regular falconry season for squirrels through February 28.  That would basically give falconers 2 additional months.  There were a number of reasons the Department felt this would be a good idea.   This would not impact the gray squirrel population and over the past few years the falconers had made some major concessions regarding the sport because they used to like to fly, particularly in southern Maine, over the scrub lands and marshes where New England cottontails habituated.  We had been working with the falconers to identify where the cottontails were and asked them to not hunt those areas with their birds.  They had been cooperative in doing that.  The squirrel season would be a good option for them to hunt their birds.  There had been no additional comments or changes since Step 2.

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

Vote: Unanimous - proposal accepted as presented.         

Step 2

1. St. John river Ice Fishing (tabled)

Commissioner Martin stated he would like John Boland to explain why more time was needed to discuss the issue.  Because this was located on International waters, we preferred to coordinate with the Canadian Government.  There had been an issue in meeting with the director and now it appeared they did not allow live bait, and we would prefer to allow live bait and other issues. 

Mr. Boland stated for the Department to move forward we had to be in agreement with New Brunswick.  Dave Basley had met with the New Brunswick biologist and they had identified their recommendations and they were a little at odds with Dave’s recommendations.  The proposal may or may not be ready at the August meeting when other fishing regulations would be proposed at Step 1. 

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Clark asked if there were other ice fishing waters in Canada that were open to live bait.

Mr. Boland stated yes.  All of the border waters in New Brunswick had special border water regulations that had been agreed upon by the U.S. and Canada.  This particular situation was one that fell through the cracks 8 or 10 years ago and there had been differing regulations for that many years.  We were now trying to reconcile the differences.

Mr. Clark asked if anyone had relayed the information to Mr. Kieffer.

Commissioner Martin stated Mr. Kieffer was aware of this.  If it came back at Step 3, proposing to do exactly what the Canadian government had done, Mr. Kieffer would probably suggest that we go further west, up to Madawaska, Ft. Kent, etc.  That probably would not be Commissioner Martin’s recommendation.  It would be inconsistent with the Federal Government.  He would like to have a trial period and in the future if both sides agreed to go further west, open it up. 

Mr. Clark asked how the petition was worded.

Mrs. Erskine stated it was generic, just to open it to ice fishing.

Mr. Boland asked if this would come back at Step 1.

Mrs. Erskine stated it would come back at Step 1 with length limits, bag limits, season dates, etc.

A motion was made by Mr. Usher and that was seconded by Mr. Witte to continue tabling the proposal.

Vote: unanimous - proposal tabled

Step 1

1. 08-09 Migratory Bird seasons

Mr. Stadler stated for the waterfowl migratory bird season, it was a bit of a different rulemaking process.  Migratory birds were Federal trust species so their ultimate management was with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).  Every year the USFWS met with the various flyway councils and made determinations about what would be allowed during the upcoming migratory bird hunting seasons.  Because of the Department’s 3-step rulemaking process, we had to shorten that up for migratory birds to fit in with the Federal process to set the season.  We would be receiving a form from the USFWS that would let us designate our early season selections and then later in the summer we would get the late season selection when we actually would be able to select our waterfowl season. In August there would be a meeting of the Waterfowl Council to review the proposed seasons for 2008-2009.  That evening a public hearing would be held and then the next day the Advisory Council would meet and take action on the proposal.  Waterfowl occurred over two Council meetings rather than the normal three.

Mr. Stadler stated we were still waiting for the guidelines from the USFWS about what the sideboards would be for the 2008-2009 season.  However, it was believed it would be a very similar season to last year. 

Council Member Comments and Questions

Commissioner Martin asked if a public hearing date had been set.

Mrs. Erskine stated August 20 in Augusta.

Mr. Elowe stated he wanted to clarify the Flyway Council process.  Migratory birds followed paths north to south every year.  We lived in the Atlantic Flyway which included all the Canadian provinces down to Puerto Rico.  Every state had a member on the Council and Mr. Elowe served for the State of Maine and was Vice-Chair of the Council.  USFWS was part of that also.  Our waterfowl biologists, Brad Allen and Kelsey Sullivan, also participated in the technical section of that.  All of the information we had on waterfowl was brought to those technical session meetings that met just before the Council did.  The technical session from all those states and provinces made recommendations to the Council to vote on.  In the 3rd week of July, those combined meetings would happen.  The Council would then make recommendations to the USFWS.  The USFWS would take those recommendations and come up with what the waterfowl hunting sideboards would be for the nation for the fall.  We wouldn’t know what the sideboards would be until the first week of August. 

Mr. Kleiner asked if there had been any word on changes to the woodcock season.

Mr. Stadler stated he had not heard of any changes.  There may be some changes with wood duck, but was not sure what that would be.

2. 08-09 Beaver season dates and closures

Mr. Stadler stated Department biologists were interacting with wardens to take a look at beaver numbers and populations and nuisance complaints and other issues to begin pulling together the beaver seasons and closures.  Beaver were quite plentiful in most of the state and we’d had very liberal beaver seasons and very few closures.  He did not anticipate any changes to that for the upcoming year.  We currently had some northern WMDs that opened to beaver trapping on November 1.  MTA suggested that we consider opening some of those at the start of the regular land trapping season.  We were considering that. 

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Witte asked about the nuisance list.

Mr. Stadler stated one of the tools we used when addressing nuisance beaver situations, particularly as we approached the fall and winter trapping season was to maintain a list of nuisance sites at our regional offices.  Trappers that were interested could contact the regional office and get information about sites that were out there that could be trapped.  Mr. Stadler stated that from talking with regional staff, very few trappers availed themselves to that information.  Mr. Stadler stated it might be beneficial to have an ADC program presentation.

Commissioner Martin polled the Council to see if they would find an ADC program presentation beneficial.  They agreed they would like the presentation.  It would be scheduled for the August meeting.

3. Mandatory Reporting of Lynx

Mr. Elowe stated as part of the ongoing discussion about lynx conservation in Maine and the responsibilities of the Maine trappers to cooperate with the Department and the USFWS we’ve had an assumption that if a trapper accidentally caught a lynx, they would report it to the Department.  In discussions about the incidental take permit with USFWS their enforcement staff wanted to make that more iron clad, they wanted to make it a requirement so that there’s something to fall back on if someone didn’t report catching a lynx.  For most trappers, they probably thought this was in place already.  MTA did not see this as a problem; they kind of assumed this was happening already.  Mr. Elowe would be emailing language to the Council as to what the proposal would be prior to Step 2.

V. Other Business

1. Cost of travel for Advisory Council meetings

Commissioner Martin stated at the last meeting the Council was informed that because of budgetary constraints and one of several efficiency exercises, in FY09 we had to recommend that we reduce our public hearings by 2 or 3 and also reduce our Advisory Council meetings by 2.  When this was brought to Council’s attention, one of the members, who was not present, suggested that maybe Council members should come without compensation and without asking for or requesting their $50 per diem.  Clearly, that was an option.  But, just because one member might be able to better afford coming to meetings at his or her expense, might not necessarily be fair to others that had to travel from Aroostook or away.  The fact was we told the Legislature we were going to reduce costs by eliminating 2 meetings.

Commissioner Martin stated a suggestion was also made that maybe instead of doing trips, it might be cheaper to have all meetings in Augusta.  He presented copies of an annual report showing Council meeting spending (see packet).  The written number was what he believed to be an estimated cost per member for that particular meeting.  It seemed that it didn’t matter where the meeting was held.  It would not be his recommendation that we cease doing road trips because he felt that was good for our constituents, also for staff to get out of Augusta or regional offices.  He would still recommend that we do what we told the Legislature that we would do, just reduce meetings.

Commissioner Martin stated that Mr. Clark had come up with a third alternative, video conferencing.  The statute required the Council to meet only twice a year, in May and December.  Traditionally, there were 9 – 11 meetings held per year.  Video conferencing was an option.  He asked the Attorney General’s office if this was allowable.  The opinion from the Attorney General’s office was that video conferencing was fine, provided everybody that wanted to participate had the ability to do that.  Logistics might be difficult for the first couple of meetings, but this was doable.

Mr. Clark discussed his experience with video conferencing in the Millinocket area.  He knew that other state agencies used video conferencing to conduct business.  He proposed that the Council try this one or two times to see how it would work out.  Council members could bring constituents with them to the conferencing location; it may increase public participation.  This could be used to offset budget constraints with reduced mileage costs. 

Commissioner Martin asked if there were any Council members who felt we should not try video conferencing.

Mrs. Erskine stated as long as it was available to the public. 

Mr. Clark stated we would advertise it on the website, and make note of it in the papers.

Mrs. Erskine asked if we would need to identify the sites that were available to the public?

Mr. Clark stated we would contact UMA and they would set up the sites and Council members would travel to their closest site.  Mileage would be paid from home to the site. 

Commissioner Martin asked if there was a cost for the service?

Mr. Clark stated as far as he knew, there was no cost.

Commissioner Martin stated he would have staff follow up and get more information on it.  He was willing to try it, but not in lieu of meetings we said we were not going to have.

Mr. Usher stated we should try not more than 3 meetings and then discuss it.

Mr. Clark stated he was not saying the Council do this permanently, just to see how it worked.

2. Mileage Restrictions for Warden Service

Colonel Wilkinson introduced himself and gave some background information on his career in the Warden Service.  Regarding mileage, last year they went through 5 or 6 budget reductions and were given targets to meet.  One of the initiatives they had to deal with due to the rising energy costs was mileage.  Warden Service budget was broken into two parts; personal services, which covered salaries, retirement and overtime for staff (125 sworn law enforcement officers and 8 civilians) and the other part covered training, vehicles, equipment, fuel for regional headquarters; any support costs that went with running an agency such as Warden Service.  Warden Service was the second largest law enforcement agency in the State of Maine. 

Colonel Wilkinson stated one of the things they were asked to do was to make some reductions.  One of the areas they had to look at was their Central Fleet Management (CFM) bill.  They roughly had budgeted around $1.2 million last year to cover vehicle costs.  They budgeted that while fuel costs were around $2.49/gallon, we’re up to $3.55+/gallon.  Over the last 10 years they had averaged over about 3.2 million miles per year to provide coverage to the citizens and sportsmen of Maine.  That was proactive and reactive law enforcement responding to complaints.  To date they had responded to 8,894 calls for service from the public. 

Colonel Wilkinson stated they were asked for reductions, they reduced their mileage in 2007 by 10% overall mileage hoping that would make a significant savings.  As energy costs went up, the price of fuel went up and made their reductions in mileage, but overall savings were $70,000.  It almost was a wash, but they reduced their service time with their vehicles.  As they moved forward in 2009, some things he had to make decisions on as Bureau Director was they reduced their Central Fleet Management fleet by 25%.  They generally ordered 28 to 30 new vehicles per year on a 3 to 4 year life rotation.  He reduced that to 21 vehicles; extended some of the field supervisors vehicle rotation to a 4 to 5 year cycle.  They were running vehicles with 115,000 – 140,000 miles on them.  One of the issues when Central Fleet was developed was to get away from operating those types of vehicles.  In addition, they did not order any ¾ ton vehicles.  The only ¾ ton vehicles that would be ordered were essential to pulling trailers for the airboat, dive team, etc. to help with search and rescue efforts.

Colonel Wilkinson provided a graph to the Council showing mileage for Warden Service over the last 10 years.  It showed that they averaged about 3.2 million miles and because of the rising cost of energy they were going to be forced to operate about 1.8 million miles, they had to reduce their mileage by 1.4 million miles.  With that, people had to be aware there would be a reduction of service.  They were being asked to provide the same level of service, if not more, with 1.4 million miles less to drive.  They were in this until the next Legislative session.  He had made some requests to the Commissioner of DAFS per request from Commissioner Martin.  They didn’t have the mileage to do what they needed to do.  What it boiled down to was about 13,000 miles per year per warden to do their job.

Commissioner Martin stated the restriction that was imposed due to budget constraints was based on figures that were probably 2 – 4 months old.  Gas prices had continued to soar.  The 13,000 mile restriction was not based on $4.00/gallon, but the previous figure.  It meant about $320,000 per year in extra funds to go back to the norm. 

Council Member Comments and Questions

Mr. Goodwin asked if the restrictions would go forward until June 30, 2009.

Colonel Wilkinson stated they would go through until the end of May.  The fiscal year ran July 1 through the end of June.  Any mileage taken in June was billed out in July.  They ran June 1 to the end of May, FY 09.

Mr. Usher asked about carpooling, etc.

Colonel Wilkinson stated most of the supervisory staff meetings were conducted by conference calls, when people were traveling for training there were 4 people per vehicle and administrative staff were using cars.

Mr. Usher asked if search and rescue monies came out of a separate budget.

Colonel Wilkinson stated they did not.

Mr. Clark asked when there was a search and rescue, how far a radius did the warden service come in for.

Colonel Wilkinson stated any time there was a large scale search they deployed an incident management team that managed a multi-day search.  Warden service charge has been if there was an emergency/public safety concern we had a statutory obligation to respond.  We would respond, we could not say we were not going.  It would be up to the Colonel to find the money after the fact. 

Mr. Clark stated someone should put out a press release stating that if there was an emergency warden service would respond; we would do whatever we could to make sure that was taken care of and worry about money later.

Colonel Wilkinson stated they still needed to operate within their budget.

Mr. Clark asked if the State was looking at better ways of buying vehicles or buying in bulk for fuel, etc. 

Colonel Wilkinson stated we were obligated to do all vehicle purchases through CFM.  They provided vehicle services to all state agencies with the exception of DOT and Public Safety.  Any way we could cut with them, they provided options and we had cut.  They bought in bulk, vehicles, tires, fuel and we got a reduced savings from Irving from buying fuel there.  We had cut as far as we could cut.

Commissioner Martin stated we did not purchase vehicles, we leased them.  CFM decided how long we used the vehicles.  We could decide on the vehicles we leased, with certain strings attached.  The per mileage cost also included gasoline, they serviced the vehicles, bought the tires, etc.  The Legislature stated we shall lease vehicles from Central Fleet.

Mr. Elowe stated that Central Fleet had been very cooperative any time we had suggested something.  We provided ideas, they provided data and with that we could come up with solutions that worked for us.

Commissioner Martin stated we were going to do whatever it took to save lives, continue performing our mission conditioned upon the available resources that we had.

3. Fishing Regulation Changes

Mr. Boland stated there would be a proposal before the Council in August for fishing regulation changes.  We had been involved in the last few years making a lot of changes in the fishing lawbooks aimed at simplifying the lawbook, providing more opportunity and providing more consistency.  At the same time we also wanted to provide consistency between the ice fishing and open water fishing books.  Based on budget cuts we were now proposing, beginning in 2010, to combine the books.  This was something we had thought about in the last year or two and we had surveyed around 20 northern tier states, and we were the only state that still used 2 lawbooks. 

Mr. Boland stated that even though we’d had the 2 books for many years, we tried to keep them on a parallel track.  For the last 6 or 8 years we’d been trying to provide more opportunity with ice fishing and open water regulations.  Now, trying to gel those into one book was not quite as simple as it may appear.  We were now trying to put together a couple of proposals in 2008 that would help pave the way; we knew how to design the book that would be in 2009 and have it ready in 2010. 

Mr. Boland stated there were a couple of relatively minor changes that the Council would be hearing in August.  One, we had operated for many years with an aggregate bag limit.  The daily limit on brook trout was 5, salmon was 2, rainbows 2, etc.  An angler had not been able to possess or catch in one day more than 5.   There wasn’t a lot of biology played out in that regulation.  We had talked with staff and we managed by species and by lake or pond.  The aggregate bag limit did not have a lot of importance on a statewide basis.  We were proposing to eliminate the statewide bag limit on salmonids.  What there would be was a daily bag limit on brook trout, salmon, browns, rainbows as there was currently, but no aggregate bag limit.  That would mean an angler could go out, if you caught your limit of every species of salmonid in Maine under the general law regulations you’d have 13 fish.  We were pretty confident it wouldn’t impact fisheries management on individual waters or an individual species.

Mr. Boland stated another relatively minor change was that we were looking to combine lawbooks, and also to streamline fishing opportunities, especially in southern and central Maine.  This might mean extending opportunities for both ice fishing and open water on the same waters at the same time.  Knowing that this issue might come up, if somebody was ice fishing on a water and wanted to open water fish on the same water at the same time, we wanted to clarify that there was a regulation in place that limited an ice angler to 5 lines and an open water angler to 2 lines, and we were proposing to keep that maximum at 5.  If you wanted to do both on the same body of water, if you fished with 2 lines in open water, you would be limited to 3 for ice fishing.

Mr. Boland stated the ice fishing and open water lawbooks were broken down by county.  In the winter, you would look county by county and the heading of each county, for Piscataquis County; if a water was not listed it was closed to ice fishing.  For Cumberland County if a water was not listed it would open January 1.  What we were proposing to do in southern and central Maine; there were 8 counties that were diverse from the rest of the state.  Essentially in those 8 counties, York to Kennebec and along the coast, the general law for fishing regulations was that they were open year round, April 1 – December 31, open water, January 1 – March 31, ice fishing.  We were proposing on those 8 counties, and also Hancock and Washington, where the regulation would allow for year round fishing.  There would not be delineation between ice fishing and open water anglers.  Those waters would have bag and length limits, terminal tackle, possibly, in some cases, in place.  Under that principal, the general law would be all waters open year round, April 1 – September 30 general law bag limits in effect; in the fall, October 1 – December 31 catch and release on salmonids; January 1 – March 31 general bag limits in effect.  Anything differing from that would be treated with a special regulation.  An example, we had been moving toward stocking some waters with put and take fish in the fall for fall fishing opportunity and early ice fishing angling.  We would continue to do that.  There was really no reason to restrict harvest on those waters.  In those few waters in Regions A and B, we would allow by special regulation the harvest of salmonids.  We would continue to maintain the specials, it would expand opportunity and he hoped on paper it would simplify and standardize regulations.  We would not let it impact our biological principals for fisheries management.

Mr. Boland stated northern Maine was still in the works, it was a different situation up there.  The first priority was to protect wild and native salmonids.  We would continue to do that.  We were working on ways to present the information simply in the lawbook; those counties (Aroostook, Piscataquis) still had a lot of waters that were perch, pickerel and bass waters and we wanted to allow extended seasons with harvest.  Some of them were stocked. 

Mr. Boland stated this plan had been presented on the website, and a couple of public information meetings had been held.  Those attending the meetings seemed to be in agreement.  They wanted to maintain special regulations to allow some flexibility, if needed, to protect the resource. 

Council Member Questions and Comments

Commissioner Martin stated to Mr. Boland that he would like a recommendation from him as to whether or not we would hold a public hearing.  He felt we probably should have at least one and they needed to discuss where that should be held.

Mr. Clark asked when northern Maine was going to be looked at.

Mr. Boland stated we had a couple of drafts in mind and had been seeking public input.  At the public meetings and on the web, we had laid out our concept.  There were a lot of waters in those counties that were perch, pickerel and some stocked waters.  We had opened many of them up in recent years to extended fall fishing.  We would continue to maintain that. 

Mr. Clark asked about more opportunities for the youth.  Were we going back to be able to have easy access for people to fish by dams and things like that?

Mr. Boland stated as far as specific regulation changes on individual waters, for the most part we were not taking any on in 2008.  There were a couple of other issues being discussed.  One being eliminating the total purse money on statewide derbies, and we were taking a look at our fishway regulations.

4. Beginning with Habitat

Mr. Walker introduced himself and gave some background information.  He gave a slideshow presentation to the Council.  The materials could be viewed on the Beginning with Habitat website at:

Mr. Elowe stated the Council dealt with a lot of regulatory issues.  This was probably, for the future of Maine’s fish and wildlife, the most important program the Department had.  We could regulate deer hunting, trapping and fishing, but if we didn’t do this, their grandchildren would not have a place to fish and hunt, and they wouldn’t have anything to fish and hunt for.  All they had to do was look south to see what the future was if they didn’t do this.  He wanted to impress upon them that from the Bureau of Resource Management and the Department that was probably the most important biological program they had on the ground.  It had to happen in political and municipal forums around the state.  We were trying to create a functional habitat base so 50-100 years from now there were animals and places to hunt and fish.  This program was being modeled nationally to try and get it up and going in every other state.

5. Trap Education Presentation

Mr. Witte gave some background information on his experience as an ADC officer and trapper.   He had a display of many traps, and baits that he had used over the years, and also furs of animals that he had trapped.  These materials were something he took to schools and other functions for demonstration.  He gave examples of what each trap might be used for, how to use them, what baits worked well for him and etc.  He also circulated pictures of traps in use and various types of sets.

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, August 21, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. at the New Harbor Fire Station.

IX. Adjournment

Mr. Dunbar motioned to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Poulin seconded that.  The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.