Meeting Minutes

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
August 1, 2024 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)

 

Attending:
Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Jen Vashon, Game Research and Mgmt Supervisor
Caitlin Drasher, Bear Biologist
Shevenell Webb, Furbearer Biologist
Francis Brautigam, Fisheries & Hatcheries Division Director
Joe Overlock, Fisheries Management Supervisor
Kory Whittum, Fisheries Planner & Research Coordinator
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Dan Scott, Game Warden Colonel
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristin Peet (Chair)
Al Cowperthwaite
Roger (Rod) Grant
Bob Duchesne
Ed Pineau - via Teams
Tony Liguori via Teams
Mike Gawtry via Teams
Shelby Rousseau (vice-Chair) via Teams (joined after vote)
Vacant Washington County seat

GUESTS
Larry Bastian Maine Native Fish Coalition
Claire Perry via Teams

I. Call to Order

Kristin Peet, Chair, called the meeting to order.

I-A. Pledge of Allegiance

II. Moment of Silence

III. Introductions

Introductions were made.

IV. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting

A motion was made by Mr. Pineau to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: Unanimous in favor minutes approved.

V. Rulemaking

A. Step 3

There were no items under Step 3.

B. Step 2

1. Ch. 1 & 1-A Fishing Regulations/State Heritage Waters 2025

Mr. Brautigam stated a public hearing was held on July 15, 2024, and no public members provided comment. We did receive 20 written comments, with few of them being relevant to the rulemaking packet. Mr. Brautigam presented a comment summary to the Council (attached).

Mr. Cowperthwaite asked if when public comment was received if we replied to those.

Mr. Brautigam stated the comments were compiled. Those not germane to the packet were forwarded to the regions for future consideration. We were required under the APA to summarize the comments in the final adoption and give the Department's response. If there were no further comments, we were not proposing any changes to the packet based on the comments that were received. The proposal could be moved to Step 3 for a vote if the Council had no further questions.

Mr. Pineau asked if there was a number or percentage of times we had altered the proposals based on public comment.

Mr. Brautigam discussed the use of public comment in the rulemaking process. What we were trying to make sure of was that we considered every piece of information out there. We looked for meaningful things in addition to what was considered when drafting the rule.

Commissioner Camuso stated last year we did make amendments to the bass tournament rule proposal based on public comment.

Mr. Liguori asked if there was an effort to move away from red posts as markers?

Mr. Brautigam stated there has been a number of pushes to move away from red posts. We used to have a lot of reference to red posts in our law book, but often they are not maintained, or people moved them. Where we could, we wanted to move away from the red posts. It made it difficult to demarcate a red post on our fishing laws online angling tool (FLOAT). We needed a physical reference on the landscape to do that.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody went back to Mr. Pineaus question regarding public comment. We had retracted initiatives in the rulemaking process based on public comment, and we had also stopped rulemaking processes if we had missed the mark on something based on public comment. He felt that overall, it was considered at a very high level.

Mr. Cowperthwaite asked about Snowshoe Pond and no bait for ice fishing and the lady had suggested just banning smelts. Were the other live bait available for ice fishing a threat to the lake whitefish?

Mr. Brautigam stated he looked at it as people bringing in bait in their bucket, sometimes it was just bait fish and sometimes it was other things. There was value in the full restriction of smelts and every other bait fish in the bucket. It would be hard to manage off-shoots of allowable bait species. Using dead bait worked, they just needed to kill the bait before entering the pond.

There were no further questions or comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne to move the proposal to Step 3 for final adoption and that was seconded by Mrs. Peet.

Vote: unanimous in favor to move to Step 3.

A motion was made by Mrs. Peet to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Mr. Duchesne.

Vote: unanimous in favor motion passed.

C. Step 1

1. Furbearer rules Ch. 16 & 17

Mrs. Webb stated the proposal was focused on the possession, transportation and registration of furbearers. Historically, the hunting and trapping rules were in one chapter (Chapter 4). In 2019 those were separated to try and make them more manageable. When they were separated, certain species such as furbearers and bear had both a hunting and trapping season and rules that went along with them for tagging, biological data collection, etc. We did try to mirror some of the language from the trapping chapter into the hunting chapter for the furbearer species and some mistakes occurred. The proposal is cleaning up some of the language. In Chapter 16 it talked about the registration requirements of furbearers pertaining to a trapping season. In practice, nothing had changed we would continue to enforce the laws around tagging of furbearer species. We also tried to streamline the process so when a change was made to furbearer rules it would not have to be made in two places. We were proposing to move the language pertaining to registration, possession, transportation all to Chapter 17 as it applied to furbearers. The season structure for furbearers in the hunting chapter still remained, the biological data collection still remained in Chapter 16, but now in Chapter 17 we were proposing to have the registration, etc. live there instead of both places. We were proposing an effective date of July 2025 to allow time to communicate the change to hunters. The Chapter 17 title was also revised from just Trapping to Furbearers and Trapping.

Mr. Gawtry asked if in the rules we would use both hunter and trapper. It appeared in some places we had eliminated the word "trapper" which might cause some confusion.

Mrs. Webb stated in Chapter 16, the hunting rule chapter, we did strike out trapper and replaced it with hunter so that it was clear we still did have requirements for hunters related to the possession, transportation, and registration for furbearers. We struck out anything below that and moved it to the trapping chapter. We wanted to retain the section title, so it was clear that hunters still had some requirements and that they needed to review Chapter 17 to see what those requirements were.

There were no further questions or comments.

VI. Other Business

There were no items under Other Business.

VII. Councilor Reports

Councilors gave reports.

VIII. Public Comments & Questions

Larry Bastian, Maine Native Fish Coalition stated they had written in comments regarding the fish regulation changes. They were pretty much supportive of the proposals with the exception of being opposed to the additional protections for landlocked salmon on Baker Pond. Based on their understanding of the heritage law as protecting native fish (brook trout, arctic charr) and it seemed inconsistent with Crawford Pond in the same package as eliminating unlimited harvest on landlocked salmon.

Mr. Brautigam stated the difference on Crawford Pond, we had salmon that moved up. There is a barrier on the stream and there were flow conditions that allowed for the salmon to move up from lower in the drainage further up. We did not want them there. We had movement of a species we felt was going to be impactful which was assessed on a case-by-case basis. We would take steps to prevent the movement of that species. In the case of Baker Pond, we had an overabundant population of brook trout. Concerns of competition or shifting the focus of management, that was not happening there.

Larry Bastian stated they would stand by their objection to Baker Pond, Mr. Brautigam had eluded to landlocked salmon predation on brook trout.

Claire Perry posted the following comment in the chat function of Microsoft Teams, 4 out of 5 biologists on the Coyote Management subcommittee program (2020-2030) strongly supported a closed season for our coyotes: April 15-Oct 15 and a focused outreach effort on reaching the public regarding coyote's benefits. I respect Nate, but the information he shared with you was either not new, not coyote specific, and not specifically focused on the benefits of our coyotes. I feel this is important and am in communication with Nate on how a more effective and simple method might be agreeable. I would be happy to talk to anybody further about this important matter. Or answer your questions right now...which I am hoping at least some of you might have. Thank you. * Basically, these biologists felt it is time to raise the status of our coyotes from vermin to valuable predator/furbearer. And I am NOT about ending hunting...just for the record. Thank you.

Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the wardens had started notifying people who had boat moorings out further than 200 feet from shore on Sebago Lake.

Colonel Scott stated there was a regulation that you couldnt place a mooring outside the headway speed zone of 200 feet and there were anchorage laws, etc. that had been in place for a long time. If you were in a town with a harbor master the town could create ordinances around how many moorings you could have, but there was a state law that they could not be out beyond 200 feet. DACF had a division that regulated moorings and buoys and markers, but IFW was the enforcement side. The number of people using the waters had increased greatly over the last 20-30 years. People who did not own land on a particular water body had moved boats into certain areas. As property values increased and space becomes more limited, homeowners had begun to complain about where some of the moorings were. Many moorings were extending beyond 200 feet and interfering with navigation. There had been so many complaints coming in we were going to identify who had moorings that were not in compliance, educate and notify them they were not in compliance and try to begin to work with the marinas and towns. Many did not realize they were not in compliance. We were starting with Sebago Lake. Registration information was gathered, and letters were sent notifying them they were out of compliance and had 30-days to come into compliance. A lot of people responded. It was our hope to bring awareness for next spring.

Commissioner Camuso stated we were working on budget priorities and bills for the upcoming session. She also made the Council aware of an issue that had been raised regarding Atlantic salmon within a fishway and a request to close the fishway. The Department was not in favor of doing that and was following up on the request. There were current rules in place protecting Atlantic salmon and we would follow up with I&E for educational updates.

There were no further questions or comments.

IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 4, 2024, at 9:30am at IFW, Augusta.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Duchesne and that was seconded by Mr. Pineau to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

MDIW 2025 Fishing Regulation Packet
Step 2 of the Advisory Council
Public Comments
August 1st, 2024

Rule packet presented at step 1 of the Advisory Council on June 26th, 2024
Public Hearing convened July 15, 2024 (no members of the public provided comments)
Public comment period closed on July 25, 2024

A total of 20 comments were received electronically during the public comment period; this is an unusually low volume of comments for fisheries regulation packets. 35% of the comments focused on specific rule changes, the majority of the comments (65%) were not germane to the rule packet.

Comments that were not germane to the packet still provided insight into public concerns or interests that staff are able to take into consideration in the future. Also on most rule making packets, we tend to hear more from rule opponents than the general public who are satisfied and support Department proposals. That said we received a number of positive public comments, including praise for our communication efforts with creating the awareness of this years rule making packet, and an appreciation for the format of the information as well as the level of detail provided for supporting the proposed changes.

General Summary of public comments and agency perspective by regulation theme
SPECIAL NEEDS. 3 comments on 2 waters
Snowshoe Pond - Two commenters opposed the proposed S-4 regulation (No live fish as bait) due to concerns about the potential loss of opportunity of using live fish as bait during the ice fishing season as that is their primary method of angling.

MDIFW Response: The Department recognizes that live fish as bait is popular among ice anglers but would like to highlight that Snowshoe Lake supports a Lake Whitefish population which is a species of special concern identified in the Maine Wildlife Action Plan. Lake Whitefish populations have suffered significant declines over the past 50 years and the Department has determined that whitefish remain present in about 50 waters in Maine. Many of these waters no longer supported self-sustaining populations, meaning we are likely to see continuing decline of the species, including complete loss of whitefish populations in a number of lakes. Lake Whitefish declines have coincided with the introduction of rainbow smelt, and research in Maine and elsewhere has identified smelt as the primary cause of recruitment failure and eventual loss of whitefish populations. In an effort to prevent further introductions of nonnative species such as rainbow smelt, the department has proposed the addition of the S-4 regulation to afford additional protection for the Lake Whitefish population that persists in Snowshoe Lake. The Department would also like to highlight that anglers can still use baitfish while angling at this water with the distinction that the bait must be dead. This approach has proven to be effective and still provides the opportunity for anglers to use baitfish when ice fishing while minimizing potential nonnative species introductions. Please see our 2022 blog post highlighting this angling method. (https://www.maine.gov/ifw/blogs/mdifw-blog/tips-deputy-commissioner-fishing-dead-baitfish)

Little Wilson Pond One commentor focused on the proposed addition of a S-7 regulation (All trout, Landlocked Salmon, and Togue caught must be released alive at once). The commentor felt that recent MDIFW survey efforts suggesting potential signs of low recruitment do not align with what anglers are observing out on the water.

MDIFW Response: At times, anglers observations can contradict our findings, however our decisions for managing fisheries across the state are supported by our scientific methodologies which we use to inform our decision-making process. In this instance, our most recent sampling data suggested a lack of recruitment of younger age classes into the fishery so in order to conserve the health of the fishery, this proposal of adding the S-7 regulation is intended to support recruitment into the fishery by preventing harvest on sexually mature Brook Trout.

STATE HERITAGE WATER LIST. Two comments were provided relating to the State Heritage Water List theme with both comments in support for the proposed additions (Aziscohos Lake, Upper Hudson Pond, Upper South Branch Pond, and Thomas Lake) to the State Heritage Water List.

SALMONID GROWTH, CONDITION, AND PERFORMANCE. One comment was received.

Baker Pond - The commenter was opposed to the proposed addition of a S-22 (Daily bag limit on Landlocked Salmon: 1 fish) regulation on Baker Pond. This commentor highlighted that Baker Pond is a State Heritage Fish Water and that adding a protective regulation for wild Landlocked Salmon is inconsistent with the intent of State Heritage Law by actively managing salmon that were introduced to the Pond in the 1960s.

MDIFW Response: The current Heritage Law precludes any new stocking in heritage waters and does not reference existing fish assemblages and how they should be managed by the Department. Salmon were introduced in the 60s by the Department (well prior to the heritage law), resulting in the creation of a small wild salmon population. The Department actively manages salmon as a resource, which coexists with brook trout to provide a recreational fishery. It was the angling public there that created awareness with our biological staff that the salmon population may be in decline.

ERRORS, CONFLICTS, AND CONFUSION.One comment was received.

Flagstaff Lake - This commenter was opposed to the proposed changes at Flagstaff Lake for demarcating the delineation of the regulated area. This commentor felt it would be difficult to interpret delineations and felt that the use of red posts would more clearly identify the regulated boundary of Flagstaff Lake.

MDIFW Response: The department recognizes the challenges with delineation of regulated areas around the state. Traditionally this demarcation was accomplished using red posts recommended by the commenter. This solution requires additional maintenance, and the posts get mysteriously relocated, so the department has moved away from use of installing posts to using more obvious and permanent landmarks for demarcation that can be more easily mapped on the Departments Fishing Laws Online Angling Tool.

EXPANDED ANGLING OPPORTUNITY. No comments were received relating to this regulation theme.