Home → About → Advisory Council → Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes
April 29, 2025 @ 9:30am
353 Water Street, 4th floor conference room
Augusta, ME
(and virtually via Microsoft Teams)
Attending:
Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Liz Latti, Fisheries and Hatcheries Division Director
Jen Vashon, Game Research and Management Section Supervisor
Bob Cordes, Special Projects Coordinator
Shevenell Webb, Furbearer Biologist
Aaron Cross, Game Warden Major
Josh Bubier, Game Warden Captain
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Kristin Peet (Chair)
Shelby Rousseau (vice-Chair)
Eric Ward
Al Cowperthwaite
Roger Grant
Bob Duchesne
Tony Liguori - via Teams
Mike Gawtry via Teams
Vacant Washington County seat
GUESTS
Claire Perry online
Grace Gernon - online
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 Eric Ward to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Bob Duchesne.
Vote: Seven (7) in favor; one (1) abstained (Kristin Peet) minutes approved.
V. Rulemaking
A. Step 3
There were no items under Step 3.
B. Step 2
1. 2025 Moose Permit Allocations
Nate Webb stated we were not proposing any changes from last year's numbers; the only change was dates due to the calendar. A public hearing was held with no members of the public attending, and there were no written comments received. We would recommend moving forward with the proposal as presented.
Kristin Peet asked about the adaptive hunt. Was that for 5 years and was it being extended?
Nate Webb stated this would be the 5th year. The adaptive hunt was a research project. After the 2025 hunt and the data was collected, we would reassess based on that information.
There were no further questions or comments.
A motion was made by Bob Duchesne and seconded by Eric Ward to move the item to Step 3 for final adoption. Vote: Unanimous in favor move item to Step 3.
A motion was made by Kristin Peet to accept the proposal as presented and that was seconded by Bob Duchesne.
Vote: Unanimous in favor motion passed.
C. Step 1
- Ch. 27 Animal Damage Control Agent Certificate rules
Bob Cordes stated we were proposing some major changes to the chapter 27 rules which guide our animal damage control certification and program. Some of the changes were due to an increase in demand for service for nuisance wildlife and human wildlife conflicts. Related to that, we had created a wildlife conflict agent program. A lot of the proposed changes continued to increase the integrity of that program. Prior to advertising the rule, we did discuss with existing animal damage control agents to update them on the changes.
Bob Cordes discussed the proposed changes. We were proposing to add a classification for the certification for commercial pest management companies. We used to certify them on an individual basis, so each individual employee of the company was certified through the Department. With this classification, the company would be responsible for the training and compliance of their employees. Their certification would be based on the activities and compliance of their employees.
Commissioner Camuso asked if there was a limit to the number of species they could work on.
Bob Cordes stated when they applied we did limit what some people did. Pest management companies typically were home and garden and rodents. We didnt allow them to handle big game. The proposal also included a new section for demonstration of need. We had a similar section in our chapter 7 rules for wildlife rehabilitators and this was similar language. This was in response to some areas having too many ADC agents. In addition to this need, we also had an influx of new trappers. After they completed the trapper education course within the next month they would come to the Department to become an agent. We didnt want them on the landscape trying to help homeowners without having the proper skill set, so we wanted them to have some experience. We created a point system for staff for the criteria for need.
Bob Cordes stated we made changes to eligibility. We reorganized it so it became a step-down process which we had in policy. If the demonstration of need is met, they can follow the next procedure. They would need the regional game warden and biologist to sign off that they were qualified. We had discussions with the attorney generals office regarding the language. This was a certification, not a license or permit and they were an agent of the Commissioner. They were allowed to charge for their services, but they served at the pleasure of the Commissioner. If they did not meet the criteria or operating standards their certification could be revoked and they did not have the right to a hearing. We did include language that they could request a meeting with the Commissioner for reconsideration.
Bob Cordes stated that previously in the rule we had partnered with Cornell that had developed a course that was Maine specific. To increase the integrity, we decided to move forward with requiring new agents to take the course. Those that were already certified would be grandfathered. It was a $200 class and was the reason behind changing the order to make sure they met the eligibility requirements before requiring them to take the class. Operating standards, some of those were in the policy and we decided to move them into rule. First time applicants would be a conditional certification for 6 months. During that time, if they did not meet the criteria they could be removed. If they were successful, their certification would be valid through June 30 each year to coincide with their trapping license.
Council member comments and questions
Kristin Peet asked what the existing ADC agents thought of the proposed changes.
Bob Cordes stated they did not have many questions. We had a web-based reporting system for staff, and we were almost at a point where agents could enter into it. There were some concerns around that. There were some that still wanted to use paper forms and they would have that option. The other concern was being grandfathered on the test. There would also be a bat certification for new applicants. We may have to require all agents to take some type of course.
Eric Ward asked how it worked with the counties. Did they have agents as well?
Bob Cordes stated ACOs, the county and municipal animal control officers could only handle wildlife if they were also registered with the Department as an ADC agent or if they were handling rabies. They often partnered with the Department (warden service) in times of need. Technically, they were not animal damage control agents.
There were no further questions or comments.
2. Fall turkey season WMD 3
Jen Vashon stated we were proposing to add a fall turkey season in WMD 3. This was in response to reports from the district game warden and biologist they were seeing an increase in the number and distribution of turkeys in WMD 3. We were also getting some reports of conflicts between people in the district and wild turkeys. This was the standard approach we had been taking with turkey management. As populations became established in areas we were increasing opportunity. In 2015 we had our first spring turkey hunt in WMD 3 and we had been monitoring the spring harvest. We were seeing an increasing trend in spring harvest and there was usually a strong correlation between spring harvest and population abundance. The proposal to add a fall turkey season in WMD 3, and that would be a bag limit of one turkey of either sex or age. That was similar to a proposal from 2020 for WMD 6, which is the district to the south of WMD 3. That rule was approved and since 2020 we have had a spring and fall season in WMD 6. Our fall seasons tended to be incidental to other harvest, so we tended to have a lower harvest rate in the fall. This would be a conservative approach to address the expansion of turkeys in areas and provide increased opportunities for hunters.
There were no further questions or comments.
3. Furbearer seasons, rule clarification
Shevenell Webb stated there were three sections of chapter 17 we were proposing changes to. The first was related to registration. Previously we had required registration of furbearers within 10 days of the close of the season. We were proposing to extend that to 30 days of the close of the season in response to having an updated registration system that was web based instead of paper based. Now that everything was registered on the spot electronically, there was no wait time and had rapidly increased efficiency to get the data. We wanted to extend some extra flexibility to trappers to tag their fur.
Shevenell Webb stated the second part was related to exclusion devices. Baited killer type traps also known as Conibears on dry land and baited had to be in an exclusion device. That protected Canada lynx from being captured. Primarily, marten and fisher were the targeted species. The first change referenced the joint, most had a joint that opened that allowed the trap to be put in the back and the bait. We were proposing to revise the current language so that whenever there was a hinge or joint there had to be attachment points on two opposite sides that ensured when the device was set and secured it would not open. That prevented animals from getting in there and accessing the trap. We were also proposing to add language to make it clear the trap had to be secured independent away from the device. It could be secured to the ground, to a tree or log, but away from the device.
Shevenell Webb stated the last part of the proposal was related to beaver closures. Beaver closures were at the request of landowners to close their property to beaver trapping. We had one change which was a removal of a closure in WMD 17.
Council member comments and questions
Tony Liguori asked about tagging of weasels or ermine, he did not see any reference to them.
Shevenell Webb stated weasels were not required to be registered and tagged, but we did have trapper harvest reports and that was how we would capture the information.
There were no further questions or comments.
VI. Other Business
Commissioner Camuso stated she had a few updates for the Council. We had received the bid on the new headquarters building project which came in at $42 million. The funds were secured and the contract had been signed. Expected completion date was 2027. The Friends of Flyrod Crosby were working on fundraising to contribute a statute of Flyrod to the Department for the new building. Changes were happening within the USFWS which were concerning for the agency and our federal funding. Grant renewals would be coming up soon. There were rumours that DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) could take the grant monies. That would mean a $20-22 million deficit to the agency.
Commissioner Camuso stated that bills were making their way through our legislative committee. There were also a number of bills in other committees we had provided input on. There was a bill to move the Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP) to IFW. The bill was in the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry committee and we were hoping for support on the bill. There was bill dealing with floating homes. This bill was very complicated as it impacted several agencies (IFW, ACF, DEP and DMR). We seemed to be making progress with the bill and had a place to start. There were also two land access bills that basically directed the Department to convene a group to proactively secure land access in different parts of the state. It looked at possible easements over roads to assist landowners to maintain infrastructure. There were concerns from landowners.
VII. Councilor Reports Councilors gave reports.
VIII. Public Comments & Questions
There were no public questions or comments.
IX. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The Council would be informed at a later time of the next meeting date.
X. Adjournment
A motion was made by Kristin Peet and that was seconded by Bob Duchesne to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.