Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
August 22, 2007 – 9:30 a.m.
DMR Facility
McKown Point Road
Boothbay Harbor, Maine
Attending:
Roland D. Martin, Commissioner
Paul F. Jacques, Deputy Commissioner
Andrea Erskine, Assistant to the Commissioner
Marc Michaud, Director of Information and Education
Ken Elowe, Director of Fisheries Operations
John Boland, Director of Fisheries Operations
Joe Dembeck, Research Biologist, Fisheries
Mark Stadler, Wildlife Division Director
Gregg Sanborn, Major, Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary and Recorder
Council Members
Leo Kieffer, Chair
Joe Clark, Vice-Chair
Stephen Philbrick
Mike Witte
Al Goodwin
Frank Dunbar
Ron Usher
Ray Poulin
Sheri Oldham
Bos Savage
Members of the Public
Skip Trask, MTA
Ed Courtney, Warren
Rob Graham, Warren
I. Call to Order
Mr. Kieffer, Council Chair, called the Council meeting to order.
II. Introductions
Introductions were made.
III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting
Motion made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Witte to accept the minutes of the previous Council meeting as written.
Vote: Unanimous – minutes accepted as written.
IV. Rulemaking
A. Step 3
1. Ruffed Grouse Season Petition
Commissioner Martin stated we had had 3 public hearings on the matter and it had come to us by petition. There was a lot of discussion and a lot of comments regarding the matter and after much deliberation Commissioner Martin had determined to go with the science and would not be honoring the petitioner’s request. For all facts and purposes the matter was no longer before the Council. If the petitioners would like the issue rediscussed they could initiate another petition that would carve out either Aroostook or Washington County. Based on the verbage of the petition and based on what he believed was the right thing to do, the matter was no longer before the Council.
2. Marsh Island Archery Deer Hunting
Mr. Elowe stated the last meeting was held in Bangor and there were representatives from the town as well as the University. The issue is there were several thousand acres that were huntable land, potentially, on Marsh Island. There were high deer populations that bothered some people. The towns had given us some support for going ahead, but the University did not support any kind of hunt on their land at all, but supported a limited hunt off of their land. In trying to get the parties together it became apparent at the last moment that the towns did not feel strongly enough about opening the opportunity to hunt to battle the University. The University owns about ¾ of the huntable land so there was not very much other land open if the University did not participate. Without the huntable opportunity it wouldn’t help to solve any deer density problem on Marsh Island without the University lands participating. It didn’t make any sense, if the towns weren’t really going to push for it to continue our support for the proposal.
Commissioner Martin stated that when this was discussed at Step 2 he had indicated that he needed more time to get all the parties together. That was accomplished. A fax was received prior to the Advisory Council meeting from UMO mentioning several recommendations. The initiative would be explored further, but for the purpose of this meeting he would not be moving forward on the initiative at hand. However, he had instructed Ken Elowe and Mark Caron to again meet with Old Town, Orono and the University to see if we could craft some compromise.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Philbrick asked if there was any biology that suggested this should or should not be done?
Commissioner Martin stated that the biologists would indicate that because of biological reasons and for safety concerns this was something we ought to move forward with. It was spearheaded by staff in the Bangor area. It was something we thought was clearly in everyone’s best interest. This was not a new issue.
Mr. Kieffer stated that this item was at Step 3, and as the Commissioner had determined not to move forward with it, it was a dead issue as far as the Council was concerned.
3. Fishing Regulations
Mr. Boland stated the hearings were lightly attended. There had been letters received both in support and opposition of the proposal. The only change to the entire package of proposals was that we were planning to remove the proposal for the Moose River, ALO regulation, in the Moosehead Lake area. There was discussion at the Greenville hearing regarding people modifying lures. There really weren’t any biological reasons behind that proposal and we were planning to remove that from the packet.
Commissioner Martin stated that because of the timeliness of the closing of the comment period and the multitude of initiatives in the packet, discussion was going to be allowed at Step 3. There was an opportunity to table the entire package; move forward on what was not controversial or where consensus could be reached; there was an opportunity to table the remainder.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Kieffer stated that 90-95% of the regulations he thought were great. He was also concerned about some of the written comments that were received. There were very few proposals that were in his area, but there was one on Priestly Lake and proposing catch and release (c&r) on trout because we were going to try to stock some trout there. If he read it correctly, it still left the lake open to worm fishing and he could not agree with that. He knew there were togue in the lake and if they were going to fish togue that was fine. It should be FFO or ALO only but he thought it should be removed from the general law as far as using worms there if we were going to c&r on the trout.
Commissioner Martin asked for a page number.
Mr. Boland stated it was on page 18 of the Region G packet. Currently, use or possession of live fish as bait was prohibited on Priestly Lake, so worms could be used or dead bait. That was a lake that we had done some monitoring on, the population of brook trout was quite low but it produced a quality trout. Staff had built a couple of spawning boxes there to try to create as natural condition as possible for trout to spawn in. It worked in waters where there was a lack of spawning habitat. In that particular case, it had not been used. What we would like to do is not stock fish out of our hatchery, but to go downstream where there was a pretty good population of wild trout, catch some and move them back up into the lake in and around the spawning boxes and encourage them to use the spawning box.
Mr. Boland stated it was time to take a more drastic approach on the c&r part of it with regard to brook trout. He thought there were togue in there and whitefish.
Mr. Kieffer stated this was an ideal lake to do this with. It was quite inaccessible, beautiful water and he highly agreed, but he did not think we should be having c&r on trout and using worms.
Mr. Boland stated they had talked a little bit about that, but there were other fisheries in the lake and they did not want to shut down those other fisheries. We didn’t think there was a lot of targeted effort at brook trout because the population was quite low. We didn’t expect a lot of targeted effort, maybe even less if it was c&r. It was decided to stick with the current S-4 regulation, which allowed the use of bait and that would encourage folks to be fishing for lake trout and not the brook trout. Priestly was also on the Heritage Pond list. By legislative authority there’s a list of these waters that can’t be stocked and where live bait isn’t legal. If we want to stock them with anything we would need to go back to the Legislature. We were planning to go back to get authority from the Legislature not to stock from our hatchery, but to go downstream and catch some wild, mature brook trout and bring them up into Priestly around the spawning box.
Commissioner Martin stated that the issue, as he understood it, was with the use of worms?
Mr. Kieffer stated he didn’t feel the two went together, c&r for brook trout and the use of worms, to him was counter productive. There were very few togue in the lake, he was very familiar with the lake and it was a great place to put some effort into. He would like to see us try to improve the trout but he didn’t understand the use of worms in there if that was what we were trying to do.
Mr. Boland stated if we wanted to change the proposal, we would have to go back through the process and if we went to say ALO only or FFO only, then you would probably minimize the opportunity to fish for lake trout.
Mr. Dembeck stated there was a whitefish population in Priestly Lake. If we went to ALO it would be a lot harder to catch them.
Commissioner Martin stated that so far in the packet we had identified two areas where there was some concern. With regard to the Moose River initiative, the Department decided not to move forward with that, and now a concern on Priestly Lake on page 18. Were there others?
Mr. Poulin asked for clarification on the Moose River proposal.
Mr. Boland stated the lower section of Moose River from Brasswood up to Moosehead Lake currently was fly casting and trolling only. There had been some discussion in the last year or two from the angling public and warden service that people had been modifying spinning tackle and calling it a fly. To a certain degree that was legal. You couldn’t do it with a repala, because by definition it had to have a single pointed hook. There had been a lot of controversy and contentiousness and Tim Obrey thought maybe we could clarify the regulation there. He came up with a proposal to make it ALO thinking that essentially, that’s what it was now. At the same time stating that biologically, its really not an issue. We had people weigh in on both sides of the issue at the public hearing and we’ve had that also in writing. Comments were about 50 –50. The Colonel had indicated that staff should get together and clarify how they wanted it enforced, what was legal, what was not legal and he’d send a message out to the troops and they would all be enforcing it in a consistent manner and they would leave it the way it was, fly casting and trolling only.
Mrs. Oldham asked if Mr. Boland could comment on the opposition to the change in the Grand Falls Flowage by the Passamaquoddy’s.
Mr. Boland stated that Grand Falls Flowage was a very large, extremely high quality bass fishery. However, we had seen a trend in recent years and that trend was supported by folks at the public hearing. It was heavily fished and heavily guided. Guides cooked a lot of shore lunches there and basically the trend for the population of bass had been downward. It was decided by the division that we really wanted to protect that fishery and restore it to the high quality bass fishery it was 10 or 15 years ago that we ought to be going with c&r. There were few comments received, most in support of the proposal.
Mr. Goodwin stated that it looked to him like the Governor of that tribe never got involved in the system. He was at the Princeton public hearing and there was no one there representing the tribe. The letter was pretty strong. In the past, the Governor of the tribe stated they had chosen to adopt the proposed state regulations. The new proposal, c&r bass fishery, was unacceptable to them. 75% of the fishery was going through them (tribe). The flowage was going through the tribal land.
Mr. Boland stated it did, but he believed for the water to come under tribal authority, more then 50% of the shoreline had to be owned by the tribe. In that particular case he did not think it was.
Mr. Goodwin stated half of it belonged to Canada and probably 48% of the rest belonged to the tribe. How were we going to keep Canadians off this body of water?
Deputy Commissioner Jacques stated the Governor of the Passamaquoddy’s concern was sustenance fishing. They wanted to be able to catch bass and eat bass at Grand Falls. The Tribal Commission never was notified of any of the Governor’s concerns until just recently. Mr. Boland had asked if this was one of the tribes that fell under MITSIC? It does say if they own over 50% of the shoreline then it would be under the jurisdiction of MITSIC. It was his understanding that it was not under the jurisdiction of MITSIC. MITSIC never discussed this proposal at all.
Mr. Goodwin stated that was his concern that was the reason for their letter. He thought they were left out of the picture. That portion of the new fishing regulations, he would like to set aside and not vote on it and maybe do more work and try to get the tribal folks on our side.
Commissioner Martin stated he would honor Mr. Goodwin’s request and set that aside. Once all the set asides were determined, he would have to decide how best to move forward. He asked what Region Mr. Goodwin’s request was in.
Mr. Boland stated Region C, pages 19 & 20.
Mr. Kieffer commented on the second paragraph of the letter. It stated that tribal members had chosen to adapt to proposed state regulations in the past but the new proposal, c&r was unacceptable. If they revert themselves and no longer accept the state regulations, where did that put us?
Mr. Boland stated that since it was not MITSIC water, he thought they would have to comply with our regulations.
Deputy Commissioner Jacques stated that in the past they had accepted the recommendations. One of the problems was that they did not have biologists on staff. Whenever there had been proposals affecting their waters it had either come from Fish and Wildlife or by petition. The tribe had no fish biologists. Traditionally, the tribe had been able to eat the bass out of Grand Falls Flowage. The proposal of c&r meant the tribes could no longer catch bass and eat them. That was their point of contention. They believed they had a right to catch fish there and eat them. What it boiled down to was it a state water or a tribal water? IF&W believed it was state water, but more clarification was necessary.
Mr. Philbrick commented on conversations he had with Mr. Boland and Forrest Bonney regarding the Willow Mill bridge in Phillips on the Sandy River. In house, was there a disposition of changing that back to the former regulation so they could take the fly fishing rule only area back out so kids could have an opportunity? The Willow Mill bridge down to Alder Stream. Because of the rule changes last year, now the children that were fishing in the Phillips area on the Sandy River now could no longer go there with their bobber and hook and worm fish like they had been doing for eons. Now it was fly fishing only. The request Mr. Philbrick had made to Forrest Bonney and Dave Boucher, was there any way to get that section only recognized.
Commissioner Martin asked if the initiative was in the package of proposals?
Mr. Philbrick stated the package contained the same law and he was requesting to have it changed.
Commissioner Martin stated that was a great request, but it could not be done that day. He asked Mr. Boland if the initiative that Mr. Philbrick would like to move forward on was part of the proposals?
Mr. Boland stated he did not think so.
Commissioner Martin stated if it was not, it was something that could clearly be looked into, but it was not before them at that time.
Mr. Boland stated what the Sandy River proposal was in the packet.
Mr. Philbrick stated that he had asked what would be the best process to get that back to where it was. Given the fact that the lawbook was going to print, he was told this was the option he had for this year.
Mr. Boland stated he recalled the conversation that had taken place a couple of months ago. This was the process to go, and we would take a look at it and in the next round, depending on whether we supported it or not, it would be there or we would have reasons why it was not. It would have to be in the next round, it could not be inserted into this packet.
Mr. Philbrick stated for the record he had two other letters relative to the Rapid River. He needed to be brought up to speed relative to our relationship with NH and how we go about continuing this process of mitigating bass in the Rapid River, etc. He would give copies of the letters to Mr. Boland and stated that he wanted to be part of the future rule changes when it came to the Rapid River.
Mr. Kieffer stated he was not at the public hearing in Princeton and this was not in his area, but the public comment letters in the packet, there seemed to be some strong feelings on the bass over 18” at Big Lake.
Mr. Boland stated we had received form letters from camp owners in Grand Lake Stream opposed to the 18” limit on bass at Big Lake and Long Lake. We were making an effort to simplify the lawbook. When we reduced all the bass regulations down to the 5 or 6 that we’re dealing with, we had an option of having a 13”-18” slot and a 2-fish bass limit and that’s what we chose at Big Lake and several other waters. At Big in particular, there had been a couple of people in recent weeks that sent in letters opposing it because they were worried about harvesting too many 18” bass. Under the proposed regulation, you could take 2, 18” bass. We collect more bass data on Big Lake then perhaps any other lake in the state. In the last 10-years we have lengths and weights on well over 1,000 bass. The biologists had only seen 3 over 18”. The chance that someone would catch 2, 18” bass was small.
Mr. Boland stated under the current regulation they could keep 16” bass. That was doing a lot more damage to the quality size fish in that particular water. We felt that going to 18” on bass, even though it was possible someone would catch 2 of them and keep them in the same day, it was extremely rare and would be a big step up from allowing 16” bass to be harvested. That was our goal, to increase the numbers of bass in that fishery that were in that 16” – 18” range. We monitor Big Lake very closely; it was perhaps our most important bass lake in the state. If we saw any indication that we were in jeopardy we would be back before the Council.
Commissioner Martin stated he had two set asides, Grand Falls Flowage in Region C; Priestly in Region G, and the Department’s initiative to not move forward with Moose River. The options were to move forward on the entire package with no set asides; move forward with everything with the exception of Priestly Lake, Moose River and Grand Falls Flowage, and revisit those which may or may not occur this year depending on timeliness.
Mrs. Erskine stated the issues could wait until September.
Commissioner Martin stated he would rather move forward on the entire packet or a portion of the packet and deal with the remaining issues if any in September rather than tabling everything until September. How much opposition was there to Priestly Lake and Grand Falls Flowage?
Mr. Boland commented on Priestly Lake. If we chose not to go forward with the proposal then we would continue to allow the use of worms and the harvest of brook trout at Priestly. We would not be able to come back in September and add ALO to it. We’d have to readvertise, etc.
Mrs. Oldham asked Mr. Kieffer if he felt Mr. Boland’s explanation was sufficient at this time?
Mr. Kieffer stated he did not think it convinced him for Priestly. He knew Priestly Lake.
Mrs. Oldham stated she still did not get what his objection was.
Mr. Kieffer stated it was opposite sides of the field to go in and allow people to fish with worms and have c&r on trout. When you caught a trout on a worm, generally its swallowed and the trout would die. If it was caught on an artificial lure or fly the odds were much better that you could release it.
Mrs. Oldham stated the argument was the whitefish, worms would be better and it would be better for the brook trout to get some of the whitefish out of there.
Mr. Kieffer discussed access to Priestly Lake. The fishing there was very minimal.
Mrs. Oldham stated she didn’t see the harm in not taking worms out of there this year but maintaining the brook trout.
Mr. Kieffer stated he thought the proposal was great to try to increase the trout population there, to allow fishing there, but he didn’t like the idea of trying to convince people they ought to be able to allow worms on c&r trout fishing. That was a bad precedent to set he thought.
Mr. Boland stated if it were strictly a brook trout pond, we would have an ALO regulation to go with it, but there was a fishery for lake trout there. If they moved forward with the proposal as it was written, they could get together and talk about the pros and cons of in the future talking about the bait size and regulation.
Mr. Kieffer stated that was fine, but he didn’t want to see worms in there if it was c&r.
Mr. Boland asked Mr. Kieffer if he would rather see the current regulation stay in effect rather than go with the proposal.
Mr. Kieffer stated not if we were going to stock the lake with some other native fish. If we were going to do that he thought we should protect them right away. Mr. Kieffer stated he would support the proposal if Mr. Boland would go back and review the worm situation for another year.
Mr. Boland stated he would be glad to review it.
Commissioner Martin stated we would use that approach. He then asked the Council what they wanted to do with Grand Falls Flowage.
Mr. Goodwin stated he believed they could resolve the Grand Falls Flowage for the September meeting, but table it for now. If the Commissioner did not, and Mr. Boland did not, Mr. Goodwin would go and see the Governor of the tribe and find out what their absolute concerns were and if they couldn’t live with the proposal, they would fish Grand Falls. There was duel citizenship; US and Canadian and they would just go on the Canadian side. The Canadians were fishing now and we had no control over it. We needed to take into consideration what the tribe was trying to do and he thought we could get to the bottom of it.
Mrs. Oldham stated that she felt the letter from the tribal Governor was so strong it warranted a little more conversation.
Commissioner Martin asked Mr. Goodwin if he would be willing to participate in the discussion?
Mr. Goodwin stated absolutely.
A motion was made by Mr. Clark and that was seconded by Mr. Savage to accept the entire package, minus Grand Falls Flowage and the Department’s retraction of the Moose River proposal.
Vote: unanimous – proposal to move forward with the exception of two items, Moose River and Grand Falls Flowage.
4. 2007 – 2008 Migratory Bird Season
Mr. Stadler stated the migratory bird seasons were set within frameworks established by the USFWS. The rulemaking proposal for waterfowl was an expedited process that took into consideration the way the USFWS came up with the guidelines that the states had to follow for their early season and late season frameworks. In addition, there was also a Waterfowl Council that provided input to the Commissioner regarding migratory birds, particularly migratory bird hunting seasons. The structure of that Council paralleled the structure of the Advisory Council. The Waterfowl Council met to review the seasons and they were supportive of the proposal that was taken to public hearing. The waterfowl public hearing was conducted. There were about 30 people in attendance.
Mr. Stadler stated that the proposal the Council had been given earlier was accepted with two modifications as the result of additional information regarding the late season framework from the feds and some rulemaking action the Department took that was separate from this, but had bearing on this (see packet). The comments at the public hearing were favorable. The Waterfowl Council voted unanimously following the public hearing to recommend to the Commissioner and the Advisory Council to adopt the proposal with the changes outlined.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Goodwin asked where Barrows Goldeneye were found?
Mr. Stadler stated they were located in about ½ dozen places around the coast. The Department understood there would be issues with incidental take of Barrows Goldeneye, somebody shooting one by mistake. Maine developed an incidental take plan that outlined a strategy to attempt to prevent take and to take measures to mitigate the take and allow some level of incidental take. This fall the Department would be mounting a major effort to get the word out to duck hunters with informational materials explaining where Barrows Goldeneye were generally found, what they looked like compared to the Common Goldeneye and if someone should accidentally shoot one that Barrows would have to be turned into a warden.
A motion was made by Mr. Savage and seconded by Mrs. Oldham to accept the proposal as amended.
Vote: unanimous – proposal accepted as amended.
B. Step 2
1. 2007 – 2008 Beaver Closures and Season
Mr. Stadler stated this was still an ongoing process where the regional biologists were still receiving some late input for beaver closures. The proposal had a couple of changes (see packet). The changes would be incorporated into the packet that would be seen at Step 3. A formal request had been received from the MTA to open WMD 8 in November. Mr. Stadler had misunderstood the intent of the letter and after a reread and input it was agreed to move it into that category.
C. Step 1
1. 2008 Spring Turkey Season
Mr. Stadler stated the 2008 spring turkey season was a photocopy of the 2007 season with date changes to reflect changes in the calendar. 2008 was a leap year so the changes were a little more pronounced than normal.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Goodwin asked if the Department had put turkeys in Princeton?
Mr. Stadler stated that Gene Dumont was the head of that project. He would have to go back and look at Gene’s notes.
Mr. Goodwin asked for a list of where turkeys had been placed in Washington County.
Mr. Stadler was going to provide the list to Mr. Goodwin.
Mr. Clark asked if there should be a youth day established in the proposal?
Mr. Stadler stated youth day was generic.
Mrs. Erskine stated youth now could hunt on any Saturday.
V. Other Business
1. Deer Task Force Update
Mr. Stadler stated there had been 4 meetings held and minutes of those meetings and potential solutions and ideas were in the Council packets. The first meeting dealt with deer population goals and objectives to try and get everybody on the same page about how IF&W conducted species planning and developed the goals and objectives for various species including deer. Meeting number two was a discussion about predation; meeting three was a discussion about deer habitat and the role of deer habitat in managing and maintaining northern and eastern deer populations; the fourth meeting included a presentation from the forest industry regarding the condition of deer winter habitat particularly in northern Maine, WMD 5.
Mr. Stadler stated the group then began developing potential solutions. Recovery of deer populations in eastern and northern Maine had to be done in two phases. It would have to be done in a short-term strategy, probably between 2007 and 2025. Everyone agreed that having appropriate winter cover was a part of the solution for the deer population in northern and eastern Maine. At the fifth meeting they would review the material and information they had gathered at the last four meetings and begin identifying those that were doable for recommendation to the Commissioner for implementation of a strategy to improve deer population numbers in northern and eastern Maine.
Commissioner Martin stated he created the working group and it was specific to eastern and northern Maine. Shortly after the announcement that group had been created, legislators picked up on it and created a legislatively mandated working group as well. He was pretty much certain that the same members would be appointed to the legislatively mandated group. One would evolve into the other.
2. Definition of a fly (request by Council member)
Mr. Boland stated it was fairly clear in the statute, but if we ever did want to make a change it would have to be done legislatively. Mr. Boland read the definition of a fly and fly fishing. What was considered a fly and what was not at a place such as the Moose River? After discussions among staff, and the advent of laptops and the ability to get information to wardens in a consistent manner that if particular issues came up about whether or not a repala or a jig was legal it could be addressed and everybody would be getting the same message. Could somebody take a very heavily leaded or wrapped fly, one you could cast with a spinning rod and take it to the Moose River under the current regulations where it’s fly casting and trolling only? He would say yes they could as long as it was a single pointed hook and didn’t consist of multiple hooks. Could they take a repala with multiple hooks or treble hooks and tie some feathers on it and cast it? He would say no.
Council Member Questions and Comments
Mr. Kieffer stated he thought the question at the last meeting was about a weighted fly. The law used to read, an unweighted fly and we changed it and took off the unweighted portion and he thought that was a question with some of the new flies the way they were built to go across into Canada and you couldn’t fish Atlantic salmon with a weighted fly. That included the wrapping of aluminum foil as an attempt to put more weight on it.
Mr. Boland stated that now you could incorporate lead and weight into the fly.
Mr. Elowe stated this was not a biological issue. Between ALO and FFO that took care of fish mortality. The definition was really a traditional and social issue much more than biological. The future and the way it evolved…that fact should be kept in mind.
Mr. Poulin asked Mr. Boland to go back over casting versus fly.
Mr. Boland had read the definition of fly fishing and fly, in the Moose River it was restricted to casting and trolling with artificial flies only. At the Moose River it was not fly fishing, it was casting an artificial fly so you could use a spinning rod and use a heavily weighted fly (jig). Biologically it really wasn’t an issue.
Mr. Poulin asked about enforcement.
Mr. Boland stated that the Colonel did not think so. In the case of the Moose River they might have to sit down and identify specific issues and send an e-mail to those that dealt with the river.
Mr. Trask stated fly fishing and fly casting had always been synonymous. Once the definition of a fly was changed to allow weight, this had been intended to allow copper wire, etc. When people saw others with spinning rods on these waters they assumed it was illegal because they were fly casting. He understood what Mr. Boland was saying about the weight and thought it needed to be clarified.
Deputy Commissioner Jacques stated that some special permits to accommodate people with a permanent physical disability had been issued to allow them to use a spinning rod to put a fly out to fish in FFO waters because that was the only way they could do it.
3. Personnel Matter
Commissioner Martin stated this was regarding an anonymous letter they had all received some time ago. It had been looked into and he asked Major Sanborn to comment.
Major Sanborn stated an official investigation was launched on the allegation and it was found that the person of interest had not committed any violations of state law with his current actions. Felons were allowed to obtain a bowhunting license and hunt with a bow and arrow. Felons were allowed to apply for and receive a moose permit and take the moose with a bow and arrow. The investigation revealed that was what had taken place.
4. Milfoil Committee Update
Mr. Philbrick stated his committee revolved around the issue of milfoil. It was their charge to come up with ideas. They had met in Bangor and Lt. Tibbetts had given them some good information. The second meeting had taken place prior to the Advisory Council meeting. John McPhedran from DEP was in attendance. They had some goals and objectives to move forward on. They had determined that this was not just necessarily a motorized issue. It involved education and participation of everybody that floated on the water. What they would like to see in the future is that participation be statewide. Most probably was what would happen with boats on the shoreline of the coast of Maine. Mr. Witte had provided information about how to identify milfoil. Mr. Goodwin had a lot of background relative to legislation, as did Mr. Clark. They were concerned about hooks, lures, duck decoys, anchors, trailers; everything that could touch the bottom and haul up milfoil and transport it to another location. They had some suggestions on how to get more money for the process of education. They still had to learn where the percentage of money went for education/enforcement and also the restoration of the bodies that were currently infested with milfoil. They were also tackling the notion of aircraft/seaplanes and how they could possibly transport and whether they would be participants.
Mr. Philbrick stated they would not be done by October. The amount of information they had looked at was remarkable and they needed more. An update would be provided at the next Advisory Council meeting.
VI. Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports.
Mr. Clark requested that an update be given on Roxanne Quimby’s land acquisition and how it would affect snowmobile registrations.
VII. Public Comments & Questions
Mr. Courtney discussed illegal introductions of plant and fish species and talked about a recent bass tournament on Moosehead Lake where the bass were released when he felt they should have been destroyed, as they were an illegal introduction into the lake to begin with.
Mr. Boland was to give Commissioner Martin a report on the tournament activities.
VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The next meeting was scheduled for Sunday, September 23, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at the Presque Isle Fish and Game Club.
Locations for upcoming meetings are as follows: October 25th, Calais; December 6th, Scarborough. There would not be a meeting in November.
IX. Adjournment
Mr. Savage motioned to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Witte seconded that. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
