Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2006 – 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Headquarters
Upstairs Conference Room, 284 State Street, Augusta
Attending:
Roland D. Martin, Commissioner
Paul F. Jacques, Deputy Commissioner
Andrea Erskine, Assistant to the Commissioner
Marc Michaud, Director, Information and Education
Ken Elowe, Director, Bureau of Resource Management
Mark Stadler, Division Director Fish and Wildlife
John Boland, Director, Fisheries Operations
Colonel Tom Santaguida
Becky Orff, Secretary and Recorder
Council Members:
Bos Savage – Chair
Leo Kieffer – Vice Chair
Ron Usher
Lance Wheaton
Dave Wardwell
Joe Clark
Sheri Oldham
Stephen Philbrick
Mike Witte
Ray Poulin
Guests:
Salmon Egg Superstars
Don Kleiner, ME Bowhunters Assoc. & NWTF
Skip Trask, MTA & MPGA
I. Call to Order
Bos Savage, 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. Usher to accept the minutes of the previous Council Meeting as written.
Vote: All in favor – minutes accepted as written.
III-A. Salmon Egg Superstars – Restoration Project Presentation
Commissioner Martin introduced Kate Jans, Sheila Huckins and the Salmon Egg Superstars, sponsored by the Denny’s River Watershed Council. A brief presentation was given about their efforts, read by Paul Jans.
IV. Rulemaking
A. Step 3
1. 2007 Moose Season
Mr. Stadler stated a public hearing was held in Fort Kent. The meeting was lightly attended. Mr. Stadler gave a presentation at the hearing about moose management, the species planning process and how we go about setting moose permit allocations. The public hearing was then turned over to questions and comments. Basically what we heard from the public was continued concern about moose vehicle collisions, particularly in WMDs 3 and 6; issues regarding landowners/large farms and not having any access to moose permits, but the public still hunting on their property; and issues regarding moose/vehicle collisions in WMDs 2 and 5. There was some discussion about the Department possibly reconvening the moose working group to reconsider its management objectives for WMDs 2 and 5 and maybe consider moving WMDs 2 and 5 from the recreational management that we’re doing and moving it more into compromise management where we would seek to reduce moose populations in those two WMDs. Mr. Stadler stated that would conflict with the management goals and objectives that the Big Game Working Group gave us.
Mr. Stadler stated that to make that type of a substantive change, we would require a reconvening of the Moose Working Group. Our planning horizon through a species planning process is broadly 10-15 years, but our species planning process does allow us to reconvene public working groups on about a 5 year cycle if its determined there’s new information or things we need to consider to adjust management within that overall 15 year period. Mr. Stadler stated that based on that input, we are proposing to do some minor modifications to the any-moose permit allocations for WMDs 2, 3, 5 and 6 (see handout).
Council Member Questions and Comments
Commissioner Martin stated that he wanted to thank Leo for attending the public hearing. There had been a request from a Legislator to hold at least one public hearing in that area. After taking all comments into consideration, this is the compromise that was reached.
Mr. Kieffer stated this originated, as Commissioner Martin had stated, at the request of Representative Jackson. Mr. Kieffer had spoken with him after the hearing and he thought he was satisfied. He wasn’t sure if Rep. Jackson would submit legislation again this year, but he didn’t think he would. Mr. Kieffer stated he wished he knew a way to get more people to attend the public hearings.
Commissioner Martin stated that Rep. Jackson’s legislation from last year would have required us to increase the moose permit allocation by 500 permits. Commissioner Martin stated that he had spoken with Rep. Jackson and shared with him that he had done a slight modification in the moose permits of not 500 but 35, and he seemed to be pleased.
Mr. Clark asked if with the 35 permits, did we take away 35 nonresident permits or add 35 permits?
Commissioner Martin stated the 35 permits were added; the total would be 2,880. 10% of that amount by statute must go to nonresidents. But, it did not include the 5 permits that we are authorized to auction off.
Mr. Savage asked if within the compromise zone, had there been a decrease in moose/vehicle collisions since we began identifying those areas as places where we wanted to reduce the moose population?
Mr. Stadler stated that his understanding was that the number of moose collisions had declined.
Mr. Kieffer stated that he thought there were a tremendous amount of moose collisions, especially on Rt. 11 with tractor trailor units. The local farmer goes with his front-end loader and picks it up, and because there isn’t damage like there is with a car, it’s not reported.
Mrs. Oldham stated that the Maine Department of Public Health issued a statement that moose/vehicle collisions were 6% of the total vehicle/animal collisions, but were responsible for 50% of the fatalities associated with animal/vehicle collisions.
Motion made by Mr. Wardwell and seconded by Mr. Philbrick to accept the proposal as presented.
Vote: 9 in favor, 1 opposed; proposal accepted as presented.
2. Nadeau Lake, Ft. Fairfield – Horsepower Restriction
Mrs. Erskine stated that a public hearing had been held in Ft. Fairfield and there had been a change to what was originally proposed. Initially the town had asked us to do a no motorboats restriction on that body of water; that request has changed partly because of issues with Federal funding being used to provide access. Having a no motorboats restriction jeopardized that somewhat. The packet included a letter from the town requesting that it be 10 horsepower or less and that is what we are proposing to move forward with. Mr. Bourque would give some history on the project, as there was still no water there, but was planned to be filled by 2008.
Mr. Bourque stated there were two pockets of water and a wetland complex there back in the 60’s, and in 1971 an entrepreneur had discovered there was marl (limestone) beneath the water. The individual approached DOC to see if he could get a permit to drain that water and mine underneath that lake. He was successful in getting the permit. The outlet was dredged to drain the pond. With those permits, the individual was supposed to reconstruct a dam and restore the water level to its original height. We saw a great opportunity since now the pond was going to be much deeper, and was still going to have limestone in it so it would be very rich and grow trout very rapidly; it was once a wild trout pond. He stopped mining marl in the 90’s and asked for a permit to mine some gravel that was below the marl. A permit was issued. He didn’t do much with that so his business wound down, but he failed to comply with the DEP order to restore the dam, so that ultimately went to the AG’s office and we have been holding out to get some of his land in the deal and we wanted the dam restored. That didn’t happen and we got a $10,000 settlement that was provided to the agency, and DEP has since given us a $22,000 settlement agreement on a Seven Island’s violation in the woods to be dedicated specifically to this project. We’ve been successful in getting a Natural Resource Soil Conservation grant through one of their programs to reconstruct that dam. Soil Conservation has designed the structure and we are ready to go to bid.
Mr. Bourque stated that we needed to reclaim the pond. With it being dredged down, other species got into it; there were hornpout in it, and because of the illegal introduction of bass in the Limestone Stream drainage bass had gotten in there also. Reclamation will be part of that project and DEP grants us permits over a long period of time to do that, but it needs to be done at a very specific time period. It needs to be done with dam construction, and that’s why dam construction didn’t happen this year, because it was too late in the season. The hope is that all this will be done next summer. With that, the pond will be roughly 25 acres and about 25 feet deep. It is full of springs. The plan is to restock from the Limestone Stream drainage with wild trout. We believe it will be self-sustaining very quickly because of all of the springs and historical spawning that has taken place. Frank has dug out all the springs and added stumps and debris for cover. Our vision is that it will be a pond for everybody to use. There are certainly elderly and handicapped folks that really need to use small motors to get around with and we constructed a ramp with Federal Sportfish dollars, not only to provide access to the water when its restored, but also to cut down on some erosion. There’s a causeway in the pond which we’ve built up and we’re going to try to develop bank fishing sites as well as some handicapped fishing sites from the causeway. We own about half the acreage on the pond, and in the settlement agreement with the fellow that did the mining, we have first option on purchasing the rest of the property.
There were no further comments or questions.
Motion made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Kieffer to accept the proposal as presented.
Vote: unanimous – proposal accepted as presented.
B. Step 2
There were no items at Step 2.
C. Step 1
1. Bear Trapping Rules
Mr. Elowe distributed handouts to the group and gave some history as to how we arrived at some recommendations for bear trapping. Back in November 2004, there was a referendum vote that had to deal with methods of take for bear; trapping, hounds and baiting. Maine’s public affirmed those methods. As a result of the affirmation of those methods, the opposition put in many bills in the Legislature of 2005. A letter from the Committee was sent directing the Department to assemble a working group of those interested parties and dissect the issues and report back to them recommendations for ways to improve bear management; specifically, methods of take.
We put together a working group, which met 4 times. What we tried to do was come up with small increments of agreement that neither side particularly wanted, but all could perhaps agree might make bear methods of take a little bit better. The report to the Legislature lists the issues that we dealt with and items that we separated into 3 categories; items of fairly strong agreement, items of fairly strong disagreement and items where no agreement was reached either because it was so polarized or there wasn’t much opinion on it (See handout). This is not the working group’s report and these are not the working groups recommendations. From those items of strong agreement/ disagreement, the Department looked at those discussion points and came up with our recommendations to the IF&W Committee. There were basically 4 recommendations, 2 of those dealt with bear trapping and they are the basis for the proposal. 1) Reduce the number of traps from 2 to 1; 2) recommend eliminating the steel jawed foothold traps from the arsenal of bear traps that are available. There are 2 very well tested bear traps that are very effective, and have been used worldwide by bear researchers for decades and that’s the Aldridge foot snare, which is a cable loop set up by a spring device set in the ground and catches the bear around the foot and its anchored to a tree. The other is a cage type live trap, normally called a barrel trap. Those two traps are available, effective and they’re used probably already by the majority of trappers. There was fairly strong agreement among the working group that these two steps might improve bear trapping as a method of take. That’s the basis of our recommendation.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Commissioner Martin thanked Mr. Elowe for managing the group. Our directive was to report back to our Legislative Committee in January 2006. Last spring, Commissioner Martin and Mr. Elowe met with the Committee and presented the findings. We made it very clear that this was not the Bear Working Group’s decision, but the Department’s recommendation based on the group’s input. At the time, he offered the Committee 2 options, to move forward with legislation or direct the Department to move forward with rulemaking. It became obvious that the Legislative Committee preferred the Department deal with it; that is why this is now at Step 1. No matter the outcome of the proposed rule, as the manager of this Department, he felt it was the right time and the right thing to do.
Mr. Philbrick asked Mr. Trask what the position was of the MTA on the progress at this juncture?
Mr. Trask stated that MTA took this very seriously. They had several meetings to discuss it and one Board meeting to make a decision on what to do with the proposal. In the end, the MTA was nearly unanimous in reaching a decision. In this case, we sent out a questionnaire to nearly 1,000 members of the MTA. Nearly 700 returns were received. 29% of the trappers that responded thought we should support the proposal. 34% thought we should fight to keep things as they are. The other 37% were somewhere in the middle. Responses were received from 200 bear trappers that are members. About 1/3 of the licensed trappers in the State belong to the MTA. There are obviously quite a few people in the state that trap for bears or have an interest in it.
Mr. Trask stated one of the things that the MTA learned is that there really wasn’t much information about bear trappers in the State. Nobody knew how many there were, or what type of equipment they were using. That was Mr. Trask’s argument for saying they really needed to find out more about what was going on before making substantive changes. Even among bear trappers, 22% felt the MTA should support the changes and nearly twice that many felt we should go to battle over it. Again, the other 37% were in the middle. A year and half before the bear referendum pollster, Chris Potholm, predicted that in November of 2004 if bear trapping was still legal, we’d lose the referendum. Of course, that drew a pretty substantial response from trappers. At the next meeting Mr. Potholm said the only thing worse than having bear trapping still legal in November of 2004 is if sportsmen were split down the middle on the issue. We decided not to advocate any changes and go to referendum. What started out as a bear baiting referendum basically turned into a bear trapping referendum.
Mr. Trask stated that the MTA would submit comments or testify in opposition to the proposal, pointing out several reasons why they thought it was premature. We would not see the MTA involved in an all out battle over it. It was a calculated decision on the part of the Board of Directors of the MTA. There are obviously some antique bear traps being used that shouldn’t be out there, but technically they’re still legal. There are other, more modern foothold traps, coil spring traps, that are state of the art that they felt did pass muster. They didn’t think there had been enough work done to determine whether or not these traps were equivalent to the Aldridge foot snare.
Mr. Trask stated we’re going into a Legislative session, there would be legislation put in to ban all bear trapping, and were they better off going into that battle with old traps being an issue? The Board of the MTA felt that they would be better off if that were the case. MTA was going to point out the reasons why they felt it wasn’t appropriate at the time to make the change, but they weren’t going to get involved in an all out battle. What they would suggest is at some point and time either the Department or MTA conduct the necessary tests with the coil spring trap…that perhaps could be brought back into consideration at some point and time.
Mr. Philbrick stated that he was not new to bear trapping. He felt it was important to show not only a new alliance between the MTA, the Advisory Council and the Department, but he thought it needed to be done through a statewide educational process. The only way to continue with what we consider our heritage and what we feel is necessary to manage wildlife is to educate Cumberland, York and so forth. In public, to have the MTA and the Department at odds was dangerous.
Commissioner Martin stated that if nothing was done through this process, he and Mr. Trask agreed on what would ultimately happen. His concern was having the MTA and MPGA at odds with the Department on this particular issue. We don’t want to be fighting this through the news media, that’s where we’re going to lose. He encouraged Mr. Trask to not fight this out in public.
Mrs. Oldham recommended that the Department go further than what was currently being recommended. There were 4 areas of strong agreement, and the summary of recommendations included studies, if funding was available. Design the study, figure out the cost and present that to the Committee and request special funding to get the information that was under the recommendations.
Mr. Kieffer asked if in the discussion of the Bear Working Group, was there any discussion of putting in legislation to regulate the bear situation on a county by county basis?
Mr. Elowe stated no, there was not.
Mr. Kieffer asked where Mr. Elowe thought legislation like that would go? If Cumberland county doesn’t want it there, he didn’t think they should, but if other counties did, he thought it should be on a county by county basis.
Mr. Elowe stated that without considering all the implications his first reaction was that it was counter to everything that we’d tried to build in terms of credibility of the Department to manage on a statewide basis, geographic differences, if they’re necessary, but he would hate to see a legislative directive parceling out wildlife management in the state.
Mr. Kieffer stated he didn’t think the Department had ever had anything so controversial as this by region. This was clearly a north/south issue. Mr. Kieffer stated he was a member of the Aroostook County Trappers and at their meeting before last, they voted unanimously to oppose the change. He was sent to represent them from Aroostook County. He was willing to go back and discuss the information he had received with them, and possibly someone from the Department would like to be there as well.
Mr. Elowe stated that when you talk about a very small increment of improvement, its perception of the groups whether its an improvement or gets them where they want to go. From the Department’s perspective, the proposal was what we felt was necessary based on the information we have today to make an incremental improvement in bear trapping and further ensure its future.
Mr. Kieffer stated he disagreed that this would vary from the management philosophy. Bear were being managed on a statewide basis; moose, deer, etc were managed in separate zones, why not bear? He would like to see part of the proposal or a separate proposal to take to the legislature to mange bear in the same way that we do deer, moose and whatever else there may be.
Commissioner Martin stated he was not sure we would want to move in that direction as a Department.
Mr. Savage stated he participated in the Bear Working Group; representing the Council on an issue of this magnitude was not easy. He found it difficult to represent the Council and balance his own feelings on this. He thought this was the time to show at some level that MTA was willing to give up something to the people that don’t like the inhumane aspect of trapping. He thought the timing was right to do that. Mr. Kieffer’s suggestion of managing bear by WMDs or a county by county basis, he thought it was a different case with bear. He thought the people in Cumberland /York county and the rest of the country that opposed bear trapping don’t really care whether you eliminate bear trapping in Cumberland County or York County, they don’t want the bears trapped anywhere in the State of Maine. He didn’t think it would help by managing by WMD. He also agreed with Mrs. Oldham about going forward with the other two proposals because it would send that additional message that we are willing to go out and get the rest of the information that we need to answer people’s questions.
Mr. Wheaton stated that he hoped the Department would really listen to people that worked with bear, more than the opinions of the opponents. He had seen a film and in a camping area an infant had been taken by a black bear and they never found it, they just knew that a bear took it. In that same film it documented another instance where a black bear came in and attacked two people. His brother had shot a bear coming into his kitchen, and over the years they had harvested 9 in back of the sporting camps where the garbage cans were. He understood the political ness of the situation and he would rather lose a small piece than all of it.
Mr. Witte stated that in his area, he had been speaking with several organizations. He thought in the midcoast area this issue even went further. There was a great deal of sentiment for anti-trapping. The bear referendum was the impetus to start that. The organizations that were fighting us have restructured themselves and is still active. The lynx thing had obviously become an issue in the Portland paper and was being publicized. It fanned the fires of the urban people who were not at all familiar with the hunting population. He saw a definite divide between northern and southern Maine. Mr. Witte asked if the compromise would take some heat off of our bear hunting/trapping position?
Mr. Elowe stated it would not sway anyone that was on the extreme end. But, it would make it so Mr. Elowe could speak in public and say this was the best program and in a humane sense, have no impact on bear. He personally had trapped hundreds of bears with these traps and these are good traps, humane traps, and defensible. If you were going to take a bear, this was as good a way as any to do it.
Commissioner Martin asked Mr. Trask if we would be receiving his written testimony around the Step 2 level?
Mr. Trask stated he didn’t see why not.
Commissioner Martin stated that it was his decision as to whether or not the proposal would go to Step 3. Would the MTA Board rather see this at Step 3 or at the halls of the Legislature?
Mr. Trask stated the Board had said they did not want to fight bear trapping at the legislature.
Even if we didn’t have the foothold traps to contend with, if a bear trapping bill got out of Committee we would be in for a battle. The 2-trap limit had never been an issue, but some of them did not want to give up anything. It was really the foothold trap that had people wound up.
Commissioner Martin stated that so far, we had heard two interesting things for consideration; Leo’s option and Sheri’s discussion. Commissioner Martin stated that he totally agreed with her, but how to fit that in the rulemaking language was something he had to think about.
Mrs. Oldham stated that clearly, the Legislative Committee wanted the Council and Department to deal with this, rather than them. The Department, basically, would take the heat. If they want the heat here, we need information; we are going to move forward, but the Committee had to fund the study.
Commissioner Martin stated that funding wouldn’t really be in place until June, 2007 for the next 2 years. This would have to take place in February. We could send them a strong message, but ultimately the Appropriation’s Committee would decide it.
Mr. Clark asked what the overall Administration’s (Governor’s, other Department heads, etc.) feelings were on the bear issue?
Commissioner Martin stated that it didn’t rise to the Governor’s office level. Other players were working the process and with new leadership in securing their folks in the Advisory Council and Legislative Committee. He had been asked to comment on possibly supporting trapping legislation again, legislation that was killed 2 years ago to ensure that nonconsumptive users sat around the table. Commissioner Martin stated that he made it very clear that the Department then, and the Department now would oppose that. However, legislation was being crafted again to mandate that.
Commissioner Martin stated that at Step 2, the Council would be seeing a letter that he was going to ask Mr. Elowe to help draft. This would be a letter to be signed by the Council, or the Chair, for consideration in regards to the funding issue and in regards to Mrs. Oldham’s issue.
Commissioner Martin stated he hoped to receive comments from Mr. Trask (MTA) and also that the Department would look into Leo’s concept of managing bear by WMD and report back at the next meeting.
There were no further questions or comments.
2. Bald Eagle Essential Habitat
Mr. Stadler stated that we did have Step 1 on bald eagles Council meeting before last. The reason it was back at Step 1 was due to a major work program that Mr. Stadler needed to give priority in the Wildlife Division, so bald eagle essential habitat was put on hold. Now the proposal was ready to move forward to Steps 2 and 3. The proposal would add 65 new nest sites (see handout).
Council Member Questions and Comments
Mr. Philbrick stated that in his area there were a number of bald eagles. One of the things that the guys in the sportsman’s association and a number of the folks in the area were recognizing was that there were some people feeding the eagles. Was this issue being addressed and how were we going to go about stopping something that in terms of other management techniques was frowned upon?
Mr. Stadler stated that there were very strongly held opinions regarding feeding of wildlife. It’s a management recommendation that people not feed wildlife. Basically we have stopped providing guidance because we think that it would be all out warfare to try to make it a rule. The only area where we are potentially considering banning feeding is winter feeding of deer as it relates to chronic wasting disease (CWD). Should CWD creep closer to New England, we may need to consider that.
Deputy Commissioner Jacques stated that he believed it was against the law to feed eagles. He sponsored a bill when they were feeding them off party boats in the ocean.
Mr. Stadler stated that a historical perspective on this is that the Department used to actively feed bald eagles in the early phases of the recovery program Downeast.
Mr. Trask stated that it was a Class D crime to feed or put out bait for an endangered or threatened species.
Mr. Savage asked Colonel Santaguida what someone’s defense would be, could they say they didn’t intend to feed eagles?
Colonel Santaguida stated that wardens have to prove culpable state of mind or prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was intentionally feeding.
There were no further questions or comments.
V. Other Business
There were no items under other business.
VI. Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports.
Mr. Kieffer stated that he would be interested to see what the numbers were for the marten trapping season when the report became available.
Mr. Stadler stated that he understood the numbers to be low. Marten habitat was declining, and this might be a good time for a presentation and invite either Bill Krohn or Dan Harrison from the University to come and show the effect of what’s happening in northern forests (Forest Practices Act).
Mr. Savage stated that he would like to see the Department take a proactive approach to offering speakers for Land Trusts, especially in southern Maine. We could get the Land Trust list and write a letter to the Land Trust offering to provide speakers instead of waiting for them to ask. He felt those were the people we could have a really good influence on; they just didn’t know about biology, hunting or wildlife management.
Mr. Boland stated they were putting the finishing touches on a report, a 5-year study, on rainbow trout in Maine. If the Council was interested, a presentation could be made in the next month or so.
The Council agreed they would like a presentation.
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 January 24, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. to possibly include an orientation for new members. Location to be announced, possibly the Bolton Hill facility.
IX. Adjournment
Mr. Wardwell motioned to adjourn the meeting and Mrs. Oldham seconded that. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
