Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
Advisory Council Meeting
June 23, 2006 - 9:30 A.M.
Greenville Headquarters - Village Street, Greenville, ME
Attending:
Roland D. Martin, Commissioner
Andrea Erskine, Assistant to the Commissioner
Mark Stadler, Division Director, Fish & Wildlife
George Matula, Endangered & Threatened Species Coordinator
Mike Schummer, Wildlife Biologist, Bird Group
Karen Morris, Wildlife Biologist, Mammal Group
John Boland, Director, Fisheries Operations
Dennis Mcneish, Fisheries Biologist Supervisor
Tim Obrey, Fish Biologist
Gregg Sanborn, Major, Warden Service
Ron Taylor, Engineering and Reality Division
Becky Orff, Secretary and Recorder
Council Members:
Bos Savage – Chair
Leo Kieffer – Vice Chair
Dave Wardwell
Ron Usher
Lance Wheaton
Joe Clark
Guests:
Representative Earl Richardson, IF&W Committee
Representative David Richardson, IF&W Committee
Dick Rogers
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. Kieffer to accept the minutes of the previous Council Meeting as written.
Vote: All in favor – minutes accepted as written.
IV. Rulemaking
Step 3
1. 2006 Fall Turkey Season
Mr. Stadler stated that the Department is proposing to make modifications to the fall season. These modifications were at the request of the Maine Bowhunters Association and the Wild Turkey Federation. Basically for the fall season we’re creating two zones, zone 1 and 2 and we’re adding WMD 17 to the second zone, which is the core of the turkey range. Zone 1 is kind of a periphery around the turkey range. For Zone 2 we’re going to go with a 4-week season that will run concurrently with the archery deer hunting season starting 30 days prior to the Friday preceding the regular deer hunting season. The sporting organizations requested a lengthening of the fall turkey season to a month. We felt that the core of the range could withstand, but the periphery of the range probably couldn’t at this time, so we maintained the current 2-week season in that part of the state.
Commissioner Martin stated that the packet contained a letter of support from the Maine Bowhunters Association. To his knowledge, there hadn’t been any other comments, and there were no changes to this since Step 2. He recommended to the Chair that they move forward with the initiative as proposed.
Motion made by Mr. Usher and seconded by Mr. Clark to accept the proposal as presented.
Vote: All in favor – proposal accepted as presented.
2. WMD 24 Pheasant Season
Mr. Stadler stated that the Windham/Gorham Rod and Gun Club approached the Department in April requesting that we eliminate the restriction on the taking of female pheasant in WMD 24. We have modified the rule to eliminate the buck only pheasant season in WMD 24 and allow the taking of both cocks and hens.
Commissioner Martin asked Mrs. Erskine if there were any other correspondence or recommendations that the Council may not have seen?
Mrs. Erskine stated no.
Commissioner Martin stated that at this time the Department would like to recommend that we move forward with the initiative and asked for the Council’s consent.
Motion made by Mr. Usher and seconded by Mr. Kieffer to accept the proposal as presented.
Vote: All in favor – proposal accepted as presented.
Step 2
1. Endangered & Threatened Species Listing
Mr. Matula distributed handouts that had been presented at the recent public hearings. Back in 1975 the Maine Endangered Species Act was established. At that time the list was composed of just Federally listed species. In 1981, the first non-federally listed species was listed and that was the Least Tern. He believed that was because of a petition by Audubon. In 1983 the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game changed its name to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to really reflect the scope of our responsibilities and the fact that we were embracing the whole array of wildlife and fish species.
In 1984, the first comprehensive review of Maine species was conducted and resulted in the addition of 6 endangered and 4 threatened species to the list in 1986. In 1989, the Legislature clarified that the Department had conservation responsibility for invertebrates. In 1994 the Department established some objective, biologically based criteria in rule and at that time we initiated another comprehensive review of Maine species. In 1995, the Maine Legislature transferred authority to list E&T species from the Commissioner to the Legislature. In 1996, there was a provision that automatically listed federally listed species as state listed and that was removed by the Legislature. Also, in 1996, the Department proposed 20 additions to the E&T list, and in 1997, that recommendation went to the Legislature and the Legislature approved that recommendation.
Mr. Matula stated that the handout (see packet) was also available on the Department’s website. He wanted to point out, and this had been done at the public hearings also, that we view the listing of species and the subsequent management of that species as being two distinct steps. The first step is the listing that we’re involved in right now, and that’s a structured, systematic, and scientific examination of all of the factors that qualify a species as a candidate for being listed as an endangered or threatened species in Maine. Management; the listing of a species does not automatically ensure a given level of management, nor does it automatically commit resources or programs for that species. Those commitments are part of a subsequent and separate step to the listing process. What we wanted to do was keep the listing process based purely on biological facts and a species likelihood of becoming extinct in Maine.
Mr. Matula stated that in rule it states that species may only be recommended for listing as a State endangered or threatened species if it meets all of the following qualifications:
- it is a species of mammal, bird, fish, amphibian, reptile, or invertebrate wild by nature as distinguished from domestic species;
it is an indigenous species to Maine, meaning it is not an exotic deliberately or accidentally introduced into Maine, the United States, or North America;
- it is a species that spends some portion of its annual cycle in Maine, including breeding, migration, or wintering, but is not a vagrant or accidental visitor;
- it is a species that has not expanded into Maine within the past 50 years as part of a general range expansion, unless it historically occurred in Maine or is threatened or declining throughout a significant portion of its total range;
- it is a species that has not been reintroduced into Maine as part of an experimental wildlife management program, unless listing is part of the reintroduction plan; and
- it is taxonomically classified no finer than a subspecies, unless federally Endangered or Threatened.
Also in rule there are some population guidelines for determining the risk of extinction. The following population characteristics, when available, will be considered by the Commissioner when recommending whether a species meets the definition of Endangered or Threatened.
- population viability,
- population size,
- population trend,
- population distribution,
- population fragmentation, and
- endemism, meaning the species only occurs in Maine.
Around 1994 or 1995 we developed what is called Maine Endangered and Threatened Species Listing Handbook which essentially is the synthesis of what’s in statute and what’s in rule, plus it puts some specific criteria and benchmarks for determining what the trigger points are. Based on that, we’ve developed worksheets, and those worksheets are the basis for how we determine whether a species should be listed or not.
The current listing process began about 3 years ago in a sense because we had put together what’s called Maine’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, a major undertaking that we and all the other states had do to in order to continue to receive state wildlife grant funds from the Federal Government. That was completed in September of 2005, but as a part of that process we had to review the status of all the species we have in Maine. Then, in November of 2005, we initiated the process we’re entertaining right now. At that time, we established some listing committees. They were essentially comprised and chaired by experts within the Department and were based on taxon groups such as mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and so on. At that time, we looked at the Maine Endangered and Threatened Species Listing Handbook and made sure that everybody understood the criteria; and at that time, we also found some things that were unclear and so we clarified some of those areas plus we included some criteria that were more appropriate for invertebrates that were not included in the original handbook.
The Committees then launched off into their work and essentially completed worksheets for species that they suspected might qualify as endangered, threatened or special concern. Once they went through that process, they came up with a list of recommendations (each taxon group), which were reviewed within the Wildlife and Fisheries Divisions. After any necessary changes were made, the recommendations were distributed to species experts outside of the Department. What we were looking for from these experts was input on what additional data they may have or insight they may have that may effect the listing status of the species. Based on that input, we revised some of them and then came up with the list that is being presented.
Since then, we’ve had two public hearings, one in Portland and one in Bangor. Once the comment period ends on July 3, we’ll look at the input received from them and come up with final recommendations to the Commissioner. Once he’s comfortable with that, LDs will be put together to go to the Legislature this coming winter. Essentially, we are recommending 12 new listings including 4 endangered species and 8 threatened species. We’re also recommending that the Ringed Boghaunter, a dragonfly, be down listed from endangered to threatened, and we’re also recommending that the dragonfly, the Pygmy Snaketail, be de-listed to an administrative category we call special concern. Also, we have two clarifications of current listings; we have two species that are listed as endangered at this point in time, the Peregrine Falcon and American Pipit. In 1997, when we recommended them for listing, we also recommended that we only list the breeding population for those species. Somehow that did not make it to the statute, so we’re recommending that qualifier be added to those species. Currently we have 33 listed species. If we continue with what we have here now, we’ll end up with 11 additions to the list.
Mr. Matula stated that 3 people attended the public hearing in Portland. There was one person in support of the listings of the Spotted and Blanding’s turtles. Maine Audubon testified and they were strongly in support of what we had proposed. They also had questions about the Canada lynx and recommended that we get together with the lynx research team and review what we put together. They also had questions as to why the Atlantic salmon was not being proposed, and there were two other species that we’re taking another look at; the Least Bittern and the Barrow’s Goldeneye. They had some comments about special concern species. The special concern list is not in statute and it has no real legal bearing. It’s an administrative list that we maintain of species that have a potential of becoming endangered and threatened down the road so we’re keeping an eye on them.
At the Bangor hearing there were 5 people in attendance. Daryl DeJoy from WAM testified and he felt that the Canada lynx should be listed and he thought our estimates of the population were too high. He also felt that the gray wolf should be listed and that we had put insufficient effort into finding wolves up north and within the state. He also felt that the Eastern cougar should be listed because there are a lot of sightings reported in Maine. Barry Berguson was fine with the list, but he emphasized the fact that he strongly supported the listing of the New England cottontail. He was involved in the 1984 listing process and felt that at that time they probably should have listed it.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Commissioner Martin stated that Mr. Matula alluded to the fact that we did have two public hearings; that was required by Legislation and the process. This is not here as required by the rulemaking process and Council would not see this at Step 3.
Mrs. Erskine stated that the Legislature, rather than designating this as a major substantive rule, the statute just says that the Department, prior to recommending changes to the list, will hold public hearings. The APA process was used just for the hearings, but otherwise there is no requirement that any action be taken by the Council.
Mr. Clark stated that back in 1999 he had some major concerns about the E&T species list when he served on the Legislative Committee. He asked how much the Department received in Federal grant money for having the list?
Mr. Stadler stated that we did not receive any money for having the list. We get money from the Fish and Wildlife Service for endangered and threatened species restoration and recovery in the amount of about $60,000 a year. We get that money whether we have a list or not.
Mr. Savage stated that the lynx and salmon are a highly politicized topic, but why were they not listed?
Mr. Stadler stated that he would speak about lynx. The Department, based on our 6-7 year telemetry study in Northern Maine, feels that the lynx population estimates for both the breeding and individual populations exceed the thresholds required for threatened or endangered listing.
Mr. Boland stated that with regard to Atlantic salmon, currently the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are both involved in a status review of Atlantic salmon as part of the Federal listing. The Atlantic Salmon Commission made the decision to hold off on the Maine listing until we get the review from the Feds.
Mr. Savage stated he had a question for Mr. Matula. It seemed to him that the criteria for listing was really clear, how do you determine which ones you manage and which ones you don’t?
Mr. Matula stated that we have a process that has laid out a lot of the criteria, but a species like the Golden Eagle for example, doesn’t really have the habitat that it needs to thrive so other than just protecting the sites where it occurs, there’s not a whole lot of management we can do. Some species may be right on the edge of their range and doing really well everywhere else and maybe its not worth putting money into it at that time. We try to balance those different aspects when we make those decisions.
Mr. Kieffer stated that the turnout at the hearings would indicate that either people don’t care or they don’t know what they’re looking at. He stated he didn’t have any idea what a Ringed Bog Haunter was or a Sleepy Dusky-wing. How did we determine what was a breeding population only under the Great Cormorant? Did that mean that young birds could be shot? He asked that the breeding population only be explained.
Mr. Matula stated that we were listing only the breeding population. That’s the only population we’re going to say is going to be threatened. That’s when they’re in Maine; that’s something that we have control over. They breed on the outer islands in the offshore Penobscot area. The booklet (see packet) gives a description of why we are listing the species and their range.
Mr. Savage stated that he had received comments and he thought it was very difficult for the nonscientifically oriented public to come to grips with some of the listings of the less known species, the invertebrates in particular.
There were no further questions or comments.
2. Fish Regulation Proposals
Mr. Boland stated this is a continuation of the simplification process with the lawbook. This year we’ve finished the trout species and incorporated those into a standard set of regulations. We’ve also taken a look at the kids fishing regulations and standardized those; eliminated pike regulations; increased our catchable size program for stocked trout as a result of the hatchery expansion. In waters where we’re stocking these larger size trout, either spring or fall yearlings, in most of the cases we’re looking for reduced limits rather than a 5-fish bag limit, so we’re going with 2-fish on those waters.
In addition to that, we have some statewide regulations that are going to be considered. We’re changing the brown trout minimum length limit on lakes and ponds from 12” to 14”. Also, there’s a list of counties in southern and central Maine where there are special regulations on brook trout; right now it has an 8” minimum length limit, we’re going to eliminate that so it will be a 6” limit, those are virtually all stocked waters. We’re instituting a law to prevent the storage of live bait in waters that have restrictive regulations like fly-fishing only or no live fish as bait. We’re also looking at opening up the A waters in the wintertime, those are the ones that are open to fishing as soon as the ice forms, and that will continue except we will allow harvest of trout species. We’re going to be stocking some of those waters with this expanded program and there’s really no need to delay the harvest until January 1 in those waters.
These regulations have been advertised and the comment period ends August 4. Public hearings will be held the week of July 10. In general we haven’t had a lot of negative feedback.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Savage asked Mrs. Erskine if we get unexpected contentious feedback, are we going to be allowed to have a more lengthy discussion at Step 3 than we might normally?
Mrs. Erskine stated we could consider delaying Step 3 if in August they’d gotten a lot of feedback that they wanted to share. She encouraged the Council to share information prior to the Council meeting if they had any.
Commissioner Martin stated we encourage people with concerns to attend the public hearings. They can also send a letter or e-mail their concerns. He also stated that it would be helpful if Council members could forward their concerns 5 or 6 days prior to the next meeting, scheduled to be held on August 17.
Mr. Savage stated that if the Department received unexpected information that was contentious, let the Council know before the meeting so they would have a chance to think about it before the meeting.
Commissioner Martin stated that no later than 7days prior to the meeting, we would send Council a summation of the public hearings with any recommended changes that the Commissioner would be proposing (changes to what is being proposed).
Mr. Savage asked Mr. Boland on the ice fishing A and B waters, how do you determine what’s an A water and what’s a B water?
Mr. Boland stated that the A waters are pickerel, perch and bass waters. They are not managed for trout. They are listed in the lawbook as A in most counties and they’re open as soon as the ice forms. Some of those waters we are currently stocking and we may expand that, and there’s no biological reason to protect those trout through December until January.
Commissioner Martin stated that at last year’s public hearings, we had specific initiatives in areas discussed at each respective hearing. This year, we’re going to be discussing all the initiatives at each public hearing.
There were no further comments or questions.
N&S Waterfowl Zone
Mrs. Erskine stated that this is the proposal that came through at Step 1; there was an error in the summary that was advertised, so it had to be readvertised. This is still in time to be put in place with the migratory waterfowl rules. No comments had been received since the new advertising. Basically this is defining the North and South waterfowl zone…before this proposal used WMDs in addition to a physical description. Because our WMDs have changed, we’re removing those WMD designations
There were no further questions or comments.
Step 1
1. 06-07 Migratory Bird Seasons
Mr. Stadler stated that migratory birds come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). When the Department sets its waterfowl seasons we have to operate within a framework established by the Federal Government. Our rulemaking process for the migratory bird seasons is pretty fast. Currently, we are unsure what the sideboards are going to be that the Feds will give us.
Mr. Stadler stated that first we develop a proposed season and then at the August Advisory Council meeting, we’ll be meeting a day after the public hearing for the waterfowl seasons. The Council will be asked to vote on the seasons at that time. It’s not the normal 3 step process. We are anticipating at this time that the Feds are going to give us a similar season structure as last year. (See handout in packet)
Mr. Stadler stated that we are trying to provide as much hunting opportunity as possible with as little impact on the population as possible. We are anticipating a 60-day season. There is also some discussion at the Federal level concerning black duck. There has also been some discussion about reducing the general hunting season from black ducks to a 30-day season. Many of the states have lobbied the Feds that if they do that, give Departments a year so we can work with organizations and bring them up to speed.
Mr. Schummer stated that he felt the biggest change to the regulations was going from 4 ducks to 6. At the public hearing last year there were a fair number of people there lobbying us to go from a 4 duck bag limit to 6. He wanted to assure the council that we didn’t do this based on public pressure. But, the fact that people did want to go to 6 and it has been discussed in the past made us go back, work with USFWS and look at the numbers and what it would do. What it would do is only increase our harvest by about 5% in total. Usually with that 4 bag limit, 40% of the time there was a black duck in the bag. Our one concern is that we don’t want to increase harvest of black ducks. By adding that 5th and 6th duck we’re probably not increasing harvest on black ducks because in most cases you’ve already had your black duck by that point. We’re really not comfortable with harvest increase on any one species by more than 10% then what it’s been for say the past 5-year period. We want to put this into a 3-year experimental period and really closely monitor harvest. If it did increase harvest of any one species by more than 10% we would strongly consider going back to that 4-bird bag.
Council Member Questions and Comments
Commissioner Martin asked Mr. Stadler to clarify the process for the waterfowl regulations.
Mr. Stadler stated that the Waterfowl Council would meet on the afternoon of August 16; the public hearing would take place the evening of the 16th and then the Waterfowl Council would reconvene immediately following the public hearing and put together the proposal for the Advisory Council. The Advisory Council would meet on August 17 for adoption.
Mr. Kieffer stated that he understood the Feds involvement here, but to him, and he had spoken with a couple of members of the Waterfowl Council, about setting statewide limits. Our state is so big that setting statewide limits doesn’t seem to be flexible enough to react to changes, especially in geese populations statewide. Three years ago our goose population was way down, last year and this year there are geese everywhere. We’re to the point now where there’s concern over fighting over hunting areas up there. He was concerned about the fact that we’re so inflexible that we’re setting specific limits for the entire state. He wished that could be more flexible.
Mr. Stadler stated that there are two waterfowl zones in Maine, the North and the South. We could set bag limits by zone.
Mr. Schummer stated he would be addressing that later when goals and objectives were discussed.
There were no further questions or comments.
2. 06-07 Beaver Seasons and Closures
Mr. Stadler stated that this is the time of year that regional biologists and the furbearer folks in Bangor begin to look at various types of data to develop the beaver season and township openings and closures for the 2006-2007 fur seasons. Right now the Department is proposing to go forth with the season dates by WMD that was used for last season. The Department has received a request from the MTA to consider extending the beaver trapping season into April for WMDs 9,10,11,18,19,28 and 29. In 2004 the Department did have some April beaver trapping, there were a number of issues with it and we were asked by another subgroup of trappers to consider eliminating that April beaver season. There was concern about people coming in from other places, trapping in these WMDs and competing with resident beaver trappers. There was also concern about increased incidental take of otter. Otter aren’t allowed to be trapped during the season, but if they are taken incidentally people are allowed to keep them. With increase in otter prices there was some concern expressed that people were targeting otter on purpose.
Mr. Stadler stated given all that, the Department went back to a season with no trapping in April. Now MTA has come back with a formal request to have trapping in April. This has been forwarded to regional biologists for their review, also to Wally Jakubas our mammal group leader in Bangor for his review and approval, and once a recommendation is received it will be taken under advisement and reviewed with the Commissioner’s office. A proposal will be drafted for review at Step 2.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Wheaton stated that with the fur prices going up like they did, we may not want to go ahead with that extra season, the numbers might take care of themselves.
Mr. Stadler stated he agreed, otter were an issue.
There were no further comments or questions.
V. Other Business
1. Waterfowl Goals and Objectives
Mr. Matula went over the species planning process before going through the goals objectives so the Council would know why and how we got here. Mr. Matula provided a handout for the group and discussed (see packet).
Mr. Schummer then discussed the rest of the handouts for waterfowl management goals and objectives (see packet).
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Wardwell asked what the daily bag limit was on black duck all along the Atlantic flyway?
Mr. Schummer stated it was one duck per 60-days all up and down the Atlantic coast, that’s everywhere. As soon as you go into New Brunswick it’s 4 per day for 100+ days.
Mr. Kieffer stated that it was hard for him to fathom how we’re going to respond to nuisance complaints without being very flexible in what we’re doing. Geese were an issue up his way in the spring and he didn’t know what the cure to that was.
Mr. Schummer stated that there was something in the works on the Federal end of things concerning geese because in relation to other places we didn’t have a goose problem. We are lucky and what was decided as a working group was that there is a point where you have too many geese, there’s a point at which you cannot harvest enough of them to maintain a population. We don’t want to hit that point (harvest maximum). Whatever Federal rulemaking comes through that allows us to deal with those problems we should probably use them to make sure that we work towards these objectives.
Mr. Clark asked how many acres of land did IF&W have for breeding/wintering waterfowl?
Mr. Schummer stated that was something we needed to quantify. He would need to get together with the habitat group to look at that. Our land, almost 100% is designated for waterfowl production. Those areas also get hunted in the fall.
Mr. Stadler stated that we owned just over 100,000 acres and it runs the mix of offshore islands and ledges for coastal birds as well as uplands and wetlands. Of our inland holdings about 30-40% are wetlands.
Mr. Clark stated to follow up, when a private individual comes in and buys additional land throughout the State of Maine, does the Department look to them to help preserve some of that land for habitat for any type of species that we’re trying to protect the resource for?
Mr. Stadler stated absolutely. We have a Department lands committee and we have proactively identified areas that we would pursue purchasing if certain funding became available. Rather than own it, if someone gave the Department funding to conserve deer wintering areas, for example, what we would probably rather do is buy conservation easements that have criteria in them such that the land is managed appropriately for deer yards with state and private ownership.
Commissioner Martin stated specifically in the legislation that transfers portions of Katahdin Lake to Baxter State Park, there is specific language and a requirement that deer wintering areas are in fact made part of the deal.
There were no further comments or questions.
2. New England Cottontail Goals and Objectives
Ms. Morris distributed handouts to the group and discussed (see packet).
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Wardwell asked if we would be trapping and relocating to try to find these 18 areas somewhere between Belfast and Kittery?
Ms. Morris stated that we would have to find the areas first; we can’t just create habitat and have the rabbits get there. The rabbits would have to be moved in.
Mr. Wardwell asked if it was habitat loss from Belfast to Kittery why their original range had dwindled down to the southwest corner?
Ms. Morris stated that habitat loss seems to be the problem with this animal. Habitat loss and fragmentation, if a new patch of habitat develops the rabbits just can’t get to it.
Mr. Wardwell asked if we move the rabbits around between Belfast and York, right now they are listed as threatened?
Ms. Morris stated we have recommended them as State endangered; they’re a candidate Federal species.
Mr. Wardwell asked what that would do to the hare hunters with hounds if we start moving these cottontails around a piece of woods? Is it going to be off limits to running hounds for snowshoes?
Ms. Morris stated no, she thought it would be the same as it is now. You usually do not find snowshoe hare and cottontails on the same patch. It’s probably not a big issue.
Mr. Kieffer asked what part coyotes played in the reduction of cottontails?
Ms. Morris stated that everything ate cottontails. If you give the rabbits a big enough patch of habitat, they have a very high reproductive rate and they can keep ahead of predation. When they get into small patches of habitat they have to come out of it, and they’re very susceptible and predation is one of the reasons they can’t exist in these small patches, they’re forced out of them to feed.
There were no further comments or questions.
3. Clarification for Sourdnahunk Lake rule change; (question posed at the last meeting)
Mrs. Erskine stated that last year we changed the regulation on Sourdnahunk Lake by removing the prohibition against night fishing that had been on the books for a number of years. A gentleman had come into her office asking about that and he apparently is going to petition us to put that regulation back. The question was, hadn’t that been done by the Legislature at some point? She had researched that and could not find anything. Mr. Bourque really believed that it had been done by rule a long time ago…50 years maybe. At this point, there is nothing in the statute currently, it’s a rule.
4. Clarification of fishing with tandem flies; (question posed at the last meeting)
Major Sanborn stated that the question was, is it legal to troll with more than one tandem fly? Mr. Dorian was correct at the last meeting by stating that it was his belief that you were not in violation if you had participated in that activity. In referring to definitions in the lawbook, the first definition that you have to look at is “single baited hook.” After reviewing the minutes of the last meeting, he believed Mr. Wheaton had stated the Canadians had a single bait per line or something to that effect.
Major Sanborn read the definition of “single baited hook” the key word in that is “bait”. You then have to go to the definition of “artificial lure” to find “bait”. He then read the definition of “artificial lure”. In other words, bait is something that’s natural, ie: bugs, worms, fish, etc. If you’re using bait, you can use one. Quite a few people get into trouble when they use what is called a “mackerel rig”. Illegal, can’t do it. Another thing that comes into question a lot is what is referred to as “dropper flies”. That’s where you come into the definition of fly-fishing (read the definition of fly fishing). He drew a diagram of a dropper fly and stated that was legal in fly fishing only waters as long as you were casting and retrieving and you could have up to 3.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Kieffer stated that Major Sanborn stated fly fishing only waters, that wasn’t correct, in any waters open to general law.
Major Sanborn stated it was legal in FFO waters. Obviously if it was legal in FFO it would be legal in general law and artificial lures. FFO is more restrictive.
Mr. Wardwell stated that his question was, the law on East Grand is one rod, could he haul two flies?
Major Sanborn stated, two, three, four…
Mr. Wardwell stated that what they were talking about was tandem flies, they’re not talking about two flies, they’re talking about tandem flies.
Major Sanborn stated tandem flies are legal for trolling; they are not legal in FFO waters. As technology progresses, these definitions may have to be worked on. The big thing right now is the definition of fly. Rubber flies are becoming very popular, they fit the definition because of the weight of the line; they’re casting and retrieving. The traditionalists are having a hard time seeing them use rubber. It comes down to more of a social issue than a biological one.
There were no further questions or comments.
5. Avian Influenza
Mr. Stadler stated that there was a lot of confusion out there about Avian Influenza (AI). It is a disease that occurs in bird populations worldwide. There are two types of AI, there’s the low pathogenicity influenza or “low-path” and the high pathogenicity influenza or “high-path”. The endemic ones that you find out in the wild are generally the low-path ones, and birds get sick like people get sick with the flu. Then, there’s the high-path that effects birds and that’s a hot virus and it kills a substantial number of the birds. In SE Asia over the last couple of years there’s been a very hot strain of Avian Influenza develop, it’s an H5N1 type, it’s a virus. In SE Asia, production of poultry for both food and fighting cocks are a major way of life. It’s not uncommon for the chickens to come in and out of the homes. Because of this very close proximity this hot strain of the bird flu, in some situations, the virus has jumped from the birds to the people, and the people have become sick and some have died.
Mr. Stadler stated that for AI to become pandemic, people would have to be passing the flu from person to person. Right now the transmission is from birds to people, the people get it and either die or get better, but they’re not passing it on to other people. If the virus mutates, and that could happen, there’s some concern that if these viruses morph and there’s human contact that they will become pandemic. Right now it appears that we do not have a pandemic influenza situation.
Mr. Stadler stated right now, AI has not been detected in North America, the H5N1 strain. The conventional wisdom is that if AI were to show up in North America it would show up on the west coast in the Alaska flyway first because that is the flyway that is closest proximity to Asia where the bird flu began. They are monitoring for H5N1 in Alaska and have been for the past couple of years, and so far it has not shown up. In the rest of North America the various flyway councils have gotten together and they have developed monitoring and surveillance plans for the rest of North America. Here in Maine we have started monitoring for H5N1 in the past few weeks. We’re going to be looking at those birds that are within the North Atlantic, particularly birds that have some interaction with European species up in Greenland. The H5N1 has moved into Europe. We have received $48,000 from the USDA, APHIS Wildlife Service and we’re going to be sampling Black Guillemots – 200 samples; Arctic Terns – 200; Common Eiders – 200; Canada Geese – 200; Black Bellied Plovers – 50; Palmated Plovers – 170; Long-tailed Ducks – 50; a total of 1,000 animals.
Mr. Stadler stated they would be taking swabs and those would be sent away to a lab for analysis. We’re partnering in this data collection with the USDA wildlife services regional office that is also in Augusta. We may find avian influenza in some of our birds, the low-path variety. There was a finding in Prince Edward Island, it was not the H5N1, it was just one of the endemic low-path avian influenzas. Mr. Stadler stated that he also served on the state planning group that involves Maine CDC, MEMA and Agriculture. This is a big thing for Agriculture. Maine is the largest producer of brown eggs in the nation. There are literally millions of birds at the Decosta and other facilities in Leeds and Turner. They have been practicing biosecurity measures for a number of years. There is a state working group, a disaster planning group in state government for AI, for pandemic influenza that are basically in the process of doing a number of table top exercises if H5N1 shows up in Maine.
Mr. Stadler stated the handout in the packet of FAQ came from Alaska. There was also a Maine website at www.maineflu.gov. Good hygiene is key and make sure game birds are cooked well. They’ve been trying to soup up vaccine production, because they don’t have enough flu vaccine to immunize everyone. The planning folks are coming up with a triage priority system for who would get vaccinated and who would not. The flu vaccine has to be tailored towards the virus that you’re trying to weaken. We don’t know what pandemic influenza virus will be like because to the best of everyone’s knowledge, it doesn’t exist yet. Pandemic flu, you would think that the one’s it would effect would be the young and the old, but it’s not. It’s people in the 20 – 40 years of age range who seem to be most susceptible to it. They’re also recommending that everyone get the seasonal flu vaccine. One of the things they’re concerned about is prior to a pandemic that the avian will co-mingle with humans and pick up genetic material to be able to become pandemic. The seasonal flu vaccine may help cut down on that.
There were no further questions or comments.
6. CWD Update
Mr. Stadler stated that we had recently updated our webpage on CWD. The Council passed a rule last fall that is now in effect for the 2006 hunting season about the importation of cervid parts back into the State of Maine. Every fall since 1999 the Department in corroboration with USDA has been sampling for CWD in our wild deer population. In 2005 we sampled 819 deer and CWD was not found. We have sampled 3,500 deer since 1999. NY has reported CWD but did a good job in containing it and it may have been eradicated. It did show up in WV. We may be looking at a possible prohibition of feeding deer in the future and urine based scents.
7. Update on Grouse
Mr. Schummer stated that one of the things that really effects recruitment of grouse into the fall population is rainy weather. The first two weeks of when they hatch is fairly critical. When the chicks hatch, if they get wet right away, they don’t die outright from it, but they die in August of other immune system issues. The first weeks of May and June we had a lot of rain; we had a small window of opportunity when the rain stopped. Reports coming in indicate that grouse broods may have hatched quite early this year and may have been developed enough (some were already flying) they’re about 3-weeks ahead of schedule. The rains had less influence on survival. Later nesting grouse just hatching, had primo weather for hatching. June 15 is the peak of hatch. Mr. Schummer thought we were doing ok this year. Woodcock also seemed ahead of schedule. Many species seemed ahead of schedule this year. That, coupled with a very mild winter means that hens have more energy coming into spring and produce more eggs.
8. Renovations at the Greenville Headquarters
Mr. Taylor stated that he was there to address ongoing improvements at the facility. There were four projects underway for the summer.
- Installation of a 6,000 gallon fuel tank
- 2 barn projects
- Perimeter fence for security purpose
Commissioner Martin stated that the funds for these improvements were part of a $1 million endorsement by the IF&W Committee and Appropriations.
VI. Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports.
VII. Public Comments & Questions
Mr. Kieffer introduced constituent Dick Rogers. Mr. Rogers had a concern about muskies in the 3rd St. John…the old canal was of concern. He provided a map for Council’s and biologist review (see packet). He stated that he had spoken with Mr. Boland and others about this before. The muskies had devastated the trout below 3rd dam already.
Mr. Savage asked Mr. Rogers how long he thought there had been muskies in 5th St. John?
Mr. Rogers stated according to the report that was issued by the Committee in the action plan on our website, in 2002 they knew that muskies were in the 5th St. John, or assumed that they were.
Mr. Boland stated that the canal, when we first learned about muskies in that whole drainage, it may have been before they showed up in Baker Lake, the biologist went and met with the landowner and they immediately went in and bulldozed a big berm at the edge of 5th St. John. That had been a man made canal that diverted water out to the Penobscot. That berm, as far as we know, has been in place for 20 years, there’s no reason that it would have breached because water doesn’t ever go over it to a road around it or anything. This was discussed at a regional meeting and Tim Obrey was going to go up and take a look at it in the very near future to make sure it was still functional.
Mr. Savage asked if there was any current in the canal?
Mr. Rogers stated that if you go by the lower road, he’d never been to the beginning of the canal, but there is certainly a stream that went down through.
Mr. Savage stated that his concern was some sort of a breach that wasn’t visible.
Mr. Boland stated that we were going to look at it. He assumed (looking at the canal on a map) it didn’t show up clearly. More than likely they built a very short canal from 5th to an existing brook. That’s possibly why there’s still some flow at that bridge. We’d certainly have information for Mr. Rogers at the next meeting about it.
Commissioner Martin stated that we would get back to Mr. Rogers and asked Mr. Boland to do so.
There were no other public comments or questions.
VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. to be held at the DMR facility in Boothbay Harbor.
Mr. Kieffer suggested for the September meeting, as it would take place around the time of the moose hunt, to possibly hold a Sunday meeting in Ashland or Presque Isle and then those wishing to could spend Monday with a warden in the area.
Commissioner Martin stated we would plan on meeting somewhere in Aroostook County in September. He and the Major and others would coordinate.
IX. Adjournment
Mr. Wardwell motioned to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Wheaton seconded that. The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. with a 1 hour break for lunch.
