Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
February 21, 2007 – 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
Gregg Sanborn, Major, Maine Warden Service
Joel Wilkinson, Captain, Maine Warden Service
Steve Allarie, Whitewater Boating Specialist, Maine Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary and Recorder
Council Members:
Ron Usher
Lance Wheaton
Dave Wardwell – chaired meeting
Joe Clark
Sheri Oldham
Stephen Philbrick
Mike Witte
Ray Poulin
Guests:
There were no members of the public present.
I. Call to Order
Bos Savage, Council Chair, was unable to attend the meeting. Leo Kieffer, Vice Chair was also unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Wardwell 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 Mrs. Oldham to accept the minutes of the previous Council Meeting as written.
Vote: All in favor – minutes accepted as written.
IV. Rulemaking
A. Step 3
1. Bear Trapping Rules
Commissioner Martin stated he wanted to bring to the group’s attention an e-mail from Skip Trask that was included in their packet and also the public comments that had been received. Commissioner Martin stated he was prepared to move forward with the rule as presented.
Council Member Questions and Comments
Mrs. Oldham stated she would encourage the Department to continue with the work for best management practices for bear trapping and to have a report on that time certain so that we continue to move forward in that regard.
Mrs. Oldham motioned to accept the proposal and that was seconded by Mr. Clark.
Vote: unanimous, proposal accepted as presented.
2. Pleasant Lake, Caratunk – petition to open to ice fishing
Mrs. Erskine stated that a public hearing had been held and the Council had received the minutes from that. She had received a lot of comments after the public hearing in support of opening Pleasant Lake to ice fishing, and some in opposition. She had also included a copy of the agreement that we received from the protective association as to the rules that they had in place regarding the access.
Commissioner Martin stated that comments heard at the public hearing boiled down to those living on the pond preferring that we leave it alone and not open it to ice fishing and those that petitioned us and others from away suggested that it was the best thing for anglers to open it up. The public hearing had brought something to his attention that he took quite seriously. He requested a copy of the lease agreement because of the lack of public access. Because of the limited access and input from staff, he had directed the fisheries division to draft a letter to the folks monitoring the site and also to the folks who are leasing the site that we’re going to cease stocking brook trout immediately in Pleasant Lake. In his opinion, there was not reasonable public access there. Until they changed their direction we were no longer going to stock Pleasant Lake. Currently, about 2,000 brook trout were stocked there. There were also lake trout there.
Commissioner Martin stated he was also going to request that the Council approve that Pleasant Lake be opened to ice fishing for a period of 3 years with a sunset provision. This was a similar position to the one he took on Madawaska Lake.
Council Member Questions and Comments
Mrs. Oldham asked about the access to the lake for ice fishing. Was there a snowmobile trail or something they could use?
Commissioner Martin stated there were a multitude of trails and for ice fishing access was different. Because of what he heard at the public hearing, there was a public access issue there for summertime and we were going to deal with that.
Mr. Philbrick asked if it was policy that new ice fishing venues only occur on stocked waters?
Mr. Boland stated no.
Mr. Philbrick asked if the ice fishing venues that we had, were the majority of them stocked?
Mr. Boland stated a lot of them were stocked, but he didn’t know if it was a majority or not. In many counties if they’re not listed, they’re open to ice fishing beginning January 1. We stock a lot of waters that are open to ice fishing, but there were a lot of unstocked waters too.
Mr. Philbrick stated he asked these questions because he had received some requests relative to ice fishing opportunities. The second part of his concern was, were we setting a precedence of holding somebody hostage to make them change their rules to more suit our perceived needs? Or, were we doing it in a fashion that didn’t bode to strong-arming.
Commissioner Martin stated that notwithstanding the public access issue, he would still suggest that the body of water be opened up to ice fishing; one really didn’t have anything to do with the other. However, we have a very strict policy that if we don’t have reasonable public access, we don’t stock.
Mr. Philbrick stated he was all set with ice fishing, but he was questioning other areas around the state where we were not making the same mandate. If we set ourselves up with one, we should be prepared to do battle with some others.
Commissioner Martin stated that those brought to our attention would be dealt with.
Mr. Elowe stated there were many different kinds of so-called reasonable access. One of the things we look at is why access might be restricted. In some cases we can’t get public lots in order to build access and in some cases its because a private landowner is restricting it somehow. The reason why they restrict it, if there are road issues; in many cases the roads are very bad in the spring and they’re trying to prevent an excess of their own private budget so they’ll close it for a certain amount of time in the spring. That’s reasonable. On the other hand, if they’re just trying to limit the kind or numbers of people that come into a place, that is not reasonable. That’s clearly what Pleasant Pond was.
Mr. Philbrick stated he did not attend the public hearing and was not familiar with the circumstance, he was just stating for the record that these issues existed in other locations.
Commissioner Martin stated that the issue at hand was whether or not to grant the petitioner’s request and open Pleasant Lake to ice fishing.
Mr. Poulin stated that at the public hearing he didn’t hear anything that would prevent us from opening it up to ice fishing. A lot of efforts had been seen trying to restrict people from getting to bodies of water. If we’re putting the money into stocking these waters then the public has got to have access. That just happened to turn up at Pleasant Lake; they’re the ones that created us to look at them.
Mr. Philbrick asked if in the discussion about access, relative to the gate problem, how would the Department tell them what to do with their gate?
Commissioner Martin stated that we were strictly going to say in the letter that we were going to draft and submit that there’s a policy in place, and in our opinion, there was not reasonable public access there, and until there was, we were not going to stock.
Commissioner Martin stated that the agency rulemaking proposal had an incorrect year printed. Instead of 2007 it should read effective 2008. The proposal would be corrected.
Mr. Poulin motioned to accept the proposal and that was seconded by Mr. Philbrick.
Vote: unanimous, proposal accepted as amended.
B. Step 2
1. Bass Tournament Rules
Mr. Boland stated the proposal was to add in a couple of sentences that were inadvertently left out when we modified the rule pertaining to the livewells a couple of years ago.
Commissioner Martin stated there was no change from what was presented at Step 1.
2. Foss Pond, Kingsbury Plt. – horsepower petition
Mrs. Erskine stated we had been petitioned to consider a horsepower restriction at Foss Pond. A public hearing would be held in Guilford. We would have more information at the next meeting after the public hearing.
Council Member Questions and Comments
Mr. Poulin stated that the public hearing would be held, and then we would be at Step 3. That was when a vote would be taken, and there wasn’t much participatory discussion. He asked that the group be able to have that discussion at the next meeting.
Mrs. Erskine stated that the comment deadline ended March 4, which gave plenty of time to get the comments and minutes out to the group for their review.
C. Step 1
1. Whitewater Rafting Order of Launch
Commissioner Martin stated he would like either the Major or the Captain to introduce and talk a little bit about Warden Allarie and his position.
Captain Wilkinson stated that there was a vacancy in the whitewater specialist position; a promotional opportunity within the Bureau. There were 6 applicants within the Bureau and Warden Steve Allarie applied. He had almost 6 years of service; went through the promotional process and was selected as the candidate. He started work on December 31, 2006. Steve had been working temporarily with us to fill the void we had in that position through the summer. He is learning an intimate knowledge of the allocation and the ins and outs of the whitewater industry.
Warden Allarie stated the rule change was just to clean up the current launch order for the Kennebec and Penobscot Rivers. The launch order was established into rule to protect public health and safety of all the people rafting, and the companies. We have a systematic approach and scheduled slot time. This rule change is an update from 2005 and one outfitter was eliminated who no longer provides service (Wilderness Rafting Expeditions, Rockwood, ME). They were in slot 5 on the Kennebec and Harris Station; based on seniority level everyone who was in the proper launch order moved up one. Another change was on the West Branch of the Penobscot at McKay Station. Wilderness was taken out of slot 4 and Unicorn Rafting was put in. They were the only one’s to apply for that position. Warden Allarie stated that he sent out a notice that the position was available, and Unicorn Rafting Expeditions was the only group that put in for it.
Mr. Clark asked about the West Branch of the Penobscot; how could we go from 1040 to 11? And, could independent rafters launch on those vacant openings?
Warden Allarie stated that yes they could.
Mr. Clark asked why a lot of the companies declined to launch at McKay Station?
Warden Allarie stated that he was new to the position, and hadn’t experienced what happened on the West Branch of the Penobscot. Andy Glidden, the warden in that area had been handling the majority of the enforcement efforts on that stretch of river. Warden Allarie was surprised not to get much input for the McKay Station launch site. Only one outfitter put in for that spot.
Deputy Commissioner Jacques stated that Warden Allarie might want to define what seniority meant; who ran the river first.
Warden Allarie stated it was based on the first year they started continuous operations on that particular body of water. A lot of these companies started in the 80’s.
There were no further questions or comments.
2. Southern Maine Moose Hunt
Mr. Stadler gave some background and history regarding the proposal. LD 1313 was a Legislative resolve that the previous Legislature passed in 2005 that requested the Department to explore the feasibility of moose hunting in southern Maine. To start that process, the Wildlife Division got together and discussed what would be the best way to explore the possibility of moose hunting in southern Maine. It was decided that the best strategy was to present to the public, several alternatives for them to consider. Over the summer of 2005, the Wildlife Division got together and developed 3 options. They were variations on what WMDs would be open, and variations on season dates.
Mr. Stadler stated that those options were taken out to 5 public informational meetings. As a result of that, we opened WMD 27 to moose hunting.
Mrs. Oldham asked Mr. Stadler what the attendance was at those public informational meetings and how many written comments were received.
Mr. Stadler stated that in total there were about 21 people in attendance. Through the whole process the Department received about 30 public comments via e-mail, etc. and they were about 50% for and 50% against. The attendance at the public informational meetings was light, although he felt the Department did a good job at advertising them. One of the reasons for the legislative mandate was concern about moose/vehicle collisions. Based on all of the comments received, apparently the public working group was out of sync with the public’s concern about moose/vehicle collisions. The Wildlife Division crafted a proposal for the southern Maine moose hunt which was largely reflected in the executive summary to the Legislature. That summary was then taken to 2 additional public informational meetings, one in Thorndike and one in Bridgton. Also, Mr. Stadler met with the executive board of the Small Woodland Owners of Maine (SWOAM) in the summer of 2006. The board decided to support a southern Maine moose hunt with the understanding that it would occur during the regular firearms deer season in November, and that it would be a sustainable hunt and that the Department would do appropriate outreach to hunters to educate them about landowner relation issues in the southern part of the State. He also spoke with the Maine Farm Bureau and their executive board also chose to support the southern Maine moose hunt.
Mr. Stadler stated in December, 2006, the Department held a public hearing on the proposal in Augusta and it was attended by only 2 citizens. Don Kleiner who did not comment and John Glowa who represented the Maine Wolf Coalition and testified in opposition. The Maine Wolf Coalition had also attended the earlier Bridgton hearing in 2005 and spoke against the proposal. The Wildlife Alliance of Maine (WAM) was in opposition. The small land trust in the central Maine area had indicated if it became law they would post all their land trust property.
Mr. Stadler stated the Department pulled all of this information into a report that was presented to the Committee. The Committee directed the Department to go forth and commence rulemaking to implement the southern Maine moose hunt. We are planning to hold 2 public hearings on the proposal. What will be presented is the proposal that was presented in 2006 at the information meetings and what was presented to the Fish and Wildlife Committee.
Council Member Questions and Comments
Mrs. Oldham asked what the estimated moose population was in the proposed WMDs?
Mr. Stadler stated the estimated population was about 3,000.
Mrs. Oldham stated it was her understanding that in terms of moose management objectives, in terms of reducing moose vehicle collisions, how many animals would have to be harvested to achieve that objective?
Mr. Stadler stated we could eliminate every moose in that part of the state and one could wander in from another WMD and cause a collision.
Mrs. Oldham stated she would encourage the other Council members to engage in a spirited discussion about what she thought was a really bad proposal. First of all, there was no demand for this moose hunt. She believed that the northern Maine moose hunt was the crown jewel of the Department, and to bury a southern Maine moose hunt in the deer hunting season, she thought diminished what for most Maine hunters is their lifelong dream to harvest a moose. In terms of the technical aspects of the proposal, there would be one drawing. If she were drawn and had the opportunity to harvest a big bull in northern Maine, she would be happy. If she were picked for WMD 23 and had to hunt a moose in Thorndike and did not accept that permit, she would lose her bonus points and she would not be happy. She thought this was a bad proposal; there’s no demand for it, and it diminished our Maine moose hunt.
Mr. Wheaton stated that for those who couldn’t afford the trip to northern Maine this would at least give them some opportunity.
Mr. Witte stated the comments he was hearing seemed to be a lot of people wondering if the southern Maine moose hunt was going to be in Portland or Bath, Brunswick, etc. In talking with a couple of sporting organizations there was minimal opposition; they were encouraged about the fact that they could hunt moose during the deer season. He would have to agree with Mrs. Oldham on the point that if you didn’t live in that area, you wouldn’t want a permit for that area because the structure of this was going to be totally different than the northern Maine moose hunt. The local people seemed to be more interested in it. To summarize, he stated he was not seeing any opposition from the non-hunting community once its explained that it isn’t going to be in South Portland for example. As far as the locals, they felt this was another opportunity to be able to hunt moose. Other than what Mrs. Oldham said about the drawing, he didn’t see any opposition.
Commissioner Martin stated that one of the things Mr. Stadler said was that our Committee directed us to move forward in this fashion. When we submitted our report to the Committee in January, it was a unanimous decision to move forward with this through rulemaking. With the exception of possibly two Committee members, there was a lot of support for this.
Mr. Elowe stated that for logistics sake, we had to have one drawing. When you applied for a permit, you had a choice of whatever WMDs you wanted. If you elect to pick only certain WMDs, that means you’re limited to those in the drawing; you don’t get picked for a WMD you don’t want and lose your points. In this case there would be essentially 3 seasons; September and October and a November season. We wanted to reduce the impact to landowners, having it in November seemed like a good idea so there wouldn’t be another separate hunting season with the perception of another set of hunters out there. We didn’t know how many permits to issue in order to have a moose down on the ground. It probably wouldn’t reduce moose/vehicle accidents.
Mrs. Oldham stated if you looked at the moose/vehicle accident map, the proposed area was not the area where we would significantly make an impact in decreasing accidents.
Mr. Elowe stated that what we were proposing here was actually just an opportunity to hunt moose where there were some moose to be hunted. How much it could be tailored to be a sustainable hunt was going to depend on the success rate of permit holders. That’s why the proposal was for a fairly conservative number of permits.
Mrs. Oldham asked about her argument that this diminished the standing of the Maine moose hunt.
Mr. Elowe stated if you looked at it from the standpoint of “moose are vermin and need to be exterminated” then it did exactly what she was saying, and that diminished it. If it was a fairly conservative, limited hunt; NH and VT does this already and very successfully. If you take a fairly conservative approach to the whole thing you can maintain that quality hunt for people who don’t want to travel.
Mrs. Oldham asked if the hunt was wanted?
Commissioner Martin stated that this resolve was mandated upon us because of legislation that would have amended the moose hunt. A moose hunt that we would not have an opportunity to craft. The proposal in 2005 that was before the Legislature was going to clear the Committee, and because of discussions in an attempt to let us craft this and institute a resolve and require the Department to work on this for a couple of years. If this proposal failed, there would be legislation that we may or may not have an opportunity to craft. The numbers were very conservative, who knew what a legislative body would mandate. The Department thought this was reasonable.
Deputy Commissioner Jacques stated that something people weren’t considering were people who had lost loved ones in moose/vehicle accidents. They were outraged. They were looking for something positive to come out of it; that their loved one didn’t die in vain.
Mr. Philbrick suggested creating a new option on the moose permit application not in conjunction with the moose lottery we currently had; opportunities for the public to hunt in more than one season. It would be a great marketing opportunity and economic benefit for the Department.
Mr. Elowe stated we had looked at that, and the logistics of having another drawing would sink the Department.
Commissioner Martin stated he did not want to say no to the opportunity, but it would require further discussion.
Mr. Witte stated this was another opportunity and the moose were available. It was suggested that the public hearings be held a little further south.
Mr. Stadler stated that the Wildlife Division wrestled with the two issues that Mrs. Oldham mentioned. One was that the southern Maine moose hunt would be perceived as a poor quality, animal damage control type of situation. We did not want to do anything that would diminish the status of the moose in southern Maine. The Wildlife Division was adamant that the management needed to be one lottery so that we didn’t have two separate moose hunts; one high quality and the other one being considered poor quality. Mr. Stadler stated he would encourage the Council try to keep the hunt as uniform as possible so that Maine had one high quality moose hunt throughout the entire state.
Mrs. Oldham stated there was no question that moose/vehicle collisions resulting in fatalities were tragic, but she thought we needed to keep in mind that a southern Maine moose hunt, as proposed, did nothing to diminish that risk. To keep saying that in terms of the debate she felt did not have much value. Addressing the quality of the hunt, she stated that now there was a week season, someone was drawn for the permit; the family would travel to hunt and scout for moose. With a month long season in deer season she thought it would be a different hunt and that it would diminish our crown jewel.
Mr. Stadler stated that the two upcoming public hearings would possibly be held in Auburn and Belfast.
There were no further questions or comments.
V. Other Business
1. Annual Financial Report, FY 06
This item was tabled.
VI. Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports.
Mrs. Oldham asked Mr. Elowe to distribute a letter addressed to the IF&W Committee regarding funding for a research study for bear baiting. It was determined that the letter would be more effective if all Council members signed it.
Commissioner Martin stated that a signature line page would be circulated for Council to sign at the close of the meeting.
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, March 29 at 9:30 a.m. at the IF&W Headquarters in Augusta.
IX. Adjournment
Mr. Wheaton motioned to adjourn the meeting and Mrs. Oldham seconded that. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
