Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
March 29, 2007 – 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Headquarters
Upstairs Conference Room, 284 State Street, Augusta
Attending:
Roland D. Martin, Commissioner
Andrea Erskine, Assistant to the Commissioner
Ken Elowe, Director, Bureau of Resource Management
Mark Stadler, Wildlife Division Director
Gene Dumont, Supervisor, Wildlife Division
Lee Kantar, Wildlife Biologist
Sandy Ritchie, Wildlife Biologist, Habitat Conservation and Special Projects
John Boland, Director, Fisheries Operations
Gregg Sanborn, Major, Maine Warden Service
Steve Allarie, Whitewater Boating Specialist, Maine Warden Service
Becky Orff, Secretary and Recorder
Council Members:
Bos Savage – Chair
Leo Kieffer – Vice Chair
Lance Wheaton
Dave Wardwell
Joe Clark
Sheri Oldham
Stephen Philbrick
Mike Witte
Ray Poulin
Al Goodwin
Frank Dunbar
Guests:
Senator Bruce Bryant
Ken Bailey, Village Soup
Don Kleiner, ME Bowhunters Assoc. & NWTF
Skip Trask, ME Trappers Assoc. & MPGA
Gary Corson, New Sharon
Mr. and Mrs. Ed Reneau, Washington County Conservation Assoc.
I. Call to Order
Mr. Savage called the Council meeting to order.
II. Introductions
Introductions were made.
Commissioner Martin introduced the two newly appointed members, Albion Goodwin and Frank Dunbar and swore them in.
Commissioner Martin presented Commissioner’s prints to outgoing members Lance Wheaton and Dave Wardwell.
III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Council Meeting
Motion made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Philbrick to accept the minutes of the previous Council Meeting as written.
Vote: 9 in favor, 1 abstained (absent at last meeting) – minutes accepted as written.
IV. Rulemaking
A. Step 3
1. Bass Tournament Rules
Mr. Boland stated that this was a relatively straightforward change. A couple of years ago we went through rulemaking on some bass tournament rules, which essentially established rules pertinent to the use of livewells. While we did that, we inadvertently omitted a couple of sentences, which are in the proposal. We’re just putting that back into the rules. He didn’t believe that we had received any comments.
Commissioner Martin stated that there were no changes from what was presented at Steps 1 and 2. However, the verbage “turned” should read “returned” so the final product would read “returned.”
Mrs. Oldham motioned to accept the proposal as amended and Mr. Witte seconded that.
Vote: unanimous, proposal accepted as amended.
2. Foss Pond, Kingsbury Plt. – horsepower petition
Mrs. Erskine stated that we received a petition from residents in Kingsbury Plt., and we held a public hearing in Guilford on February 22. We had 5 members of the public show up. They all spoke in favor of restricting Foss Pond to 6hp or less. We had received no opposition. She had received a couple of follow up letters after the public hearing in support of the restriction. The Commissioner’s decision was to move forward with the restriction.
Commissioner Martin stated that he did not honor these very often, but did honor this one because the 3 assessors; it was a Plantation not an unorganized township and did have some form of government. All the assessors were in favor and signed the petition, the size of the pond, he was prepared to recommend that we move forward and honor their request.
Mr. Poulin motioned to accept the proposal and Mr. Kieffer seconded that.
Vote: unanimous, proposal accepted as presented.
3. Bald Eagle Essential Habitat
Mr. Elowe stated that most everyone was familiar with the increase in bald eagles that we’d had across the state. They were very close at the state level to taking them off the endangered species list and at the federal level, but not yet. One of the things that we’ve done over the years for the state to maintain consisting control over what happens with bald eagles to lend some consistency with how towns deal with them, and how residents deal with them is to do something called essential habitat. That’s a circle around an eagle nest where if you are required to have a permit either from the town or from the state, IF&W gets to review it and make some comments.
This went into effect in 1989 and in that time with the 100’s of nests that we’ve had, we’ve only had to deny one permit. In most cases the landowner has been able to do pretty much what they needed to do; most of our input was about timing. When eagles are sitting on eggs or the young are in the nest they’re particularly vulnerable to disturbance and can easily get jumped out of the nest or the eggs will be cold for too long. Outside that time period, you can usually go ahead and do whatever you need to do on your land.
Last year, when we census and fly the state to find out where the new nests are, where the old nests have fallen down, we adjust how many of the eagle nests are in the designation of essential habitat. Last year, we had a proposal that was before the Council three times, we contacted the effected landowners, we contacted the towns as we always do, but we inadvertently didn’t file the official maps with the Secretary of State in time to make them official rules. It was an administrative error on our part that required us to bring this proposal back to the Council. All the towns and landowners were on board.
Because we were very close to taking these off the endangered species list, this was the last time that essential habitat would be before the Council. We wouldn’t do it again this year. We’re anticipating that within a year, we’ll be taking these off the endangered species list and this won’t be necessary.
Council Member Questions and Comments
Mr. Clark asked if this wasn’t in play last year, why did we need it this year?
Mr. Elowe stated it was because the towns and the landowners were already acting as if it was in place. This was to help them. They already assumed that it was a rule. In order to clarify it for them for this next period of time and until we officially take it off the list, this was actually an aid to them.
Mr. Kieffer asked what the criterion was for removing the areas from designated habitat?
Mr. Elowe stated if the nest was inactive for a couple of years or the nest tree fell down, we would remove the site.
Mr. Kieffer stated that in Soper Mountain Twp. for example, he knew of two active eagle nests; there were a lot of eagles in that area, but both nests were still active.
Mr. Elowe stated there was an official quarter mile circle around the nest. Soper Mountain may have several nests, and each would be tied to a specific number. This may be just one of those. If the eagle shifts ½ mile from one side to the other into a new nest and abandons the old one, then we take the old one off.
Mr. Kieffer stated he understood, it was not the entire township, just one designated site.
Mr. Elowe stated we had USGS maps showing all of the sites if anyone wanted to view those.
Commissioner Martin stated that Council had voted on this prior, but if another vote was not taken that day, the whole thing was null and void because of an administrative snafu.
Mr. Clark stated there was no monetary aspect for the towns or the Department.
Mr. Elowe stated no, there was not. It was a notification for the town, they had the data within the town office. The landowners, when they’re applying for municipal permits, that’s where they get the information to find out if they do or don’t have an area to worry about. All the effected landowners, we mail them separate notifications.
Mr. Savage stated he wanted to commend the Department for establishing the program and making it consistent. It was a very successful program.
Mrs. Oldham motioned to accept the proposal and Mr. Philbrick seconded that.
Vote: 8 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 abstained; proposal accepted as presented.
4. Whitewater Rafting Order of Launch
Warden Allarie stated the order of launch was established by rule for the Kennebec River and the Penobscot for commercial whitewater outfitters. It’s a system so that they all had a set time to launch for safety purposes and to avoid congestions. This proposal and rule was simply a housekeeping measure, done on a regular basis to eliminate any outfitter no longer providing service. The rule change was exactly that, to eliminate one outfitter no longer providing service. By that elimination, all others would move up one.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Philbrick asked if there was an opportunity for an outfitter to suggest their business had increased and move up a slot if other companies were not doing as well?
Warden Allarie stated no they could not; it was based on seniority.
Mr. Clark asked if we still had people branching off from their designated rafting companies to start new ones to try to increase their position in the water and then drop out of business so that the one below that could jump up?
Warden Allarie stated he was new to the position, but thought Mr. Clark was right, that it had been done in the past. He had a new outfitter sign up, but he had no ties with any other outfitter before. Being new, he was not aware of that taking place.
Mr. Clark motioned to accept the proposal and Mr. Kieffer seconded that.
Vote: unanimous, proposal accepted as presented.
B. Step 2
1. 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.
Mr. Stadler stated that in total there were about 26 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. 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 held two more public hearings on the proposal, one in Auburn where there were 6 people in attendance with unanimous support. The second hearing was held in Belfast with 7 people in attendance, all in opposition to the idea. When you look across the whole 2 years of effort; the Wildlife Park survey indicated, the 70 people that participated, the majority would support a southern Maine moose hunt. The informational meetings we had in 2005, you could say it was 50 – 50, or 60 – 40; it looked as though there were a majority of folks there in favor of it. SWOAM supports it, the Farm Bureau supports it, SAM supports it, the Maine Wolf Coalition is against it, the Wildlife Alliance of Maine is against it and the Sheepscot Wells Spring Land Trust Alliance in Montville didn’t say they were against it, although they heavily stacked the meeting in Belfast and opposed it. They indicated that if the Department moved forward with the proposal they would post their land trust lands to hunting.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Savage stated he had been contacted by SWOAM and they wanted him to make sure the Council members understood under what conditions they would support the proposal. That the season take place during the regular firearms season for deer, that the permits granted also contain information for the hunter to educate them on the subject of landowner relations, permission to hunt and aspects of privacy. The third condition was that the harvest level be set based on the science and sustainability of the moose population.
Mr. Stadler stated that was all clearly articulated in the Legislative Resolve.
Mr. Witte stated that at the public hearing in Belfast, which he attended, one of the complaints was that they had not seen moose. One woman stated she had lived here for 30 years and she had only seen 2 moose and the other woman said she had only seen 1. They came back to the fact of, did we really know how many moose were in the area and what the population was. As an ADC agent he started looking back through some records regarding the amount of moose problems. Mr. Witte stated we were borderline moose problems in the area of Bristol and the midcoast area. From his own personal observation and limited exposure, he felt that the moose population was sustainable or beyond sustainable in the immediate Lincoln County area.
Mrs. Oldham stated she wanted people to understand what her concerns were. Her concerns did not rise to the level where her blood pressure was elevated. Nonetheless, she did have some reservations about the wisdom of moving forward with the proposal, which she shared with the group (see attached).
Mr. Goodwin asked if we had determined in the survey done at the Maine Wildlife Park if these were Maine people or if they had driven up from RI to visit the park?
Mr. Stadler stated that this was an issue that was raised at the Belfast public hearing. Every fall the Department had an open house at the Wildlife Park. It was his impression and that of Department staff that the people who attend that day are mostly Maine families with small children. It’s a free day; they get to come into the park for a picnic, etc.
Mr. Goodwin asked what the estimated population of moose was in the 4 areas that we were dealing with.
Mr. Stadler stated he thought our data was good, and our estimate based on our process that we partnered on with the State of NH (NH currently has moose hunting statewide) our estimate is that there’s 3,000 moose in those 4 WMDs. We’re planning to issue 135 permits and we’re anticipating approximately 60 moose will be killed with those 135 permits. Clearly, 60 out of 3,000 would be a sustainable hunt.
Mr. Clark stated that being a part time resident of Knox County where he worked, and reading the papers down there, he never saw an announcement in any of the papers stating that there was a public hearing in Belfast about moose hunting. That was probably why we had a low turnout. With the people he worked with and talked to throughout Knox and Waldo County, they were appreciative of us talking about a southern Maine moose hunt. They were tired of having to drive up north to participate in the moose hunt. Mr. Clark stated he’d been in the area for about 1 year and had seen 1 moose. Occasional moose were seen here and there.
Commissioner Martin stated the ads were submitted by the Secretary of State’s office.
Mrs. Erskine stated the Secretary of State’s ads went into the 5 major daily newspapers.
Mr. Witte stated that the Portland paper, which was probably the most common paper in midcoast and southern Maine, in the outdoor section had a large article advertising the 2 meetings and explaining the process. He thought that might trigger some interest but apparently did not. A couple of months ago he had met with one of the large land trust organizations. He had discussed the southern Maine moose hunt with them and got a noncommittal reaction. There was some discussion about how many moose were killed by cars, but no strong opposition. That same month he met with the Lincoln County Fish and Game Association and explained what we were doing and they were very enthusiastic about it. The question they had was when was it coming further south and why were we limiting it to that few number of permits.
Mr. Dunbar stated that he had an opportunity about every day in his place of business to have talks with people that were interested. He’d heard no opposition, but it would be last area that people would put in for.
Mr. Philbrick stated that the nonconsumptive notion of southern Maine disturbed him. He was in the resort and recreation business and all the money he earned came from people who felt the need to travel in the northwestern section of the state of Maine and they came from the notion of nonconsumptive areas. He had trouble with that vocabulary because they came up there and consumed. He didn’t know that there was such a thing as a nonconsumptive section of the State of Maine. He felt that consumption was in the eyes of the beholder, whether it be in a kayak or behind a shotgun or at the end of a fishing pole. Spending money in Maine is how we all live, so if we were going to rule and regulate based on how much it cost to hunt, we were doing it the wrong way. He felt we should take more time with this proposal; he was starting to lean towards Sheri’s notion that probably we were doing something because it was successful in another area and we may ruin it. He agreed with Mr. Dunbar that he would not hunt in southern Maine for moose. If we needed to control it, we needed to look at it from another standpoint in terms of management. A hunt in that area, he felt, would ruffle more feathers. By virtue of the low turnout in each of these meetings, that meant there was low excitement and that worried him.
Mr. Kieffer stated that not being familiar with the southern part of the state like most of them were, he was really listening. He was a little concerned about co-mingling the draw and the results of the southern Maine hunt with those in northern Maine.
Mr. Stadler stated that there was a misconception about what the southern Maine moose hunt was designed to do. Originally, the hunt had to do with concern about motor vehicle accidents and a reduction type hunt in the moose population. That came out of our Big Game Working Group and he thought the Legislative Resolve was in that aura too. It came through loud and clear from the public that yes they were concerned about vehicle accidents, but they weren’t interested in a dramatic reduction in the moose population. Basically, they were saying they were willing to live with the risk of being involved in a moose vehicle collision because they didn’t want the moose population substantially reduced. If we did moose hunting in southern Maine it had to be a sustainable hunt. What we have done with this proposal is design a sustainable moose hunt for southern Maine. This was going to be a recreational hunt just like in the north. We will have this set up so that if you didn’t want to hunt in southern Maine, you wouldn’t check off a southern Maine wildlife management district, then you don’t go to southern Maine. Only people that want to hunt in southern Maine were going to choose those boxes. What the Department’s fear was, if it was two separate drawings then we might trend what Sheri was saying. Then the southern Maine moose hunt would be viewed as a secondary hunt. He felt the drawings could be kept integrated and still address all of Mr. Kieffer’s concerns.
Mr. Goodwin asked how we would control the moose hunt while the deer hunt was going on?
Mr. Savage stated the number of permits being set was the ultimate limit or control that we had. This was going to be a trial season.
Mr. Stadler stated that the Legislative Resolve spoke very specifically to southern Maine. One of our options that we went out to the public with in 2005 would have opened the entire south, all of Maine basically. As a result of public comment and staff input we decided to draw back from that. We’re only doing a part of what the Legislature identified as southern Maine. The hunt in southern Maine now has to do more with providing additional opportunity than it does to reduce the population of moose to such a level as to make moose/vehicle collisions nonexistent. The emphasis and focus had changed based on the public input we had received.
Mr. Bailey stated he felt when you started talking about a quality moose hunt, we were getting into aspects that really didn’t come into play. Some people may think that driving a tote road outside of Greenville trying to spot a moose was not a quality hunt. Quality was in the mind of the beholder. There were a lot of moose in his area and there were a number of people that he’d spoken with who would like the opportunity. There was a comment made about enforcement; having all these extra people in the woods. Warden service was already in the woods and out and about so adding another 100 or so moose hunters who would probably be deer hunting at the same time; the actual enforcement and numbers in the woods would probably not even be noticed.
Mr. Elowe stated that something we heard in the Department a lot was fair chase, quality of hunt and those kinds of things. What Mr. Bailey said was very true, we had to be careful about what quality of hunt meant. We don’t want to drive sportsmen apart in their perception of what they can do vs. who’s judging how good it is. The more united we can be in trying to achieve management ends and opportunity ends, he thought it sent a better message to the public.
Commissioner Martin stated the Council would have to make an important vote at the next meeting. He polled Council members to find out where they were coming from based on what they were hearing.
Mr. Savage stated that based on what he knew, he would vote in support of the proposal as it stood.
Mr. Kieffer stated that at Step 2, he felt this was the last opportunity to discuss the proposal. He would like to see it tried. He got a kick out of the northern vs. southern Maine issue. He felt the fact it was called the southern moose hunt was a misnomer and he thought it should be eliminated if we were going to try to combine these under the given set of circumstances. He might like to see a sunset provision on it. Try it for 2 or 3 years and see if it was going to work or if it was a total failure. He thought under those conditions he would support giving it a try.
Mr. Poulin stated he was kind of in the same place as Mr. Kieffer. A sunset provision was exactly what he was thinking also. He was willing to give it a try. He didn’t like north and south, although he probably used the term himself. He would like to have some kind of real hard look at it whether it was 2 or 3 years; not just a passing look but require the Department to go back and take a hard look at the data. He thought given that situation he would be willing to give it a go.
Mr. Clark stated he agreed with Mr. Poulin and Mr. Kieffer. His major concern was having it in November with the deer season. He would rather have it with the regular moose hunt. He knew that SWOAM was dead against having it outside of November. The Wolf Coalition was against anything that had to do with hunting. This was about compromise. The law book was too confusing and we were trying to condense it.
Mr. Savage asked Major Sanborn if he felt the season would be an additional stress on the Warden Service if it were going to be during the deer season.
Major Sanborn stated with increased opportunity there came increased rules. There was more opportunity for sportsmen than there ever had been in the past, and with that came increased rules and complications. As far as the Warden Service aspect, with the November season, it was his belief that the hunt would be almost nonvisible to the nonhunting public.
Mr. Savage asked if from a workload standpoint, would Major Sanborn rather see it in October with the regular moose hunts or in November.
Major Sanborn stated in October, they moved southern Maine wardens up to the areas that were open now. If we had the season in October in the increased areas it would limit the number of wardens they could move up for the northern Maine moose hunt. He did not think it would be an issue to handle the newly proposed moose hunt in November.
Mrs. Oldham stated when she spoke of the diminished standing of the moose hunt, Gregg’s comment was “this would be invisible to the public” that was what she meant about diminishing the stature of moose hunting in Maine.
Mr. Goodwin stated that he was going to vote in favor in Washington County; have the hunt in November.
Mr. Witte stated he would vote for it as proposed.
Mr. Philbrick stated he still had some reservations, but was being open minded. He was leaning towards allowing it to happen, but Mrs. Oldham brought a lot of credence to the argument.
Commissioner Martin stated that he kind of liked the notion of sunset/experimental so he would keep that in mind.
Mr. Dunbar stated that he was in favor of it. He liked the idea of having a trial season. He liked the idea of going with a November season because every time he had put in for a moose permit he put in for a later season because he didn’t want the animal spoiling. That would be one of his concerns hunting in southern Maine; he’d want it in November with cooler weather so that he wouldn’t take a chance of losing that animal. He would be in favor of November and would go along with it.
Mr. Savage stated he felt the sunset clause was something that should be seriously considered.
C. Step 1
1. 2007 Any-deer Permits
Mr. Stadler stated that the Wildlife Division did all of its big game management based according to a species planning process and a Big Game Working Group had given the Department management goals and objectives for the deer population in each one of the WMDs through the period 2015. Every year towards the end of March the Wildlife Division gets together and review the deer harvest data from 2006, take a look at the winter conditions that have occurred from 2006 and 2007, take a look at nuisance deer situations, predation and all those types of things. Based on our deer management goals and objectives the Wildlife Division develops the number of any-deer permits that will be issued in each one of the WMDs for 2007. The division had developed a draft of the any-deer permit allocations that we’re proposing to issue for 2007. Those needed to be reviewed with the Commissioner’s office before they would be available to the Council. A copy would be mailed well in advance before Step 2.
2. 2007 Expanded Archery Season
Mr. Stadler stated the Department has been involved in discussions with the towns of Orono and Old Town for probably at least a decade regarding concerns about an overabundant deer population in Marsh Island. As a result of those discussions the Department stands ready to help towns with overabundant deer populations, but we basically ask the towns to be supportive of actions. The town would make a formal statement that they do have an overabundant deer population and they would like to work with the Department to address it, so they’ve gone out and done public relations work to make sure their citizens are supportive of it and behind it also.
Mr. Stadler stated that work had been ongoing for 10-years. This month, the Commissioner received letters from both Orono and Old Town requesting that the Department move forward with adding Marsh Island to the expanded archery hunting area in that part of the state. Marsh Island is actually a very large island that’s created by the Penobscot River and the Stillwater River. We’re moving forward with rulemaking and a public hearing will be held to discuss this.
3. Furbearer Trapping Rule Changes
Mr. Elowe stated there had been some controversy surrounding trapping relative to its impact on eagles, lynx and reportedly wolves. We’ve been active with the AG’s office in addressing the lawsuit brought forth by the Animal Protection Institute. MN is in the same boat. They had 2 different lawsuits pending, the Humane Society dropped their lawsuit when MN decided to follow suit with what Maine was doing and go for an incidental take permit which would protect trappers from liability. They still had an active lawsuit from the Animal Protection Institute as Maine did. Parallel to addressing the lawsuit, and in order to address it, we had been pursuing an incidental take permit which meant that even though these species (eagles and lynx) were listed under the endangered species act, you could take them, which means trapping, even if they’re released afterwards and not killed, but that includes take. You could take them while involved in this lawful activity of trapping if the state had gone through a process of an incidental take permit where it described the program, described how it was going to minimize the potential for take and what it was going to do for the conservation of these species. That document was about 80 pages long and was close to finalization. Finalizing meaning officially applying for the permit. Then, it would go through a nationwide public process of comment.
Mr. Elowe stated as part of that process, we have to show as a state that we’re doing everything reasonable to minimize the potential for take of lynx and eagles. In consultation with the Attorney General’s office and the USFWS and some discussions with the Maine Trappers Association a draft proposal had been put together for us to state publicly that we have done everything reasonable. Part of this was based on the track record for the last couple of years. In the last 5 years we had taken under the endangered species act, actually killed, only 2 lynx but taken 29. We had also taken a number of eagles, about 1 a year. This past fall, 2 were taken. Both of those eagle deaths resulted from exposed bait being used right at the trap site. This was not much different than an issue we had in our snaring program about 15 years ago with exposed bait and snares. We addressed it at that point and time by removing the bait from the trap. Essentially separating them by 50 yards, and it was very effective. This was not a detriment to trapping because the animals approaching bait are very cautious when you step back and get on trails they’re less cautious and you can be more effective catching them that way.
Mr. Elowe stated we didn’t think this was going to be a problem for trappers, but it would go a long way to helping not catch eagles. The lynx issue comes right out of a document that we give to all trappers every year that we developed in conjunction with the USFWS which is an educational recommendation to trappers on how to not catch lynx. Lynx can climb trees like any other cat can, but they are less likely to climb poles or trees that are small in diameter, 4” or less. Conibear traps, killer traps that are set 4’ above the ground, typical for martin and fisher sets, but are set on smaller diameter poles or trees are less likely to catch lynx than those that are set either on the ground or on more horizontal or larger diameter pieces of wood. This is something we’ve been recommending to trappers for several years and is something that in consultation with the Warden Service is enforceable and we feel is a reasonable step to show we are doing everything we can to reasonably reduce the potential for take of lynx and eagles.
Council Member Questions and Comments
Mr. Witte had a question about how #1 of the proposal contradicted #2.
Mr. Elowe stated it was visible bait. This may be where we would have to tweak the wording. The intent of #1 is that visible bait cannot be within 50 yards of a trap. Almost every eagle catch that we’ve had has been with a trap set next to visible bait.
Mr. Witte stated he understood that, with leg hold traps or on the ground but were we saying we’d have to use lure or some other type of attractant?
Mr. Elowe stated or cover the bait completely so it was not visible.
Mr. Witte stated looking back, there would be a 4” tree and it would be hard enough to get your 220 conibear set on that 4” tree, but then you’re going to have to try to get the bait on there and wire pine boughs on it in some fashion so that its covered. If you were doing any number of them it was going to be cumbersome.
Mr. Elowe stated it was relatively easy and very effective at keeping the bait out of sight.
Mr. Witte stated he could see this when fisher trapping; it was getting more complicated all the time.
Mr. Elowe stated we would be looking for input as to how reasonable this was, but we felt it was necessary to propose it.
Mrs. Oldham stated that she had heard of something called the trapping best practices, was this reflective of that?
Mr. Elowe stated it was for lynx and eagles, but the process she described was perhaps a little different. There’s a very organized best management practices process that went through with many states and many trappers to develop the best trap types for certain species of animals. With fisher and martin that has centered on the use of certain size of conibears for those animals. It hasn’t centered on the trap set types, but you could call it best management practices that were developed with the USFWS for what we recommended trappers on how to minimize their potential to taking these critters.
Mr. Witte spoke about an article that appeared in the Avian Haven newsletter relevant to eagles. He asked if ADC work would be exclusive of the proposal.
Mr. Elowe stated that his opinion was that as an ADC officer, who was part of the Department officially, they would adhere to it even more than the general public. If Department staff and cooperators didn’t do everything they could to minimize the take of eagles, etc. then we were not doing something right.
Mr. Trask stated the way he read the proposal; it would eliminate the use of any conibear on the ground; anywhere in the state?
Mr. Elowe stated that was right.
Mr. Trask stated that mink trappers used conibears constantly on the ground in blindsets, and there was absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to do that as there was no bait involved.
Mr. Philbrick asked Mr. Elowe to explain the process of the incidental take permit.
Mr. Elowe stated that the process officially was, we had to document in our application to the USFWS the scope of the program that we’re requesting protection from liability for. In this case it’s the entire trapping program and the entire snaring program. We have to show what we think the impact of that program is going to be on listed species, in this case lynx and eagles. We have to show what alternatives we’ve considered and why we have either accepted or rejected those alternatives and we have to show what we think the total incidental take would be as a result of the alternative that we picked. Then, we have to show why we believe that number of animals being taken will not impede the recovery of these species and then show what additional compensation or conservation or mitigation that we are proposing to offset the loss of those individuals. That has resulted in about an 80-page document. The process with the USFWS is once we give that to them officially, they have to write an environmental impact statement and then put it out nationwide for public comment. Our strategy has been before that goes out nationwide for public comment, we want to make sure that we and the USFWS believe that everything we put in there is adequate and that they are going to support it and in the absence of public comment that they would say we were doing the right thing. That’s where we’ve gone back and forth with them with about 5 drafts now.
Mr. Philbrick asked if it were true that the process had started 5 years ago.
Mr. Elowe stated that 4 years ago there was another pending lawsuit for the snaring program.
Mr. Philbrick asked relative to the application process, it was his understanding that the Federal aspect made a public statement saying that once the application was submitted, there would be less than 60 days before they would respond with an incidental take permit.
Mr. Elowe stated he was not sure where that came from, but the fact was law enforcement of USFWS had nothing to do with the process. There was a short guidance document that the USFWS puts out that showed what had to be included in the Department’s application. When it goes to USFWS the law enforcement end is not part of it except internal to the USFWS. We had been working directly with the Old Town office and the regional office in Hadley, MA.
Commissioner Martin stated that he would like to caution everyone; there had been a couple of letters sent to his office and the Governor’s office in regards to this issue and another issue he felt we were transitioning into that he would not allow discussion on because of pending litigation. We were in the process of discussing with staff an appropriate response to the letter. The information contained in the letter was not all accurate.
Mr. Elowe stated he would be glad to address groups in person. He had been instructed by the AG’s office to absolutely minimize anything on paper or electronically regarding the pending litigation.
V. Other Business
There were no items under Other Business.
VI. Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports.
VII. Public Comments & Questions
Major Sanborn circulated invitations to Advisory Council members for the Warden Service annual meeting being held on April 27th in Winslow.
VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, April 26, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. at the IF&W Headquarters in Augusta.
IX. Adjournment
Mr. Poulin motioned to adjourn the meeting and Mrs. Oldham seconded that. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m
