Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2007 – 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Headquarters
Upstairs Conference Room, 284 State Street, Augusta
Attending:
Roland D. Martin, Commissioner
Andrea Erskine, Assistant to the Commissioner
Ken Elowe, Director, Bureau of Resource Management
Marc Michaud, Director of Information and Education
Mark Stadler, Wildlife Division Director
Lee Kantar, Wildlife Biologist
Sandy Ritchie, Wildlife Biologist, Habitat Conservation and Special Projects
Becky Orff, Secretary and Recorder
Council Members:
Bos Savage - Chair
Leo Kieffer – Vice Chair
Joe Clark
Stephen Philbrick
Mike Witte
Ray Poulin
Al Goodwin
Frank Dunbar
Ron Usher
Guests:
Don Kleiner, ME Bowhunters Assoc. & NWTF
Skip Trask, ME Trappers Assoc. & MPGA
I. Call to Order
Mr. Savage called the Council meeting to order.
II. Introductions
Introductions were made.
III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting
Mr. Kieffer requested that his name be added to the attendance for the minutes of the last meeting. He had been present at the meeting but his name had been left off the list.
Motion made by Mr. Poulin and seconded by Mr. Goodwin to accept the minutes of the previous Council Meeting as amended.
Vote: Unanimous – minutes accepted as amended.
IV. Rulemaking
A. Step 3
1. Southern Maine Moose Hunt
Mr. Stadler stated that this had been an ongoing process by the Department for about 2 years. A number of public informational meetings had been held to solicit public input and also public hearings. The IF&W Committee had reviewed the proposal.
Commissioner Martin stated that the proposal had not changed since it was presented at Steps 1 and 2, however, the Department was prepared to move forward with one exception. He would like to entitle the proposal a 2-year experimental Southern and Coastal Maine Moose Hunt, with a 2-year sunset provision. For the record, he would recommend that we move forward with a 2-year experimental Southern and Coastal Maine Moose Hunt with a sunset provision at the end of the 2009 open season.
Mr. Kieffer motioned to accept the proposal and Mr. Witte seconded that.
Vote: 6 in favor, 2 opposed, 1 abstained, proposal accepted.
B. Step 2
1. 2007 Any-deer Permits
Mr. Stadler stated that at Step 1 he had briefed the Council on the process of how the Department developed the any-deer permit allocations each year. One of the factors that was considered was winter severity and the impact that had on our deer populations and on the number of deer that could be removed from the population. Lee Kantar, the Department’s deer biologist, gave the rest of the presentation.
Mr. Kantar stated that on the surface, statewide, there were no big changes from last year. The objectives were met in many of the southern and central districts. He referred to the handout listing the proposed number of permits (see packet).
Commissioner Martin stated the number of permits had dropped compared to numbers that were discussed at Step 1. What would have happened to cause the reduction?
Mr. Kantar stated that the driving force behind this; March and April snow depths increased tremendously. When the regions met in March they looked at the winter up until that point. March was looking like last year, a mild winter. Then, with March and April coming in as severe as it did, looking at the numbers for winter severity and making adjustments it created about 8,500 permits.
Mr. Poulin stated that WMD 17 had the biggest reduction, he asked for more information about the winter reduction.
Mr. Kantar stated that the biggest thing with WMDs 17 and 23 was that they were really the “bread basket” of large deer populations in the state. When there was any kind of change, whether due to winter severity or where the harvest lies, the magnitude of that change increases tremendously because of the number of deer that are out there and their related harvest. In WMD 17, because of winter severity we had to make some adjustments, and because of the expansion factor meaning the number of permits we put out there to be able to harvest 1 doe, those numbers were changed. It’s really a question of magnitude based on the size of the deer herd and the influences of things like winter and achieving doe harvests and what our objectives were.
Mr. Philbrick asked Mr. Kantar to indicate where the winter was most severe towards March and April; he looked at WMDs 1 – 11, all with permit reductions. But, where the state was truly hit the hardest, weather wise, there were increases in permits, especially in WMD 15. Also increases in WMDs 20 and 22. How were we justified in saying the weather was a significant impact?
Mr. Kantar stated that the system of how we look at severity was based on quantifying information across 28 stations across the state. We have hard numbers, and one of the biggest driving forces was snow depth. Not only snow depth, but how long it stayed on the ground. That had to be related to where the population of deer in that WMD was and where we’re going to see that population in the future. The WMDs Mr. Philbrick was talking about, 15 and 20, certainly had a better ability to recruit more deer in that population and be much more productive than some of the other areas. For example, Moosehead Region, we had real strong concerns about. When we looked at March and April as far as the numbers for snow depth and the severity of that snow depth, Moosehead Region was one of the worst. But, 15 and 20, really overall, the winter was not that severe. Another thing that overrides all of this is where our objectives were and where that population stood. For WMDs 15 and 20 both, if you looked at what our objectives were, we wanted to stabilize the population in both WMDs.
Commissioner Martin stated that unless he heard objections from the Council, this proposal would probably be what he would be moving forward with at Step 3.
Mr. Goodwin asked what we could do to improve the population of deer?
Commissioner Martin stated that under Other Business, he would be sharing information about a task force and a resolve that the Legislature would be placing on the Department that would answer Mr. Goodwin’s question.
Mr. Philbrick asked about habitat changes in the hardest hit areas. There had been significant tree damage, etc. Did that impact judgment on the number of permits?
Mr. Kantar stated only in the sense of the effects of winter severity based on snow depths. Southern regions with mast tree destruction were part of something we would look at over the coming year and not for the current permit allocations.
Mr. Philbrick stated that it might be prudent to modify the numbers another time because we hadn’t had an opportunity to really look at the damage. He felt there was serious impact regarding that.
Mr. Kantar stated that was an excellent point, but at the same time, the question was as far as large scale habitat changes, whether those have occurred or not in effecting our objectives for harvest this year. In southern and central Maine the limiting factor for deer is not spring, summer or fall forage as much as winter. In southern and central Maine we were finding out that the limiting factor is the fact that people don’t want too many deer down there. We were using hunting as our chief tool to control that. To other areas, when we talk about habitat, it’s not summer forage we’re concerned with; it’s our winter habitat and the amount of cover to protect the deer.
Mr. Kantar stated he understood Mr. Philbrick’s concerns but unless there were tremendous effects, even to hard mast like acorn crops, deer and the fact that they feed on so many different species, he couldn’t imagine that having an impact on productivity at this point.
Mr. Clark asked if last year’s success rate was taken into consideration when determining permit allocations.
Mr. Kantar stated that we did look at hunter success rate. Hunter success rate, the number of hunters for each WMD and the amount of effort was one of the most difficult things that we currently have to measure given the resources that we have. A survey had been sent to 8,000 hunters, but we only received 1,000 of those back. Using the any-deer permit system, we could figure out the success rate for any-deer permit hunters, and we can figure out generally what the buck hunting success looks like.
Mr. Witte asked if road kill permits were taken into consideration?
Mr. Kantar stated that we had two mechanisms for looking at road kill. One was the meat tags that were sent in and the other was a group that also came up with some figures and we also had a third source which was Allstate. DOT had been excellent with sharing that information so we had it on a town basis as well as the entire state. We look at road kill as trend information, meaning, from year to year is that change going up or down or staying the same.
Mr. Kieffer stated that last year there was quite a discussion regarding any-deer permits. Last year there were increases proposed in his area and he disagreed with that and eventually the Commissioner ruled that the permits would be reduced to where they have been since 2005. He did not have any reason to question the lack of permits. The deer herd in northern Maine, west of Rt. 11 was about nonexistent. Landowners he had spoken with stated the existing old deer yards that had always held deer and had the supporting feed in the immediate vicinity were empty of deer. Mr. Kieffer stated his problem was being able to justify what we were doing. He did not challenge the numbers but had to be able to explain to his people how we arrived at the numbers. In speaking with Rich on how the numbers were derived he had stated that 2 flights were made over northern Maine and he did not see any deer. That did not seem a very good reason to Mr. Kieffer. He felt that you examined deeryards by snapping on snowshoes and going to look. Did we keep records of how we examined deeryards? Who went, when they went and what the conditions were and what they found?
Mr. Stadler stated yes, and aerial surveys of deeryards were a very good way to survey them. It was how we had always done it.
Mr. Kieffer stated he had a pilot’s license since he was a teenager and if you looked down in from the air at an established deeryard that had the overstory that was required to provide wintering cover for the deer, you could not count the deer in that deeryard.
Mr. Stadler stated we could fly the riparian edge at under 500 feet and see where the deer were trailing so we would know where the deer were.
Mr. Kieffer asked if we saw any merit in looking at established deeryards on foot?
Mr. Stadler stated that he thought there was merit in it, but when there were only 2 people covering a huge part of the state, aerial inventory was very appropriate. Military and others were using aerial inventory and remote sensing for this type of work and we were also using these kinds of tools.
Mr. Kieffer stated he was not saying we should eliminate it; the established deeryards that are long-term places where deer had wintered (there probably weren’t more than a dozen of them in northern Maine that existed any longer) should be checked on foot.
Mr. Savage asked if the flight examination of the yard was strictly visual?
Mr. Stadler stated yes. They were doing low altitude flights, generally below 500 feet along riparian areas and noting deer use and deer numbers seen out on the ice or along the edge. Mr. Kieffer was correct, in dense conifer cover…there wasn’t much of that left with the Forest Practices Act and the way landowners were managing their woods, so maybe now you could see down through the canopy now. But, it is a good way to know where deer are at and have a feel for deer numbers. We know when deer start to yard and trail we’re pushing 50 per square mile or so.
Commissioner Martin stated that he was hearing consensus on reducing or eliminating the permits in WMDs 1, 2, 3 and 4. However, there seemed to be some differences in opinion on the methodology that we used.
Mr. Elowe stated that the aerial surveys were not just 2 flights as someone would take out sightseeing. This was very intensive, down on the treetops, looking where the deer were. We had done this for enough years that it was a very good survey technique.
Mr. Kantar stated that the way we arrive at the permit numbers; there is a whole host of data. One of the things that derives our system pretty strongly is looking at the harvest over time. Especially in WMDs like 4 and 5 the age old question in those WMDs has been, are we carrying too many deer on the available winter habitat that’s out there. We’ve had a drastic decline in a lot of these northern areas and we’ve been trying to take a hard look at that. We’ve been going into these deeryards and doing a direct measure of the browse that’s in there by the deer.
Mr. Kieffer stated he agreed with the reduction. He thought the deer up there were in that tragic a state. There’s many people that would like to see the deer season closed up there, but he could not support that yet because financially it was probably not the thing to do.
Mr. Clark stated that as we add more hunting opportunities the population goes down no matter how you look at it. In his area he hardly ever saw any deer. In the coastal areas where he worked, however, he saw them all the time. Maybe we should get rid of the any-deer permits from Rt. 9 down so that people wouldn’t have to worry about putting in for any-deer permits to stabilize the population down on the coast.
Mr. Kantar stated that if we had the ability, that there were so-called surplus deer out there that could be harvested; we needed to have some control on them. Without a control on the number of antlerless deer that were harvested, we would risk a lot of things on where that population would go. The any-deer permit system had been an excellent system that many states have looked to. Permit levels are adjusted and take into account any additional opportunities.
Mr. Stadler stated another reason the permit numbers may seem to jump around is the expansion factors that were used. We know to have a dead doe on the ground, in some WMDs takes 10 any-deer permits.
Commissioner Martin stated there appeared to be questions on the methodology used to arrive at the permit allocations. He requested that Mr. Kantar give a PowerPoint presentation in the near future on the process.
Mr. Kieffer asked Mr. Kantar if he met with other deer managers from other states to get input?
Mr. Kantar stated yes. A lot of Maine’s system had been built on the experience in WI. There is a Northeast Deer Technical Committee and all the state provincial deer biologists get together once a year at this Committee and talk about all the things going on within their state. Mr. Kantar had been working very closely with his counterpart in New Brunswick.
2. 2007 Expanded Archery Season
Mr. Stadler stated that the Department had been interacting with the towns of Orono and Old Town since 2001 on a situation concerning an overabundant deer population. There was a lengthy discussion process and now we had consensus with the towns that there was an overabundant deer population and they would like to address this by using archery hunting. The proposal was two-fold; Marsh Island was currently closed to hunting by rule and the proposal would open that to archery hunting. The second part added Marsh Island to the expanded archery season. We had received letters of support from the towns of Orono and Old Town. Those towns requested that we hold a public hearing on this, and that would be held on May 9, 2007.
3. Furbearer Trapping Rule Changes
Mr. Elowe stated that the background on this particular proposal was that we were currently working on an incidental take permit for our trapping program to protect trappers against the liability for taking lynx and eagles under the Endangered Species Act. In working through that process and analyzing the numbers of lynx and eagles that had been taken over the past 5 or 6 years, it became apparent that there were probably some things that we could do to help put stronger emphasis behind some things that we had always recommended to trappers.
Mr. Elowe stated we put out 2 booklets every year, one of those being the beaver closures, and within that booklet we have a number of recommendations in it on how to reduce the potential for taking eagles and lynx and what to do if you happen to catch one. We also put out a little booklet that we collaborated with USFWS on that has recommendations for how to reduce the potential for taking lynx. We took a couple of the more pertinent recommendations that we’ve been giving to trappers over a number of years and that was what the proposal did; put those into regulation to give us stronger emphasis to those points.
Mr. Elowe stated that since the last meeting, we had met with the MTA and they had a number of comments on the proposal. As a result, a couple of changes were made (see proposal). We were waiting for some input back from MTA, so the wording in the proposal could be subject to change. The idea was to be able to allow some mink trapping with conibears.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Commissioner Martin stated that looking at the proposal, the deadline for comments was May 25. The proposal would not be before the council in May, but would appear at Step 3 in June.
Mr. Witte asked about the jaw spread not to exceed 5”, were we talking about a 220 conibear? He also asked what the spread would be on a 330. Would 330’s become illegal even under water?
Mr. Elowe stated 110’s or 120’s. 330’s would be illegal before the beaver season. That was an existing rule. The proposal put us in a reasonable position for saying we had taken all reasonable steps.
Mr. Trask stated the exposed bait part of the proposal that protected eagles, he thought the trappers would be much more sympathetic to than they were to changes that protected lynx. In northern Maine the lynx population was exploding. A lot of trappers were questioning the change of conibear traps, especially conibears on the ground for mink. He had interviewed 15 trappers that had taken lynx. 24 lynx had been taken total. Of those 24 lynx, 21 were taken by trappers using dirt hold sets for coyotes. The MTA’s annual spring meeting was scheduled for May 6, 2007 and the proposal would be discussed.
Mr. Kieffer stated that the same lawsuit we were looking at was brought against MN. There were eagles and lynx in MN and wolves and yet they were still snaring out there. Had they applied for an incidental take permit?
Mr. Elowe stated they were working on it. They had requested our draft to work from.
Commissioner Martin asked Mr. Elowe to share with the group where we were in the process.
Mr. Elowe stated that MN was sued by the Humane Society of the United States as well as the Animal Protection Institute. The Animal Protection Institute had sued us. The Humane Society dropped the MN lawsuit, if the state would pursue an incidental take permit. After that, they requested a copy of ours so they could start writing one. Our particular lawsuit was going through a number of steps and one of those was a judge granting intervener status to the US Sportsman’s Alliance and a couple of partners. That meant they could be a full partner in the proceedings. We were kind of in the midstream process of trying to figure out with the court and lawyers what facts were going to be on the table and discussed. This was a time consuming process. Parallel to that, we were developing our incidental take permit.
C. Step 1
1. Fisher/Marten Trapping Season
Mr. Stadler stated the Department, in analyzing our fur harvest data for the past 2 years, had been concerned about the fisher population in the State of Maine. Our analysis of the take of fisher by successful fisher trappers and another series of measurements indicated that we had a declining population of fisher in the vast majority of our old WMUs. We were still doing a lot of furbearer management on a WMU type basis from the past.
Mr. Stadler stated that a year ago, the Department was considering doing something to address our concerns about fisher. We elected not to do it because we wanted an opportunity to talk with MTA about it. Over the last month Wally Jakubas had talked with MTA regarding fisher and one of the things that seemed to come out of it was a reduction in the length of the fisher season and we’ve also been considering coupling marten with that; reducing the fisher and marten season by about 1 month.
Mr. Stadler stated he was just advising the Council that we were considering taking this action and that prior to the next Council meeting there should be a proposal sent to them if the Department intended to move forward with this.
Council Member Questions and Comments
Mr. Philbrick stated that one of the fears that he had was that we summarily treated the state as one unit. It seemed to him if we reduced a trapping season statewide, it sent a message that there was an issue out there and the way to manage it was to treat the state as one single unit. If the fisher population was down, individual areas should be addressed. He used the 2007 any-deer permit strategies map as an example.
Mr. Kieffer asked if the registration of marten and fisher were parallel and was it statewide? Was the reduction in fisher paralleled by a reduction in marten in all areas of the state?
Mr. Stadler stated that the marten population was not statewide. Marten and fisher harvests had kind of followed each other as he remembered it. In the southern part of the state the data was showing (and statewide) a declining fisher population.
Mr. Kieffer asked if with the proposal (if we decide to move forward) could we provide registration numbers by WMDs for the past 5 years?
Mr. Stadler stated we could do that, but what would be more telling would be graphs showing the take of fisher by successful fisher trappers. If we decided to move forward we would provide both.
2. Expanded Fall Turkey Season
Mr. Elowe stated we had been expanding opportunities to take turkeys and a couple of years ago we did away with the turkey lottery for the spring season. With that, came the expansion of fall opportunity. In the past we had a 2-week archery season, expanded to a couple of districts with higher turkey densities to a 4-week archery season and this proposal added a gun season. We didn’t know what the impact would be so it was only being proposed in the higher turkey density areas for 1 week. Once we got some experience with what the impact was we would make adjustments. We were also trying to keep this administratively as light as we could for the Department.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Philbrick asked what the difference was between the financial burden and the financial gain for a lottery.
Mr. Elowe stated it depended on what authority the Legislature gave us. All fees were set by the Legislature.
Commissioner Martin stated that for the record, this was before the Council because it was the right thing to do and it was the right time to do it.
Mr. Clark stated that we needed to educate the people more on when they could buy a permit.
Mr. Elowe stated we put on turkey hunting seminars every year to try and reach as many turkey hunters or potential turkey hunters as we could.
Mr. Kieffer stated he noticed the use of dogs in the fall would be legal. Right now, it was illegal to shoot a turkey out of a tree. What would we do about that with dogs; weren’t they going to tree them?
Mr. Elowe stated it was a different hunt in the spring than in the fall. In the spring you were trying to get a gobbler to come in close to you in a mating situation. In the fall, you may be out partridge hunting and you may also have a turkey permit, you happen to have a dog that points partridge and you see a flock of turkeys… They might tree the turkey, but if you’re taking one bird; we’re looking at the total biological impact. It was not the same type of structured hunt as the spring and he didn’t feel it would be a problem.
Mr. Kleiner stated that as he had discussed this with the Turkey Federation, use of dogs was the issue that brought consternation. He was certain we would hear concerns because it was new. There were states with a long tradition of fall turkey hunting with dogs, but apparently not in the northeast.
3. Ruffed Grouse Season Petition
Commissioner Martin stated that we would be holding a public hearing on this issue. We received a valid petition from folks Downeast in the Calais area. We also shared with the Council that we had received a couple of years ago, not a valid petition, but a petition of close to 75 signatures from the Houlton area. We were now required to hold a public hearing on the issue and that was scheduled for June 12th in Calais at the Rod and Gun Club.
Commissioner Martin asked Mr. Kieffer about the petition that was received from Houlton. He believed it had not been sent to Mr. Kieffer but to Mr. Wheaton. Would Mr. Kieffer suggest that we have 2 public hearings; one possibly in the Presque Isle area?
Mr. Kieffer stated he really hadn’t had any feedback on the partridge hunting since it was opened through December. He hadn’t heard any strong feelings one way or the other. It might be good to hold a hearing. He certainly hadn’t had any uprising about hunting partridge in December generally up there. In years gone by they had had a lot of snow in December.
V. Other Business
1. Deer Task Force
Commissioner Martin stated that because of concerns he had been hearing in northern and eastern Maine regarding the situation and lack of deer wintering areas and the coyote snaring issue, he was going to create a small group. Letters had been sent to SAM, MBA, MPGA and Maine Audubon. He would be asking the group to submit recommendations within 60-days. He hoped the group would be focused and come back with something reasonable. The group would be chaired by Matt Libby and led by Gene Dumont.
2. Deer Wintering Areas
Commissioner Martin stated he was working on a letter that would be sent to either Commissioner McGowan or the Director of LURC regarding deer wintering areas. We would be asking them to take another look at their protection zones. The letter was in draft form and being reviewed. Commissioner Martin asked Mr. Stadler to explain further.
Mr. Stadler stated the biggest cause of deer problems in northern Maine was the lack of adequate habitat. We needed to start rejuvenating and restoring our winter habitat and then look at coyote control. The Department, a number of years ago, embarked on a cooperative management effort with the large industrial landowners at the time (Great Northern, Irving, etc.). We had good results with them. Due to economics many of the lands were sold and broken up and new owners were under fairly intense economic pressures. These folks have been very slow in entering into cooperative agreements with the Department. We’re asking LURC to modify the existing PFW standards to allow the Department to take advantage of some broader survey and inventory techniques to identify and map deer wintering areas and propose them for zoning. The other thing we were proposing in the modification was that any area where we had a cooperative agreement and that area was sold, we would have 1 year to work with that landowner to either renew or renegotiate that agreement. Following that 1-year period the Department would be at liberty to propose that area for PFW designation and take that before the Commission. Then, the Commission would make a decision about whether that met the land use goals and standards for the unorganized townships.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Kieffer stated he was in the Senate when they devised the Forest Practices Act (FPA). In retrospect, he didn’t feel they had done a good job. It was a big factor in the loss of deer wintering area habitat. Going to LURC without a corresponding effort to make some changes in the FPA he didn’t think would be the sole answer. There had to be changes in the FPA because an area could now be cut and still comply with it. Somehow he would like to see that tied in.
Mr. Stadler stated Mr. Kieffer was correct. The FPA was basically designed to address two issues, clearcutting and regeneration. It was not a wildlife management issue. IF&W suggested to forestry and others that it was not the best approach to take if they were interested in wildlife management.
Mr. Goodwin requested that at the next meeting an update be given to the Council on legislation pertaining to coyotes, also a report from the Deer Task Force on their findings.
Commissioner Martin stated we could report on what we knew as of that date at the May meeting. On May 8th the public hearing on the bear trapping bill would be held at the Civic Center.
Mr. Kieffer asked if it would be beneficial to have a letter or vote from the Council regarding the bear trapping bill?
Commissioner Martin stated one could assume we would be opposing the bill and a letter or resolution would certainly help.
A motion was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Kieffer that the Council create a resolution or resolve to be read at the public hearing on May 8 that they were strongly against the proposed Legislation.
Vote: unanimous – resolution would be drafted.
Commissioner Martin requested that Mr. Stadler draft something for the Chair to sign on behalf of the Committee.
Mr. Usher stated that he would like the Chair to make the presentation at the public hearing.
3. Election of Officers
Commissioner Martin stated that at the May meeting the Council would be asked to select a new Chair and Vice-Chair. Current officers were Bos Savage, Chair and Leo Kieffer, Vice-Chair.
4. Sportsman’s Plate
Commissioner Martin stated that we had been talking about a sportsman’s plate for several months. He wanted to thank everyone for their help in getting signatures. The signatures were being reviewed by the Secretary of State’s Office. A mock-up of the proposed plate was circulated.
Mr. Clark asked how much revenue the conservation plate would lose when the sportsman’s plate became available and were we going to gain any additional revenue from the sportsman’s plate?
Commissioner Martin stated the revenue from the sportsman’s plate would go to IF&W. However, a report back letter from the IF&W Committee to Appropriations was being drafted. The $40,000 to move forward with the plate had been secured. Ultimately, additional revenues would be generated. The letter would specify which specific accounts the money would go into. All of it would be going to either open or designated accounts to IF&W.
Commissioner Martin stated that the loon plate would continue to stay. 60% of the revenue went to DOC and 20% went to IF&W. The monies funded positions within the Department. Loon plate sales had been declining and we were concerned about positions. The sportsman’s plate would create additional funds but maybe less funds to positions.
Mr. Clark asked if DOC was opposed to this, the revenue shortfall for the loon plate.
Commissioner Martin stated that DOC was suggesting, as IF&W had suggested, that if a moose was on the plate sales would increase, or the sale of loon plates would no longer continue decreasing. DOC preferred to see a moose on the traditional loon plate.
VI. Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports.
Locations for upcoming meetings were determined as follows: June – Rangeley; no meeting in July; August – Boothbay; September – Presque Isle (moose hunt ride along); October – Calais (Downeast).
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, May 24, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. at the IF&W Headquarters in Augusta.
IX. Adjournment
Mr. Poulin motioned to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Clark seconded that. The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
