Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
Advisory Council Meeting
October 19, 2006 - 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Headquarters
Upstairs Conference Room, 284 State Street, Augusta
Attending:
Roland D. Martin, Commissioner
Paul F. Jacques, Deputy Commissioner
Andrea Erskine, Assistant to the Commissioner
Marc Michaud, Director, Information and Education
Ken Elowe, Director, Bureau of Resource Management
Mark Stadler, Division Director Fish and Wildlife
John Boland, Director, Fisheries Operations
Colonel Tom Santaguida
Becky Orff, Secretary and Recorder
Council Members:
Bos Savage – Chair
Leo Kieffer – Vice Chair
Ron Usher
Lance Wheaton
Dave Wardwell
Joe Clark
Sheri Oldham
Stephen Philbrick
Mike Witte
Ray Poulin
Guests:
Don Kleiner, ME Bowhunters Assoc. & NWTF
Kevin O’Brien, Brunswick
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. Philbrick 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. 2007 Spring Turkey Season
Mr. Stadler stated the 2007 season proposal maintained the same season structure that we’ve had over the last few years. It maintains the unlimited number of permits that are available. New is the addition of WMD 7 and allowing youth hunters to hunt any Saturday during the spring season, whether they have the A or B season.
Mr. Stadler stated that at the last meeting he was asked to research mixed shot loads (duplex loads). He searched several websites and found the only ammunition company making duplex loads was Remington. The duplex loads were #4’s and #6’s. The turkey proposal for 2007 was to restrict #2 shot; the only shot that would be legal for turkey hunting in the shotgun season would be #4’s and #6’s. Based on the search he did he was confident that there were no #2’s in any duplex shot available on the market.
Mr. Stadler stated that regarding the expansion of turkey hunting opportunity for youths to run for the full 5-weeks, he had discussed the issue with staff. Staff indicated that they preferred to go with the 5-weekends first, and do this incrementally to see what impacts it may or may not have on the turkey harvest.
Council Member Questions and Comments
Mr. Wardwell asked what the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) thought of the proposal.
Mr. Stadler stated that the NWTF suggested allowing youth hunting opportunity through the full 5-week season. We wrote back to the NWTF and indicated what we were proposing to do and they did not respond that they disagreed.
Mr. Kleiner stated that he had submitted a letter. The conservative approach on turkeys had been very successful, and it seemed reasonable to continue that way. Even though the request from the Federation initially was to open the youth hunt completely; the program had been successful so how could you argue with it.
Motion made by Mrs. Oldham and seconded by Mr. Philbrick to accept the proposal as presented.
Vote: unanimous – proposal accepted as presented.
2. Miscellaneous Fish Regulation Proposals
Mr. Boland stated the proposal had 3 components. First was Foxhole Pond in Deblois that had kids fishing in the summer and we’re proposing to add the wintertime opportunity. Next was the Kennebec River to align our striper fishing regulations with Department of Marine Resources. Last was to add the 30+ wild brook trout waters as no live fish as bait.
Council Member Questions and Comments
Mr. Kieffer stated he had sent Mr. Boland an e-mail with a question and hadn’t received a response yet.
Mr. Boland stated he had sent information on the pond Mr. Kieffer had questioned at the last meeting.
Mr. Kieffer stated he had sent an e-mail back on it and didn’t hear anything.
Mr. Boland stated, the e-mail he sent was in response to Mr. Kieffer’s question as to why a particular body of water was included on the list and others weren’t (in the same drainage). Mr. Boland had spoken with Mr. Basley and he stated that this particular pond (Cunliff) was downstream of a water that already had a no live fish as bait restriction. That is why he recommended that this particular pond have those restrictions.
Mr. Kieffer stated that those two ponds both run into the same stream which runs into Long Lake on the Allagash and also Clayton Lake, which is bordering the two lakes and also runs into Chesunsecook Stream which runs again into Long Lake. It seemed to him that if those two bodies of water should be no live fish as bait…he felt we were being inconsistent in this case.
Mr. Boland stated that the recommendations that came out of the Committee were that we have this list of wild brook trout waters and of the list (about 300 waters) there might have been 100 or so waters that did not have no live fish as bait restrictions. The list was reviewed and came up with these 30 or so waters that we felt we could apply these regulations to now, and these were only lakes and ponds, we weren’t addressing streams. There are still 50-60 waters in question. On the Committee and out in the public, there are some folks that are adamant about this on both ends of the spectrum. We’re going to be putting together a brook trout working committee sometime in the next month and we’re going to let this committee decide what its priorities are. Mr. Boland was sure Mr. Kieffer’s issue would be discussed.
Commissioner Martin stated there had been a lengthy discussion on this at the last meeting. Because of the concern and discussion he had asked Mr. Boland to prepare a synopsis which was scheduled under “Other Business”, “Wild Trout Management”.
Mr. Boland stated to Mr. Kieffer that the issue was one that continued to be raised and we would be addressing it further in the future. This is what the Committee agreed on as the first step.
Mr. Kieffer stated the Council could vote, but he would like some consistency. We’re going back to what we had 2 years ago. Two years ago we implemented a plan to simplify the lawbook. Now, we’re going back and singling out one particular pond and making an exception to it. Where it was connected to the other water bodies he had a problem with that.
Commissioner Martin stated his concern would be modifying the proposal without input from the working group that put it together.
Mr. Philbrick asked if the working group was aware of the question regarding inconsistency.
Mr. Boland stated that the working group was assigned a task by the Legislature. We put together a small working group, met 3 or 4 times and supplied the Legislature with what they were looking for. We also understood that there were other unresolved issues and this was one of them. Mr. Boland stated he would like to reconvene a different working group, with some of the same members, and hold a couple of meetings a year.
Commissioner Martin stated that the working group that will be reconvened would have the minutes and have this discussion.
Mr. Wheaton stated he felt as Mr. Kieffer did, that the lawbook was not consistent.
Deputy Commissioner Jacques stated that the problem when you talk about watersheds; they are all connected. There were some people that would like to have it all no live fish as bait. There was a lot of discussion by the working group about that.
Commissioner Martin stated that the working group may discuss making other popular bodies of water part of this.
Commissioner Martin stated that Mr. Boland had pretty much covered what was to be discussed under “Other Business” “Wild Trout Management” and asked that Mr. Boland continue and finish the presentation.
Wild Trout Management
Mr. Boland stated that a couple of years ago, there was a lot of discussion about lists of wild brook trout and native brook trout and never been stocked waters. We had a list that had been in our policy book for a number of years of a list of brook trout waters that had never been stocked. We were criticized about that list because of some inconsistencies and some errors and new information that was coming in. We were finding stocking lists from the early 1900’s and at about the same time, George Smith proposed a piece of legislation that asked that we identify brook trout as Maine’s heritage fish and that we take that list of never been stocked waters and make them off limits to any stocking without legislative approval.
Mr. Boland stated we agreed with that, but wanted to make sure that the never been stocked list was accurate. We put together a list of 305 waters, that to the best of our knowledge, had never been stocked that we know of (see packet). In 2005 a law was passed that we will not stock these waters without legislative approval. We can add to this list, which we may do as we survey new waters.
Mr. Boland stated that the Legislature asked about the other waters that had been taken off the “never been stocked” list. These are the “wild brook trout” lakes and ponds. The Legislature asked us to put together a committee and come up with a list of recommendations for those waters (see packet). Mr. Boland stated he wanted to put a group together that was made up of representatives from different factions that have different ideas on how we ought to be managing brook trout and let the group decide what the number one priority was and that would be what was worked on first.
Commissioner Martin stated that we should consider including someone that could be appointed by the Chair of the Advisory Council to sit on the working group. Mr. Boland agreed.
Mr. Kieffer stated that up until about 1990 (wasn’t sure of the date) farmers that had ponds could go to the Department of Agriculture and get any amount of fish (rainbow or brook trout) for their farm ponds. Was that list of their stocking available to the Department to cross reference with our stocking records?
Mr. Boland asked if they were public waters or private ponds.
Mr. Kieffer stated he thought at that point probably 75% of them were beaver ponds and beaver flowages on the farmer’s property. Some of them were man made ponds, but there are more man made ponds today than back then. Some farmers in his area got fish there (Agriculture) and stocked their local ponds. They’re on a brook, but they were probably beaver ponds.
Mr. Boland stated there had been a lot of other stockings over the last century or more that we’re still learning about, and some we may never know about. There are no accurate records for years ago. We maintain a pretty tight database today of all of the waters that get stocked privately. The stockings from Agriculture were not figured into our list.
Motion made by Mr. Kieffer and seconded by Mr. Usher to accept the proposal as presented.
Vote: unanimous – proposal accepted as presented.
B. Step 2
1. 2007 Moose Season
Mr. Stadler stated that the Fisheries and Wildlife Divisions, in setting management goals and objectives for the vast majority of species use a species planning process. That process consists of 2 steps. The species specialist, Karen Morris, our moose project leader, would develop a species assessment for moose. A species assessment outlines in written format everything we know about moose; past, present and what we project into the future regarding population, habitat, etc. Once that document is assembled, our Wildlife Planner (Sandy Ritchie) convened a Big Game Working Group to set the Department’s goals and objectives for moose, deer and bear. That was done through the winter of 1999 and into 2000. The Big Game Working Group met for about a year on those 3 species and based on their input and a review of the moose assessment they provided the Department with the moose management goals for the next 15-year planning period.
Mr. Stadler stated the Working Group broke the State of Maine down into 3 areas that received a little different moose management (see packet). 2007 is a status quo season as regards season framework. We are proposing to make modifications to the number of permits in two WMDs 13 and 17.
Commissioner Martin stated that at the last meeting in Presque Isle he mentioned the Department holding a public informational meeting in the Fort Kent area. However, because the APA suggests that if we hold a public forum pending the comment period, that forum in fact has to be a public hearing. That public hearing will be held on November 16 in Fort Kent regarding the 2007 moose season. This was a commitment Commissioner Martin made to 2 legislators last spring.
Mr. Kieffer asked if the harvest totals from the 2006 moose hunt would be available before the close of the public comment period?
Commissioner Martin stated yes, he had asked for that data.
Mr. Elowe stated that several years of data go into making any changes. It would have to be a very radical change in a WMD away from our management goals to trigger a recommendation from us that’s different (a one year change). We like to look at it as a trend over time.
Mr. Kieffer stated that he was on the Big Game Management Group and back then the biologists stated that the moose herd could withstand a kill of up to 6,000 per year. Has that position of the biologists changed?
Mr. Elowe stated that it had changed. Our recommendations now for permits reflect what the Working Group wanted us to achieve management wise.
C. Step 1
1. Bald Eagle Essential Habitat
Mr. Stadler stated that the Maine Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects endangered and threatened species from take, allows the Commissioner to develop a list of State threatened and endangered species, and designate essential habitat. Essential habitat is essential for the recovery of a threatened or endangered species. In Maine, the Commissioner has designated essential habitat for bald eagles, piping plovers, least terns, roseate terns, etc.
Mr. Stadler stated with regards to bald eagle essential habitat, staff, over the spring and summer, conduct an intensive aerial inventory of eagle habitat and identify new nest sites, use of existing nest sites or abandonment of sites that were previously identified as essential habitat. The maps are then corrected with the new areas and those that no longer qualify and we start the rulemaking process to update the list. Staff is still working on the proposal. Mr. Stadler stated that his understanding was that there would be approximately 40 nest sites added.
Mr. Stadler stated that regarding essential habitat, any entity that issues a permit that either has a state or federal funding nexus or action, has to seek the Commissioner’s review of that action before they can issue a permit.
Council Member Questions and Comments
Mr. Poulin asked if that also applied to town ordinances?
Mr. Stadler answered yes, any entity, town or state that issues a permit that falls within essential habitat requires the Commissioner’s review. These areas are not no development areas. Most of the time the activities can be accommodated by seasonal timing so the activity doesn’t occur when the eagles are nesting or on the eggs. Or, by visual screening; taking advantage of vegetation and changes in topography to allow the activity.
Mr. Stadler stated with regards to the process, there would be a series of public informational meetings scheduled, but the Department also takes a very proactive response. We will contact every affected landowner for these new areas. They will receive a letter from the agency letting them know that this is being proposed, and what it means to them.
Mr. Witte stated he had had an inquiry concerning the eagle nesting habitat with the Damariscotta River Association; they had requested signs through the Department. Apparently they had some problems during the nesting season with kayakers. Were there any official signs that could be put along the shoreline in this particular area?
Mr. Stadler stated he thought that site had been designated. There were no official signs per say; it would be contingent on the landowner approval.
Mr. Witte stated he thought it was part of their landtrust organization. Should they contact Mr. Stadler directly?
Mr. Stadler answered yes, they could contact him directly and he could work with regional staff to see what could be done.
Mrs. Oldham asked as we have more eagles and more nests, has the opportunity for landowner/Department conflicts become more present because we still list the species as endangered?
Mr. Stadler stated he thought the conflict was being reduced because as the eagle population grows, the birds seem to be more tolerant and we seem to be more liberal on what we allow people to do on the site. Delisting is something the Feds have been talking about. Mr. Stadler stated he could speak at another time about why we think it would be in the Maine people’s best interest to be cautious about delisting bald eagles before the Federal Government does. He thought there were roughly 500 breeding pairs of bald eagles in Maine at this time.
Commissioner Martin asked Mr. Stadler if he could send the Council the information regarding the nesting sites before the next meeting on December 7.
V. Other Business
1. Department Data Presentation (requested at May meeting)
Mr. Stadler stated he wanted to begin by talking about how we conduct wildlife management in Maine. Public involvement in many aspects of government has appeared to be the trend of the future and that a species planning process was the way to go. For our major hunted and trapped species and for our endangered and threatened species we develop a species assessment. We then take that to a public working group. The public working group reviews that document and then give us our goals and objectives for those species. We then need to identify what data we need to collect to measure and monitor our achievement of those various waypoints along the management so we know if we are achieving objective or not. We then write the jobs that we feel are necessary to collect the data to make the management decisions. Because of money constraints we design the data collection jobs to meet our needs.
Mr. Stadler stated the Wildlife Division received money from several sources to conduct their work program. Pitman Robertson money, which is an 11% excise tax on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, etc. is collected by the USFWS and is redistributed back to the states on a formula based on the number of hunting licenses and land area. Maine only gets the minimum amount of money. For every $3 we get from USFWS for these monies, we have to match it with a dollar of state money. Pitman Roberson money pays for the vast majority of the wildlife work that’s done in Maine.
Mr. Stadler stated that we also get about $70,000 a year from the Federal Government per Section 6 money. This is Section 6 of the Federal Endangered Species Act. Some of this requires a 10% match, and others require a 25% match. We also receive money from the sale of the loon license plate, and the Chickadee Checkoff on the income tax form. That goes into the Endangered and Nongame Species Trust Fund. The Wildlife Division probably spends about three quarters of a million dollars a year from those funds. The Wildlife Division’s total budget is approximately $4 million.
Mr. Stadler stated that he had prepared a list of the current jobs that the Department has in place to collect the data that we need to make our management decisions (see packet).
In the Research and Management Report, there is an overview of all of the Wildlife Division’s research assessment and monitoring work. Annually we need to file with the Federal Government a comprehensive summary of all the work the Department conducted under the Pitman Robertson program. The Department also spends money on a fair amount of other activities; land management program, environmental review, rulemaking and public interaction.
Council Member Questions and Comments.
Mr. Savage stated that the way Mr. Stadler had described the process; the working groups drive the management goals and objectives. Did he ever run into a situation where a public working group and the Department were at significant odds around a management issue, and if so, how was it resolved?
Mr. Stadler stated those issues are always resolved; they are not allowed to remain unresolved.
Mrs. Oldham stated she had expressed a concern that she thought a lot of the work of the Advisory Council was based on some historical data. Given habitat changes and what have you, could we continue to do things the same way? Her sense was that because of these very significant changes in habitat, the historic norms had changed. That was her concern. She felt the Department was doing a good job and was limited by money. Was there a way for the Council to advise the Commissioner, because we did receive some money from General Funds, could a portion of that money be dedicated to acute research needs?
Commissioner Martin stated that if we had more General Funds we could do more things. When he had to make important decisions on where that money would go, research or lay off game wardens, he knew what his decision had to be, and that’s what he was confronted with. We’re in the process of developing the 08-09 budget and had requested additional General Funds. Mrs. Oldham’s idea was great, but was the kind of thing that had to be explained to Appropriations.
Mr. Philbrick discussed addressing another revenue stream or other funding options such as an impact fee. Habitat was impacted by growth and decisions that big landowners made.
Commissioner Martin stated that these were all great ideas, but had been discussed at the Legislature before or had been discussed before such as the canoe and kayak sticker that was proposed to generate new money.
Mr. Clark discussed the process Legislative Committee’s go through and ideas that had been discussed when he was on the IF&W Committee.
Mr. Wheaton stated that what Mrs. Oldham had said made a lot of sense. It would be the ideal way to have a specific number to manage the wildlife of Maine. But, in fact, we’re never going to have that. There are too many unknowns out there. The Department was to blame for a lot of this. The Department has done more and more eagle studies; when did we have enough money? When were there enough eagles? Who drew the line? He didn’t think if the Department had 20 million dollars we would know any more about the State then we did right now. He felt we needed to manage each District by what was seen in that District by people on the ground.
2. Wild Trout Management
See Step 3, item 2.
3. Southern Maine Moose Hunt
Commissioner Martin stated that questions had been asked regarding the Southern Maine moose hunt at the forums that had been held recently and asked Mr. Stadler to talk about the process.
Mr. Stadler stated that going back to the species planning process, one of the things that the Big Game Working Group asked us to do was to develop a proposal to begin the implementation of moose hunting in Southern Maine. We realized that initiating moose hunting in Southern Maine was something that would take a fair amount of public outreach and participation. We have been doing this over the last couple of years. A year ago, the Department developed a series of suggested options for a Southern Maine moose hunt. We presented those to the public at several public informational meetings scattered around Southern Maine. Those meetings were lightly attended. We also conducted an informal survey at the Maine Wildlife Park during the annual open house in 2005. Based on the public input that we received, the Department drafted a proposal (see packet). This proposal has also been reviewed with the Farm Bureau and they support it. It has also been reviewed with the Small Woodlot Owners Association of Maine (SWOAM) and they support the proposal as outlined.
Mr. Stadler stated we were going to present the proposal at two informational meetings; October 25 in Thorndike and October 26 in Bridgton. Once those meetings were over, he and staff would compile a report for the Commissioner’s review and then based on the Commissioner’s review a report would be prepared to present to the Committee during the next session of the Legislature for their review and consideration.
VI. Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports.
Mr. Kieffer requested that a presentation on landowner relations be given at a future meeting.
Commissioner Martin stated that the January or February meeting would be a good time for this presentation.
VII. Public Comments & Questions
There were no public comments or questions.
VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The next meeting was scheduled for December 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. at Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta Headquarters in the upstairs conference room.
IX. Adjournment
Mr. Wardwell motioned to adjourn the meeting and Mrs. Oldham seconded that. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
